demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jun 18, 2020 19:56:16 GMT
But you want to focus on the leaders who led those poor men to their deaths. Who encouraged them to lift up arms and defend slavery, despite by your own admission, none of them owning slaves. You want to honor the men who slaughtered your ancestors for their own personal gain. You argue that only 6% of the people of the South owned slaves. How come 100% of the statues are honoring men who owned slaves, then? Queshank Those leaders conscripted them, because they couldn't get enough people to volunteer for the cause: "But by the beginning of 1862 it became obvious to members of the Confederacy’s political and military elites that once the terms of enlistment for the volunteers started to expire, and many men decided not to reenlist, the country would face a manpower shortage. Earlier legislation attempted to address this problem by offering liberal incentives to reenlist, but these incentives proved to be ineffective. In recognition of this problem, Jefferson Davis sent a message to the Confederate Congress on March 28, 1862 recommending the enactment of a system of conscription." ( Source) If you keep reading there, it actually gets a lot worse. Po' folks don't really enjoy fighting and dying for the rich man. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jun 18, 2020 20:09:10 GMT
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 18, 2020 20:26:10 GMT
A bit of an over-simplification.
It was in the closing months of WWI. The Soviets had signed a separate peace with the German/Austrians. This upset the British, who moved to restore the Russian empire. We came to the aid of the British at Archangel. It was all over in a matter of months, when the Germans capitulated. More American soldiers died from the Spanish flu than in the limited fighting with the Bolsheviks.
In the long run it probably worked against our interests, as it earned us the enduring enmity of the new Russian Soviet government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2020 21:23:41 GMT
Yes, the North profited mightily from the slave trade far before the textile mills. It was their ships that carried slaves to our hemisphere, although only 4% were brought to North America. These Northerner slavers became very wealthy; many a Yankee business empire was formed. And some of the same Northern families were the protectionist tariff parasites that drove the South to secede.
And no, the North didn't want to end slavery; only a few abolitionists were advocates for blacks. The North wanted power usurped through the federal government and Southern secession represented a reduction of that power. There was no grand altruistic goal in the North except money and power. These Northern power players actually did put economic gain over human LIVES. They are ultimately responsible for the 620,000 soldier deaths on both sides. And it turns out that the alleged good intentions (not really) of these Yankees resulted in the deaths of tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves after the war when the North abandoned them to fend for themselves in the devastated South. Read up on it sometime:
OK, so if the North profited off slavery and didn't want to end it, please explain why the 13th and 14th amendments were passed into the Constitution soon after the southern traitors were defeated?
There were no "Southern traitors"; why continue with that bone headed stupidity after I've proven it to be wrong? Slow learner? The Northern businesses profited until the slave trade was banned. The North offered to protect slavery so that the South would continue funding the federal government. The Yankee defense of the union was based on greed, not any concern for slaves. The vile Radical Republicans passed those amendments after the war when there was nothing left of the South to feed their personal greed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2020 21:32:16 GMT
That is probably the most inaccurate and ignorant summary of that period of time that I've ever seen. But hey, that's not a surprise considering the author. There were no Southern traitors. They fought because they were attacked and invaded by a tyrannical power. The North was fighting to control and subjugate the entire union under a despotic central authority. And I've already proven to you the the "Union" was ready, willing and able to guarantee that slavery would be PROTECTED by the Federal government (Corwin Amendment); it was a Constitutional amendment that even banned future amendments that might reverse this decision! The North maintained their slavery until the end of the war; it's also been shown that the abandoned hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves to a slow death after the war.
If you are even capable of learning and objectivity, try to learn the truth before posting again. What you posted definitely ain't it.
An abandoned ex-slave is a FREE MAN. Not subject to the whip or lash. A man that can no longer be told where to go, what to do and what to give up. THAT is what the Southern traitors tried to perpetuate. Thankfully, the rebellion was put down.Greg Actually, those slaves were not freed by law until the end of the war. These now-homeless slaves trailed the Union armies, who either forced them to work (slaves) or allowed them to die of starvation or disease by the thousands. Far more slaves died in Union custody than ever died in the Confederacy; even before the Confederacy was formed there were far fewer violent or unnatural deaths among blacks than those caused by the Yankee filth and their minions.
The true history is a shot to a leftist's bollocks sometimes, isn't it, Greg?
As I schooled Useless, it's the height of stupidity to call them "Southern traitors" when I've proven that they weren't traitors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2020 21:44:24 GMT
Monuments to proven traitors to the United States of America are highly inappropriate.
Would you support a monument in honor of Benedict Arnold?
How about one to Judas?
How about Vladimir Lenin? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle) |
|
Greg55_99
Legend
Posts: 23,116 
Member is Online
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 18, 2020 22:42:51 GMT
An abandoned ex-slave is a FREE MAN. Not subject to the whip or lash. A man that can no longer be told where to go, what to do and what to give up. THAT is what the Southern traitors tried to perpetuate. Thankfully, the rebellion was put down.Greg Actually, those slaves were not freed by law until the end of the war. These now-homeless slaves trailed the Union armies, who either forced them to work (slaves) or allowed them to die of starvation or disease by the thousands. Far more slaves died in Union custody than ever died in the Confederacy; even before the Confederacy was formed there were far fewer violent or unnatural deaths among blacks than those caused by the Yankee filth and their minions.
The true history is a shot to a leftist's bollocks sometimes, isn't it, Greg?
As I schooled Useless, it's the height of stupidity to call them "Southern traitors" when I've proven that they weren't traitors.
In 1860, there were 3.9 million slaves in the US. By 1865 there were none. So much for the Southern traitors trying to hold on to their way of life. Greg |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 18, 2020 23:45:08 GMT
Actually, those slaves were not freed by law until the end of the war. These now-homeless slaves trailed the Union armies, who either forced them to work (slaves) or allowed them to die of starvation or disease by the thousands. Far more slaves died in Union custody than ever died in the Confederacy; even before the Confederacy was formed there were far fewer violent or unnatural deaths among blacks than those caused by the Yankee filth and their minions.
The true history is a shot to a leftist's bollocks sometimes, isn't it, Greg?
As I schooled Useless, it's the height of stupidity to call them "Southern traitors" when I've proven that they weren't traitors.
In 1860, there were 3.9 million slaves in the US. By 1865 there were none. So much for the Southern traitors trying to hold on to their way of life. Greg There is that, of course.
And perhaps we also need to discuss the war crimes committed by the Southern Traitors at Andersonville
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 0:07:54 GMT
Monuments to proven traitors to the United States of America are highly inappropriate.
Would you support a monument in honor of Benedict Arnold?
How about one to Judas?
How about Vladimir Lenin? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle)
The best demonstration for a "reverence" for history. Private funding. Private display.
And another example proving (as if we needed proof) how people promoting the public display and public support of men who contributed nothing to our society but hate, oppression and murder don't give two shits about history.
Queshank
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 19, 2020 0:40:20 GMT
4 hours ago Odysseus said:
1) It's on private, not public, property.
2) AFAIK, Lenin never waged war upon the United States.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 4:13:35 GMT
Actually, those slaves were not freed by law until the end of the war. These now-homeless slaves trailed the Union armies, who either forced them to work (slaves) or allowed them to die of starvation or disease by the thousands. Far more slaves died in Union custody than ever died in the Confederacy; even before the Confederacy was formed there were far fewer violent or unnatural deaths among blacks than those caused by the Yankee filth and their minions.
The true history is a shot to a leftist's bollocks sometimes, isn't it, Greg?
As I schooled Useless, it's the height of stupidity to call them "Southern traitors" when I've proven that they weren't traitors.
In 1860, there were 3.9 million slaves in the US. By 1865 there were none. So much for the Southern traitors trying to hold on to their way of life. Greg There's that "Southern traitor" prevarication (you might have to look that up) again. You already have zero credibility even on this new forum, yet you keep trying to go even lower. In 1860, prior to December 20th, there were no Confederate States. Every single black slave was in bondage under the U.S. flag. And that was a "way of life" only for the 6% who owned slaves and the 1% of those who owned more that a few. It's stupid to call that the Southern way of life, just as it would be stupid to claim that a $5 million mansion on Malibu Beach represents typical American life today.
And in 1865, those ex-slaves were starving to death by the score, turned out by the Yankees when they went home. They were free to die. What a heartwarming Yankee "victory". SMH.
Anything else, Greggie?
|
|
Greg55_99
Legend
Posts: 23,116
Member is Online
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 19, 2020 4:16:53 GMT
In 1860, there were 3.9 million slaves in the US. By 1865 there were none. So much for the Southern traitors trying to hold on to their way of life. Greg There's that "Southern traitor" prevarication (you might have to look that up) again. You already have zero credibility even on this new forum, yet you keep trying to go even lower. In 1860, prior to December 20th, there were no Confederate States. Every single black slave was in bondage under the U.S. flag. And that was a "way of life" only for the 6% who owned slaves and the 1% of those who owned more that a few. It's stupid to call that the Southern way of life, just as it would be stupid to claim that a $5 million mansion on Malibu Beach represents typical American life today.
And in 1865, those ex-slaves were starving to death by the score, turned out by the Yankees when they went home. They were free to die. What a heartwarming Yankee "victory". SMH.
Anything else, Greggie?
Oh yeah, you see, in five years, that 6% became 0% thanks to the putting down of those Southern traitors. Works for me. Greg |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 19, 2020 4:35:16 GMT
In 1860, there were 3.9 million slaves in the US. By 1865 there were none. So much for the Southern traitors trying to hold on to their way of life. Greg There's that "Southern traitor" prevarication (you might have to look that up) again. You already have zero credibility even on this new forum, yet you keep trying to go even lower. In 1860, prior to December 20th, there were no Confederate States. Every single black slave was in bondage under the U.S. flag. And that was a "way of life" only for the 6% who owned slaves and the 1% of those who owned more that a few. It's stupid to call that the Southern way of life, just as it would be stupid to claim that a $5 million mansion on Malibu Beach represents typical American life today.
And in 1865, those ex-slaves were starving to death by the score, turned out by the Yankees when they went home. They were free to die. What a heartwarming Yankee "victory". SMH.
Anything else, Greggie?
The one with zero credibility here is the resident fossil con, who repeatedly tries to foist off sophistry as valid debate.
The truth is that the entire economy of the South was dependent upon the institution of slavery. Cotton was king, and without slave labor cotton was dealt a crippling blow. Sure it survived, but only with imitation slavery, in the name of sharecropping and Jim Crow laws.
You've been schooled again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 4:35:36 GMT
The best demonstration for a "reverence" for history. Private funding. Private display.
And another example proving (as if we needed proof) how people promoting the public display and public support of men who contributed nothing to our society but hate, oppression and murder don't give two shits about history.
Queshank
"Men who contributed nothing to our society but hate, oppression and murder"? What a joke; these same liberals would be screaming if such mindlessly false stereotypes were being tossed in about blacks, wouldn't you? Most of the Confederate statues WERE funded privately. As far as public display, most take minimal space and minimal maintenance, unless some animal vandalizes it. I'm not aware of any monuments that are universally supported; do you propose to take down any monument that offends someone? Or, like Animal Farm, are some of the snowflakes and morons on the left more equal than others?
Lincoln and his minions stood for was "hate, oppression and murder" (I can prove that anytime), but I still see that perverted altar to him on the National Mall, as well as many others across the country. TEAR THEM DOWN! MLK was renowned for his plagiarism, sexual deviancy, association with Communist sympathizers and, of course, having a good laugh at a woman being raped. Yet, not a peep out of the ignorant, hypocritical leftists demanding that those ugly statues of Lincoln and MLK be removed from public property. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 19, 2020 4:36:58 GMT
The best demonstration for a "reverence" for history. Private funding. Private display.
And another example proving (as if we needed proof) how people promoting the public display and public support of men who contributed nothing to our society but hate, oppression and murder don't give two shits about history.
Queshank
"Men who contributed nothing to our society but hate, oppression and murder"? What a joke; these same liberals would be screaming if such mindlessly false stereotypes were being tossed in about blacks, wouldn't you? Most of the Confederate statues WERE funded privately. As far as public display, most take minimal space and minimal maintenance, unless some animal vandalizes it. I'm not aware of any monuments that are universally supported; do you propose to take down any monument that offends someone? Or, like Animal Farm, are some of the snowflakes and morons on the left more equal than others?
Lincoln and his minions stood for was "hate, oppression and murder" (I can prove that anytime), but I still see that perverted altar to him on the National Mall, as well as many others across the country. TEAR THEM DOWN! MLK was renowned for his plagiarism, sexual deviancy, association with Communist sympathizers and, of course, having a good laugh at a woman being raped. Yet, not a peep out of the ignorant, hypocritical leftists demanding that those ugly statues of Lincoln and MLK be removed from public property. You'd be much happier in Putin's Russia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 4:38:32 GMT
There's that "Southern traitor" prevarication (you might have to look that up) again. You already have zero credibility even on this new forum, yet you keep trying to go even lower. In 1860, prior to December 20th, there were no Confederate States. Every single black slave was in bondage under the U.S. flag. And that was a "way of life" only for the 6% who owned slaves and the 1% of those who owned more that a few. It's stupid to call that the Southern way of life, just as it would be stupid to claim that a $5 million mansion on Malibu Beach represents typical American life today.
And in 1865, those ex-slaves were starving to death by the score, turned out by the Yankees when they went home. They were free to die. What a heartwarming Yankee "victory". SMH.
Anything else, Greggie?
Oh yeah, you see, in five years, that 6% became 0% thanks to the putting down of those Southern traitors. Works for me. Greg How about the starvation deaths of thousands of blacks after the war, deaths that did not occur before 1860? Those work for you, too, Greggie.
And labeling them "Southern traitors" is still a lie, no matter how many times it's repeated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 4:39:53 GMT
"Men who contributed nothing to our society but hate, oppression and murder"? What a joke; these same liberals would be screaming if such mindlessly false stereotypes were being tossed in about blacks, wouldn't you? Most of the Confederate statues WERE funded privately. As far as public display, most take minimal space and minimal maintenance, unless some animal vandalizes it. I'm not aware of any monuments that are universally supported; do you propose to take down any monument that offends someone? Or, like Animal Farm, are some of the snowflakes and morons on the left more equal than others?
Lincoln and his minions stood for was "hate, oppression and murder" (I can prove that anytime), but I still see that perverted altar to him on the National Mall, as well as many others across the country. TEAR THEM DOWN! MLK was renowned for his plagiarism, sexual deviancy, association with Communist sympathizers and, of course, having a good laugh at a woman being raped. Yet, not a peep out of the ignorant, hypocritical leftists demanding that those ugly statues of Lincoln and MLK be removed from public property. You'd be much happier in Putin's Russia.
Hell, it's the perverted filth on YOUR side that's conducting the Soviet style purge; looks like your kind of place, not mine. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jun 19, 2020 4:50:38 GMT
Statues aren't history, and removing them doesn't erase history either, especially since most of them weren't actually raised to provide any historical information/education. Removing monuments, especially those that you might disagree with, stifles historical curiosity, promotes historical intolerance and ignorance. It's the tyrant's way of saying that only the approved version (or politically correct) history is allowed; all other thoughts are forbidden. It breed the kind of stupidity that resulted in the the moron protesters defacing the Boston monument to the famous 54th Massachusetts ALL BLACK Union regiment. The same lowlife snowflakes are also demanding that a statue of Abraham Lincoln with a black man kneeling in front of him must alos be removed. What are you liberals afraid of? Are you terrified that your minions might actually do a little research and find out that the BLM/Antifa narrative about the CSA is a pack of lies? That history is far more complex than they ever realized? That is some twisted shit, right there. Erecting monuments to perpetuate a myth, especially a myth based on the heroic aspects of a slave culture, does not promote curiosity. On the contrary, it mythologizes barbarism, intolerance and ignorance, setting it down in history as a worthy rival to freedom, tolerance and equality under the law in a nation of laws. There is no tyrant tearing down statues. There are real people tearing down statues. Neither is there a BLM driven narrative about slavery and the Confederate Rebellion which is anything other than righteously inspired. There is only truth or not truth, unless your aim is to proselytize while pretending that your mythology becomes everyone else's history. You can cite anecdotes until the last Negro is whipped or hung. For some, history is anecdotal. But what you say above is pure, straight from the cracker's mouth racist bullshit. You are part of the reason why these protests are happening. Take some responsibility. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 4:50:55 GMT
There's that "Southern traitor" prevarication (you might have to look that up) again. You already have zero credibility even on this new forum, yet you keep trying to go even lower. In 1860, prior to December 20th, there were no Confederate States. Every single black slave was in bondage under the U.S. flag. And that was a "way of life" only for the 6% who owned slaves and the 1% of those who owned more that a few. It's stupid to call that the Southern way of life, just as it would be stupid to claim that a $5 million mansion on Malibu Beach represents typical American life today.
And in 1865, those ex-slaves were starving to death by the score, turned out by the Yankees when they went home. They were free to die. What a heartwarming Yankee "victory". SMH.
Anything else, Greggie?
The one with zero credibility here is the resident fossil con, who repeatedly tries to foist off sophistry as valid debate.
The truth is that the entire economy of the South was dependent upon the institution of slavery. Cotton was king, and without slave labor cotton was dealt a crippling blow. Sure it survived, but only with imitation slavery, in the name of sharecropping and Jim Crow laws.
You've been schooled again.
"Schooled"?  Never by the likes of you; I get my information only from intelligent people. Sure there were large growers of cotton in the South and it was a major export. But amazingly, the Confederacy formed a nation and conducted a war for four years with only a fraction of the cotton sales. And the "entire economy" didn't collapse. Cotton brought in outside capital, which is always important
Your nonsense is akin to saying that our "entire economy" is dependent on Amazon to survive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 5:28:54 GMT
Removing monuments, especially those that you might disagree with, stifles historical curiosity, promotes historical intolerance and ignorance. It's the tyrant's way of saying that only the approved version (or politically correct) history is allowed; all other thoughts are forbidden. It breed the kind of stupidity that resulted in the the moron protesters defacing the Boston monument to the famous 54th Massachusetts ALL BLACK Union regiment. The same lowlife snowflakes are also demanding that a statue of Abraham Lincoln with a black man kneeling in front of him must alos be removed. What are you liberals afraid of? Are you terrified that your minions might actually do a little research and find out that the BLM/Antifa narrative about the CSA is a pack of lies? That history is far more complex than they ever realized? That is some twisted shit, right there. Erecting monuments to perpetuate a myth, especially a myth based on the heroic aspects of a slave culture, does not promote curiosity. On the contrary, it mythologizes barbarism, intolerance and ignorance, setting it down in history as a worthy rival to freedom, tolerance and equality under the law in a nation of laws. There is no tyrant tearing down statues. There are real people tearing down statues. Neither is there a BLM driven narrative about slavery and the Confederate Rebellion which is anything other than righteously inspired. There is only truth or not truth, unless your aim is to proselytize while pretending that your mythology becomes everyone else's history. You can cite anecdotes until the last Negro is whipped or hung. For some, history is anecdotal. But what you say above is pure, straight from the cracker's mouth racist bullshit. You are part of the reason why these protests are happening. Take some responsibility. Folks, this is what the cancel culture of the leftists looks like. Rather than offering a reasonable, adult debate of the facts, we get a vicious, unwarranted and obscene tantrum designed to silence normal folks like me. It is pure intolerance of and the attempted suppression of anyone who might factually challenge the left's perverted propaganda on this subject, call out their barbaric tactics or suggest that the story is more complex and nuanced than they want to admit.
I struck a nerve though, didn't I? I usually don't get this kind of response unless I have.
These liberals really are afraid that historically knowledgeable folks like me might reveal and be able to defend the WHOLE and absolute truth, thus exposing their Goebbels style deceptions. They are afraid because it's the truth that I have delivered here, nothing more and nothing less. Perhaps next time, this poster too will have something substantive or intelligent to offer. But credit where it's due.....thanks for the laugh.
|
|
