thor
Legend
Posts: 17,428
|
Post by thor on Apr 23, 2024 0:46:36 GMT
It's hilarious - the degenerate Confederate 'leadership' told us their motives in their scribblings. Remarkable the idiots like Paleo still buy into it. Those "scribblings" mentioned a hell of a lot more than slavery, but f*cking morons like this twink are too triggered by that magical sacred woke word "slavery" to ever look at any other details. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 23, 2024 13:08:03 GMT
Those "scribblings" mentioned a hell of a lot more than slavery, but f*cking morons like this twink are too triggered by that magical sacred woke word "slavery" to ever look at any other details. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." The Confederate clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) states that: The Congress shall have power-
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry, and all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Confederate+Constitution%2c+tariffs%2c+and+the+Laffer+relationship.-a089274971That was a brand new addition to the Confederate Constitution prohibiting protective tariffs as opposed to the addition of a line about slavery that changed nothing about the institution. So, if your idea is that anything cherry picked out of the Confederate Constitution was the cause, then my quote makes tariffs the cause.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 23, 2024 21:27:07 GMT
Your "pearls" are cheap glass beads of little value. The election of Lincoln and the belief that he wanted to abolish slavery was the tipping point. Since slavery was the cause, other things are secondary by definition. Six of one, half a dozen of another. The state right was the right to have slaves. That was the right the Confederacy wanted to preserve. Not an abstract right, but a concrete one. What they said and did was for the same reason. They feared the abolition of slavery under Lincoln and took actions on that basis. By staying in the Union they thought they would have lost their slaves, so they left. Makes total sense. For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical. It's hilarious when you come up with all these imagined consequences, such as being "traumatized" by anything you argue. You don't really believe this rhetorical nonsense, do you? Small picture is a little confusing since it refers to the small details and contradictions you are always championing. My rule is to go with the evidence and the evidence is that slavery was the cause of secession. Lost Cause refers to a certain view of the Civil War. How is that a personal insult? I notice that you didn't deny your role as the swine that has no clue of the value of what has been placed before you.
None of what you just posted is either historically or factually true. Slavery was never the South's cause, slavery was just the tipping point and the election of Lincoln exposed a much larger chasm than slavery can explain. Slavery was not threatened by the North in 1860, and the South knew it. Lincoln's election instead meant something far more sinister..... a greater effort to draw power and control to the central government, and this evil effort by Lincoln destroyed any trust in the Northern controlled federal government that the Yankee winners in 1860 would respect the limits of the Constitution any longer.
You post garbage and falsehoods and laughably pretend that it's "evidence". You make the claim that slavery was the cause and offer no evidence to support that lie. You just make the statement as if that's all it takes and ignore the reality that the South damaged, most likely fatally, the institution of slavery by seceding.
"For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical" - HolyMoly cluelessly says. But they DID do all of that harm to slavery and it is boneheadedly stupid to pretend that Southerners somehow didn't know that they were causing that damage.
Harming slavery in exchange for independence is NOT illogical once you embrace the truth that slavery was never the South's cause.
Do you have any evidence that they did so unintentionally or are you just fabricating excuses again? You make up a lot of stuff here to protect your racist "slavery cause" narrative.
As far as consequences, a pig would be traumatized and appalled if it had the intelligence to understand how valuable the pearls were under its hooves. Based on that fact, I am not in the least surprised that you're not traumatized at all. One has to realize that value of the truth before being upset about rejecting that truth.
If your rule is to go with the evidence then you've broken your rule by believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause when the evidence doesn't support that lie.
Are you ever going to meet the challenge to provide some of this imaginary "evidence" that you claim to have? Latching onto slavery and ignoring/belittling other causes truly is racism, not history. Own it.
But if the pearls are just glass beads then the swine are innocent. And howcum the dogs always get second place? Lincoln's election made southerners think he was going to abolish slavery. That was the centralized power they were worried about. They damaged the institution of slavery unintentionally. They went to war to save slavery not to damage it. This is just the outcome of my perspective being 180 degrees away from yours. That's why I consider my arguments logical and you don't. The swine metaphor really makes little sense. A swine doesn't have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't. No human being is equivalent to a swine in that department, so the metaphor, while it sounds clever, is really kind of silly. I'll stick with the glass bead game. And it's hard to think anyone would be traumatized by posts on a website. The evidence is there in some of the Confederates' secession documents and things said by their leaders and in the connection between the election of Lincoln and secession and in the continuing disputes over slavery in the decades before the war. The idea that believing that slavery was the cause is a form of racism is one of the most farfetched arguments you've come up with. So nutty I doubt even Lost Causers would believe in it.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 23, 2024 22:14:56 GMT
I notice that you didn't deny your role as the swine that has no clue of the value of what has been placed before you.
None of what you just posted is either historically or factually true. Slavery was never the South's cause, slavery was just the tipping point and the election of Lincoln exposed a much larger chasm than slavery can explain. Slavery was not threatened by the North in 1860, and the South knew it. Lincoln's election instead meant something far more sinister..... a greater effort to draw power and control to the central government, and this evil effort by Lincoln destroyed any trust in the Northern controlled federal government that the Yankee winners in 1860 would respect the limits of the Constitution any longer.
You post garbage and falsehoods and laughably pretend that it's "evidence". You make the claim that slavery was the cause and offer no evidence to support that lie. You just make the statement as if that's all it takes and ignore the reality that the South damaged, most likely fatally, the institution of slavery by seceding.
"For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical" - HolyMoly cluelessly says. But they DID do all of that harm to slavery and it is boneheadedly stupid to pretend that Southerners somehow didn't know that they were causing that damage.
Harming slavery in exchange for independence is NOT illogical once you embrace the truth that slavery was never the South's cause.
Do you have any evidence that they did so unintentionally or are you just fabricating excuses again? You make up a lot of stuff here to protect your racist "slavery cause" narrative.
As far as consequences, a pig would be traumatized and appalled if it had the intelligence to understand how valuable the pearls were under its hooves. Based on that fact, I am not in the least surprised that you're not traumatized at all. One has to realize that value of the truth before being upset about rejecting that truth.
If your rule is to go with the evidence then you've broken your rule by believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause when the evidence doesn't support that lie.
Are you ever going to meet the challenge to provide some of this imaginary "evidence" that you claim to have? Latching onto slavery and ignoring/belittling other causes truly is racism, not history. Own it.
But if the pearls are just glass beads then the swine are innocent. And howcum the dogs always get second place? Lincoln's election made southerners think he was going to abolish slavery. That was the centralized power they were worried about. They damaged the institution of slavery unintentionally. They went to war to save slavery not to damage it. This is just the outcome of my perspective being 180 degrees away from yours. That's why I consider my arguments logical and you don't. The swine metaphor really makes little sense. A swine doesn't have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't. No human being is equivalent to a swine in that department, so the metaphor, while it sounds clever, is really kind of silly. I'll stick with the glass bead game. And it's hard to think anyone would be traumatized by posts on a website. The evidence is there in some of the Confederates' secession documents and things said by their leaders and in the connection between the election of Lincoln and secession and in the continuing disputes over slavery in the decades before the war. The idea that believing that slavery was the cause is a form of racism is one of the most farfetched arguments you've come up with. So nutty I doubt even Lost Causers would believe in it. "A swine doesn't have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't." says HolyMoly. And YOU don't seem to have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Nothing in the Republican platform of 1860, nor Lincoln's rhetoric ever indicated that he was ever going to abolish slavery. Slavery was a single issue and Southerners had the power while still in the Union to protect that one issue pretty easily, if that one issue had been their cause. Slavery was just one example of a much larger problem. Centralization didn't just mean that slavery would be under federal control....centralization meant that EVERYTHING, every aspect of life, could be brought under federal control and THAT was the breaking point, not slavery alone.
HolyMoly admits that slavery was damaged by Southern secession, but it was "unintentional", he says.
So, let's get this straight. Southerners, allegedly THE slavery experts who you claim spent all their time thinking, planning and dreaming about nothing but slavery.....somehow would still miss the very obvious fact that secession would fatally damage the institution that you allege was their sole purpose in life?
That's either contradictory stupidity on your part or your made up excuses just caught up with you. So take your pick:
1) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and that means that their actions damaging slavery were intentional, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
2) No, they were not experts on the issue of slavery, meaning that slavery was never important enough for them to become experts, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
3) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and yet they still damaged slavery unintentionally because they were distracted by the flying pigs and frozen hell.
You have three measly Declarations of Causes (which still contain other contradictory causes). You have empty political rhetoric from a few elitists. You can't even figure out that the
"continuing disputes over slavery in the decades before the war" were more about legislative parity and balance rather than any real possibility that slavery would survive in those less forgiving climates of the western states.
It is racist to believe that the South's cause was slavery when the South's actions as well as other documentation, including the Confederate Constitution, tell a story of much more serious and noble causes for which the Confederates fought and died.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 24, 2024 21:40:56 GMT
But if the pearls are just glass beads then the swine are innocent. And howcum the dogs always get second place? Lincoln's election made southerners think he was going to abolish slavery. That was the centralized power they were worried about. They damaged the institution of slavery unintentionally. They went to war to save slavery not to damage it. This is just the outcome of my perspective being 180 degrees away from yours. That's why I consider my arguments logical and you don't. The swine metaphor really makes little sense. A swine doesn't have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't. No human being is equivalent to a swine in that department, so the metaphor, while it sounds clever, is really kind of silly. I'll stick with the glass bead game. And it's hard to think anyone would be traumatized by posts on a website. The evidence is there in some of the Confederates' secession documents and things said by their leaders and in the connection between the election of Lincoln and secession and in the continuing disputes over slavery in the decades before the war. The idea that believing that slavery was the cause is a form of racism is one of the most farfetched arguments you've come up with. So nutty I doubt even Lost Causers would believe in it. "A swine doesn't have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't." says HolyMoly. And YOU don't seem to have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Nothing in the Republican platform of 1860, nor Lincoln's rhetoric ever indicated that he was ever going to abolish slavery. Slavery was a single issue and Southerners had the power while still in the Union to protect that one issue pretty easily, if that one issue had been their cause. Slavery was just one example of a much larger problem. Centralization didn't just mean that slavery would be under federal control....centralization meant that EVERYTHING, every aspect of life, could be brought under federal control and THAT was the breaking point, not slavery alone.
HolyMoly admits that slavery was damaged by Southern secession, but it was "unintentional", he says.
So, let's get this straight. Southerners, allegedly THE slavery experts who you claim spent all their time thinking, planning and dreaming about nothing but slavery.....somehow would still miss the very obvious fact that secession would fatally damage the institution that you allege was their sole purpose in life?
That's either contradictory stupidity on your part or your made up excuses just caught up with you. So take your pick:
1) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and that means that their actions damaging slavery were intentional, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
2) No, they were not experts on the issue of slavery, meaning that slavery was never important enough for them to become experts, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
3) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and yet they still damaged slavery unintentionally because they were distracted by the flying pigs and frozen hell.
You have three measly Declarations of Causes (which still contain other contradictory causes). You have empty political rhetoric from a few elitists. You can't even figure out that the
"continuing disputes over slavery in the decades before the war" were more about legislative parity and balance rather than any real possibility that slavery would survive in those less forgiving climates of the western states.
It is racist to believe that the South's cause was slavery when the South's actions as well as other documentation, including the Confederate Constitution, tell a story of much more serious and noble causes for which the Confederates fought and died.
A swine doesn't have the mental ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, a person does, which makes the metaphor sound more more inciteful than it really is. The federal gov't could not bring everything under its control. That's absurd. The point is not that Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery, the point is that secessionists thought he did. That's why he is quoted in the SC Declaration of Causes about half free, half slave. I've never said slavery was the sole purpose of a slave owner's life. It was an important part of their economic life, but they had other interests. None of your three premises comes close to what I mean. I don't know if I'd call them experts, but leave that aside. 4) They were experts on the issue of slavery, they felt that under Lincoln slavery would be abolished. The only way to keep that from happening was to secede from the Union and thus preserve slavery. The problem was they lost the war instead of winning it. Into each life a little rain must fall. Three out of four. That's a good percentage. The Confederate VP must have had some clue about what secession was about. They were mostly about whether slavery would be allowed into new territories or not. Yes, I'm sure Lost Causers would like to think they were fighting for a noble and serious cause. That's one of the reasons for the Lost Cause narrative, to deflect from the cause of slavery and pretend the Confederacy was fighting for something else. Thus the reason for insisting that slavery was not the cause. Even Lost Causers are too ashamed to think their ancestors were fighting to preserve slavery.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,428
|
Post by thor on Apr 24, 2024 22:19:00 GMT
"A swine doesn't have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't." says HolyMoly. And YOU don't seem to have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Nothing in the Republican platform of 1860, nor Lincoln's rhetoric ever indicated that he was ever going to abolish slavery. Slavery was a single issue and Southerners had the power while still in the Union to protect that one issue pretty easily, if that one issue had been their cause. Slavery was just one example of a much larger problem. Centralization didn't just mean that slavery would be under federal control....centralization meant that EVERYTHING, every aspect of life, could be brought under federal control and THAT was the breaking point, not slavery alone.
HolyMoly admits that slavery was damaged by Southern secession, but it was "unintentional", he says.
So, let's get this straight. Southerners, allegedly THE slavery experts who you claim spent all their time thinking, planning and dreaming about nothing but slavery.....somehow would still miss the very obvious fact that secession would fatally damage the institution that you allege was their sole purpose in life?
That's either contradictory stupidity on your part or your made up excuses just caught up with you. So take your pick:
1) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and that means that their actions damaging slavery were intentional, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
2) No, they were not experts on the issue of slavery, meaning that slavery was never important enough for them to become experts, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
3) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and yet they still damaged slavery unintentionally because they were distracted by the flying pigs and frozen hell.
You have three measly Declarations of Causes (which still contain other contradictory causes). You have empty political rhetoric from a few elitists. You can't even figure out that the
"continuing disputes over slavery in the decades before the war" were more about legislative parity and balance rather than any real possibility that slavery would survive in those less forgiving climates of the western states.
It is racist to believe that the South's cause was slavery when the South's actions as well as other documentation, including the Confederate Constitution, tell a story of much more serious and noble causes for which the Confederates fought and died.
A swine doesn't have the mental ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, a person does, which makes the metaphor sound more more inciteful than it really is. The federal gov't could not bring everything under its control. That's absurd. The point is not that Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery, the point is that secessionists thought he did. That's why he is quoted in the SC Declaration of Causes about half free, half slave. I've never said slavery was the sole purpose of a slave owner's life. It was an important part of their economic life, but they had other interests. None of your three premises comes close to what I mean. I don't know if I'd call them experts, but leave that aside. 4) They were experts on the issue of slavery, they felt that under Lincoln slavery would be abolished. The only way to keep that from happening was to secede from the Union and thus preserve slavery. The problem was they lost the war instead of winning it. Into each life a little rain must fall. Three out of four. That's a good percentage. The Confederate VP must have had some clue about what secession was about. They were mostly about whether slavery would be allowed into new territories or not. Yes, I'm sure Lost Causers would like to think they were fighting for a noble and serious cause. That's one of the reasons for the Lost Cause narrative, to deflect from the cause of slavery and pretend the Confederacy was fighting for something else. Thus the reason for insisting that slavery was not the cause. Even Lost Causers are too ashamed to think their ancestors were fighting to preserve slavery.
Thus, Paleo. Who's ancestors were among the owners.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 25, 2024 15:30:17 GMT
"A swine doesn't have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't." says HolyMoly. And YOU don't seem to have the intelligence to recognize what is true and what isn't. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Nothing in the Republican platform of 1860, nor Lincoln's rhetoric ever indicated that he was ever going to abolish slavery. Slavery was a single issue and Southerners had the power while still in the Union to protect that one issue pretty easily, if that one issue had been their cause. Slavery was just one example of a much larger problem. Centralization didn't just mean that slavery would be under federal control....centralization meant that EVERYTHING, every aspect of life, could be brought under federal control and THAT was the breaking point, not slavery alone.
HolyMoly admits that slavery was damaged by Southern secession, but it was "unintentional", he says.
So, let's get this straight. Southerners, allegedly THE slavery experts who you claim spent all their time thinking, planning and dreaming about nothing but slavery.....somehow would still miss the very obvious fact that secession would fatally damage the institution that you allege was their sole purpose in life?
That's either contradictory stupidity on your part or your made up excuses just caught up with you. So take your pick:
1) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and that means that their actions damaging slavery were intentional, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
2) No, they were not experts on the issue of slavery, meaning that slavery was never important enough for them to become experts, debunking the idea that slavery was their cause.
3) Yes, they were experts on the issue of slavery and yet they still damaged slavery unintentionally because they were distracted by the flying pigs and frozen hell.
You have three measly Declarations of Causes (which still contain other contradictory causes). You have empty political rhetoric from a few elitists. You can't even figure out that the
"continuing disputes over slavery in the decades before the war" were more about legislative parity and balance rather than any real possibility that slavery would survive in those less forgiving climates of the western states.
It is racist to believe that the South's cause was slavery when the South's actions as well as other documentation, including the Confederate Constitution, tell a story of much more serious and noble causes for which the Confederates fought and died.
A swine doesn't have the mental ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, a person does, which makes the metaphor sound more more inciteful than it really is. The federal gov't could not bring everything under its control. That's absurd. The point is not that Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery, the point is that secessionists thought he did. That's why he is quoted in the SC Declaration of Causes about half free, half slave. I've never said slavery was the sole purpose of a slave owner's life. It was an important part of their economic life, but they had other interests. None of your three premises comes close to what I mean. I don't know if I'd call them experts, but leave that aside. 4) They were experts on the issue of slavery, they felt that under Lincoln slavery would be abolished. The only way to keep that from happening was to secede from the Union and thus preserve slavery. The problem was they lost the war instead of winning it. Into each life a little rain must fall. Three out of four. That's a good percentage. The Confederate VP must have had some clue about what secession was about. They were mostly about whether slavery would be allowed into new territories or not. Yes, I'm sure Lost Causers would like to think they were fighting for a noble and serious cause. That's one of the reasons for the Lost Cause narrative, to deflect from the cause of slavery and pretend the Confederacy was fighting for something else. Thus the reason for insisting that slavery was not the cause. Even Lost Causers are too ashamed to think their ancestors were fighting to preserve slavery. A person doesn't have to BE a swine to act like one. It is swine-like to ignore the undeniable, irrefutable evidence that I've presented proving that slavery was never the South's cause.
The federal government TODAY has its tendrils into every aspect of our lives, the very thing that Southerners seceded to avoid. It's why secession is being discussed today. The mighty power of the central government today is Lincoln's evil legacy.
It's amazing how effective you are in missing the point completely. Slavery happened to be the example used by the South to point out that Lincoln and the Republicans were capable of using and evidently willing to unconstitutionally use federal power to control and limit rights and powers reserved to the states. The South left because Republicans were trending toward authoritarianism, with slavery being a hot button example of that centralized overreach. It was never a question of whether or not slavery was going to be abolished, it was WHO had the right and power to make those kind of decisions.
Claiming that the South's secession was about slavery is as stupidly false as a claim that the American Patriots were fighting the British over tea and stamps.
It was never the preservation of slavery that the South was fighting for, it was the preservation of their rights and powers to make that decision themselves, rather than it be dictated from a tyrant in a central government. They damaged slavery intentionally to preserve their sovereignty not just to decide about slavery without federal inteference, but to make ALL other decisions on matters over which each state had full jurisdiction under the Constitution. Experts (i.e. highly sensitive to and in tune with every detail, threat and all other aspects of a particular subject or institution) would not have been unaware of the damage they were causing to their own area of expertise, meaning that your idea that Southerners damaged slavery unintentionally is false.
Oh, so there were only four Confederate states? That little fabulistic trick is why you've been categorized as porky. It's three measly documents (all of which still mention other issues) out of thirteen total states that issued Ordinances of Secession. The VP was speaking of HIS opinion of the motivation for secession, but yes, he did know something about the cause. Before he said anything about slavery, Stephens said THIS in the same "Cornerstone" speech:
"Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new."
Stephens mentioned the protective tariff issue FIRST (which usually denotes something very important or most important).
Okay, so Stephens MUST have mentioned slavery next, right? Nope....
"Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?"
What have I told you? Looking at the whole story is the key to understanding history. Stephens mentioned protective tariffs and internal improvements BEFORE saying anything about slavery. I guess he DID must have some clue about what secession was about.
No, we KNOW that our Southern ancestors weren't fighting to preserve slavery, any more than our Patriot ancestors (I have quite a few of those as well) were fighting to make sure that the got cheaper tea and stamps.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 25, 2024 22:01:40 GMT
A swine doesn't have the mental ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, a person does, which makes the metaphor sound more more inciteful than it really is. The federal gov't could not bring everything under its control. That's absurd. The point is not that Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery, the point is that secessionists thought he did. That's why he is quoted in the SC Declaration of Causes about half free, half slave. I've never said slavery was the sole purpose of a slave owner's life. It was an important part of their economic life, but they had other interests. None of your three premises comes close to what I mean. I don't know if I'd call them experts, but leave that aside. 4) They were experts on the issue of slavery, they felt that under Lincoln slavery would be abolished. The only way to keep that from happening was to secede from the Union and thus preserve slavery. The problem was they lost the war instead of winning it. Into each life a little rain must fall. Three out of four. That's a good percentage. The Confederate VP must have had some clue about what secession was about. They were mostly about whether slavery would be allowed into new territories or not. Yes, I'm sure Lost Causers would like to think they were fighting for a noble and serious cause. That's one of the reasons for the Lost Cause narrative, to deflect from the cause of slavery and pretend the Confederacy was fighting for something else. Thus the reason for insisting that slavery was not the cause. Even Lost Causers are too ashamed to think their ancestors were fighting to preserve slavery. A person doesn't have to BE a swine to act like one. It is swine-like to ignore the undeniable, irrefutable evidence that I've presented proving that slavery was never the South's cause.
The federal government TODAY has its tendrils into every aspect of our lives, the very thing that Southerners seceded to avoid. It's why secession is being discussed today. The mighty power of the central government today is Lincoln's evil legacy.
It's amazing how effective you are in missing the point completely. Slavery happened to be the example used by the South to point out that Lincoln and the Republicans were capable of using and evidently willing to unconstitutionally use federal power to control and limit rights and powers reserved to the states. The South left because Republicans were trending toward authoritarianism, with slavery being a hot button example of that centralized overreach. It was never a question of whether or not slavery was going to be abolished, it was WHO had the right and power to make those kind of decisions.
Claiming that the South's secession was about slavery is as stupidly false as a claim that the American Patriots were fighting the British over tea and stamps.
It was never the preservation of slavery that the South was fighting for, it was the preservation of their rights and powers to make that decision themselves, rather than it be dictated from a tyrant in a central government. They damaged slavery intentionally to preserve their sovereignty not just to decide about slavery without federal inteference, but to make ALL other decisions on matters over which each state had full jurisdiction under the Constitution. Experts (i.e. highly sensitive to and in tune with every detail, threat and all other aspects of a particular subject or institution) would not have been unaware of the damage they were causing to their own area of expertise, meaning that your idea that Southerners damaged slavery unintentionally is false.
Oh, so there were only four Confederate states? That little fabulistic trick is why you've been categorized as porky. It's three measly documents (all of which still mention other issues) out of thirteen total states that issued Ordinances of Secession. The VP was speaking of HIS opinion of the motivation for secession, but yes, he did know something about the cause. Before he said anything about slavery, Stephens said THIS in the same "Cornerstone" speech:
"Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new."
Stephens mentioned the protective tariff issue FIRST (which usually denotes something very important or most important).
Okay, so Stephens MUST have mentioned slavery next, right? Nope....
"Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?"
What have I told you? Looking at the whole story is the key to understanding history. Stephens mentioned protective tariffs and internal improvements BEFORE saying anything about slavery. I guess he DID must have some clue about what secession was about.
No, we KNOW that our Southern ancestors weren't fighting to preserve slavery, any more than our Patriot ancestors (I have quite a few of those as well) were fighting to make sure that the got cheaper tea and stamps.
No swine has the intellectual ability that most people have. Silly metaphor, though it sounds good. Funny, I get up and go to bed when I went to. I read what books I want to and watch what TV shows and listen to what music I want to. I drive where I want to and shop at the stores I want to, etc. And the federal gov't has nothing to do with it. It wasn't an example, it was the concrete thing they were most interested in preserving. Why would anyone damage a thing that was so important to their society? It doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to try to preserve that institution and the way to try to preserve that institution was to secede from a gov't the south thought, mistakenly, wanted to abolish that institution. Experts would have been aware of the supposed danger to their slave system and would have acted to preserve that institution by leaving an entity they thought would be harmful to it. Only four Confederate states issued Declarations of Causes, three mention slavery. 75%. The VP was an official who would know why secession happened. Usually things appear in their order of importance, but when Stephens reaches the part of the speech about white supremacy and slavery he begins by saying that this change, though last is not least. So the fact that it come later in the speech doesn't mean it is the less important. So capitalizing know makes your opinions more valid. Ha ha. It's not we know, it's you know or think you do. I know differently. Maybe you can consult the magic crystal and get your ancestors together and let them figure it out.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,090
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 26, 2024 2:20:52 GMT
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 26, 2024 21:15:47 GMT
A person doesn't have to BE a swine to act like one. It is swine-like to ignore the undeniable, irrefutable evidence that I've presented proving that slavery was never the South's cause.
The federal government TODAY has its tendrils into every aspect of our lives, the very thing that Southerners seceded to avoid. It's why secession is being discussed today. The mighty power of the central government today is Lincoln's evil legacy.
It's amazing how effective you are in missing the point completely. Slavery happened to be the example used by the South to point out that Lincoln and the Republicans were capable of using and evidently willing to unconstitutionally use federal power to control and limit rights and powers reserved to the states. The South left because Republicans were trending toward authoritarianism, with slavery being a hot button example of that centralized overreach. It was never a question of whether or not slavery was going to be abolished, it was WHO had the right and power to make those kind of decisions.
Claiming that the South's secession was about slavery is as stupidly false as a claim that the American Patriots were fighting the British over tea and stamps.
It was never the preservation of slavery that the South was fighting for, it was the preservation of their rights and powers to make that decision themselves, rather than it be dictated from a tyrant in a central government. They damaged slavery intentionally to preserve their sovereignty not just to decide about slavery without federal inteference, but to make ALL other decisions on matters over which each state had full jurisdiction under the Constitution. Experts (i.e. highly sensitive to and in tune with every detail, threat and all other aspects of a particular subject or institution) would not have been unaware of the damage they were causing to their own area of expertise, meaning that your idea that Southerners damaged slavery unintentionally is false.
Oh, so there were only four Confederate states? That little fabulistic trick is why you've been categorized as porky. It's three measly documents (all of which still mention other issues) out of thirteen total states that issued Ordinances of Secession. The VP was speaking of HIS opinion of the motivation for secession, but yes, he did know something about the cause. Before he said anything about slavery, Stephens said THIS in the same "Cornerstone" speech:
"Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new."
Stephens mentioned the protective tariff issue FIRST (which usually denotes something very important or most important).
Okay, so Stephens MUST have mentioned slavery next, right? Nope....
"Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?"
What have I told you? Looking at the whole story is the key to understanding history. Stephens mentioned protective tariffs and internal improvements BEFORE saying anything about slavery. I guess he DID must have some clue about what secession was about.
No, we KNOW that our Southern ancestors weren't fighting to preserve slavery, any more than our Patriot ancestors (I have quite a few of those as well) were fighting to make sure that the got cheaper tea and stamps.
No swine has the intellectual ability that most people have. Silly metaphor, though it sounds good. Funny, I get up and go to bed when I went to. I read what books I want to and watch what TV shows and listen to what music I want to. I drive where I want to and shop at the stores I want to, etc. And the federal gov't has nothing to do with it. It wasn't an example, it was the concrete thing they were most interested in preserving. Why would anyone damage a thing that was so important to their society? It doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to try to preserve that institution and the way to try to preserve that institution was to secede from a gov't the south thought, mistakenly, wanted to abolish that institution. Experts would have been aware of the supposed danger to their slave system and would have acted to preserve that institution by leaving an entity they thought would be harmful to it. Only four Confederate states issued Declarations of Causes, three mention slavery. 75%. The VP was an official who would know why secession happened. Usually things appear in their order of importance, but when Stephens reaches the part of the speech about white supremacy and slavery he begins by saying that this change, though last is not least. So the fact that it come later in the speech doesn't mean it is the less important. So capitalizing know makes your opinions more valid. Ha ha. It's not we know, it's you know or think you do. I know differently. Maybe you can consult the magic crystal and get your ancestors together and let them figure it out. A swine is too stupid to recognize the precious pearls placed before it. An cultist that swallowed the Northern lies is too stupid to see the precious and high value of the truth that the South was never fighting to preserve slavery. A swine will never get any smarter, but you can be if you accept the pearls of wisdom that I've placed in front of you. Now do you get it, Porky?
Oh, so as long as you have the bread and circuses that you're accustomed to, the world must not be under the control of some central power, right? If you really are that naive and gullible, enjoy that cluelessness. If ignorance is bliss, you're the happiest guy I know.
You keep answering your own question and don't accept the answer that you've found.
"Why would anyone damage a thing that was so important to their society? It doesn't make sense." - says HolyMoly. The very fact that they intentionally DID damage slavery means that slavery was not as important in their society as you pretend that it was. When you realize that you've embraced a lie and that the South's cause was not slavery, then the damage done to that institution by Southerners does make sense, doesn't it?
Those same experts would have been more aware than anyone else that THEY were damaging the institution of slavery by seceding, which lost all rights to U.S. territories, return of fugitive slaves and tremendous global isolation and pressure to end slavery from other nations. Southerners wanted the right and power to make their own decisions as sovereign states even at the cost of slavery itself. Why? Because slavery wasn't their cause, the retention of the Founders' vision of decentralized sovereignty was their cause.
Confederates were the heirs to the Patriots of the American Revolution. Claiming that the South's secession was about slavery is as stupidly false as a claim that the American Patriots were fighting the British over tea and stamps.
You suck at history and math. Just like the slavery lie, you're afraid to include the whole story. You always have to exclude something for your fairy tale to make sense. There were thirteen Ordinances of Secession, but only four states with declarations of causes and only three of those were mostly about slavery. The WHOLE of the Confederacy was not those four states, but the whole story ruins your narrative.
"So the fact that it come later in the speech doesn't mean it is the less important." - says HolyMoly. You and your ilk claim that slavery was MORE important, when a reading of the full speech shows that slavery was only one of many issues that Stephens spoke of that day. And, as you say, the more important issues are usually mentioned first.
You cherry pick, make excuses and pretend experts were clueless. I present the entirety of the historical record, especially the actions (rather than the hyperbolic rhetoric as you do) of the Confederates and the changes wrought by secession.
That make it crystal clear that YOU don't KNOW jack.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 27, 2024 21:46:11 GMT
No swine has the intellectual ability that most people have. Silly metaphor, though it sounds good. Funny, I get up and go to bed when I went to. I read what books I want to and watch what TV shows and listen to what music I want to. I drive where I want to and shop at the stores I want to, etc. And the federal gov't has nothing to do with it. It wasn't an example, it was the concrete thing they were most interested in preserving. Why would anyone damage a thing that was so important to their society? It doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to try to preserve that institution and the way to try to preserve that institution was to secede from a gov't the south thought, mistakenly, wanted to abolish that institution. Experts would have been aware of the supposed danger to their slave system and would have acted to preserve that institution by leaving an entity they thought would be harmful to it. Only four Confederate states issued Declarations of Causes, three mention slavery. 75%. The VP was an official who would know why secession happened. Usually things appear in their order of importance, but when Stephens reaches the part of the speech about white supremacy and slavery he begins by saying that this change, though last is not least. So the fact that it come later in the speech doesn't mean it is the less important. So capitalizing know makes your opinions more valid. Ha ha. It's not we know, it's you know or think you do. I know differently. Maybe you can consult the magic crystal and get your ancestors together and let them figure it out. A swine is too stupid to recognize the precious pearls placed before it. An cultist that swallowed the Northern lies is too stupid to see the precious and high value of the truth that the South was never fighting to preserve slavery. A swine will never get any smarter, but you can be if you accept the pearls of wisdom that I've placed in front of you. Now do you get it, Porky?
Oh, so as long as you have the bread and circuses that you're accustomed to, the world must not be under the control of some central power, right? If you really are that naive and gullible, enjoy that cluelessness. If ignorance is bliss, you're the happiest guy I know.
You keep answering your own question and don't accept the answer that you've found.
"Why would anyone damage a thing that was so important to their society? It doesn't make sense." - says HolyMoly. The very fact that they intentionally DID damage slavery means that slavery was not as important in their society as you pretend that it was. When you realize that you've embraced a lie and that the South's cause was not slavery, then the damage done to that institution by Southerners does make sense, doesn't it?
Those same experts would have been more aware than anyone else that THEY were damaging the institution of slavery by seceding, which lost all rights to U.S. territories, return of fugitive slaves and tremendous global isolation and pressure to end slavery from other nations. Southerners wanted the right and power to make their own decisions as sovereign states even at the cost of slavery itself. Why? Because slavery wasn't their cause, the retention of the Founders' vision of decentralized sovereignty was their cause.
Confederates were the heirs to the Patriots of the American Revolution. Claiming that the South's secession was about slavery is as stupidly false as a claim that the American Patriots were fighting the British over tea and stamps.
You suck at history and math. Just like the slavery lie, you're afraid to include the whole story. You always have to exclude something for your fairy tale to make sense. There were thirteen Ordinances of Secession, but only four states with declarations of causes and only three of those were mostly about slavery. The WHOLE of the Confederacy was not those four states, but the whole story ruins your narrative.
"So the fact that it come later in the speech doesn't mean it is the less important." - says HolyMoly. You and your ilk claim that slavery was MORE important, when a reading of the full speech shows that slavery was only one of many issues that Stephens spoke of that day. And, as you say, the more important issues are usually mentioned first.
You cherry pick, make excuses and pretend experts were clueless. I present the entirety of the historical record, especially the actions (rather than the hyperbolic rhetoric as you do) of the Confederates and the changes wrought by secession.
That make it crystal clear that YOU don't KNOW jack.
Of course a swine doesn't recognize the pearls placed before it. A swine knows nothing about the value of pearls or much else. A human being can. That's why the metaphor makes no sense. But from my perspective your pearls are worthless. It's not about "bread and circuses," it's about everyday life. Whom one marries, one's religion, one's political ideology, etc. are left up to the individual. The gov't has little to do with it. So the gov't does not have its tendrils in every aspect of our lives, quite the contrary. It makes sense if they unintentionally damaged slavery, which is what they did. They wanted to have the power to make the decisions about slavery and their decision was obviously to keep it, not to let it go for some other reason. Intentionally or unintentionally all goes back to one's perspective on the subject. They were the heirs to some patriots in being slaveholders, not the heirs in fighting for freedom. They were fighting for oppression not freedom. For whatever reason only four states provided justifications for secession. I can't help it if the others didn't. It was Stephens himself who said in the speech that slavery was the last but not the least topic. Maybe he saved the best for last. No the experts were not totally clueless, they were mistaken and they paid the price for it. Crystal clear to you alone.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 28, 2024 3:08:10 GMT
A swine is too stupid to recognize the precious pearls placed before it. An cultist that swallowed the Northern lies is too stupid to see the precious and high value of the truth that the South was never fighting to preserve slavery. A swine will never get any smarter, but you can be if you accept the pearls of wisdom that I've placed in front of you. Now do you get it, Porky?
Oh, so as long as you have the bread and circuses that you're accustomed to, the world must not be under the control of some central power, right? If you really are that naive and gullible, enjoy that cluelessness. If ignorance is bliss, you're the happiest guy I know.
You keep answering your own question and don't accept the answer that you've found.
"Why would anyone damage a thing that was so important to their society? It doesn't make sense." - says HolyMoly. The very fact that they intentionally DID damage slavery means that slavery was not as important in their society as you pretend that it was. When you realize that you've embraced a lie and that the South's cause was not slavery, then the damage done to that institution by Southerners does make sense, doesn't it?
Those same experts would have been more aware than anyone else that THEY were damaging the institution of slavery by seceding, which lost all rights to U.S. territories, return of fugitive slaves and tremendous global isolation and pressure to end slavery from other nations. Southerners wanted the right and power to make their own decisions as sovereign states even at the cost of slavery itself. Why? Because slavery wasn't their cause, the retention of the Founders' vision of decentralized sovereignty was their cause.
Confederates were the heirs to the Patriots of the American Revolution. Claiming that the South's secession was about slavery is as stupidly false as a claim that the American Patriots were fighting the British over tea and stamps.
You suck at history and math. Just like the slavery lie, you're afraid to include the whole story. You always have to exclude something for your fairy tale to make sense. There were thirteen Ordinances of Secession, but only four states with declarations of causes and only three of those were mostly about slavery. The WHOLE of the Confederacy was not those four states, but the whole story ruins your narrative.
"So the fact that it come later in the speech doesn't mean it is the less important." - says HolyMoly. You and your ilk claim that slavery was MORE important, when a reading of the full speech shows that slavery was only one of many issues that Stephens spoke of that day. And, as you say, the more important issues are usually mentioned first.
You cherry pick, make excuses and pretend experts were clueless. I present the entirety of the historical record, especially the actions (rather than the hyperbolic rhetoric as you do) of the Confederates and the changes wrought by secession.
That make it crystal clear that YOU don't KNOW jack.
Of course a swine doesn't recognize the pearls placed before it. A swine knows nothing about the value of pearls or much else. A human being can. That's why the metaphor makes no sense. But from my perspective your pearls are worthless. It's not about "bread and circuses," it's about everyday life. Whom one marries, one's religion, one's political ideology, etc. are left up to the individual. The gov't has little to do with it. So the gov't does not have its tendrils in every aspect of our lives, quite the contrary. It makes sense if they unintentionally damaged slavery, which is what they did. They wanted to have the power to make the decisions about slavery and their decision was obviously to keep it, not to let it go for some other reason. Intentionally or unintentionally all goes back to one's perspective on the subject. They were the heirs to some patriots in being slaveholders, not the heirs in fighting for freedom. They were fighting for oppression not freedom. For whatever reason only four states provided justifications for secession. I can't help it if the others didn't. It was Stephens himself who said in the speech that slavery was the last but not the least topic. Maybe he saved the best for last. No the experts were not totally clueless, they were mistaken and they paid the price for it. Crystal clear to you alone. Only a swine would think my pearls were worthless. A human being is capable of seeing the great value of what I've posted, but the same human being can act like a swine by ignoring the truth that I've provided. You seem a little slow getting the point, but being slow is what caused you to swallow the lie that the South's cause was slavery.
Lincoln proved that the government is capable of controlling the lives of individuals if it chooses to do so. He closed down entire legislative bodies, jailed hundreds if not thousands in the North and closed down media that disagreed with him.
You are being permitted to do the things that you do, but only an idiot doesn't see the power held by the government to end that privilege when they see fit. You're on a leash of your own making, and you seem to enjoy it. Bondage much?
No, perspective has nothing to do with the raw fact that they DID damage slavery by seceding and everyone knew about it. Once again, I know you want to cling to this dishonest excuse, but do you really believe that Southerners didn't know that secession would end any chance of taking slaves to U.S. territories? That secession would forever stop them from getting escaped slaves back from the North? Do you actually believe that they didn't see that isolating themselves through secession would bring the weight of world opinion against them because of slavery?
For your "theory" to work, Southerners would have had to miss all of those obvious consequences, and, if you can ever be honest with yourself, such an assumption is so laughably stupid that a normal person would be embarrassed for floating such a dumb idea. Continue sticking with that garbage and we be lead to the conclusion that you really are a little slow IRL.
No, the South was not fighting for oppression, nor for slavery. They were fighting the same fight against the same tyranny for the same reasons that the Patriots fought in 1775-1783.
You CAN help by being honest about the actual percentage of Confederate states that did issue a Declaration of Causes. If slavery was their cause, wouldn't all of the Confederate states had issued documents that were 100% about slavery?
No, the experts were not mistaken because they made the right decision to secede and fight for causes other than slavery.
I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting. Or keep rooting around in the mud like swine ignoring pearls.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,428
|
Post by thor on Apr 28, 2024 3:41:27 GMT
Of course a swine doesn't recognize the pearls placed before it. A swine knows nothing about the value of pearls or much else. A human being can. That's why the metaphor makes no sense. But from my perspective your pearls are worthless. It's not about "bread and circuses," it's about everyday life. Whom one marries, one's religion, one's political ideology, etc. are left up to the individual. The gov't has little to do with it. So the gov't does not have its tendrils in every aspect of our lives, quite the contrary. It makes sense if they unintentionally damaged slavery, which is what they did. They wanted to have the power to make the decisions about slavery and their decision was obviously to keep it, not to let it go for some other reason. Intentionally or unintentionally all goes back to one's perspective on the subject. They were the heirs to some patriots in being slaveholders, not the heirs in fighting for freedom. They were fighting for oppression not freedom. For whatever reason only four states provided justifications for secession. I can't help it if the others didn't. It was Stephens himself who said in the speech that slavery was the last but not the least topic. Maybe he saved the best for last. No the experts were not totally clueless, they were mistaken and they paid the price for it. Crystal clear to you alone. Only a swine would think my pearls were worthless. A human being is capable of seeing the great value of what I've posted, but the same human being can act like a swine by ignoring the truth that I've provided. You seem a little slow getting the point, but being slow is what caused you to swallow the lie that the South's cause was slavery.
Lincoln proved that the government is capable of controlling the lives of individuals if it chooses to do so. He closed down entire legislative bodies, jailed hundreds if not thousands in the North and closed down media that disagreed with him.
You are being permitted to do the things that you do, but only an idiot doesn't see the power held by the government to end that privilege when they see fit. You're on a leash of your own making, and you seem to enjoy it. Bondage much?
No, perspective has nothing to do with the raw fact that they DID damage slavery by seceding and everyone knew about it. Once again, I know you want to cling to this dishonest excuse, but do you really believe that Southerners didn't know that secession would end any chance of taking slaves to U.S. territories? That secession would forever stop them from getting escaped slaves back from the North? Do you actually believe that they didn't see that isolating themselves through secession would bring the weight of world opinion against them because of slavery?
For your "theory" to work, Southerners would have had to miss all of those obvious consequences, and, if you can ever be honest with yourself, such an assumption is so laughably stupid that a normal person would be embarrassed for floating such a dumb idea. Continue sticking with that garbage and we be lead to the conclusion that you really are a little slow IRL.
No, the South was not fighting for oppression, nor for slavery. They were fighting the same fight against the same tyranny for the same reasons that the Patriots fought in 1775-1783.
You CAN help by being honest about the actual percentage of Confederate states that did issue a Declaration of Causes. If slavery was their cause, wouldn't all of the Confederate states had issued documents that were 100% about slavery?
No, the experts were not mistaken because they made the right decision to secede and fight for causes other than slavery.
I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting. Or keep rooting around in the mud like swine ignoring pearls.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 28, 2024 21:21:27 GMT
Of course a swine doesn't recognize the pearls placed before it. A swine knows nothing about the value of pearls or much else. A human being can. That's why the metaphor makes no sense. But from my perspective your pearls are worthless. It's not about "bread and circuses," it's about everyday life. Whom one marries, one's religion, one's political ideology, etc. are left up to the individual. The gov't has little to do with it. So the gov't does not have its tendrils in every aspect of our lives, quite the contrary. It makes sense if they unintentionally damaged slavery, which is what they did. They wanted to have the power to make the decisions about slavery and their decision was obviously to keep it, not to let it go for some other reason. Intentionally or unintentionally all goes back to one's perspective on the subject. They were the heirs to some patriots in being slaveholders, not the heirs in fighting for freedom. They were fighting for oppression not freedom. For whatever reason only four states provided justifications for secession. I can't help it if the others didn't. It was Stephens himself who said in the speech that slavery was the last but not the least topic. Maybe he saved the best for last. No the experts were not totally clueless, they were mistaken and they paid the price for it. Crystal clear to you alone. Only a swine would think my pearls were worthless. A human being is capable of seeing the great value of what I've posted, but the same human being can act like a swine by ignoring the truth that I've provided. You seem a little slow getting the point, but being slow is what caused you to swallow the lie that the South's cause was slavery.
Lincoln proved that the government is capable of controlling the lives of individuals if it chooses to do so. He closed down entire legislative bodies, jailed hundreds if not thousands in the North and closed down media that disagreed with him.
You are being permitted to do the things that you do, but only an idiot doesn't see the power held by the government to end that privilege when they see fit. You're on a leash of your own making, and you seem to enjoy it. Bondage much?
No, perspective has nothing to do with the raw fact that they DID damage slavery by seceding and everyone knew about it. Once again, I know you want to cling to this dishonest excuse, but do you really believe that Southerners didn't know that secession would end any chance of taking slaves to U.S. territories? That secession would forever stop them from getting escaped slaves back from the North? Do you actually believe that they didn't see that isolating themselves through secession would bring the weight of world opinion against them because of slavery?
For your "theory" to work, Southerners would have had to miss all of those obvious consequences, and, if you can ever be honest with yourself, such an assumption is so laughably stupid that a normal person would be embarrassed for floating such a dumb idea. Continue sticking with that garbage and we be lead to the conclusion that you really are a little slow IRL.
No, the South was not fighting for oppression, nor for slavery. They were fighting the same fight against the same tyranny for the same reasons that the Patriots fought in 1775-1783.
You CAN help by being honest about the actual percentage of Confederate states that did issue a Declaration of Causes. If slavery was their cause, wouldn't all of the Confederate states had issued documents that were 100% about slavery?
No, the experts were not mistaken because they made the right decision to secede and fight for causes other than slavery.
I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting. Or keep rooting around in the mud like swine ignoring pearls.
Most animals have no conception of the worth of pearls, even Snowball. A human can evaluate what you've posted and decide whether they are pearls or not. To me they aren't. I don't waste time thinking about unlikely scenarios, the old sky is falling junk that very rarely pans out. I'm a free range kind of person. Bondage was something the slaveholders were into. Perspective is what it's all about. Mine is 180 degrees from yours. As I've already said, being able to keep slavery was more important than the not guaranteed possibility of expanding slavery or having fugitive slaves returned. One slave in the hand is worth two in the bush. Southerners were the tyrants fighting against the Union which wanted to end that tyranny, a tyranny that oppressed slaves every day of their lives. I don't know why more Confederate states didn't issue DOCs. But of those that did the majority mentioned slavery. Believing the Lost Cause narrative makes one more stupid rather than less. Resistance to it is the only correct conclusion. Plus seeing that the pearls are just worthless glass.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 28, 2024 23:04:05 GMT
Only a swine would think my pearls were worthless. A human being is capable of seeing the great value of what I've posted, but the same human being can act like a swine by ignoring the truth that I've provided. You seem a little slow getting the point, but being slow is what caused you to swallow the lie that the South's cause was slavery.
Lincoln proved that the government is capable of controlling the lives of individuals if it chooses to do so. He closed down entire legislative bodies, jailed hundreds if not thousands in the North and closed down media that disagreed with him.
You are being permitted to do the things that you do, but only an idiot doesn't see the power held by the government to end that privilege when they see fit. You're on a leash of your own making, and you seem to enjoy it. Bondage much?
No, perspective has nothing to do with the raw fact that they DID damage slavery by seceding and everyone knew about it. Once again, I know you want to cling to this dishonest excuse, but do you really believe that Southerners didn't know that secession would end any chance of taking slaves to U.S. territories? That secession would forever stop them from getting escaped slaves back from the North? Do you actually believe that they didn't see that isolating themselves through secession would bring the weight of world opinion against them because of slavery?
For your "theory" to work, Southerners would have had to miss all of those obvious consequences, and, if you can ever be honest with yourself, such an assumption is so laughably stupid that a normal person would be embarrassed for floating such a dumb idea. Continue sticking with that garbage and we be lead to the conclusion that you really are a little slow IRL.
No, the South was not fighting for oppression, nor for slavery. They were fighting the same fight against the same tyranny for the same reasons that the Patriots fought in 1775-1783.
You CAN help by being honest about the actual percentage of Confederate states that did issue a Declaration of Causes. If slavery was their cause, wouldn't all of the Confederate states had issued documents that were 100% about slavery?
No, the experts were not mistaken because they made the right decision to secede and fight for causes other than slavery.
I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting. Or keep rooting around in the mud like swine ignoring pearls.
Most animals have no conception of the worth of pearls, even Snowball. A human can evaluate what you've posted and decide whether they are pearls or not. To me they aren't. I don't waste time thinking about unlikely scenarios, the old sky is falling junk that very rarely pans out. I'm a free range kind of person. Bondage was something the slaveholders were into. Perspective is what it's all about. Mine is 180 degrees from yours. As I've already said, being able to keep slavery was more important than the not guaranteed possibility of expanding slavery or having fugitive slaves returned. One slave in the hand is worth two in the bush. Southerners were the tyrants fighting against the Union which wanted to end that tyranny, a tyranny that oppressed slaves every day of their lives. I don't know why more Confederate states didn't issue DOCs. But of those that did the majority mentioned slavery. Believing the Lost Cause narrative makes one more stupid rather than less. Resistance to it is the only correct conclusion. Plus seeing that the pearls are just worthless glass. You share the aptitude of the swine who is too stupid to recognize the precious value of the truth that I've laid before you.
Animals are free range, so I agree that the description fits you well. An intelligent person would recognize what the government is now capable of doing to us even if they have chosen not to today. There used to be real checks against that kind of centralized power, but tyrant Lincoln broke all of those guardrails.
Your "perspective" is an empty opinion and it's not based in any facts. Southerners knowingly damaged slavery so severely that their actions woud have been fatal to slavery even without the war. "Keeping it" was far less important than keeping their sovereignty and independence. Keeping slaves in one's hands was valueless when no one wants to deal economically and politically with a slave holding country. THEY KNEW THAT WHEN THEY SECEDED.
No, calling Southerners "tyrants" is just another fabrication spawned from the big "slavery was the cause" lie. The Union offered to protect slavery to keep the Union, which makes any idea that the Union wanted to "end that tyranny" laughably false.
I see that you would prefer to get more stupid as time passes rather than let me help you. Stupid is believing the cartoonish, simplistic lie that slavery was ever the South's cause when there is so much evidence that contradicts that lie and makes fools of the believers of that false Northern garbage.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,428
|
Post by thor on Apr 29, 2024 0:38:14 GMT
Most animals have no conception of the worth of pearls, even Snowball. A human can evaluate what you've posted and decide whether they are pearls or not. To me they aren't. I don't waste time thinking about unlikely scenarios, the old sky is falling junk that very rarely pans out. I'm a free range kind of person. Bondage was something the slaveholders were into. Perspective is what it's all about. Mine is 180 degrees from yours. As I've already said, being able to keep slavery was more important than the not guaranteed possibility of expanding slavery or having fugitive slaves returned. One slave in the hand is worth two in the bush. Southerners were the tyrants fighting against the Union which wanted to end that tyranny, a tyranny that oppressed slaves every day of their lives. I don't know why more Confederate states didn't issue DOCs. But of those that did the majority mentioned slavery. Believing the Lost Cause narrative makes one more stupid rather than less. Resistance to it is the only correct conclusion. Plus seeing that the pearls are just worthless glass. You share the aptitude of the swine who is too stupid to recognize the precious value of the truth that I've laid before you.
Animals are free range, so I agree that the description fits you well. An intelligent person would recognize what the government is now capable of doing to us even if they have chosen not to today. There used to be real checks against that kind of centralized power, but tyrant Lincoln broke all of those guardrails.
Your "perspective" is an empty opinion and it's not based in any facts. Southerners knowingly damaged slavery so severely that their actions woud have been fatal to slavery even without the war. "Keeping it" was far less important than keeping their sovereignty and independence. Keeping slaves in one's hands was valueless when no one wants to deal economically and politically with a slave holding country. THEY KNEW THAT WHEN THEY SECEDED.
No, calling Southerners "tyrants" is just another fabrication spawned from the big "slavery was the cause" lie. The Union offered to protect slavery to keep the Union, which makes any idea that the Union wanted to "end that tyranny" laughably false.
I see that you would prefer to get more stupid as time passes rather than let me help you. Stupid is believing the cartoonish, simplistic lie that slavery was ever the South's cause when there is so much evidence that contradicts that lie and makes fools of the believers of that false Northern garbage.
Neo-Confederate claims slavery isn't tyranny, but being asked to wear a mask is.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 29, 2024 13:12:57 GMT
You share the aptitude of the swine who is too stupid to recognize the precious value of the truth that I've laid before you.
Animals are free range, so I agree that the description fits you well. An intelligent person would recognize what the government is now capable of doing to us even if they have chosen not to today. There used to be real checks against that kind of centralized power, but tyrant Lincoln broke all of those guardrails.
Your "perspective" is an empty opinion and it's not based in any facts. Southerners knowingly damaged slavery so severely that their actions woud have been fatal to slavery even without the war. "Keeping it" was far less important than keeping their sovereignty and independence. Keeping slaves in one's hands was valueless when no one wants to deal economically and politically with a slave holding country. THEY KNEW THAT WHEN THEY SECEDED.
No, calling Southerners "tyrants" is just another fabrication spawned from the big "slavery was the cause" lie. The Union offered to protect slavery to keep the Union, which makes any idea that the Union wanted to "end that tyranny" laughably false.
I see that you would prefer to get more stupid as time passes rather than let me help you. Stupid is believing the cartoonish, simplistic lie that slavery was ever the South's cause when there is so much evidence that contradicts that lie and makes fools of the believers of that false Northern garbage.
Neo-Confederate claims slavery isn't tyranny, but being asked to wear a mask is. Did I say slavery wasn't tyranny? No, I didn't, which makes you a liar (not that that is a surprise). Did I mention anything about masks? Nope, making you a liar again.
If slavery is tyranny, then abortion is tyranny, which makes YOU a f*cking tyrant, boy.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 29, 2024 21:53:14 GMT
Most animals have no conception of the worth of pearls, even Snowball. A human can evaluate what you've posted and decide whether they are pearls or not. To me they aren't. I don't waste time thinking about unlikely scenarios, the old sky is falling junk that very rarely pans out. I'm a free range kind of person. Bondage was something the slaveholders were into. Perspective is what it's all about. Mine is 180 degrees from yours. As I've already said, being able to keep slavery was more important than the not guaranteed possibility of expanding slavery or having fugitive slaves returned. One slave in the hand is worth two in the bush. Southerners were the tyrants fighting against the Union which wanted to end that tyranny, a tyranny that oppressed slaves every day of their lives. I don't know why more Confederate states didn't issue DOCs. But of those that did the majority mentioned slavery. Believing the Lost Cause narrative makes one more stupid rather than less. Resistance to it is the only correct conclusion. Plus seeing that the pearls are just worthless glass. You share the aptitude of the swine who is too stupid to recognize the precious value of the truth that I've laid before you.
Animals are free range, so I agree that the description fits you well. An intelligent person would recognize what the government is now capable of doing to us even if they have chosen not to today. There used to be real checks against that kind of centralized power, but tyrant Lincoln broke all of those guardrails.
Your "perspective" is an empty opinion and it's not based in any facts. Southerners knowingly damaged slavery so severely that their actions woud have been fatal to slavery even without the war. "Keeping it" was far less important than keeping their sovereignty and independence. Keeping slaves in one's hands was valueless when no one wants to deal economically and politically with a slave holding country. THEY KNEW THAT WHEN THEY SECEDED.
No, calling Southerners "tyrants" is just another fabrication spawned from the big "slavery was the cause" lie. The Union offered to protect slavery to keep the Union, which makes any idea that the Union wanted to "end that tyranny" laughably false.
I see that you would prefer to get more stupid as time passes rather than let me help you. Stupid is believing the cartoonish, simplistic lie that slavery was ever the South's cause when there is so much evidence that contradicts that lie and makes fools of the believers of that false Northern garbage.
I share the attitude of people who disagree with the Lost Cause story which has little to do with truth. I don't spend a lot of time fearing what the gov't might do. I've been listening to the sky is falling warnings for years and they are hyperbolic to the extreme. Don't worry, be happy. I can say the same thing about your perspective. If they had seceded and there was no war they would have been in high cotton. Slavery preserved. While some of the European countries complained about slavery, well money is money and that would have probably won out over concerns about slavery. Even if slavery was not the cause, they tyrannized a whole population of people day in and day out. That the Union wanted to enshrine slavery in the Constitution is a black mark on it. But the Civil War helped end the tyranny of slavery. My position hasn't changed so how can I get more stupid? You can't help me with your erroneous take on secession, your lack of evidence, and your repetitious northern lies mantra.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 30, 2024 3:16:27 GMT
You share the aptitude of the swine who is too stupid to recognize the precious value of the truth that I've laid before you.
Animals are free range, so I agree that the description fits you well. An intelligent person would recognize what the government is now capable of doing to us even if they have chosen not to today. There used to be real checks against that kind of centralized power, but tyrant Lincoln broke all of those guardrails.
Your "perspective" is an empty opinion and it's not based in any facts. Southerners knowingly damaged slavery so severely that their actions woud have been fatal to slavery even without the war. "Keeping it" was far less important than keeping their sovereignty and independence. Keeping slaves in one's hands was valueless when no one wants to deal economically and politically with a slave holding country. THEY KNEW THAT WHEN THEY SECEDED.
No, calling Southerners "tyrants" is just another fabrication spawned from the big "slavery was the cause" lie. The Union offered to protect slavery to keep the Union, which makes any idea that the Union wanted to "end that tyranny" laughably false.
I see that you would prefer to get more stupid as time passes rather than let me help you. Stupid is believing the cartoonish, simplistic lie that slavery was ever the South's cause when there is so much evidence that contradicts that lie and makes fools of the believers of that false Northern garbage.
I share the attitude of people who disagree with the Lost Cause story which has little to do with truth. I don't spend a lot of time fearing what the gov't might do. I've been listening to the sky is falling warnings for years and they are hyperbolic to the extreme. Don't worry, be happy. I can say the same thing about your perspective. If they had seceded and there was no war they would have been in high cotton. Slavery preserved. While some of the European countries complained about slavery, well money is money and that would have probably won out over concerns about slavery. Even if slavery was not the cause, they tyrannized a whole population of people day in and day out. That the Union wanted to enshrine slavery in the Constitution is a black mark on it. But the Civil War helped end the tyranny of slavery. My position hasn't changed so how can I get more stupid? You can't help me with your erroneous take on secession, your lack of evidence, and your repetitious northern lies mantra. You share nothing but your brainwashing in the perverted lie that slavery was the South's cause.
Our culture and our government are rotted corpses. The fact that the putrefaction hasn't reached your little safe space doesn't mean that it isn't happening. It might be slow enough for you to miss it, but that just means you're not paying attention. Or you like being a clueless obedient slave.
Democracy turns upon and devours itself. Universal suffrage, in theory the palladium of our liberties, becomes the assurance of our slavery. And that slavery will grow more and more abject and ignoble as the differential birth rate, the deliberate encouragement of mendicancy and the failure of popular education produce a larger and larger mass of prehensile half-wits, and so make the demagogues more and more secure. - H. L. Mencken
Slavery had already been intentionally damaged by secession and slaves escaping north and slave uprisings would become epidemic. A violent response to this internal bleeding by the Confederate government would sour any goodwill with foreign powers. No, they wouldn't have been in "high cotton". That's pretty obvious by how quickly Europe found other sources of cotton during the war.
You know damn well that if I can figure that scenario out, the Confederates who lived it would know those fatal risks. But they seceded anyway because slavery was not their cause, just the last straw, the excuse, the trigger.
No, those same Europeans had been patrolling African waters to end the slave trade. They weren't going to look the other way for long. The Confederates had a golden opportunity to become a low tariff destination for European exports, spoiling Lincoln's high tariff dreams for the country. They would have ditched slavery over time to get that import business.
Mencken gets it right again:
“No doubt the Confederates, victorious, would have abolished slavery by the middle of the 80s. They were headed that way before the war, and the more sagacious of them were all in favor of it. But they were in favor of it on sound economic grounds, and not on the brummagem moral grounds which persuaded the North.”
I know this is hard for you, HolyMoly. All of your life you've deluded yourself into thinking that you're smart and with that arrogant assumption in mind, it follows that in your mind, you couldn't possibility be wrong in your opinion about the Southern Confederacy, right? You couldn't be more wrong.
There's no joy in the fact that I've had to show you that on this subject, you're not smart at all. You are an excellent and very absorbent sponge for indoctrination, but no where near smart. So you pretend to know what your talking about, with hilarious results. But I don't want to laugh at you, I want to correct you, educate you and make you a critical thinker for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 30, 2024 21:53:57 GMT
I share the attitude of people who disagree with the Lost Cause story which has little to do with truth. I don't spend a lot of time fearing what the gov't might do. I've been listening to the sky is falling warnings for years and they are hyperbolic to the extreme. Don't worry, be happy. I can say the same thing about your perspective. If they had seceded and there was no war they would have been in high cotton. Slavery preserved. While some of the European countries complained about slavery, well money is money and that would have probably won out over concerns about slavery. Even if slavery was not the cause, they tyrannized a whole population of people day in and day out. That the Union wanted to enshrine slavery in the Constitution is a black mark on it. But the Civil War helped end the tyranny of slavery. My position hasn't changed so how can I get more stupid? You can't help me with your erroneous take on secession, your lack of evidence, and your repetitious northern lies mantra. You share nothing but your brainwashing in the perverted lie that slavery was the South's cause.
Our culture and our government are rotted corpses. The fact that the putrefaction hasn't reached your little safe space doesn't mean that it isn't happening. It might be slow enough for you to miss it, but that just means you're not paying attention. Or you like being a clueless obedient slave.
Democracy turns upon and devours itself. Universal suffrage, in theory the palladium of our liberties, becomes the assurance of our slavery. And that slavery will grow more and more abject and ignoble as the differential birth rate, the deliberate encouragement of mendicancy and the failure of popular education produce a larger and larger mass of prehensile half-wits, and so make the demagogues more and more secure. - H. L. Mencken
Slavery had already been intentionally damaged by secession and slaves escaping north and slave uprisings would become epidemic. A violent response to this internal bleeding by the Confederate government would sour any goodwill with foreign powers. No, they wouldn't have been in "high cotton". That's pretty obvious by how quickly Europe found other sources of cotton during the war.
You know damn well that if I can figure that scenario out, the Confederates who lived it would know those fatal risks. But they seceded anyway because slavery was not their cause, just the last straw, the excuse, the trigger.
No, those same Europeans had been patrolling African waters to end the slave trade. They weren't going to look the other way for long. The Confederates had a golden opportunity to become a low tariff destination for European exports, spoiling Lincoln's high tariff dreams for the country. They would have ditched slavery over time to get that import business.
Mencken gets it right again:
“No doubt the Confederates, victorious, would have abolished slavery by the middle of the 80s. They were headed that way before the war, and the more sagacious of them were all in favor of it. But they were in favor of it on sound economic grounds, and not on the brummagem moral grounds which persuaded the North.”
I know this is hard for you, HolyMoly. All of your life you've deluded yourself into thinking that you're smart and with that arrogant assumption in mind, it follows that in your mind, you couldn't possibility be wrong in your opinion about the Southern Confederacy, right? You couldn't be more wrong.
There's no joy in the fact that I've had to show you that on this subject, you're not smart at all. You are an excellent and very absorbent sponge for indoctrination, but no where near smart. So you pretend to know what your talking about, with hilarious results. But I don't want to laugh at you, I want to correct you, educate you and make you a critical thinker for the first time.
My space is just pretty normal, but I've been listening to predictions about doom and gloom for so long I no longer pay attention to them. It's a waste of time and energy. I don't think slave uprisings ever became epidemic, though they happened from time to time. Again, difference in perspective. From mine southerners seceded because they feared, with the election of Lincoln, that slavery would be abolished. They did it not to destroy slavery but just the opposite, to protect it. Not hard at all. I could be wrong about the Confederacy, but I obviously don't think I am. So when people disagree with you on a subject that means they're not smart? That's a rather arrogant assumption itself. Anyone of average intelligence can understand the theory that slavery was the cause of secession. After a year you should realize that your attempt to correct and educate me is not working and won't work in the future. Your Lost Cause case is simply too weak. Mencken is a fine writer and wit, but he goes over the top fairly often, as in his criticism of democracy. What would he replace it with? I bet the slaves would have been happy to learn they would have only had 20 years more to be slaves. Easy for him to say. The thing with Mencken is that he wrote so much and for so long that one can find something to offend everyone.: By what route do otherwise sane men come to believe such palpable nonsense? How is it possible for a human brain to be divided into two insulated halves, one functioning normally, naturally and even brilliantly, and the other capable only of such ghastly balderdash which issues from the minds of Baptist evangelists? Such balderdash takes various forms, but it is at its worst when it is religious. Why should this be so? What is there in religion that completely flabbergasts the wits of those who believe in it? I see no logical necessity for that flabbergasting. Religion, after all, is nothing but an hypothesis framed to account for what is evidentially unaccounted for. In other fields such hypotheses are common, and yet they do no apparent damage to those who incline to them. But in the religious field they quickly rush the believer to the intellectual Bad Lands. He not only becomes anaesthetic to objective fact; he becomes a violent enemy of objective fact. It annoys and irritates him. He sweeps it away as something somehow evil. . . The American Mercury (February 1926) The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display. Treatise on the Gods (1930), pp. 345-346
|
|