Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

You can't have both!

dixie-both-not.jpg


CohenD20100412.jpg
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!
Click to expand...

T&A said:
3) Lincoln didn't do it to secure black support, but because the attitude of the public had shifted. The shock of so much bloodshed gave the people the need for a moral crusade, and the lack of victories coupled with the death toll was viewed by many as a judgement from God. The draw at Antietam, which the North declared a victory, was viewed as the perfect timing to officially change the tone of the war effort.


That's YOUR story....the historical record tells a different one. That the Confederacy was using the promise of freedom to when they conscripted black slaves to fight for them was playing into the factor of Lincoln recognizing that you couldn't use the North as a haven for black folk if you weren't going to fight for their freedom or recognition as human beings. In BOTH cases....it comes down to asses on the battlefield.

4) Completely wrong. If not for slavery, the Southern economy would have been organized in a very different way. Pretending that under these circumstances that it still would wind up seceeding, and assuming that it organized its economy under a strong, diversified, industrial-based system, the North would have had a MUCH less likely chance of winning the war.
Click to expand...


Nice theory....WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HISTORICAL FACT. FACT: for nearly 2 centuries you had southern states agrarian based economy largely supported by slave labor...slave trading itself was a profit margin business. Apologists for the Confederacy's racism like to pretend that the war was solely about states' rights (i.e., money and who controls it)....WITHOUT SLAVE LABOR THE SOUTHERN STATES WOULD NOT HAVE REACHED THE LEVEL OF PROSPERITY THEY DID. Period. Trying to "what if" or "might have" or "would have" this is akin to theorizing how many angels dance on a pinhead.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
Now we have "radical liberals" instead?
No, my intellectually impotent confederate ass kisser.....currently you have a neocon driven republican party.
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
But they once did. No shit sherlock...I JUST SAID THAT!3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
CORRECT! Gee, the confederate ass kisser finds something he likes.....stop the presses!
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
Yeah, that Northern and British money came in handy. Which doesn't alter the truth of what I wrote in one iota. Seems you just can't stand my being right about anything...so you feel compelled to bark a moot point. :palm:
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!
Here's where you go off the deep end with your stupidity.
Click to expand...

Translation: our resident confederate flag ass kisser can't logically or factually disprove what I wrote...but he'll shovel a LOT of BS to try and appear like he has. Let's watch him dance! :cof1:


Dixie said:
I have never defended or condoned slavery, it was a horrible practice and thank God it was eradicated. I don't think I have "romanticized" the Confederacy, that would involve me hearkening back to the "good old days" and I haven't said anything about slavery being good or made any justifications for it. I have also not said that the issue was something that would have eventually been resolved, but an honest look at what had happened up to that time, indicates slave labor would have eventually been replaced by technology.

:gives: No one ASKED YOU....this isn't about YOU! And your "eventually" line about technology proves out my point. Slave owners and non-slaves could afford the luxury of a technological "eventuality" after 2 centuries...that doesn't do a hell of a lot of good for the slaves, now does it bunky? Theorizing as to how long technology would replace the slaves.....would they be freed, would they be treated as equals in the job market. Yeah Dixie, you just spew out alternative reality theories that could fill a sci-fi novel....but THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED....HISTORY TOOK IT'S COARSE AND HAS MADE IT'S JUDGEMENT

The ONLY point I have consistently made and stood defiantly to support, is the truth about the history of the Civil War, and slavery in America. I refuse to allow YOU to redefine history and pretend the South was full of racists who fought solely for slavery, while the North were all lily white purveyors of racial equality and equal rights. I can't let that LIE stand uncontested, because it is simply NOT TRUE. You can keep trying to manipulate the facts and put words in people's mouth, pretend something was the case, apply a 2010 politically correct viewpoint to 1860 America, imagine U.S. Grant and Abe Lincoln as glorious believers in equality for black people.... but you are full of horseshit. I will continue to point to the steaming bile spewing out of you in every post, because it is important for the reader to understand what a dishonest fuckwit you are.
Click to expand...

You can talk all the bullshit you want....the bottom line is the FACT that clowns like you keep trying to either justify, diminish, or revise the historical FACT that slavery was the economic backbone of the southern states who morphed into the Confederacy. What I stated above clearly rubs you the wrong way....TRUTH hurts sometimes. None of your babbling factually or logically disproves what I wrote. And had you carefully read what I wrote, then you wouldn't have wasted time or space printed the BS you just did. I DIDN'T LET LINCOLN OFF THE HOOK, YOU STUPE! Just an example of how your childish grudge against me distorts your cognitive reasoning skills. Remember, the Virginia governor brought this crap up, and it bit him in the ass. Deal with it.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
The slavers were Democrats.
Click to expand...


:palm: No shit sherlock! Did you read #2 & 3?
 
Southern Sherlock claimed that the Union's victory was due to the mountain people of the Piedmont's intervention against the Confederacy.

Naturally, such a well-known fact is abundantly documented.....somewhere.

Isn't it?
 
Gordon McKinney best describes the local partisan conflict that emerged in Appalachian counties of Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

As if the Tennessee mountaineers did not suffer enough from the presence of regular armies, that region was also a center for guerilla operations. Before the arrival of Burnside's army in 1863 it was the Unionists who had operated in clandestine bands and plundered Confederate sympathizers. By the summer of 1864, however, the situation was reversed, and the pro-Union majority was under attack. . . . Another development that meant hardship for mountaineers on both sides was the appearance of independent or robber bands that preyed on Unionists and Confederates alike. . . . As in eastern Tennessee, the mountain population of eastern Kentucky and the Union counties of northwestern West Virginia was plagued by a large number of Confederate guerilla groups. Because both areas were under Union control from the beginning of the war, the loyal population had to endure such attacks for nearly four years. . . . Much the same pattern was found in West Virginia. . . . The most effective means of control were occasional expeditions by regular federal forces, which often captured or dispersed the most troublesome guerilla groups. . . . Even more difficult were the raids of organized bands of Confederate troops. . . . As a result, West Virginia mountain Unionists were destitute and living in constant fear.
Click to expand...
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/faculty_archives/mountain_slavery/civilwar.htm
 
Same link:

According to Gordon McKinney:

Dissatisfaction with the war began as early as 1862 in the mountains of western North Carolina. . . . The major source of dissatisfaction was the Confederate government's successive conscription acts that blatantly discriminated against the poor and nonslaveowning farmers. . . . The course of events in southwestern Virginia was somewhat the same as that in North Carolina, but never developed as completely. By July 1862 there was widespread opposition to the Confederate draft in the southwestern counties, and heavy-handed enforcement by military authorities greatly upset the local population. . . . Guerilla bands roamed unmolested and the civilian population there, as elsewhere in the mountains of the Upper South, suffered as food became scarce.
Click to expand...
 
One of the most persistent stereotypes in American history has
been that of the independent, ignorant, violent, and poor southern
mountaineer. This image, created by novelists, scholars, and politicians
in the late nineteenth century, has persisted in such diverse parts of
American society as federal poverty programs and the comic pages of
daily newspapers. Despite the efforts of a number of writers who have
demonstrated the mythological nature of this picture of the mountain
population, the people of Appalachia are still regarded as different from
all other Americans. 1 At the same time, a second school of interpretation
has suggested that the mountain people can best be understood as "vic-
tims" of predatory outside capitalists, who destroyed the mountain
economy and culture. 2 Popular acceptance of these mental constructs
has discouraged rigorous investigation into the history of the mountain
region.

Instead, most observers have been content to point out the quali-
ties and experiences that helped to create the stereotype. The seemingly
unusual political history of the mountain people offers an opportunity
to test the validity of this image. 3 Unlike most southern whites in the
years between 1861 and 1865, the mountain men resisted secession and
often fought against the Confederacy. After 1865, many mountain voters
joined the Republican party and remained the only large group of white
southerners in the party until the 1950s.
Click to expand...
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105612456
 
You can talk all the bullshit you want....the bottom line is the FACT that clowns like you keep trying to either justify, diminish, or revise the historical FACT that slavery was the economic backbone of the southern states who morphed into the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but slavery wasn't the backbone of the economy, cotton was. Slaves were used to pick the cotton, pursuant to the laws as established by the US government and Supreme Court of the US.

What I stated above clearly rubs you the wrong way....TRUTH hurts sometimes.
Click to expand...

It doesn't rub me the wrong way, it is just ignorant of historical fact. At best, it annoys me that people can be so ignorant of history with all the current resources at their disposal.

None of your babbling factually or logically disproves what I wrote.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have factually and logically dismantled every syllable you've written. You are just too profoundly bigoted and ignorant to acknowledge that. Again, it doesn't bother me you being profoundly bigoted and ignorant, it's just a bit annoying.

And had you carefully read what I wrote, then you wouldn't have wasted time or space printed the BS you just did. I DIDN'T LET LINCOLN OFF THE HOOK, YOU STUPE!
Click to expand...

Well, that is a good thing, because Lincoln favored a plan to move your ancestors to Africa, Haiti or Central America, anywhere but here, because he didn't think your race would ever be able to hold an equal station in white American society. Prior to the Civil War, he had agreed to a 'compromise' plan that would have kept slavery legal in the US until 1911.

Just an example of how your childish grudge against me distorts your cognitive reasoning skills. Remember, the Virginia governor brought this crap up, and it bit him in the ass. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Don't know about Virgina governors, but while we are on Lincoln, let's take it a step further and not let the presidents before Lincoln off the hook either. From the founding of the nation, we had slavery. It was condoned, sanctioned, endorsed, approved, legitimized, glorified, embraced, honored, cherished, coveted, upheld, affirmed, supported, encouraged, codified, and accepted as part of American life, before the Civil War. This was done for DECADES before anyone even dreamed of the Confederacy, and it was done by the United States of America.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No shit sherlock! Did you read #2 & 3?
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Not sure what 2 and 3 have to do with the fact that the Democrats were slavers. They still have your race by the balls, but this time with socialism and affirmative action.
Click to expand...

Still playing the dunce, Southie? Or are you so fucking dumb that I have to explain everything to you?

The hard truth for some people to handle is that the pro-slavery Dixie-crats don't run the Dem party anymore and the anti-slavery Radical Republicans don't run the GOP party anymore. Lincoln only "saw the light" when he realized he needed the freed slaves on his side of the war, and that he needed the moral swaying anti-slavery for the Union to succeed.
Bottom line: You can't logically or factually disprove what I say, so you just squawk any offensive rhetoric you can muster....that you still try to categorize black folk as sheep speaks volumes of the racist bile that permeates your mind.
 
Dixie said:
I'm sorry, but slavery wasn't the backbone of the economy, cotton was. Slaves were used to pick the cotton, pursuant to the laws as established by the US government and Supreme Court of the US.

Typical racist dodge.....it's all legal, so it's okay...and let's pretend the cotton just magically picked itself, processed itself, wrapped itself up and transported itself while the black slaves just stood around. Let's pretend black slaves DID NO OTHER WORK for 2 centuries before the civil war. Dixie is SO FULL OF RACIST REVISIONIST BULLSHIT IT ALMOSTREALITY.


It doesn't rub me the wrong way, it is just ignorant of historical fact. At best, it annoys me that people can be so ignorant of history with all the current resources at their disposal.



Yes, I have factually and logically dismantled every syllable you've written. You are just too profoundly bigoted and ignorant to acknowledge that. Again, it doesn't bother me you being profoundly bigoted and ignorant, it's just a bit annoying.



Well, that is a good thing, because Lincoln favored a plan to move your ancestors to Africa, Haiti or Central America, anywhere but here, because he didn't think your race would ever be able to hold an equal station in white American society. Prior to the Civil War, he had agreed to a 'compromise' plan that would have kept slavery legal in the US until 1911.

No shit sherlock....that's why I didn't let him off the hook. Once again, your moot points do NOTHING to contradict what I wrote.



Don't know about Virgina governors, OPEN A NEWSPAPER, YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT CONFEDERATE ASS KISSING CLOWN! but while we are on Lincoln, let's take it a step further and not let the presidents before Lincoln off the hook either. From the founding of the nation, we had slavery. It was condoned, sanctioned, endorsed, approved, legitimized, glorified, embraced, honored, cherished, coveted, upheld, affirmed, supported, encouraged, codified, and accepted as part of American life, before the Civil War. This was done for DECADES before anyone even dreamed of the Confederacy, and it was done by the United States of America.
Click to expand...

:palm: And for all those who are interested in what I wrote and what this racist little coward could NOT refute or disprove or discuss can look here:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=634205&postcount=123

Once again, Dixie displays the mindset of the ass kissing confederate apologist....he just revises what transpires to suit his racist propaganda.

You're done Dixie.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Still playing the dunce, Southie? Or are you so fucking dumb that I have to explain everything to you?

The hard truth for some people to handle is that the pro-slavery Dixie-crats don't run the Dem party anymore and the anti-slavery Radical Republicans don't run the GOP party anymore. Lincoln only "saw the light" when he realized he needed the freed slaves on his side of the war, and that he needed the moral swaying anti-slavery for the Union to succeed.
Bottom line: You can't logically or factually disprove what I say, so you just squawk any offensive rhetoric you can muster....that you still try to categorize black folk as sheep speaks volumes of the racist bile that permeates your mind.
Click to expand...
Again you bring up racism; a clear indication that you're losing an argument. If the Dem Party bosses were black and they catered to whites the reaction would be the same. It's simply human nature to support the Party that promises to give you stuff that you didn't earn, even when it harms you in the long run.

The Democrat Party has destroyed the black family, yet you eagerly support them.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Still playing the dunce, Southie? Or are you so fucking dumb that I have to explain everything to you?

The hard truth for some people to handle is that the pro-slavery Dixie-crats don't run the Dem party anymore and the anti-slavery Radical Republicans don't run the GOP party anymore. Lincoln only "saw the light" when he realized he needed the freed slaves on his side of the war, and that he needed the moral swaying anti-slavery for the Union to succeed.
Bottom line: You can't logically or factually disprove what I say, so you just squawk any offensive rhetoric you can muster....that you still try to categorize black folk as sheep speaks volumes of the racist bile that permeates your mind.
Click to expand...

No one has to "disprove" what you say....its a stupid premise on its face and its YOU that CAN'T PROVE what you say, its nothing more than your opinion...so why bother even discussing it....
 
Southern Man said:
Again you bring up racism; a clear indication that you're losing an argument. If the Dem Party bosses were black and they catered to whites the reaction would be the same. It's simply human nature to support the Party that promises to give you stuff that you didn't earn, even when it harms you in the long run.

The Democrat Party has destroyed the black family, yet you eagerly support them.
Click to expand...

How do you account for the fact that most African-Americans vote Democrat?
 
Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
I'm sorry, but slavery wasn't the backbone of the economy, cotton was. Slaves were used to pick the cotton, pursuant to the laws as established by the US government and Supreme Court of the US.

Typical racist dodge.....it's all legal, so it's okay...and let's pretend the cotton just magically picked itself, processed itself, wrapped itself up and transported itself while the black slaves just stood around. Let's pretend black slaves DID NO OTHER WORK for 2 centuries before the civil war. Dixie is SO FULL OF RACIST REVISIONIST BULLSHIT IT ALMOSTREALITY.
Click to expand...

I never said it was okay, I said it was legal. I never pretended the cotton picked itself, in fact, I stated very clearly that slaves picked the cotton! It's right there in black and white in the post you are responding to, idiot! Can't you fucking read, you illiterate hick? What I won't "pretend" is that slavery was not legal, and the South was doing something illegal by using slave labor to pick cotton. I can't "pretend" that the South invented slavery, or that it was merely something they did against the will of the government or society in general, because that is a fucking bald-face lie. I've not dodged a damn thing, I haven't said what you claimed I said, and there is nothing "revisionist" about anything I've stated. You can call me racist every time you post, I don't give a flying fuck, it doesn't bother me in the least, because I know I am not a racist and never have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top