Most Conservatives Still Believe The Civil War Wasn't Over Slavery

[hadit]

Let's see: At the start of the war, the House of Representatives passed a resolution that swore that the war was *not* being fought to end slavery. Abraham Lincoln said numerous times that the war was not against slavery. Southern leaders insisted, even in their private communications, that they were not fighting to protect slavery but to preserve Southern independence. Liberal conclusion: The war was fought over slavery!

Does not negate the fact that the cause of the war was slavery

The north fought to preserve the union
The south stated slavery was the reason for their secession

Also does not negate the fact that history is not as simplistically black and white as the simple minded like to pretend. Rarely does it ever match the cartoon version loved by the simple minded who don't want to dig deeper than the crayon colored pictures in their history books.

Every situation has nuances

Doesn’t negate that without the issue of slavery, there would have been no war

Of course, but pretending that history can be distilled down to a cartoon does no one any favors.

No cartoon

But an acknowledgement of how we got there. Revising the cause to downplay the political role that slavery played in the 1850s and 1860s is dishonest

I have no argument against that. I do, however, oppose the simplistic thought that slavery was the one and only cause of the Civil War. Down that road lies ignorance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really, you lying kunt? Do endeavor to highlight my "own link" that says such an absurd and false thing?

Oh wait, you're just lying - as always.

Jacksonian Democracy - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Andrew Jackson and Aaron Burr founded the democrat party - simple fact.

The Republicans of Jefferson were openly hated by the democrats, just as you hate Republicans today, you lying toad.

Here it is in simple terms - you fucking lying pile of shit.

Fucking retard. "Democratic Party" wasn't even coined until 1834 --- after Martin van Buren had organized the loose contingent of those who supported Andrew Jackson and known only loosely as "Jacksonians". Jackson himself didn't do it, nor did Aaron Burr ---- who had left politics altogether after being charged with treason in 1807, and was in no position for the rest of his life to found a goddam thing, flaming Dumbass --- NOR were Jefferson's "Republicans" --- short form for "Democratic Republicans" --- even remotely related to the modern Republican Party which wasn't founded until 28 years after Jefferson was already DEAD, flaming Dumbass.

Good god, this is the level of head-up-the-assery usually reserved for Special Ed, who comes on this board claiming Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party 28 years after his own death. You should stick to subjects you might have a clue about, like picking your nose. Fucking dipshit.


All irrelevant to the topic but so far Pothead's got the Democratic Party (which he can't even spell) founded by:

• Andrew Jackson
• James Madison
• Thomas Jefferson
• Aaron Burr

only a matter of the next post before he adds:

• Michael Moore
• Saul Belinsky
• Jefferson Davis
• Pol Pot
• Lizzie Borden
• Karl Marx
• Vasco da Gama
• David Hogg
• Buzz Aldrin
• Evel Knievel
• Garner Ted Armstrong
• Paul McCartney's body double
• Thousands of Muslims Dancing on Rooftops

I thought you were crying in the corner shit fer brains?

So let's look stupid fuck, You lied that Jefferson started the vile and filthy party you belong to, yet now acknowledge that the party was founded in 1834.

"Go look" indeed, lying hackmouth. I've pointed out 1834 specifically, and van Buren, on this site every time it's come up, and I've *NEVER EVER* suggested Jefferson had anything to do with it. Prove me wrong, asscrack. Go quote me anywhere ever suggesting something I already know better than. Go visit my schooling Special Ed every time THAT particular doofus tried to suggest Jefferson founded the Republican Party, 28 years after his own death, while you're running away desperately from your fatuously clueless claim that Aaron Burr--- who left politics altogether -- and then the country -- in 1807 as already pointed out above, DUMBASS.

And again, there is no "party" I belong to. I belong to the I Learned How to Fucking Read Party, K?

Start with Aaron Burr, democrat and traitor.

Kinda hard to do that since "Democrats" didn't even exist and were a quarter-century in the future when he left the country in disgrace for Europe. Where he did not go to found a party he would never be a part of, Shitferbrains.


You try to fuck with me on history you never bothered to look up, yep damn right it'll come back to bite you. And leave marks. So fuck you.

Jeffersonian Republicans


The Jeffersonian Republicans placed their faith in the virtues of an agrarian democracy. They believed that the greatest threat to liberty was posed by a tyrannical central government and that power in the hands of the common people was preferred. Those natural democratic instincts required sharpening, however, by education. In foreign affairs, the Jeffersonian-Republicans favored France over Britain. Jefferson lauded the French Revolution, which claimed the American Revolution as its model, but decried its bloody excesses. The Jeffersonian-Republicans opposed the Jay's Treaty (1795) as excessively pro-British.

The Jeffersonians began using the name Democratic-Republicans in 1796, and would later shorten it to Republicans. During the time of Andrew Jackson they became the Democratic Party.

BULLSHIT.

The party Madison and Jefferson started was indeed called the Democratic-Republican Party, which is a long name and was often shortened to "Republicans" and less often shortened to "Democrats" -- **NEITHER** of which "became" either later party that used the same nouns. NOR, Stupidass, was it related to the nativist American Republican Party of 1843, which went on to be better known as the Know Nothings and served, as far as there is one, as the ideological forerunner of the Ku Klux Klan. Of course if you're actually enough of a know-nothing cretin that you believe everything that uses the same name must be the same thing, you're welcome to that association, cretinous sludge of subhuman protoplasm.

And of course who can forget the founder of your filthy party calling Jefferson "that damned Republican?"

I'd have to say nobody, since there's no such person since there's no such party. Things that do not exist do not require a "founder". Who knew, right? Fucking MORON.

Once AGAIN "Republican" was a short form of the tedious "Democratic-Republican". The actual Republican Party that exists today --- wasn't even founded until 1854.

Once AGAIN for the retarded, that's 1854, DUMBASS. In a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin. Made up of defecting Whigs and Know Nothings, and the third new party after Jackson that would use the word "republican" for a name, ZERO of which were the same as ANY of the others.

/offfuckingtopic

what a lying loser.

Tell us again about how everyone working in Silicon Valley and making hundreds of thousand dollars a year are just the same as the slaves who were raped and beaten and had their children sold off.

Everyone in Silicon Valley is making hundreds of thousands a year?

Well shit sparky, what are you doing living in your mom's basement collecting SSI then?

The truth of course is that Apple and Google really don't pay very well. Early employees were granted stock options that made them rich, but the IPO's are long over.

____________________________________

Sales AVERAGE SALARY SALARY DISTRIBUTION
Home Solutions Advisor
57 salaries reported
$15.41 per hour
$7.25
$32.40
Sales Specialist
28 salaries reported
$15.94 per hour
$7.25
$32.40
Sales Representative
17 salaries reported
$15.12 per hour
$7.25
$32.40
Business Development Specialist
21 salaries reported
$44,421 per year
$14,500
$64,800
Product Specialist
18 salaries reported
$16.13 per hour
$7.25


Apple Salaries in the United States | Indeed.com

The good paying software engineering jobs have been outsourced to India. Even if you WERE one of the few who had a job in the USA, Obama took care of that with the H1B fiasco.



While families rode the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train and searched for Nemo on clamobiles in the theme parks, these workers monitored computers in industrial buildings nearby, making sure millions of Walt Disney Worldticket sales, store purchases and hotel reservations went through without a hitch. Some were performing so well that they thought they had been called in for bonuses.

Instead, about 250 Disney employees were told in late October that they would be laid off. Many of their jobs were transferred to immigrants on temporary visas for highly skilled technical workers, who were brought in by an outsourcing firm based in India. Over the next three months, some Disney employees were required to train their replacements to do the jobs they had lost.

“I just couldn’t believe they could fly people in to sit at our desks and take over our jobs exactly,” said one former worker, an American in his 40s who remains unemployed since his last day at Disney on Jan. 30. “It was so humiliating to train somebody else to take over your job. I still can’t grasp it.”

Disney executives said that the layoffs were part of a reorganization, and that the company opened more positions than it eliminated.

But the layoffs at Disney and at other companies, including the Southern California Edison power utility, are raising new questions about how businesses and outsourcing companies are using the temporary visas, known as H-1B, to place immigrants in technology jobs in the United States. These visas are at the center of a fierce debate in Congress over whether they complement American workers or displace them.
}

Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements.

You Communists are doing what you ALWAYS do, concentrating all wealth in the hands of a .0000001% ruling elite.

But this is going to change, either through Trump, or through more forceful means.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

I don't know what the hell you are talking about with regard to Republicans not knowing that the Civil War was about slavery. It's the Democrats who are still in denial. From them, the most frequent thing you hear is: "the Civil War was a war over economics and an overreaching federal government."
Democrats in Georgia still refer to the Civil War as the "great disappointment (since they lost)."

The only “overreaching” was not letting disgusting slave owners keep owning people. So wtf are you talking about?

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

 

[Markle]

Awesome photograph from 1655. Do you have any more photographs from the 17th century?

That's all you have? Is the information provided true or false?

 

[rightwinger]

Does not negate the fact that the cause of the war was slavery

The north fought to preserve the union
The south stated slavery was the reason for their secession

Also does not negate the fact that history is not as simplistically black and white as the simple minded like to pretend. Rarely does it ever match the cartoon version loved by the simple minded who don't want to dig deeper than the crayon colored pictures in their history books.

Every situation has nuances

Doesn’t negate that without the issue of slavery, there would have been no war

Of course, but pretending that history can be distilled down to a cartoon does no one any favors.

No cartoon

But an acknowledgement of how we got there. Revising the cause to downplay the political role that slavery played in the 1850s and 1860s is dishonest

I have no argument against that. I do, however, oppose the simplistic thought that slavery was the one and only cause of the Civil War. Down that road lies ignorance.

All other reasons pale in comparison
The south seceded over slavery. They would not have seceded over the other issues

 

[keepitreal]

Good god, this is the level of head-up-the-assery usually reserved for Special Ed,

Shhh keep it down mister

 

[Pogo]

Awesome photograph from 1655. Do you have any more photographs from the 17th century?

That's all you have? Is the information provided true or false?

It's false. Already told you that back in post 1100.

Here's much more on the attempted colony of San Miguel de Gualdape ---- sorry it's actual historical text and not the infallible authority of Googly Images (/sarc)

>> In June 1526, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, a wealthy Spanish official in the city of Santo Domingo, Hispaniola, founded a colony at or near the mouth of the Pee Dee River in [what is now] eastern South Carolina. Six decades before Roanoke Island (1587), eight decades before Jamestown (1607), and almost a century before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock (1620), Ayllón began his North American dream.

Ayllón’s effort has been overlooked, perhaps because most people prefer to believe that US life began with the arrival of English-speaking Anglo-Saxons living under British law. Perhaps his settlement is neglected because of its tragic fate— death by mismanagement, disease, and slave revolt. Perhaps it is unmentioned because of its unique rebirth in the woods by people not considered a worthy part of the US heritage.

... After some delays his fleet of six vessels sailed from Puerto de la Plata. Aboard were five hundred Spanish men and women, one hundred enslaved Africans, six or seven dozen horses, and physicians, sailors, and several Dominican priests.

.... Selecting a location in a low, marshy area, Ayllón ordered his men to set up camp. He paused to name his settlement “San Miguel de Gualdape.” When he ordered the Africans to begin building homes, he launched black slavery in the United States.

The neighboring natives fled inland and stayed away. It was probably enough for them that the Europeans who had seized seventy of their loved ones had now returned with Africans in chains.

Europeans, arriving to exploit land and labor, contrasted in many ways with the peaceful natives. The Indians lived harmoniously with nature and shared huge pine, weather-insulated homes that slept about three hundred people each. Europeans tried to construct homes that kept men and women in separate rooms. Europeans wrote that these Indians lived long lives and “their old age is robust.” While European men dominated their women, Indian women doctors served their people plant juices to cure fevers.

Selecting a location in a low, marshy area, Ayllón ordered his men to set up camp. He paused to name his settlement “San Miguel de Gualdape.” When he ordered the Africans to begin building homes, he launched black slavery in the United States.

The neighboring natives fled inland and stayed away. It was probably enough for them that the Europeans who had seized seventy of their loved ones had now returned with Africans in chains.

Europeans, arriving to exploit land and labor, contrasted in many ways with the peaceful natives. The Indians lived harmoniously with nature and shared huge pine, weather-insulated homes that slept about three hundred people each. Europeans tried to construct homes that kept men and women in separate rooms. Europeans wrote that these Indians lived long lives and “their old age is robust.” While European men dominated their women, Indian women doctors served their people plant juices to cure fevers.

.... In November a crisis erupted when Africans rebelled and fled to Indian villages. One authority on slave revolts believes the revolt was instigated by Native Americans angry over whites using their land. Africans, used to freedom in their homeland, probably needed no outside prodding to strike for liberty. They understandably fled enslavement in a dying European colony to start new lives in the woods among people who also rejected European enslavement.

The surviving 150 Spanish men and women, no longer able to face a freezing winter without shelter or their labor supply, packed up and sailed back to Santo Domingo. It would be another quarter of a century before Spanish colonists would arrive to build another North American colony with slave labor.

San Miguel de Gualdape was not a total failure as the first foreign colony on US soil. The Europeans left after five months, but Africans remained to build their society with Native Americans. In the unplanned way that history meanders and careens, a new community emerged in the woods – one that also included foreigners from overseas, the Africans. This new mixed Indigenous and foreigner settlement would soon sprout many American models, often called Maroon colonies.

In distant South Carolina forests, two and a half centuries before the Declaration of Independence, two people of color lit the first fires of freedom and exalted its principles. Though neither white, [nor] Christian, nor European, they established the first settlement of any permanence on these shores to include people from overseas. They qualify as our earliest inheritance. <<

​

Just to be clear, this is the first known example of Europeans enslaving Africans. The first instance of Europeans enslaving anybody in the Americas was of course Columbus with his sending captured natives out to look for gold and then cutting off their hands when they came back emptyhanded since they were simply not in a gold area.

 

[rightwinger]

Blacks were not victims of slavery

They were victims of states rights

 

[Syriusly]

Fucking retard. "Democratic Party" wasn't even coined until 1834 --- after Martin van Buren had organized the loose contingent of those who supported Andrew Jackson and known only loosely as "Jacksonians". Jackson himself didn't do it, nor did Aaron Burr ---- who had left politics altogether after being charged with treason in 1807, and was in no position for the rest of his life to found a goddam thing, flaming Dumbass --- NOR were Jefferson's "Republicans" --- short form for "Democratic Republicans" --- even remotely related to the modern Republican Party which wasn't founded until 28 years after Jefferson was already DEAD, flaming Dumbass.

Good god, this is the level of head-up-the-assery usually reserved for Special Ed, who comes on this board claiming Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party 28 years after his own death. You should stick to subjects you might have a clue about, like picking your nose. Fucking dipshit.


All irrelevant to the topic but so far Pothead's got the Democratic Party (which he can't even spell) founded by:

• Andrew Jackson
• James Madison
• Thomas Jefferson
• Aaron Burr

only a matter of the next post before he adds:

• Michael Moore
• Saul Belinsky
• Jefferson Davis
• Pol Pot
• Lizzie Borden
• Karl Marx
• Vasco da Gama
• David Hogg
• Buzz Aldrin
• Evel Knievel
• Garner Ted Armstrong
• Paul McCartney's body double
• Thousands of Muslims Dancing on Rooftops

I thought you were crying in the corner shit fer brains?

So let's look stupid fuck, You lied that Jefferson started the vile and filthy party you belong to, yet now acknowledge that the party was founded in 1834.

"Go look" indeed, lying hackmouth. I've pointed out 1834 specifically, and van Buren, on this site every time it's come up, and I've *NEVER EVER* suggested Jefferson had anything to do with it. Prove me wrong, asscrack. Go quote me anywhere ever suggesting something I already know better than. Go visit my schooling Special Ed every time THAT particular doofus tried to suggest Jefferson founded the Republican Party, 28 years after his own death, while you're running away desperately from your fatuously clueless claim that Aaron Burr--- who left politics altogether -- and then the country -- in 1807 as already pointed out above, DUMBASS.

And again, there is no "party" I belong to. I belong to the I Learned How to Fucking Read Party, K?

Start with Aaron Burr, democrat and traitor.

Kinda hard to do that since "Democrats" didn't even exist and were a quarter-century in the future when he left the country in disgrace for Europe. Where he did not go to found a party he would never be a part of, Shitferbrains.


You try to fuck with me on history you never bothered to look up, yep damn right it'll come back to bite you. And leave marks. So fuck you.

Jeffersonian Republicans


The Jeffersonian Republicans placed their faith in the virtues of an agrarian democracy. They believed that the greatest threat to liberty was posed by a tyrannical central government and that power in the hands of the common people was preferred. Those natural democratic instincts required sharpening, however, by education. In foreign affairs, the Jeffersonian-Republicans favored France over Britain. Jefferson lauded the French Revolution, which claimed the American Revolution as its model, but decried its bloody excesses. The Jeffersonian-Republicans opposed the Jay's Treaty (1795) as excessively pro-British.

The Jeffersonians began using the name Democratic-Republicans in 1796, and would later shorten it to Republicans. During the time of Andrew Jackson they became the Democratic Party.

BULLSHIT.

The party Madison and Jefferson started was indeed called the Democratic-Republican Party, which is a long name and was often shortened to "Republicans" and less often shortened to "Democrats" -- **NEITHER** of which "became" either later party that used the same nouns. NOR, Stupidass, was it related to the nativist American Republican Party of 1843, which went on to be better known as the Know Nothings and served, as far as there is one, as the ideological forerunner of the Ku Klux Klan. Of course if you're actually enough of a know-nothing cretin that you believe everything that uses the same name must be the same thing, you're welcome to that association, cretinous sludge of subhuman protoplasm.

And of course who can forget the founder of your filthy party calling Jefferson "that damned Republican?"

I'd have to say nobody, since there's no such person since there's no such party. Things that do not exist do not require a "founder". Who knew, right? Fucking MORON.

Once AGAIN "Republican" was a short form of the tedious "Democratic-Republican". The actual Republican Party that exists today --- wasn't even founded until 1854.

Once AGAIN for the retarded, that's 1854, DUMBASS. In a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin. Made up of defecting Whigs and Know Nothings, and the third new party after Jackson that would use the word "republican" for a name, ZERO of which were the same as ANY of the others.

/offfuckingtopic

what a lying loser.

Tell us again about how everyone working in Silicon Valley and making hundreds of thousand dollars a year are just the same as the slaves who were raped and beaten and had their children sold off.

Everyone in Silicon Valley is making hundreds of thousands a year?

Ah sparky. Reading comprehension is so helpful.

Tell us again about how everyone working in Silicon Valley and making hundreds of thousand dollars a year are just the same as the slaves who were raped and beaten and had their children sold off

That you think those who are making hundreds of thousands a year in Silicon Valley are just as much slaves as those who were raped and beaten and had their children sold off just shows how loony you are.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

Yes, the practice of owning slaves was disgusting -- doesn't mean you cant look back fondly on Great Great Great Grandpa Jasper and how well he may have treated his slaves -- but you don't get to tell how other people should look back at ole Jasper -- especially if it was their great great great grandpa ole Jasper owned -- even if they were happy and sang and dance and shucked and jived for massa

 

[rightwinger]

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

Yes, the practice of owning slaves was disgusting -- doesn't mean you cant look back fondly on Great Great Great Grandpa Jasper and how well he may have treated his slaves -- but you don't get to tell how other people should look back at ole Jasper -- especially if it was their great great great grandpa ole Jasper owned -- even if they were happy and sang and dance and shucked and jived for massa

Great Great Great Great Grandpa Jasper was also fond of Brown Sugar

 

[Pogo]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

I don't know what the hell you are talking about with regard to Republicans not knowing that the Civil War was about slavery. It's the Democrats who are still in denial. From them, the most frequent thing you hear is: "the Civil War was a war over economics and an overreaching federal government."
Democrats in Georgia still refer to the Civil War as the "great disappointment (since they lost)."

The only “overreaching” was not letting disgusting slave owners keep owning people. So wtf are you talking about?

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

Linkie?

Funny, I haven't read anywhere that a political party was ever required to own a slave.
Maybe we should ask Aaron Burr. Ya think?


May not have mentioned it before but it's hilarious that for his defiance-of-linear-time revisionism fantasy, Pothead chooses Aaron Burr --- who called for abolishing slavery as far back as 1784. Then he wants to play the Lumpy 1 "Democrats invented slavery" parlor game in the same breath. Expecting different results.



(/offtopic)

 

[Pogo]

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

Yes, the practice of owning slaves was disgusting -- doesn't mean you cant look back fondly on Great Great Great Grandpa Jasper and how well he may have treated his slaves -- but you don't get to tell how other people should look back at ole Jasper -- especially if it was their great great great grandpa ole Jasper owned -- even if they were happy and sang and dance and shucked and jived for massa

Great Great Great Great Grandpa Jasper was also fond of Brown Sugar

So was Elvis.

3'38" here ---

​

 

[Lumpy 1]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

I don't know what the hell you are talking about with regard to Republicans not knowing that the Civil War was about slavery. It's the Democrats who are still in denial. From them, the most frequent thing you hear is: "the Civil War was a war over economics and an overreaching federal government."
Democrats in Georgia still refer to the Civil War as the "great disappointment (since they lost)."

The only “overreaching” was not letting disgusting slave owners keep owning people. So wtf are you talking about?

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

Linkie?

Funny, I haven't read anywhere that a political party was ever required to own a slave.
Maybe we should ask Aaron Burr. Ya think?


May not have mentioned it before but it's hilarious that for his defiance-of-linear-time revisionism fantasy, Pothead chooses Aaron Burr --- who called for abolishing slavery as far back as 1784. Then he wants to play the Lumpy 1 "Democrats invented slavery" parlor game in the same breath. Expecting different results.



(/offtopic)

Eh, don't bug me Pogo.. remove me from your brain...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

Yes, the practice of owning slaves was disgusting -- doesn't mean you cant look back fondly on Great Great Great Grandpa Jasper and how well he may have treated his slaves -- but you don't get to tell how other people should look back at ole Jasper -- especially if it was their great great great grandpa ole Jasper owned -- even if they were happy and sang and dance and shucked and jived for massa

Well, now you can shuck and jive for massah Zuckerburg and Massah Brin.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

I don't know what the hell you are talking about with regard to Republicans not knowing that the Civil War was about slavery. It's the Democrats who are still in denial. From them, the most frequent thing you hear is: "the Civil War was a war over economics and an overreaching federal government."
Democrats in Georgia still refer to the Civil War as the "great disappointment (since they lost)."

The only “overreaching” was not letting disgusting slave owners keep owning people. So wtf are you talking about?

Those "disgusting slave owners" were people like you, democrats who demanded government power be used to subdue the individual and subvert the Constitution.

Linkie?

Funny, I haven't read anywhere that a political party was ever required to own a slave.
Maybe we should ask Aaron Burr. Ya think?


May not have mentioned it before but it's hilarious that for his defiance-of-linear-time revisionism fantasy, Pothead chooses Aaron Burr --- who called for abolishing slavery as far back as 1784. Then he wants to play the Lumpy 1 "Democrats invented slavery" parlor game in the same breath. Expecting different results.



(/offtopic)

I thought you ran off crying and shrieked you were putting me on iggy, little slugo?

Now you are a dishonest fuck, a scumbag with zero integrity - we all no that. No one said that you vile Stalinist democrats invented slavery.

I recall something about the Israelite's and Pharaoh. Of course you're a JOOOOOOOO hating democrat, so you no doubt think that was a grand thing...

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Well, now you can shuck and jive for massah Zuckerburg and Massah Brin.

Since that made entirely no sense --- deflection noted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, now you can shuck and jive for massah Zuckerburg and Massah Brin.

Since that made entirely no sense --- deflection noted.

Well now, since it made perfect sense, intellectual deficiency noted.

 

[keepitreal]

Not every southerner owned slaves but they profited off the instititution. 40 percent of the population were in slavery

Business owners are still profiting,
at the expense of consumers, customers,
and their front line employees.

The institution of greed for gain,
did not collapse when slavery ended....

I may not have much, but I am better than a black man

That statement alone, tells me you are not

 

[Kosh]

Actually the cause to rally behind was Slavery, but the real reason was cotton..