Good News

[Dantès]

I was on an historical tour many years ago, so my memory is fuzzy.... I think it was Natchez MS, but it may have been Vicksburg. One of the most prominent slave holders in the town, with a large luxurious home, was himself a former slave holder.

Coming from the north, where we all live in de facto segregated neighborhoods, it struck me that this black neighbor lived comfortably among his wealthy white neighbors.

If you cracked a book once in a while you would know it was Natchez Mississippi and the man's name was William Johnson and the book is titled William Johnson's Natchez: The Antebellum Diary of a Free Negro edited by William Ransom Hogan and Edwin Adams Davis. I own the 1998 edition but it was originally published in 1951. I thought a southern scholar such as yourself would be well aware of this man and his fortune! I guess I gave you far more credit than you deserved. Where is that list of books?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The fool is back, I don't know how he keeps slipping in with this shit but he does. And now he is trying to insert another diversion the confederate flag! What was the original topic of this thread does anyone ever remember? I don't think so. and I bet you haven't had much to say about it have you?

Yeah, your Dear Leader Snarla started with the phony topic of spousal rape with no statistics to back her up. Much like you are presenting here. Just pull shit out of your ass and if people don't accept it, well then they must be RAPE APOLOGISTS. When you didn't get the desired effect with your RAPE FANTASIES, you decided to go a little further into the playbook and inject racism/slavery into the conversation. You are so predictable it isn't even funny.

But, hey, Snarla thinks you are smart so that is at least something.

So do you start every day with a benediction to your Dear Leader Darla? Do you have to genuflect in her direction much like the Mooslums do toward Mecca? Inquiring minds want to know. I do hope she pays you well for your efforts.

 

[Taft2016]

Good points. I agree about Lincoln and the Civil War.

If the Confederacy would have been allowed to stand on its own for maybe 10 more years.... the pressure from attempting to trade with foreign nations repulsed by slavery would have lead them to end it on their own. In the end, they would have recognized more in common with the north than at odds. But the southern mind of the time was obstinate about being told what to do...they were descendants of the Scottish/Irish clan mentalities of the old world.

But in this we have 20/20 hindsight, which Lincoln did not have. In his place at the time, I probably would have acted as Lincoln did.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Good points. I agree about Lincoln and the Civil War.

If the Confederacy would have been allowed to stand on its own for maybe 10 more years.... the pressure from attempting to trade with foreign nations repulsed by slavery would have lead them to end it on their own. In the end, they would have recognized more in common with the north than at odds. But the southern mind of the time was obstinate about being told what to do...they were descendants of the Scottish/Irish clan mentalities of the old world.

But in this we have 20/20 hindsight, which Lincoln did not have. In his place at the time, I probably would have acted as Lincoln did.

I agree 100% and you make a fair point in that I am doing exactly what I accuse others of and that is looking at history through the lens of today. I guess I would have more sympathy for Lincolns actions if I thought his primary motive was freeing the slaves. It was not. It was about what ALL wars have been fought over all these years and that is economics.

All things in life really can be boiled down to economics which is as much about human nature as it is about number crunching.

But the poor uneducated Dantes and Darla only know what they were taught in our propaganda mills and that is "SLAVERY BAD. LINCOLN GOOD"

 

[cancel2 2022]

Good points. I agree about Lincoln and the Civil War.

If the Confederacy would have been allowed to stand on its own for maybe 10 more years.... the pressure from attempting to trade with foreign nations repulsed by slavery would have lead them to end it on their own. In the end, they would have recognized more in common with the north than at odds. But the southern mind of the time was obstinate about being told what to do...they were descendants of the Scottish/Irish clan mentalities of the old world.

But in this we have 20/20 hindsight, which Lincoln did not have. In his place at the time, I probably would have acted as Lincoln did.

Have a read of this, it gives you an insight into feelings in Northern England at the time.

http://www.astrococktail.com/PDF/MerseysideConnections.pdf

 

[Taft2016]

If you cracked a book once in a while you would know it was Natchez Mississippi and the man's name was William Johnson and the book is titled William Johnson's Natchez: The Antebellum Diary of a Free Negro edited by William Ransom Hogan and Edwin Adams Davis. I own the 1998 edition but it was originally published in 1951. I thought a southern scholar such as yourself would be well aware of this man and his fortune! I guess I gave you far more credit than you deserved. Where is that list of books?

Yeah, like you knew that without Googling it .

And I suppose you missed the point that I was in Natchez at the time on an historical tour?

I never said I was a "southern scholar." I said I've read on it quite a bit, probably more than the average American. And I've actually taken the time to travel and visit the locations in question, their museums, etc. A long way from my home in New York City.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I was on an historical tour many years ago, so my memory is fuzzy.... I think it was Natchez MS, but it may have been Vicksburg. One of the most prominent slave holders in the town, with a large luxurious home, was himself a former slave holder.

Coming from the north, where we all live in de facto segregated neighborhoods, it struck me that this black neighbor lived comfortably among his wealthy white neighbors.

It really messes with the lefties minds when you point out that blacks did in fact own slaves.

 

[Timshel]

And what else did I say? I said it was a complex matter. He was benevolent in that he was looking to free his slaves. But as master of the household he could not simply release them into the streets with no means of supporting themselves. He went about it responsibly.

At the same time, he could not allow them to run away because that would indicate to the rest of society he could not control his household.

This is an interesting topic in that it shows how liberals are incapable of recognizing truths that do not fit into their preconceptions.

It has nothing to do with preconceptions. My point was about YOUR claims not any preconceptions I hold.

It shows that slavery was an immoral and corrupting institution. It's still corrupting as certain idiots try to argue that having a man beaten savagely was not really a bad thing.

 

[Taft2016]

Have a read of this, it gives you an insight into feelings in Northern England at the time.

http://www.astrococktail.com/PDF/MerseysideConnections.pdf

Shyte. It says what I was saying almost word for word:

We can say with relative certainty that had the South been allowed to go her way,
600,000 American lives would have been saved and a hundred and twenty-five years of a
unique kind of racial oppression and hatred subsequent to it might have been prevented.

Of course, much of what we see through the clarity of hindsight we cannot reasonably
expect the participants at the time to have seen.

Thanks for that!

 

[Dantès]

Well, you are of course 100% correct. There is not one thing that will ever break through Darla's and Dante's image of themselves as "victims" of WHITE MEN. The poor dears. Life must be so hard for them. I do declare.

But, back to slavery. It was as much an economic practice as anything else. It was all about cheap labor. Yeah. I know. To me this is why Lincoln will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever. There was no need to start a war to end a practice that was on its way out. Not only would public opinion have soured the practice, but economics would have made it untenable to keep it going moving forward. Automation would have made the prospect of owning slaves too expensive. Now when a leftie reads what I just wrote, all they hear is "YOU ARE DEFENDING SLAVERY". I am not. I am merely stating facts. Slavery would have ended in this country without a war taking 500,000 lives.

Lincoln cared more about keeping the union together for economic purposes than he did about the slaves. It was the war that led to the democrat party forming the KKK and all those years of segregation and democrat party led Jim Crow laws. Without the Civil War, I contend that the practice of slavery would have ended peacefully and would have spared black people years of hardship at the hands of the democrat party.

But, thanks to Lincoln we have 400 years of guilt foisted on white folks who never had anything to do with the practice of slavery or whose families had anything to do with the practice of slavery. No sir. You have to be made to pay by proxy. Throughout the years it has been the democrat party that has caused hardship for blacks and yet they portray themselves as the defenders of blacks. Pardon me if I refuse to be lectured by a party that created the Ku Klux Klan.

But, did the democrat party stop with the Ku Klux Klan? No. They wouldn't be satisfied until they destroyed the black community completely. What the democrat party couldn't accomplish with lynchings and church burnings they accomplished with welfare and the destruction of the black family. I will never be lectured to by a democrat party that has decimated the black community. That the black community doesn't see that their supposed benefactors are in fact their present day slave masters is a travesty. But, it is the decision they have made. So be it.

Right you are, that of course was always the argument from the South and the supporters of slavery at the time of the Civil War and right through the plantation literature I spoke of earlier. If Lincoln had just left us alone we would have freed all our slaves without this dirty old war. That is why the South immediately took steps to reenslave their former slaves with the loophole in the 13th Amendment and that is also why Richard Wright could write and document the conditions still existing in his book from 1941, 12 Million Black Voices. And that is also why the 10,000 prison plantation at Parchman was in operation until the early 70s.

And why as soon as the troops were removed (not really this is myth) after the compromise of 1876, the South immediately returned to a regime of chain gang, peonage and plantation prison farm labor to re-enslave the black male population. Much of this is well documented in a book that actually did win the Pulitzer Prize, Douglas A. Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (2008) and elsewhere. So if what you are saying here is true or even plausible, why would it take years of court cases and Supreme Court decisions starting with the decision in the 1914 case U.S. v. Reynolds, 235 U.S. 150 that holding a person captive to pay for their debt of their court costs was unconstitutional thus outlawing peonage which only made the Southerners try harder and continue the same practice under a different regimen to actually end this practice in the late twentieth century. This is all well documented in another book that evidently no one here has read other than myself titled Black Prisoners and Their World, Alabama, 1865-1900 (2000) BY Mary Ellen Curtin.

Come one where is that list of books you old bastard. Let's see what you have actually read. So far I can't tell that you have read anything but that one book!

 

[Rune]

If you knew the subject, you'd know they're probably the two most frequently used books on the subject in college history courses.

Nor is "Southern Honor" necessarily a "Conservative" book, despite what those on this forum are attempting to spin it as. It is recognized as historically valid by academics.

Speechless. You really ARE that stupid.

 

[Taft2016]

It shows that slavery was an immoral and corrupting institution. It's still corrupting as certain idiots try to argue that having a man beaten savagely was not really a bad thing.

You're arguing against something nobody said. Nobody said savagely beating a man "was not really a bad thing." It obviously was a bad.

What we're saying is that the matter was more complex than that. Clearly too complex for you.

 

[Dantès]

Yeah, like you knew that without Googling it .

And I suppose you missed the point that I was in Natchez at the time on an historical tour?

I never said I was a "southern scholar." I said I've read on it quite a bit, probably more than the average American. And I've actually taken the time to travel and visit the locations in question, their museums, etc. A long way from my home in New York City.

I own the fucking book you asshole! I don't have to google a damn thing. I just have to go to my bookshelf. I own the damn book. Should I post a picture of it with my thumb!

 

[Rune]

In many quarters, history has devolved from being an academic study to being a tool to stoke contemporary political fires. Much as journalism has devolved from being an objective search for the "truth."

While we are trying to have an academic discussion on the subject of slavery, we are also trying to discuss it with those who learned it only as a subject to advance contemporary political agendas. That's where this complete disconnect arrives from.

Now you are bizzarro man. You couldn't possibly be more incorrect with the exception that you aptly described your own position in this "debate".

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I own the fucking book you asshole! I don't have to google a damn thing. I just have to go to my bookshelf. I own the damn book. Should I post a picture of it with my thumb!

Yes! And don't forget the stick figure! You should totally do it, come on.

 

[Taft2016]

I own the fucking book you asshole! I don't have to google a damn thing. I just have to go to my bookshelf. I own the damn book. Should I post a picture of it with my thumb!

Well, since you offered, yeah. Let's see it.

 

[Rune]

I was on an historical tour many years ago, so my memory is fuzzy.... I think it was Natchez MS, but it may have been Vicksburg. One of the most prominent slave holders in the town, with a large luxurious home, was himself a former slave holder.

Coming from the north, where we all live in de facto segregated neighborhoods, it struck me that this black neighbor lived comfortably among his wealthy white neighbors.

Mr. Logical strikes again. We do have an edit button for when nonsense falls on your post.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Right you are, that of course was always the argument from the South and the supporters of slavery at the time of the Civil War and right through the plantation literature I spoke of earlier. If Lincoln had just left us alone we would have freed all our slaves without this dirty old war. That is why the South immediately took steps to reenslave their former slaves with the loophole in the 13th Amendment and that is also why Richard Wright could write and document the conditions still existing in his book from 1941, 12 Million Black Voices. And that is also why the 10,000 prison plantation at Parchman was in operation until the early 70s.

And why as soon as the troops were removed (not really this is myth) after the compromise of 1876, the South immediately returned to a regime of chain gang, peonage and plantation prison farm labor to re-enslave the black male population. Much of this is well documented in a book that actually did win the Pulitzer Prize, Douglas A. Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (2008) and elsewhere. So if what you are saying here is true or even plausible, why would it take years of court cases and Supreme Court decisions starting with the decision in the 1914 case U.S. v. Reynolds, 235 U.S. 150 that holding a person captive to pay for their debt of their court costs was unconstitutional thus outlawing peonage which only made the Southerners try harder and continue the same practice under a different regimen to actually end this practice in the late twentieth century. This is all well documented in another book that evidently no one here has read other than myself titled Black Prisoners and Their World, Alabama, 1865-1900 (2000) BY Mary Ellen Curtin.

Come one where is that list of books you old bastard. Let's see what you have actually read. So far I can't tell that you have read anything but that one book!

You really need to be more historically accurate. It was the democrat party, not the South. I can understand why you want to run away from your past.

I have nothing to prove to you. As I said I have nothing to apologize for as it relates to slavery or segregation. My family never owned slaves and NEVER belonged to the democrat party.

Maybe all of this hand wringing on your part is your way of absolving your guilt?

BTW did you say your 10 Hail Darlas this morning? I would hate to see you get punished again

 

[Rune]

Good points. I agree about Lincoln and the Civil War.

If the Confederacy would have been allowed to stand on its own for maybe 10 more years.... the pressure from attempting to trade with foreign nations repulsed by slavery would have lead them to end it on their own. In the end, they would have recognized more in common with the north than at odds. But the southern mind of the time was obstinate about being told what to do...they were descendants of the Scottish/Irish clan mentalities of the old world.

But in this we have 20/20 hindsight, which Lincoln did not have. In his place at the time, I probably would have acted as Lincoln did.

Now you are comparable to Lincoln? You agree with Racist Y and in the same sentence compare yourself to Lincoln. Spaz.

 

[Rune]

Yeah, like you knew that without Googling it .

And I suppose you missed the point that I was in Natchez at the time on an historical tour?

I never said I was a "southern scholar." I said I've read on it quite a bit, probably more than the average American. And I've actually taken the time to travel and visit the locations in question, their museums, etc. A long way from my home in New York City.

Two books is more than the average american? Maybe where you live. Arrogance, meet your new equal.