Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Correll]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

The Civil War was over slavery. Period. No slavery, no Civil War.

You have presented NO facts to refute that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

There were 3 million slaves in the South in 1860. It's 'demonizing' to reference slavery in the South?

lol, how exactly do you demonize that reality? You do know what 'demonize' means don't you?

 

[paperview]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

There were 3 million slaves in the South in 1860. It's 'demonizing' to reference slavery in the South?

lol, how exactly do you demonize that reality? You do know what 'demonize' means don't you?

Actually 3.5 million in what was to be the Confederacy - with another nearly half million in the border states.

 

[paperview]

I always think these stats are stunning:

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 ---402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865

Some states more slaves than free persons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One little rebellion of the times, while we're on the subject of rebellion, was John Brown's movement to free the slaves (for which of course he got hanged).

John Brown's plan was to free and arm slaves, and start a slave revolt in the South, that through violence and terror would destroy the Southern slave economy.

I wonder how you Confederacy defenders feel about that?

One might call it a righteous cause in keeping with our Declaration of Independence, eh?

...you know, the People's right to take up arms against a tyrannical government?

hmmm........

 

[Correll]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

There were 3 million slaves in the South in 1860. It's 'demonizing' to reference slavery in the South?

lol, how exactly do you demonize that reality? You do know what 'demonize' means don't you?

No, referencing slavery in the South is not demonizing.

How do you demonize that reality?

Easy.

Insist on judging them by modern cultural mores instead of those of the time.

Insist that the South had no right to attempt to leave the Union.

Insist that the South had no cause to leave the Union.

Insist that the Southern governments were not legitimate.

Insist that the war was ONLY about slavery.

Insist that the SOuth started the War.

Insist that the SOuth waged a war of aggression.

ect. ect. ect.

NOw another question is, why do you libs need to demonize the Confederacy?

 

[paperview]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

 

[Correll]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?

 

[rightwinger]

The liberals here are making two big errors: They're saying (1) that the South seceded over slavery and (2) that therefore the Civil War was fought over slavery.

But secession and the war were two very different events. The Confederacy tried to establish peaceful, normal relations with the federal government. The Confederacy offered to pay the South's share of the national debt, offered to pay compensation for federal installations in the South, and sought to make the U.S. a most-favored-nation trading partner. But the Radical Republicans and certain Northern business interests refused peaceful coexistence and pressured Lincoln into opting for coercion and war.

Seven of the 11 CSA states--the seven Deep South states--seceded mainly over slavery, but the tariff and long-standing differences over the role and scope of the federal government were also major reasons for their secession, and they said so in no uncertain terms.

Moreover, four of the 11 Confederate states did not think slavery concerns or the tariff justified secession. Those four states--the Upper South states of AR, NC, TN, and VA--seceded over federal coercion, i.e., Lincoln's use of force to maintain the Union. The Upper South states believed the Deep South states had valid complaints about slavery and the tariff, but they did not view those complaints as justifying secession. Go read the Upper South states' secession ordinances and declarations--the only reason they cited was coercion/force (slavery complaints were only mentioned in ancillary documents and were not even mentioned in these states' ordinances and declarations). These four states initially voted against secession, and they only changed the minds after Lincoln made it clear that he was going to use the bloodless attack that he provoked at Fort Sumter as his pretext to launch an invasion of the South.

THey seem to have a need to simply SOME aspects of History to the point of absurdity.

If it is a foreign culture that is engaged in a terrible practice, such as Terrorism, we have to "understand" their motivations and culture, but if it is part of our US history, then...

not so much.

The south overplayed a weak hand

Lincoln did not have the authority or political power to end slavery. By starting a war over slavery, the South accelerated its demise

 

[rightwinger]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?

Didn't belong to South Carolina when they were a state, didn't belong to them once they seceded

Ft Sumter flew the U.S. flag and the traitors fired on it


.

 

[paperview]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?

It wasn't a "nation."

It was a state in rebellion. You don't get to fire on federal military installations, Union ships, seize forts and arsenals and federal property -- property that belonged to the entire United States and paid for by all the US citizens, and expect to simply have "the wish" to be left alone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?

It wasn't a nation. They had no right to sovereignty. They were a domestic faction in rebellion against the nation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

There were 3 million slaves in the South in 1860. It's 'demonizing' to reference slavery in the South?

lol, how exactly do you demonize that reality? You do know what 'demonize' means don't you?

No, referencing slavery in the South is not demonizing.

How do you demonize that reality?

Easy.

Insist on judging them by modern cultural mores instead of those of the time.

?

So slavery was okay because it was 1860?

What date did slavery stop being okay?

 

[kaz]

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

You think you're taking seriously by anyone but the liberal chorus? LOL. Your advice, I don't need...

That wasn't advice, it was the truth. Nobody will take you seriously if you cite your claim as proof of your claim.

I'm fine with you not being smart. More fun for me

Gotcha, I appreciate the advice from someone so roundly respected by all as you on how to be taken seriously and the time you spent explaining that to me

You're welcome.

I see your point. When I said you equate supporting the Confederacy's right to secession that means you support slavery, and you admitted you did that with bripat, I mean yeah, you agreed with that, but you wanted more examples which I wasn't interested in searching for. Score one for you. I mean if you want 19 examples, it's my job to provide them. One? Seriously? What is that?

As to why you can't find any examples to support your claim bripat supports slavery? OK, I don't understand that. but you must have a good reason, you are so roundly respected. I certainly see why you consider yourself to be on the high horse

I DID quote Bripat saying he supported the Confederacy's cause of continuing slavery outside of the federal government

like, SEVERAL pages back, in a post designated to YOU.

Here's his quote again, in response to the question 'how can anyone support the Confederacy's cause':

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?

Post#325 of the gay marriage thread that was so popular a day or so ago. Skylar and I both tore him apart over that statement.

This is nothing new though, I sent this quote to you PAGES ago. I guess you were so caught up in your own 'facts' that you missed it

Regardless, thanks for admitting to your own shortcomings in this debate (i.e. the constant false claims). I hope we can move past this little spat now that you've all but waved a white flag.

That quote doesn't say he supports slavery. It just doesn't. There is something seriously wrong with you.

 

[kaz]

So besides being a liar- Kaz is also a misogynist- not a surprise there.

I don't hate you, I just think you're an idiot

 

[kaz]

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women

WAR On WOMEN By Republicans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Worldwide War on Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican abortion bill tone-deaf as usual. War on Women Pt. 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The pub s War On Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But but there s no war on women... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Those articles you posted are an example of what I'm talking about.

Just a bunch of Democratic party rhetoric

So answer my question, who are these leftists you are referring to who are not Democrats and don't think that

 

[thanatos144]

On the flip side, show us where it states that those that entered the Union COULD exit the Union.

Right here.


"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They tried and failed.

The consequence of the effort is irrelevant. As the entire exercise amounts to nothing else. They died free... and exercising their God-given right to be free.

I find it absurd anyone would use the term free with any confederate. I am sure their slaves were just happy they were dead. The confederates are the antithesis of what being a conservative is.

I find it absurd that you find that absurd.

Slaves, be they black or white, male or female... were recognized as something shy of Livestock. Do you find it offensive that lower forms of mammals were exploited for their means to assist in manual labor?

Or... are you content to apply modern understandings to judgment of those who lived 3 centuries ago, which is unavoidable by those mired in ignorance.

Tell me is slavery and freedom the same thing ?

 

[thanatos144]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Lincoln didn't "save" the country. He destroyed it. He certainly destroyed the South.

I guess you endorse the explanation of that Vietnam general who said "in order to save the village we had to destroy it."

Aww trailer park is still trying to spread his ignorance. How quaint. Let's see here . The democrat confederates tried to destroy the country by first splitting in into pieces because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery into the new territory and then they started a war because they feared Thier slaver life style was in jeopardy. they lost and in the process the country was intact and even more people had liberty and freedom......

 

[bripat9643]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

That would include Abraham Lincoln who said it was not about slavery.