What The Yankees Did To Them.

jet57 said:
WTF are you talking about now?

In order for me to answer what is just blathering, you are going to cite your source and build your question around that. Now if you can't do so such a simple thing in an adult discussion then you're out.
Click to expand...

You don't want to answer the question because you can't say anything bad about minorities because that is politically incorrect and that goes for the other one too ,Jr. peg pants.

Did the Oklahoma confederate army fight the Yankees so the planter class could keep their slaves? The entire south so you claimed fought the federals in order to maintain slavery, isn't that true?

Did the families of the Oklahoma confederate army get what they deserved?

I can't make it any plainer than that. Are you still going to insist I make no sense in order to not answer?
 
jet57 said:
Pople say all kinds of things at all kinds of times. Your new one though is quite unfamuliar to me: have a slave meant you had money, so as social status symbol (servcants for the house) were probably all the rage . . .

Look, hte big problem you';re having with an historical discussion like this is that you're arm chair quaterbacking American history, and historians keep emotions out it: it's the only way to get out the ture objective facts. If the southern leadership knew damn good and well that slavery was doomed, with or without the north. It never would have worked for securing allies adn had been outlawed by England in 1838 and in 1728 in Scotland: it never even existed in Ireland.

All of the bombastic southern bullshit was about private property rights, and decentralizing the government. Effectively going back to the Articles of Confederation so that the southern oligarchy could take over the same way that the corp has done today. It's exactly the same thing then that the radical right-wing is after today. For those who are paying attention today's political landscape is painted with the very same agenda.
Click to expand...

Answer the questions and stop your back and forth with him, mr. superior to me liberal.

Why did the five tribes of Oklahoma territory fight the federals? Answer that one next.
 
Well the conclusion has to reached here that both the jet and thee deee are both Indian haters i suppose knowing they both think that:

A. The Oklahoma confederate army fought the federals so rich plantation owners could keep their slaves elsewhere and ...

B. Their families got what they deserved from the Yankees, they were scum and traitors at least according to little peg pants and also slavers who needed to be wiped out.
 
philly rabbit said:
Well the conclusion has to reached here that both the jet and thee deee are both Indian haters i suppose knowing they both think that:

A. The Oklahoma confederate army fought the federals so rich plantation owners could keep their slaves elsewhere and ...

B. Their families got what they deserved from the Yankees, they were scum and traitors at least according to little peg pants and also slavers who needed to be wiped out.
Click to expand...

3D is just full of shit.
He just likes to share his misery, by trying to make others miserable.
Just take a big grain of salt, hide his comments under it, and everything will become clear.
 
philly rabbit said:
Him and his tribe were relocated to the territory of Oklahoma by the federal government, not by your hated southerners.
Click to expand...

"Watie became involved in the dispute over Georgia's repressive anti-Indian laws. After gold was discovered on Cherokee lands in northern Georgia, thousands of white settlers encroached on Indian lands. There was continuing conflict, and Congress passed the 1830 Indian Removal Act, to relocate all Indians from the Southeast, to lands west of the Mississippi River. In 1832 Georgia confiscated most of the Cherokee land, despite federal laws to protect Native Americans from state actions. The state sent militia to destroy the offices and press of the Cherokee Phoenix, which had published articles against Indian Removal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie
 
philly rabbit said:
You don't want to answer the question because you can't say anything bad about minorities because that is politically incorrect and that goes for the other one too ,Jr. peg pants.

Did the Oklahoma confederate army fight the Yankees so the planter class could keep their slaves? The entire south so you claimed fought the federals in order to maintain slavery, isn't that true?

Did the families of the Oklahoma confederate army get what they deserved?

I can't make it any plainer than that. Are you still going to insist I make no sense in order to not answer?
Click to expand...

I never claimed anything of the sort. And what Oaklahoma families and incidences are you talking about?

You have to put your concern into some sort of context so that I can answer your question. You have to cite something and then source it.

I don't think that you can and as such I'm not going around in cirlcles with you.
 
jet57 said:
I never claimed anything of the sort. And what Oaklahoma families and incidences are you talking about?

You have to put your concern into some sort of context so that I can answer your question. You have to cite something and then source it.

I don't think that you can and as such I'm not going around in cirlcles with you.
Click to expand...

Goggle is your friend.
Embrace it.
 
philly rabbit said:
Answer the questions and stop your back and forth with him, mr. superior to me liberal.

Why did the five tribes of Oklahoma territory fight the federals? Answer that one next.
Click to expand...

Indians that fought with the confederate sided with them over the Indian Removal Act under Jackson: I've told you that already.

And, I'm not a liberal, and I hold no superiority over you: you make yourself look stupid. Lastly, I can discuss anything with anybody I want.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Goggle is your friend.
Embrace it.
Click to expand...

Uh, no booboo: it's up to him to frame is argument; source it and put it into context. So far he hasn't been able to: frankly I don't think he has the capacity.

So, are you moderating or just being stupid yourself?
 
jet57 said:
"Illegal " defeats your point. Anybody can say anything they want. I can tell you that most southerners never had the means nor the desire. You're reading from the results of some sort of gosip poll. If your story were the case, then many MANY more people would have owned slaves prior to the war just as a matter of political course.

You are also forgetting that the union included slave states.

Read some more papers.
Click to expand...

Slaves were astronomically expensive. Most people who did own them only had 1 or 2. The extremely wealthy could afford to have scores of them on their plantations. Everyone else was too poor to even own one, so instead they worked in hopes of one day being able to afford one.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, no booboo: it's up to him to frame is argument; source it and put it into context. So far he hasn't been able to: frankly I don't think he has the capacity.

So, are you moderating or just being stupid yourself?
Click to expand...

I'm channeling the liberal excuse for thinking.
 
Threedee said:
Slaves were astronomically expensive. Most people who did own them only had 1 or 2. The extremely wealthy could afford to have scores of them on their plantations. Everyone else was too poor to even own one, so instead they worked in hopes of one day being able to afford one.
Click to expand...
You ignore the fact that many whites came to the new world as slaves themselves. It's foolish to think their descendents aspired to being slavers.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
 
Threedee said:
No white person ever came here as a slave.
Click to expand...

When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.

The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.

Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.

The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.

In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." These accounts have been policed out of the much touted "standard reference works" such as Abbott Emerson Smith's laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, no booboo: it's up to him to frame is argument; source it and put it into context. So far he hasn't been able to: frankly I don't think he has the capacity.

So, are you moderating or just being stupid yourself?
Click to expand...

The argument has already been framed and you are doing nothing else mr. superior to me liberal than to dance around it. You and 3d are simply a pair of liberal cultural bigots who will not admit that your support of total war on the south is due to your resentment of it's white, mostly protestant population. this is why you refuse to acknowledge the presence of the Oklahoma confederate army which was native american indian because of it's racial minority status and why you will not answer the question of whether or not that army and it's families and homes should have been eradicated from the face of the earth because of it's supposed support of the white plantation class and it's slaves.
 
jet57 said:
Indians that fought with the confederate sided with them over the Indian Removal Act under Jackson: I've told you that already.

And, I'm not a liberal, and I hold no superiority over you: you make yourself look stupid. Lastly, I can discuss anything with anybody I want.
Click to expand...

Indians who fought for the confederacy did so because the new confedeate government promised them statehood in the Oklahoma territory if they joined their cause. The five tribes which were called the five civilized tribes also knew that Lincoln's federal government would eventually exterminate them after that government originally relocated them to what is now Oklahoma.

I mentioned earlier that Lincoln was a lobbyist for the railroads and when he became president the railroad financeers expected both him and his federal government's support with their western expansion plans. the indians simply sided with the new confederacy and opposed the federal government for the obvious reasons. They hated and mistrusted a federal government that uprooted them from their ancestral lands and fully expected that government to eventually exterminate them. they joined the confederate cause because that new government promised them statehood which would have been a permanet home for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top