The Maverick Richard Lee Armitage and the Outing of Valerie Plame

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You southerners bailed on the U.S constitution, the flag, and the United States.

Why is that? Becasue you hated the U.S. constitution. And wanted your own country.

Well Cypress, I didn't, I wasn't born yet, it was over 100 years ago. How would you like it, if I were to hold you personally accountable and have prejudice toward you, because you Northerners bailed on England?

The reasons were complicated, but essentially, it was two ideological thoughts on what kind of America we wanted as a people. Some wanted a Union of States under a central Federal Government, others wanted a Confederation of States which formed a central government. There were a number of reasons for both, and most of them were indeed, valid and legitimate for the time. Simply tacking a label on the Civil War, that it was some big liberal quest to eliminate slavery, is a laugh, it was about the form of government and state's rights, slavery was a key issue regarding state's rights, but that was not the reason for the war.

Let's also remember that many people were simply divided against their will, most people in the South did not own slaves, in fact, only about 2% of the population even lived on a plantation or owned any substantial property in the South. My ancestors who died in the Civil War, were not slave owners, and never lived on a plantation. They were immigrants from Germany who came here to escape persecution. As I said, if not for a black sharecropper who let my great-great grandparents work in their field, they would have starved to death, and I would not be here today. For you to sit here and ignorantly portray all Southerners as racist slave-loving traitors, is insulting to a level I can't describe, but I am quite used to that. Those who are paying attention to your words, can see your bigotry, prejudice, and hate. I am content with that.

 

[Cypress]

Don't forget what your relatives were fighting for Dixie: slavery. Or, at least the right to have slaves.

When you bailed on the U.S constittution, the south wrote their own constitution, here's one of the articles:

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

That's what your relatives fought for. The right to slavery. An explicit right, put in your constitution.

Why would they put that in the constitution, if Slavery wasn't a huge reason for rebelling against the United States?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I guess you are just not reading what I posted, oh well.

 

[Prakosh]

They did secede from the Union, that is not being a traitor. They actually called themselves the Confederate States of America... note the last word "America". It was a Civil War, and both sides were American.

On the issue of slavery, the Civil War did not start over this issue, contrary to what you may have learned in public schools. Indeed, it was part of an issue, the issue of states rights. Primarilly, the unfair way the government was treating Southern states compared to Northern states. The issue of freeing the slaves was raised in Abe Lincoln's campaign for president, to which he indicated, he "would never suggest the nigger be considered and equal among white society." In other words, by todays standards, Lincoln was racist. The Emancipation Proclaimation came about as a means to overwhelm any support for the South, after the South had cleaned the Union's clock a few times. Lincoln made the war about slavery, and the South fell. Those who fought and died for the Confederacy were not fighting to keep slavery, the practice of buying humans had become practically obsolete by the mid 1800's, and there were no new slaves being imported to this country. The issue was fairness to Southern states and their economy, which was largely dependent upon slave labor, and the unwillingness of the government to help find a viable solution to the problem.

You are free to continue in your bigotry, thinking the Civil War was fought over slavery, although it is an inaccurate and uneducated opinion.

You seem like a real expert here, Dixie, maybe you can tell me how the "Fugitive Slave Law of 1850" refutes or supports what you are saying here, what one of its key provisions was, and how it was related to the so-called Missouri Compromise of 1850? I would also like to know if all this information about slavery is true, that is, "the practice of buying humans had become practically obsolete by the mid 1800's, (that would be 1850, no?) and there were no new slaves being imported to this country" why it was so important to the South and Southerners that new territories be "slave" rather than "free"? And what is the relation of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Life Among the Lowly(1852) and if what you say here is true how could Solomon Northrup have been a witness to and described an 1841 slave auction in which he was sold after being kidnapped in "Washington City", in his book, Twelve Years a Slave(1853) or why Harriet Beecher Stowe felt compelled to answer Southern criticism of her book with a historical document based rebuttal entitled The Key To Uncle Tom's Cabin; Presenting the Original Facts and Documents upon which the Story is Founded Together with rroborative Statements Verifying the Truth of the Work in 1854? Or how these two ads from Lexington, Kentucky appeared in 1959?:

L. C. ROBARDS​

,

DEALER IN NEGROES,​

LEXINGTON, KY​

"PERSONS wishing to Buy or Sell Negroes will, at all times, find a market for them by calling at my NEW JAIL, a few doors below the "Bruen House" on Short street.

N.B. The highest cash price will be paid for Young and Likely Negroes."

(dated) July 2, 1859

and this ad from "Silas Marshal & Bro"

"

Negroes Wanted​

The Undersigned wish to purchase a large number of NEGROES, of both sexes, for which they will

Pay the Highest Prices in Cash​

Office on Main-street, opposite the Peonix Hotel, and 2nd door above the Stateman Office, Lexington.

SILAS MARSHALL & BRO.​

[dated] March 15, 1859"

It would appear strangely incongruous that at a time when you claim "the practice of buying humans had become practically obsolete" we find not one but two slave dealers advertising openly to buy and sell "NEGROES" in the same town.

Or how a similar ad to sell 68 slaves appeared in Charleston, South Carolina in 1860:

"

A PRIME AND ORDERLY GANG OF​

68 Long Cotton Field Negroes,​

...[offered by]

WILBUR & SON​

Will Sell at PUBLIC AUCTION in Charleston​

At the Mart in Chalmers Street​

On Thursday, Feb. 2d, 1860,​

COMMENCING AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK​

..."

All letters and capitalization, including centering are representative of the actual historical documents. In addition to explaing how these ads could appear at a time when you claim that the "buying of humans had become practically obsolete" You might also explain the difference between "practically obsolete" and just plain "obsolete" in other words if you mean "nearly" here, just say nearly...

Please explain these contradictions between the evidence and your expert knowledge...

 

[Cancel7]

You seem like a real expert here, Dixie, maybe you can tell me how the "Fugitive Slave Law of 1850" refutes or supports what you are saying here, what one of its key provisions was, and how it was related to the so-called Missouri Compromise of 1850? I would also like to know if all this information about slavery is true, that is, "the practice of buying humans had become practically obsolete by the mid 1800's, (that would be 1850, no?) and there were no new slaves being imported to this country" why it was so important to the South and Southerners that new territories be "slave" rather than "free"? And what is the relation of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Life Among the Lowly(1852) and if what you say here is true how could Solomon Northrup have been a witness to and described an 1841 slave auction in which he was sold after being kidnapped in "Washington City", in his book, Twelve Years a Slave(1853) or why Harriet Beecher Stowe felt compelled to answer Southern criticism of her book with a historical document based rebuttal entitled The Key To Uncle Tom's Cabin; Presenting the Original Facts and Documents upon which the Story is Founded Together with rroborative Statements Verifying the Truth of the Work in 1854? Or how these two ads from Lexington, Kentucky appeared in 1959?:

L. C. ROBARDS​

,

DEALER IN NEGROES,​

LEXINGTON, KY​

"PERSONS wishing to Buy or Sell Negroes will, at all times, find a market for them by calling at my NEW JAIL, a few doors below the "Bruen House" on Short street.

N.B. The highest cash price will be paid for Young and Likely Negroes."

(dated) July 2, 1859

and this ad from "Silas Marshal & Bro"

"

Negroes Wanted​

The Undersigned wish to purchase a large number of NEGROES, of both sexes, for which they will

Pay the Highest Prices in Cash​

Office on Main-street, opposite the Peonix Hotel, and 2nd door above the Stateman Office, Lexington.

SILAS MARSHALL & BRO.​

[dated] March 15, 1859"

It would appear strangely incongruous that at a time when you claim "the practice of buying humans had become practically obsolete" we find not one but two slave dealers advertising openly to buy and sell "NEGROES" in the same town.

Or how a similar ad to sell 68 slaves appeared in Charleston, South Carolina in 1860:

"

A PRIME AND ORDERLY GANG OF​

68 Long Cotton Field Negroes,​

...[offered by]

WILBUR & SON​

Will Sell at PUBLIC AUCTION in Charleston​

At the Mart in Chalmers Street​

On Thursday, Feb. 2d, 1860,​

COMMENCING AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK​

..."

All letters and capitalization, including centering are representative of the actual historical documents. In addition to explaing how these ads could appear at a time when you claim that the "buying of humans had become practically obsolete" You might also explain the difference between "practically obsolete" and just plain "obsolete" in other words if you mean "nearly" here, just say nearly...

Please explain these contradictions between the evidence and your expert knowledge...

I'll tell you the truth, I giggled when I saw he had challenged you on the civil war and slavery. And I don't often giggle. It was kind of an evil giggle.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Prickish, that's cute, but it completely supports what I said. By the mid 1800's... (not 1850), the practice was obsolete, society was shifting away from the idea of buying and selling slaves. The Missouri Compromise is a prime example of this, the general public was not in support of slavery by the mid 1800's. The South was no different, except that their entire economy depended on slave labor, and there was no viable solution offered or assistance from the Federal government to solve the problem of freeing the slaves. I am not condoning the Southern position, but it was not rooted in a desire to continue owning slaves, only about 2% of the population lived on a plantation or owned land in the South. Most Southerners of that era, worked on the plantation, along-side the slaves, for paltry wages, or in some other business supporting the extravagant plantation owner's antebellum style. Most of the boys who died under the Confederate flag, never even dreamed of owning a slave, or a plantation, they were from this turf, and that was that.

It's always interesting to hear a Northerner lament on the Civil War, as if it were a modern-day racial conflict, fought back in history... equated with the Civil Rights era, as if it were somehow interconnected. I guess they teach it that way in the liberal northern schools or something. The Civil War was more about our course, and way of government. Many of the Confederate ideals are still alive today, in various States Rights issues. But, you are free to continue in your ignorance, thinking the Civil War was about slavery. I expect nothing less from you.

 

[Prakosh]

Prickish, that's cute, but it completely supports what I said. By the mid 1800's... (not 1850), the practice was obsolete, society was shifting away from the idea of buying and selling slaves. The Missouri Compromise is a prime example of this, the general public was not in support of slavery by the mid 1800's. The South was no different, except that their entire economy depended on slave labor, and there was no viable solution offered or assistance from the Federal government to solve the problem of freeing the slaves. I am not condoning the Southern position, but it was not rooted in a desire to continue owning slaves, only about 2% of the population lived on a plantation or owned land in the South. Most Southerners of that era, worked on the plantation, along-side the slaves, for paltry wages, or in some other business supporting the extravagant plantation owner's antebellum style. Most of the boys who died under the Confederate flag, never even dreamed of owning a slave, or a plantation, they were from this turf, and that was that.



It's always interesting to hear a Northerner lament on the Civil War, as if it were a modern-day racial conflict, fought back in history... equated with the Civil Rights era, as if it were somehow interconnected. I guess they teach it that way in the liberal northern schools or something. The Civil War was more about our course, and way of government. Many of the Confederate ideals are still alive today, in various States Rights issues. But, you are free to continue in your ignorance, thinking the Civil War was about slavery. I expect nothing less from you.

Whatever you say Helen, I don't know how many years are in your centuries but mine have 100 years so 1850 is the mid 1800s. But go ahead on Helen and say whatever you want. I kicked your ass here for all to see and I'll have even more for you tomorrow, so LOOK AWAY, Helen, LOOK AWAY!!!

Hey one other thing there whiney, why did all you "states rights" fucks want the federal government to solve the slave issue if you were so against the federal government and all about states rights, in fact so into states rights that you claim you fought a civil war over the issue, then you say that the federal government wouldn't bail your asses out. It wasn't the federal government who made you use slaves instead of paying decent wages for your workers. There's another contradiction too, if only 2% had slaves how could taking away those slaves hurt the rest of hte south enough to cripple the whole damn economy so bad that the whole damn South, the whole damn other 98% was going down the drain if the federal government didn't come in and bail those 2% out to save that other 98%. Explain that please if you can, cause you sure ain't explained it here. 98% was free adn working for wages and only 2% owned slaves. But that 2% was so damn important that for the other 98% to survive the federal government had to come in and save your states rights's asses. Just like you ignorant bastards to whine like hell about the federal government until you want something then its "where's the federal government," but any other time it's "states rights" and whining about the high taxes. But when it comes to compensation for the richest 2% who owned all the slaves because all the slaves in the South were on big plantations and so the federal government had to come to the aid of the plantation owners for the sake of the south, the states rights's slave owners start crying and whining where's the federal government. Go ahead on, Dixie, keep whining. Why didn't the federal government come in and bail your states rights' asses out???? you deserved it after all or the 2% who owned slaves did didn't they, and so the rest of you poor bastards when to war and died for the richest 2%, no wonder you wear that flag around your head, when there's nothing in it, you might as well wrap it up. No wonder all you fools are Republicans today. But keep telling yourself that 1850 isn't the mid-1800s. It's really hard to beat that one!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're better than a half hour of Jerry Seinfeld, Helen, Your posts are about nothing and their so filled with internal contradictions, pointing them out is like shooting fish in a barrel.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA