What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jefferson Davis' speech to the Mississippi Democratic Convention, 1859

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,769
Reaction score
2,315
Points
1,938
The North won the war and made the rules

in reality the south joined the union as free states and had a right to leave if it wanted too

As the descendant of Confederate soldiers I honor their bravery in battle

I’m proud of them

but I also understand that slavery was bad for America and a united America was better for world history

However libs who call the confederates traitors or compare them to nazi’s can kiss my ass

Of course the winners in war usually make the rules. Sometimes those rules are called laws, as with the 13th Amendment. As losers in the Civil War of course the South payed a heavy price. But it wasn’t long before rebel Southerners were back in Congress, while Negroes were driven back into super-oppressed caste status under Jim Crow. The West kept developing and the North thrived. Soon there were new corporate and industrial “rules” and laws and new technology. The Gilded Age arrived, while whole sections of the South only slowly progressed.

I really understand your feelings, Mac-7. I am not at all deprecating the courage or fighting spirit of Confederate soldiers. Most Southern soldiers were not slave-owners and fought for their homes and way of life and what they firmly believed was “freedom.” I think you are clearly not in the “same camp” as Dudley Smith. But that is up to you to decide.

This is a history OP. It is not about the motivations of soldiers or ordinary people on either side. The OP and my own comments show the politics (as expressed in speeches) of Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis & Alexander Stephens. My defense of Republican leader Abraham Lincoln does not flow from any regional bias.

If you read Alexander Stephens “Cornerstone Speech” you will understand why many people, myself included, and almost all African Americans, feel that a Southern victory would have been catastrophic.

While nobody can know for certain, I think a Confederate victory would have led — both North and South of the Mason Dixon Line — to creating new “disunited” states where Nazi-like and apartheid-like racists, or eugenics and Social- Darwinist spouting capitalist oligarchs, ruled supreme. There may have been more wars over geographical boundaries, but in the end I think Northern industrialists, Western mining interests, railroad capitalists and NY bankers would likely all have found common ground in the above.

Defending and understanding Lincoln as a great American leader is important for many reasons, among them to insure we never have to fight another Civil War.
 
Last edited:

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
32,948
Reaction score
22,862
Points
2,865
But it wasn’t long before rebel Southerners were back in Congress, while Negroes were driven back into super-oppressed caste status under Jim Crow. T
That can in part be blamed on the death of lincoln who was much more conciliatory than the republican radicals who were determined to exterminate white southern power

thats no excuse for Jim Crow , but it does remind us that radicalism has unintended consequences
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,769
Reaction score
2,315
Points
1,938
You raise a good point here. Lincoln was more conciliatory than many Radical Republicans, but he was far more resolute than Andrew Johnson, who replaced him and sabotaged early Reconstruction plans. That delay led to the death of all proposals to grant “40 acres and a Mule,” to adequately finance the Freedman’s bureau and later Freedman’s bank. In the end it is impossible, I think, to know how Lincoln would have handled the complicated issues of Reconstruction and dealing with KKK terror. Grant managed as best he could, but he was no Lincoln. He was totally outmaneuvered by the many corrupt capitalist politicians who surrounded him.

Probably white resistance and bitterness would have stymied even the best efforts to “reconstruct” Southern society after emancipation. The failure of Reconstruction was obvious even before 1877. In a sense it was a tragic example of how “ordinary politics” and apparent “reconciliation” among white Americans happened at the ultimate expense of African Americans. But the country survived, and African-Americans everywhere now were “legally” citizens, “officially” granted equal rights under the law.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
4,704
Reaction score
2,916
Points
918
Johnson was on board with Lincoln's plans, which was to get the plantations back up and running, and forcing blacks to work them for $3 a month. The 'Radicals' wanted permanent military dictatorships in the southern states, and their cronies in charge of running real estate scams and plundering the South. He was impeached because his plans got in the way of outright looting and robbery.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,769
Reaction score
2,315
Points
1,938
Abraham Lincoln only served a little over a month into his second term when he was cruelly assassinated. Andrew Johnson, a Southern Unionist and ex-slaveholder (who Lincoln had just chosen as his V.P. running mate) became President by default.

Johnson immediately embarrassed himself by appearing drunk at his first appearance before Congress. His true loyalties became clear later, when he became a Democrat. Johnson broke with even moderate Republicans, and unified all Republicans against him. He become the main obstacle to protecting even basic black rights after the war. He vetoed efforts to extend and finance the Freedman’s bureau, vetoed the moderate Republican Civil Rights Act of 1866, and opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution in 1868 and 1869.

While today Johnson is I believe correctly considered one of the worst U.S. Presidents in history, this was not always so…

“Early 20th-century historians, such as John Burgess, Woodrow Wilson (who later became president himself) and William Dunning, all Southerners … [believed] Johnson flawed and politically inept, but concluding that he had tried to carry out Lincoln's plans for the South in good faith.”

Of course those were in the dark days of Jim Crow, when the “new” KKK was deeply ensconced in Congress, when “Lost Cause” nostalgia and vicious white racism was the norm throughout our country.
 
Last edited:

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
401
Points
173
Location
Over there
If Davis was a "traitor", why did he only do two years in prison after the war ended? He was later given a Presidential pardon too.
Because capitalists easily forgive slaveholders. Same way, the capitalists took some nazi criminals into public service.
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
42,373
Reaction score
34,042
Points
3,635
Because capitalists easily forgive slaveholders. Same way, the capitalists took some nazi criminals into public service.

Just as many Nazi scientists and engineers ended up in Russia after the war. Aside from stealing it from the US, how do you think Russia developed their own missiles and nuclear technology?

Did you think those ham-fisted vodka-swilling peasants did that on their own?
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
401
Points
173
Location
Over there
how do you think Russia developed their own missiles and nuclear technology?
Did you think those ham-fisted vodka-swilling peasants did that on their own?
You forgot to add to "ham-fisted vodka-swilling peasants" this: "non-aryan subhumans". Right?
And yes, superpower USSR had their own scientists, even if they could use the experience of german scientists.
The americans, even using the leaders of nazi science, lost the space race, despite the fact that they did not in have huge losses in the war and only earned money from it.

EXkKhOPWkAAR4l9.jpg
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
42,373
Reaction score
34,042
Points
3,635
You forgot to add to "ham-fisted vodka-swilling peasants" this: "non-aryan subhumans". Right?
And yes, superpower USSR had their own scientists, even if they could use the experience of german scientists.
The americans, even using the leaders of nazi science, lost the space race, despite the fact that they did not in have huge losses in the war and only earned money from it.

View attachment 528824

You forgot to add that the Russians were the first ones to have their asses handed to them by a bunch of illiterate goat-herders in Afghanistan.

:auiqs.jpg::laughing0301::21:
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
401
Points
173
Location
Over there
You forgot to add that the Russians were the first ones to have their asses handed to them by a bunch of illiterate goat-herders in Afghanistan.

:auiqs.jpg::laughing0301::21:
This is the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989. Can you show me how the United States is leaving Afghanistan? I have already seen how the United States left Saigon. Or was it Kabul?.... I don't know, it looks very similar...
Surprisingly, someone in the United States can NOW be ironic about the USSR in Afghanistan... Probably, in half a year, Hollywood will make a film about how Rambo saved the world from the Taliban and guppy fish will believe it.

8802dda6c620e0d1e1fe27fcffca24ad.jpg
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,769
Reaction score
2,315
Points
1,938
This is the wrong OP for a discussion of Afghanistan, but it is certainly true that when the Soviet Union left, it left behind a government and Afghan army willing to fight the warlord Mujahadin jihadi fanatics. That Kabul government lasted three years after the Red Army pulled out entirely, and survived even after the Soviet Union itself collapsed. They fought without air cover against a jihadi wave armed and financed by the U.S, supported by Pakistan and Persian Gulf nations, by the West, and by fanatics like Osama bin Laden. (Even communist China gave weapons to those “freedom loving Mujahadin” against supposed “Soviet imperialism.”)
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
42,373
Reaction score
34,042
Points
3,635
This is the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989. Can you show me how the United States is leaving Afghanistan? I have already seen how the United States left Saigon. Or was it Kabul?.... I don't know, it looks very similar...
Surprisingly, someone in the United States can NOW be ironic about the USSR in Afghanistan... Probably, in half a year, Hollywood will make a film about how Rambo saved the world from the Taliban and guppy fish will believe it.

8802dda6c620e0d1e1fe27fcffca24ad.jpg

Something to think about: Russia left Afghanistan after ten years and 15,000-20,000 troops killed.

We got out of there with 2443 US casualties after 20 years.

Like I said, "ham-fisted vodka-swilling peasants." I would add "three-thumbed" to that, in order to make it "three-thumbed, ham-fisted, vodka-swilling peasants." Apparently, the Taliban liked our idea of "Western Democracy" more than they liked yours.

:laughing0301:
 
Last edited:

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
401
Points
173
Location
Over there
Something to think about: Russia left Afghanistan after ten years and 15,000-20,000 troops killed.
We got out of there with 2443 US casualties after 20 years.
Oh! Another US victory! Congratulations!
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
42,373
Reaction score
34,042
Points
3,635
Oh! Another US victory! Congratulations!

I'[ll give you another one: 106,000–170,000 civilians were killed as a result of the fighting in Afghanistan at the hands of all parties to the conflict. That's during the ten-year period.

But during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, anywhere from 562,000–2,000,000 civilians were killed, over the period of 20 years.

It's well-documented on wikipedia. Look it up if you don't believe me.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
401
Points
173
Location
Over there
But during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, anywhere from 562,000–2,000,000 civilians were killed, over the period of 20 years.
Yeah, they are all civilians, of course. keep reading Wikipedia. I can recommend also Fairy Tales by Hans Christian Andersen
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
114,783
Reaction score
18,589
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
4,704
Reaction score
2,916
Points
918
Because capitalists easily forgive slaveholders. Same way, the capitalists took some nazi criminals into public service.

They certainly love the Red Chinese and other totalitarian states and their slave labor.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
4,704
Reaction score
2,916
Points
918
Something to think about: Russia left Afghanistan after ten years and 15,000-20,000 troops killed.

We got out of there with 2443 US casualties after 20 years.

Like I said, "ham-fisted vodka-swilling peasants." I would add "three-thumbed" to that, in order to make it "three-thumbed, ham-fisted, vodka-swilling peasants." Apparently, the Taliban liked our idea of "Western Democracy" more than they liked yours.

:laughing0301:

Most of eastern Europe isn't much different than the Russians, which is why I'm glad the U.S. ignored the stupid demands to liberate it during WW II and Eisenhower stopped nearly exactly where his plan called for in 1941, in a defensible place, and didn't waste any American lives on rescuing them.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
4,704
Reaction score
2,916
Points
918
Just as many Nazi scientists and engineers ended up in Russia after the war. Aside from stealing it from the US, how do you think Russia developed their own missiles and nuclear technology?

Did you think those ham-fisted vodka-swilling peasants did that on their own?

And in Egypt. Brazil, and other countries, but no commie America Hating POS ever criticizes countries run by brown vermin or Islmao-Nazis.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
4,704
Reaction score
2,916
Points
918
Of course the winners in war usually make the rules. Sometimes those rules are called laws, as with the 13th Amendment. As losers in the Civil War of course the South payed a heavy price. But it wasn’t long before rebel Southerners were back in Congress, while Negroes were driven back into super-oppressed caste status under Jim Crow. The West kept developing and the North thrived. Soon there were new corporate and industrial “rules” and laws and new technology. The Gilded Age arrived, while whole sections of the South only slowly progressed.

I really understand your feelings, Mac-7. I am not at all deprecating the courage or fighting spirit of Confederate soldiers. Most Southern soldiers were not slave-owners and fought for their homes and way of life and what they firmly believed was “freedom.” I think you are clearly not in the “same camp” as Dudley Smith. But that is up to you to decide.

This is a history OP. It is not about the motivations of soldiers or ordinary people on either side. The OP and my own comments show the politics (as expressed in speeches) of Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis & Alexander Stephens. My defense of Republican leader Abraham Lincoln does not flow from any regional bias.

If you read Alexander Stephens “Cornerstone Speech” you will understand why many people, myself included, and almost all African Americans, feel that a Southern victory would have been catastrophic.

While nobody can know for certain, I think a Confederate victory would have led — both North and South of the Mason Dixon Line — to creating new “disunited” states where Nazi-like and apartheid-like racists, or eugenics and Social- Darwinist spouting capitalist oligarchs, ruled supreme. There may have been more wars over geographical boundaries, but in the end I think Northern industrialists, Western mining interests, railroad capitalists and NY bankers would likely all have found common ground in the above.

Defending and understanding Lincoln as a great American leader is important for many reasons, among them to insure we never have to fight another Civil War.

Rubbish. It was an illegal war, period, and fought over corporate welfare and protectionism for railroads and northern manufacturers and bankers. You can dress the pig up any way you want, but real history you aren't even close to.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top