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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

Terrorist acts yes, war no. Even wars involving Muslims aren't centered around religion. Did you miss this lesson in college? Did you even go?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

Terrorist acts yes, war no. Even wars involving Muslims aren't centered around religion. Did you miss this lesson in college? Did you even go?

I agree with you. Many wars are couched in religion, though.

 

[Unkotare]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

Even to this day, democrats spin themselves into absurdity trying to avoid the ugly truth of their past and the ugly reality of what underlies their basic ideology today.

Idiots like bripa-thetic making fools of themselves doesn't change that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

Even to this day, democrats spin themselves into absurdity trying to avoid the ugly truth of their past and the ugly reality of what underlies their basic ideology today.

Idiots like bripa-thetic making fools of themselves doesn't change that.

A Democrat today has no connection to a Democrat a hundred years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

Terrorist acts yes, war no. Even wars involving Muslims aren't centered around religion. Did you miss this lesson in college? Did you even go?

When religion and the state are intertwined, wars are religious wars. To say there's never been any such thing as a religious war is preposterous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

True... Because Islam is comprised of Muslims, therefore the responsibility rests with them, and the evil that animates them, which is the same that animates you and the political cult through both are advanced.

And the wars perpetrated by Catholics or Protestants? More animation by the forces of evil?

 

[Unkotare]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

Even to this day, democrats spin themselves into absurdity trying to avoid the ugly truth of their past and the ugly reality of what underlies their basic ideology today.

Idiots like bripa-thetic making fools of themselves doesn't change that.

A Democrat today has no connection to a Democrat a hundred years ago.

democrats keep trying to convince themselves of that.

 

[bripat9643]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

Even to this day, democrats spin themselves into absurdity trying to avoid the ugly truth of their past and the ugly reality of what underlies their basic ideology today.

Idiots like bripa-thetic making fools of themselves doesn't change that.

A Democrat today has no connection to a Democrat a hundred years ago.

Just as a liberal of today has no connection to a liberal of 250 years ago.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

True... Because Islam is comprised of Muslims, therefore the responsibility rests with them, and the evil that animates them, which is the same that animates you and the political cult through both are advanced.

And the wars perpetrated by Catholics or Protestants? More animation by the forces of evil?

What wars are ya speaking of? And please be specific; at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[bripat9643]

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

Terrorist acts yes, war no. Even wars involving Muslims aren't centered around religion. Did you miss this lesson in college? Did you even go?

When religion and the state are intertwined, wars are religious wars. To say there's never been any such thing as a religious war is preposterous.

True, and Moslems started the vast majority of religious wars.

 

[thanatos144]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

Even to this day, democrats spin themselves into absurdity trying to avoid the ugly truth of their past and the ugly reality of what underlies their basic ideology today.

Idiots like bripa-thetic making fools of themselves doesn't change that.

A Democrat today has no connection to a Democrat a hundred years ago.

They are still slavers....

 

[thanatos144]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

Even to this day, democrats spin themselves into absurdity trying to avoid the ugly truth of their past and the ugly reality of what underlies their basic ideology today.

Idiots like bripa-thetic making fools of themselves doesn't change that.

A Democrat today has no connection to a Democrat a hundred years ago.

Just as a liberal of today has no connection to a liberal of 250 years ago.

Idiots are still the same

 

[bripat9643]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

Even to this day, democrats spin themselves into absurdity trying to avoid the ugly truth of their past and the ugly reality of what underlies their basic ideology today.

Idiots like bripa-thetic making fools of themselves doesn't change that.

A Democrat today has no connection to a Democrat a hundred years ago.

Just as a liberal of today has no connection to a liberal of 250 years ago.

Idiots are still the same

You prove that every day/

 

[mikegriffith1]

I wonder if the liberals here realize that nearly every argument they make against the Confederacy can be made against the American colonies in the War of Independence--and in fact was made by the British during and long after the war.

Indeed, if the abolition of slavery is the main criterion by which liberals judge wars, then they should wish that the British had won the War of Independence. A good starting point is Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen's book Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution (2006).

Tens of thousands of American slaves flocked to British lines after Lord Dunmore offered freedom to American slaves who would fight for the king. Far more slaves were freed by the British than were freed by the Patriots. In fact, after the war, George Washington tried to get the British to return some 15,000 American slaves who had fled to British lines (the British refused).

Before the war, the New England colonies were making fantastic fortunes off the Atlantic slave trade and the British were starting to crack down on slave trading (FYI, most slave ships operated from Northern ports--the two largest slave-trade ports were in Massachusetts and Rhode Island). The pro-abolitionists Somerset decision from the British high court in 1772 sent shock waves through the colonies--north and south.

Leading Patriots who were also slaveholders included George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Chase, John Hancock, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, and others. (Liberals, I suspect you've never heard many of those names before--you can Google them.)

If the British had won, slavery most likely would have ended by the 1840s or the 1850s, if not sooner.

Yes, the founding fathers acknowledged that slavery was wrong and/or inconsistent with their professed principles. Well, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, Judah Benjamin, and a host of other Confederate leaders and figures likewise said slavery was wrong and/or expressed hope that it would end sooner rather than later and/or said that they would rather see slavery die than see the South rejoin the Union. Go read some of the Southern newspaper editorials on emancipation when the Confederate debate on emancipation erupted.

After all, as mentioned earlier, by early 1865 the Confederacy began the process of gradual emancipation, after fierce debate in the Confederate Congress and across the South. The debate was so intense because everyone knew that the slave-soldier bill would eventually spell the end of slavery, and it would have done so if it had had time to play out.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I wonder if the liberals here realize that nearly every argument they make against the Confederacy can be made against the American colonies in the War of Independence--and in fact was made by the British during and long after the war.

Indeed, if the abolition of slavery is the main criterion by which liberals judge wars, then they should wish that the British had won the War of Independence. A good starting point is Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen's book Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution (2006).

Tens of thousands of American slaves flocked to British lines after Lord Dunmore offered freedom to American slaves who would fight for the king. Far more slaves were freed by the British than were freed by the Patriots. In fact, after the war, George Washington tried to get the British to return some 15,000 American slaves who had fled to British lines (the British refused).

Before the war, the New England colonies were making fantastic fortunes off the Atlantic slave trade and the British were starting to crack down on slave trading (FYI, most slave ships operated from Northern ports--the two largest slave-trade ports were in Massachusetts and Rhode Island). The pro-abolitionists Somerset decision from the British high court in 1772 sent shock waves through the colonies--north and south.

Leading Patriots who were also slaveholders included George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Chase, John Hancock, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, and others. (Liberals, I suspect you've never heard many of those names before--you can Google them.)

If the British had won, slavery most likely would have ended by the 1840s or the 1850s, if not sooner.

Yes, the founding fathers acknowledged that slavery was wrong and/or inconsistent with their professed principles. Well, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, Judah Benjamin, and a host of other Confederate leaders and figures likewise said slavery was wrong and/or expressed hope that it would end sooner rather than later and/or said that they would rather see slavery die than see the South rejoin the Union. Go read some of the Southern newspaper editorials on emancipation when the Confederate debate on emancipation erupted.

After all, as mentioned earlier, by early 1865 the Confederacy began the process of gradual emancipation, after fierce debate in the Confederate Congress and across the South. The debate was so intense because everyone knew that the slave-soldier bill would eventually spell the end of slavery, and it would have done so if it had had time to play out.

Well said... And how cool is it that the modern Ideological Left, as was the case with the Left of the Founder's Day, are proponents of the Modern Slavers; meaning Islam, which is today taking slaves all over this planet... along with the Slavers of the Illicit Drug Cartels... and of course the sex slavers throughout Central America and Europe, the Man-boy Love Sex Slavers across Africa and the Middle East.

 

[Skylar]

If the British had won, slavery most likely would have ended by the 1840s or the 1850s, if not sooner.

That's a lot of maybes. First off, the British didn't fight the colonists to abolish slavery. Or to protect it. But to secure their territory. The abolition movement didn't begin among the British until after the Revolutionary War was already over. Making any issue of slavery irrelevant to the issues of the war even hypothetically without a silver Delorian or a blue police box.

Immediately invalidating your argument.

Second, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 was motivated directly by the slave revolts in Jamaica in 1831. With the Colonies massively strengthening British military strength in the region its entirely possible that the revolts would have happened much later if at all. Or happening, would have caused far less damage and not motivated the Abolition Act of 1833.

Third, the Abolish Act of 1833 paid 20,000,000 pounds sterling in compensation for approximately 1 million slaves throughout the empire (with notable exceptions). There were DOUBLE that number in the Colonies alone. Meaning that the British empire would have triple its outlay for the same Abolition Act or dilute compensation by 2/3rds. There was massive resistance to the act based on both its massive cost (40% of all outlays for an entire year) and the low prince being offered.

The labor value of a slave in 1833 was about $70,000 dollars a year in 2011 dollars. The amount of money being offered in compensation was a one time payment of roughly $22,000 in 2011 dollars (19 pounds sterling per slave in 1833). And people almost lost their shit at how low it was.

Your assumption would cut that to roughly $7,300 per slave as you'd be tripling the number of slaves. Reducing the one time payment to 1/9th the slave's per year labor value.

People wouldn't 'almost' lose their shit. I argue people wouldn't have taken it. And I'd argue that the British would have known this. So when assessing the costs of abolishing slavery vs the benefits, the costs would have been far, far greater in your hypothetical time line. Even further reducing the odds of your hypothetical time line matching up with the real one.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, by what right did people own slaves?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, by what right did people own slaves?

If the British had won, slavery most likely would have ended by the 1840s or the 1850s, if not sooner.

That's a lot of maybes. First off, the British didn't fight the colonists to abolish slavery. Or to protect it. But to secure their territory. The abolition movement didn't begin among the British until after the Revolutionary War was already over. Making any issue of slavery irrelevant to the issues of the war even hypothetically without a silver Delorian or a blue police box.

Immediately invalidating your argument.

Second, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 was motivated directly by the slave revolts in Jamaica in 1831. With the Colonies massively strengthening British military strength in the region its entirely possible that the revolts would have happened much later if at all. Or happening, would have caused far less damage and not motivated the Abolition Act of 1833.

Third, the Abolish Act of 1833 paid 20,000,000 pounds sterling in compensation for approximately 1 million slaves throughout the empire (with notable exceptions). There were DOUBLE that number in the Colonies alone. Meaning that the British empire would have triple its outlay for the same Abolition Act or dilute compensation by 2/3rds. There was massive resistance to the act based on both its massive cost (40% of all outlays for an entire year) and the low prince being offered.

The labor value of a slave in 1833 was about $70,000 dollars a year in 2011 dollars. The amount of money being offered in compensation was a one time payment of roughly $22,000 in 2011 dollars (19 pounds sterling per slave in 1833). And people almost lost their shit at how low it was.

Your assumption would cut that to roughly $7,300 per slave as you'd be tripling the number of slaves. Reducing the one time payment to 1/9th the slave's per year labor value.

People wouldn't 'almost' lose their shit. I argue people wouldn't have taken it. And I'd argue that the British would have known this. So when assessing the costs of abolishing slavery vs the benefits, the costs would have been far, far greater in your hypothetical time line. Even further reducing the odds of your hypothetical time line matching up with the real one.

Now how precious is THAT? The in-house mouthy British Socialists posing as US Citizens, are so quick to spout ancient British Law?

But how hysterical is it that it is so sure that the British are even relevant.

 

[Skylar]

So, by what right did people own slaves?

If the British had won, slavery most likely would have ended by the 1840s or the 1850s, if not sooner.

That's a lot of maybes. First off, the British didn't fight the colonists to abolish slavery. Or to protect it. But to secure their territory. The abolition movement didn't begin among the British until after the Revolutionary War was already over. Making any issue of slavery irrelevant to the issues of the war even hypothetically without a silver Delorian or a blue police box.

Immediately invalidating your argument.

Second, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 was motivated directly by the slave revolts in Jamaica in 1831. With the Colonies massively strengthening British military strength in the region its entirely possible that the revolts would have happened much later if at all. Or happening, would have caused far less damage and not motivated the Abolition Act of 1833.

Third, the Abolish Act of 1833 paid 20,000,000 pounds sterling in compensation for approximately 1 million slaves throughout the empire (with notable exceptions). There were DOUBLE that number in the Colonies alone. Meaning that the British empire would have triple its outlay for the same Abolition Act or dilute compensation by 2/3rds. There was massive resistance to the act based on both its massive cost (40% of all outlays for an entire year) and the low prince being offered.

The labor value of a slave in 1833 was about $70,000 dollars a year in 2011 dollars. The amount of money being offered in compensation was a one time payment of roughly $22,000 in 2011 dollars (19 pounds sterling per slave in 1833). And people almost lost their shit at how low it was.

Your assumption would cut that to roughly $7,300 per slave as you'd be tripling the number of slaves. Reducing the one time payment to 1/9th the slave's per year labor value.

People wouldn't 'almost' lose their shit. I argue people wouldn't have taken it. And I'd argue that the British would have known this. So when assessing the costs of abolishing slavery vs the benefits, the costs would have been far, far greater in your hypothetical time line. Even further reducing the odds of your hypothetical time line matching up with the real one.

Now how precious is THAT? The in-house mouthy British Socialists posing as US Citizens, are so quick to spout ancient British Law?

But how hysterical is it that it is so sure that the British are even relevant.

Keyes, if you have nothing to add to the discussion, why bother posting?

 

[Skylar]

So, by what right did people own slaves?

Apparently the very basis that the South condemned: the right of violence. The strong over the weak.

By any semblance of consistency, the South is thoroughly fucked. As the south used enforcement of the law backed by violence as its basis for inflicting slavery. They can't really complain about enforcement of law backed by violence used against them.

Well, I suppose they could. But they'd be raising hypocrisy to an art form.