thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on May 1, 2024 23:16:21 GMT
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.
Every time you defend the CSA, filthy degenerate, you endorse slavery.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 2, 2024 14:28:26 GMT
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.
Every time you defend the CSA, filthy degenerate, you endorse slavery. You couldn't be an honest man if you tried, could you, boy? It's indicative of your mental retardation to have such a simplistic, village idiot view about the CSA and slavery.
If being a useful idiot is a disease, you've got to be patient zero.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on May 2, 2024 18:13:14 GMT
Every time you defend the CSA, filthy degenerate, you endorse slavery. You couldn't be an honest man if you tried, could you, boy? It's indicative of your mental retardation to have such a simplistic, village idiot view about the CSA and slavery.
If being a useful idiot is a disease, you've got to be patient zero.
Ass kicked, Paleo runs....
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 2, 2024 19:10:51 GMT
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 You just don't seem to have the patience or attention span to realize the seriousness of those predictions.
Wow, broken record. Concerning slaver uprisings, I was talking about what WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if the South had been able to secede without war.
Once again, your claim that they seceded to protect slavery is debunked by the fact that secession caused irreparable damage to the institution of slavery. How was slavery protected by secession when the act of secession injured, some say fatally, the institution itself? So far, your only excuse has been that they didn't know what they were doing, which is ridiculous. If it was a society centered on slavery, wouldn't they be the most sensitive to advantages and risks? If it wasn't a society centered on slavery, then slavery wouldn't have been their cause. Take your pick.
I've proven that you're not smart. A smart man would take the contradictory evidence presented to him and question his initial conclusion. You ignore evidence and make lame excuses that are historically farcical. Not. Smart.
You say that 20 years would have been too long to end slavery peacefully? Do you realize how many of those former slaves died of disease and starvation after the war? that was from NORTHERN neglect.
.......the reality of emancipation during the chaos of war and its bloody aftermath often fell brutally short of that positive image. Instead, freed slaves were often neglected by union soldiers or faced rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera. Many of them simply starved to death.
After combing through obscure records, newspapers and journals (historian Jim) Downs believes that about a quarter of the four million freed slaves either died or suffered from illness between 1862 and 1870. He writes in the book that it can be considered "the largest biological crisis of the 19th century" and yet it is one that has been little investigated by contemporary historians.
So, instead of peaceful manumission in 20 years, you evidently prefer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of blacks in a ruined land, all thanks to Lincoln and his minions. It's always appalling to realize that liberal policies have resulted in the deaths of so many blacks in America. Lincoln's war and negligent emancipation killed hundreds of thousands of blacks. Liberal policies in the 20th century resulted in rampant crime, causing tens of thousands of blacks to be murdered and 20 million black children to be slaughtered in abortion clinics.
You keep missing details like that which give perspective on the bigger picture. That's why my "weak" case will forever be stronger than your false case.
Mencken's criticism of democracy was not only spot on, but prescient of what is actually happening today.
And finally, your whataboutism as character assassination of Mencken rather than address what he said about the South tells us that you can't dispute what he said in my earlier post.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 2, 2024 19:11:42 GMT
You couldn't be an honest man if you tried, could you, boy? It's indicative of your mental retardation to have such a simplistic, village idiot view about the CSA and slavery.
If being a useful idiot is a disease, you've got to be patient zero.
Ass kicked, Paleo runs.... Never happened and I'm still here, boy, kicking YOUR ass.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 2, 2024 21:35:51 GMT
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 You just don't seem to have the patience or attention span to realize the seriousness of those predictions.
Wow, broken record. Concerning slaver uprisings, I was talking about what WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if the South had been able to secede without war.
Once again, your claim that they seceded to protect slavery is debunked by the fact that secession caused irreparable damage to the institution of slavery. How was slavery protected by secession when the act of secession injured, some say fatally, the institution itself? So far, your only excuse has been that they didn't know what they were doing, which is ridiculous. If it was a society centered on slavery, wouldn't they be the most sensitive to advantages and risks? If it wasn't a society centered on slavery, then slavery wouldn't have been their cause. Take your pick.
I've proven that you're not smart. A smart man would take the contradictory evidence presented to him and question his initial conclusion. You ignore evidence and make lame excuses that are historically farcical. Not. Smart.
You say that 20 years would have been too long to end slavery peacefully? Do you realize how many of those former slaves died of disease and starvation after the war? that was from NORTHERN neglect.
.......the reality of emancipation during the chaos of war and its bloody aftermath often fell brutally short of that positive image. Instead, freed slaves were often neglected by union soldiers or faced rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera. Many of them simply starved to death.
After combing through obscure records, newspapers and journals (historian Jim) Downs believes that about a quarter of the four million freed slaves either died or suffered from illness between 1862 and 1870. He writes in the book that it can be considered "the largest biological crisis of the 19th century" and yet it is one that has been little investigated by contemporary historians.
So, instead of peaceful manumission in 20 years, you evidently prefer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of blacks in a ruined land, all thanks to Lincoln and his minions. It's always appalling to realize that liberal policies have resulted in the deaths of so many blacks in America. Lincoln's war and negligent emancipation killed hundreds of thousands of blacks. Liberal policies in the 20th century resulted in rampant crime, causing tens of thousands of blacks to be murdered and 20 million black children to be slaughtered in abortion clinics.
You keep missing details like that which give perspective on the bigger picture. That's why my "weak" case will forever be stronger than your false case.
Mencken's criticism of democracy was not only spot on, but prescient of what is actually happening today.
And finally, your whataboutism as character assassination of Mencken rather than address what he said about the South tells us that you can't dispute what he said in my earlier post.
What I don't have is the gullibility to keep falling for predictions that don't come true. You just said secession with nothing about there not being a war. Secession caused damage to slavery only because the south lost the war. They were not planning to do so. The risk they were most sensitive to was the possibility of slavery being abolished under Lincoln. A person of average intelligence would look at the evidence and come to their own conclusion. My conclusion is that it's not persuasive at all. Let's see, what would a critical thinker do. Would they swallow Downs' story wholesale or would they question some of its details? The slave would be the person to ask. Would they like to be set free immediately and take their chances of would they rather toil for another 20 years as a slave? I would prefer neither. You can't blame Lincoln since he died in early 1865. Maybe it was the minions. I doubt it can be shown there is a direct cause and effect between liberal policies and crime. And those abortions were voluntarily done by the mothers of those "children." No one held a gun to their heads and made them go to abortion clinics. The problem is there is no linkage between the causes of secession and what happened after the war to the formerly enslaved. Mencken was more spotty than spot on and the question still is what would be a better political system? It's not character assassination, they are quotes from Mencken's writings. As a racist and an anti-Semite he assassinates his own character. It's not surprising he would also be pro-Confederate.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on May 2, 2024 23:29:59 GMT
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 You just don't seem to have the patience or attention span to realize the seriousness of those predictions.
Wow, broken record. Concerning slaver uprisings, I was talking about what WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if the South had been able to secede without war.
Once again, your claim that they seceded to protect slavery is debunked by the fact that secession caused irreparable damage to the institution of slavery. How was slavery protected by secession when the act of secession injured, some say fatally, the institution itself? So far, your only excuse has been that they didn't know what they were doing, which is ridiculous. If it was a society centered on slavery, wouldn't they be the most sensitive to advantages and risks? If it wasn't a society centered on slavery, then slavery wouldn't have been their cause. Take your pick.
I've proven that you're not smart. A smart man would take the contradictory evidence presented to him and question his initial conclusion. You ignore evidence and make lame excuses that are historically farcical. Not. Smart.
You say that 20 years would have been too long to end slavery peacefully? Do you realize how many of those former slaves died of disease and starvation after the war? that was from NORTHERN neglect.
.......the reality of emancipation during the chaos of war and its bloody aftermath often fell brutally short of that positive image. Instead, freed slaves were often neglected by union soldiers or faced rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera. Many of them simply starved to death.
After combing through obscure records, newspapers and journals (historian Jim) Downs believes that about a quarter of the four million freed slaves either died or suffered from illness between 1862 and 1870. He writes in the book that it can be considered "the largest biological crisis of the 19th century" and yet it is one that has been little investigated by contemporary historians.
So, instead of peaceful manumission in 20 years, you evidently prefer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of blacks in a ruined land, all thanks to Lincoln and his minions. It's always appalling to realize that liberal policies have resulted in the deaths of so many blacks in America. Lincoln's war and negligent emancipation killed hundreds of thousands of blacks. Liberal policies in the 20th century resulted in rampant crime, causing tens of thousands of blacks to be murdered and 20 million black children to be slaughtered in abortion clinics.
You keep missing details like that which give perspective on the bigger picture. That's why my "weak" case will forever be stronger than your false case.
Mencken's criticism of democracy was not only spot on, but prescient of what is actually happening today.
And finally, your whataboutism as character assassination of Mencken rather than address what he said about the South tells us that you can't dispute what he said in my earlier post.
OK, bitch. You get to be a slave, but for 'only' 20 years. You are telling us you would be OK with that? Your Top has been wrecking your ass again, hasn't he?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 3, 2024 15:28:30 GMT
You just don't seem to have the patience or attention span to realize the seriousness of those predictions.
Wow, broken record. Concerning slaver uprisings, I was talking about what WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if the South had been able to secede without war.
Once again, your claim that they seceded to protect slavery is debunked by the fact that secession caused irreparable damage to the institution of slavery. How was slavery protected by secession when the act of secession injured, some say fatally, the institution itself? So far, your only excuse has been that they didn't know what they were doing, which is ridiculous. If it was a society centered on slavery, wouldn't they be the most sensitive to advantages and risks? If it wasn't a society centered on slavery, then slavery wouldn't have been their cause. Take your pick.
I've proven that you're not smart. A smart man would take the contradictory evidence presented to him and question his initial conclusion. You ignore evidence and make lame excuses that are historically farcical. Not. Smart.
You say that 20 years would have been too long to end slavery peacefully? Do you realize how many of those former slaves died of disease and starvation after the war? that was from NORTHERN neglect.
.......the reality of emancipation during the chaos of war and its bloody aftermath often fell brutally short of that positive image. Instead, freed slaves were often neglected by union soldiers or faced rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera. Many of them simply starved to death.
After combing through obscure records, newspapers and journals (historian Jim) Downs believes that about a quarter of the four million freed slaves either died or suffered from illness between 1862 and 1870. He writes in the book that it can be considered "the largest biological crisis of the 19th century" and yet it is one that has been little investigated by contemporary historians.
So, instead of peaceful manumission in 20 years, you evidently prefer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of blacks in a ruined land, all thanks to Lincoln and his minions. It's always appalling to realize that liberal policies have resulted in the deaths of so many blacks in America. Lincoln's war and negligent emancipation killed hundreds of thousands of blacks. Liberal policies in the 20th century resulted in rampant crime, causing tens of thousands of blacks to be murdered and 20 million black children to be slaughtered in abortion clinics.
You keep missing details like that which give perspective on the bigger picture. That's why my "weak" case will forever be stronger than your false case.
Mencken's criticism of democracy was not only spot on, but prescient of what is actually happening today.
And finally, your whataboutism as character assassination of Mencken rather than address what he said about the South tells us that you can't dispute what he said in my earlier post.
What I don't have is the gullibility to keep falling for predictions that don't come true. You just said secession with nothing about there not being a war. Secession caused damage to slavery only because the south lost the war. They were not planning to do so. The risk they were most sensitive to was the possibility of slavery being abolished under Lincoln. A person of average intelligence would look at the evidence and come to their own conclusion. My conclusion is that it's not persuasive at all. Let's see, what would a critical thinker do. Would they swallow Downs' story wholesale or would they question some of its details? The slave would be the person to ask. Would they like to be set free immediately and take their chances of would they rather toil for another 20 years as a slave? I would prefer neither. You can't blame Lincoln since he died in early 1865. Maybe it was the minions. I doubt it can be shown there is a direct cause and effect between liberal policies and crime. And those abortions were voluntarily done by the mothers of those "children." No one held a gun to their heads and made them go to abortion clinics. The problem is there is no linkage between the causes of secession and what happened after the war to the formerly enslaved. Mencken was more spotty than spot on and the question still is what would be a better political system? It's not character assassination, they are quotes from Mencken's writings. As a racist and an anti-Semite he assassinates his own character. It's not surprising he would also be pro-Confederate. HolyMoly, a rather liberal frog in the pot of near boiling water, says "Come on in! The water's fine!". Those predictions are already true, even if they haven't reached you.
On secession without war, you are correct that I didn't add the intended context in my previous post.
No, as I've shown you repeatedly, secession damaged slavery before there was any war and the damage would not have been undone even if there had been no war. You're getting warmer, but you keep dancing around the real issue that was the South's cause. It wasn't slavery, but the fact that Lincoln represented the perverted centralization of power that would let the federal government make those kind of decisions, a clear betrayal of the Constitution and the Founding principles of this country.
Average intelligence would require that you not ignore the evidence or pretend it doesn't matter. You just flunked the test of intelligence.
So, any historian that challenges your narrative must be doubted? A critical thinker would see the truth in what Downs has said because history shows that Northern armies ignored and neglected the horde of former slaves following them. A critical thinker would realize that the destruction of Southern infrastructure by the North would leave millions of blacks to fend for themselves. The North didn't really care what happened to blacks after the war. They had black codes (Jim Crow laws in the North before it was a thing in the South) to keep blacks out of their states; that's why the majority of blacks remained in the South until the early 20th century.
I guess you could ask a slave, just not the hundreds of thousands that died because of the North's power grab and neglect. Or the 620,000 soldiers on both sides that died in Lincoln's corrupt, unnecessary war.
The war was essentially over when Lincoln died, yet he had made no effort to help the blacks in areas controlled by the Union. Blacks were already dying in droves as camp followers before Lincoln died. Stop pretending that such a tyrant would care what happened to ex-slaves after the war.
Don't be stupidly naive on where the spike in crime came from starting in the 1960s. it came from YOUR side of the aisle:
No one held a gun to the heads of the Nazis when they were killing Jews either, but it was still as genocidal nightmare based on Germany's official government policies. Liberals are responsible for the butchery of those unborn children, including 20 million black babies.
I didn't try to link the causes of secession to what happened to ex-slaves. I pointed out that those ex-slaves lost their lives and likely would not have died if the North hadn't waged war on the South for simply wanting its independence. You and animals like thor lie to criticize compensated emancipation and gradual manumission, but those were the tools used by the rest of the world to end slavery.
I your case wasn't so weak, you would have addressed what Mencken actually said about the Confederacy rather than to point out his flaws in other areas. Abraham Lincoln was a racist and considered blacks to be inferior. Should we therefore dismiss everything else that he said or did because he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa?
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 3, 2024 22:14:13 GMT
What I don't have is the gullibility to keep falling for predictions that don't come true. You just said secession with nothing about there not being a war. Secession caused damage to slavery only because the south lost the war. They were not planning to do so. The risk they were most sensitive to was the possibility of slavery being abolished under Lincoln. A person of average intelligence would look at the evidence and come to their own conclusion. My conclusion is that it's not persuasive at all. Let's see, what would a critical thinker do. Would they swallow Downs' story wholesale or would they question some of its details? The slave would be the person to ask. Would they like to be set free immediately and take their chances of would they rather toil for another 20 years as a slave? I would prefer neither. You can't blame Lincoln since he died in early 1865. Maybe it was the minions. I doubt it can be shown there is a direct cause and effect between liberal policies and crime. And those abortions were voluntarily done by the mothers of those "children." No one held a gun to their heads and made them go to abortion clinics. The problem is there is no linkage between the causes of secession and what happened after the war to the formerly enslaved. Mencken was more spotty than spot on and the question still is what would be a better political system? It's not character assassination, they are quotes from Mencken's writings. As a racist and an anti-Semite he assassinates his own character. It's not surprising he would also be pro-Confederate. HolyMoly, a rather liberal frog in the pot of near boiling water, says "Come on in! The water's fine!". Those predictions are already true, even if they haven't reached you.
On secession without war, you are correct that I didn't add the intended context in my previous post.
No, as I've shown you repeatedly, secession damaged slavery before there was any war and the damage would not have been undone even if there had been no war. You're getting warmer, but you keep dancing around the real issue that was the South's cause. It wasn't slavery, but the fact that Lincoln represented the perverted centralization of power that would let the federal government make those kind of decisions, a clear betrayal of the Constitution and the Founding principles of this country.
Average intelligence would require that you not ignore the evidence or pretend it doesn't matter. You just flunked the test of intelligence.
So, any historian that challenges your narrative must be doubted? A critical thinker would see the truth in what Downs has said because history shows that Northern armies ignored and neglected the horde of former slaves following them. A critical thinker would realize that the destruction of Southern infrastructure by the North would leave millions of blacks to fend for themselves. The North didn't really care what happened to blacks after the war. They had black codes (Jim Crow laws in the North before it was a thing in the South) to keep blacks out of their states; that's why the majority of blacks remained in the South until the early 20th century.
I guess you could ask a slave, just not the hundreds of thousands that died because of the North's power grab and neglect. Or the 620,000 soldiers on both sides that died in Lincoln's corrupt, unnecessary war.
The war was essentially over when Lincoln died, yet he had made no effort to help the blacks in areas controlled by the Union. Blacks were already dying in droves as camp followers before Lincoln died. Stop pretending that such a tyrant would care what happened to ex-slaves after the war.
Don't be stupidly naive on where the spike in crime came from starting in the 1960s. it came from YOUR side of the aisle:
No one held a gun to the heads of the Nazis when they were killing Jews either, but it was still as genocidal nightmare based on Germany's official government policies. Liberals are responsible for the butchery of those unborn children, including 20 million black babies.
I didn't try to link the causes of secession to what happened to ex-slaves. I pointed out that those ex-slaves lost their lives and likely would not have died if the North hadn't waged war on the South for simply wanting its independence. You and animals like thor lie to criticize compensated emancipation and gradual manumission, but those were the tools used by the rest of the world to end slavery.
I your case wasn't so weak, you would have addressed what Mencken actually said about the Confederacy rather than to point out his flaws in other areas. Abraham Lincoln was a racist and considered blacks to be inferior. Should we therefore dismiss everything else that he said or did because he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa?
Or Tennis anyone? I don't think they've reached anyone outside of wingnut central. Secession did not damage slavery where it already existed, which was the main concern of the Confederacy. Hand, bush. It's not about avoiding evidence. It's examining the evidence and realizing it's pretty much worthless. You seem to discount the possibility of the second. AFAIK he doesn't discuss the causes of secession, which is the main narrative. A critical thinker wouldn't take one historian's take on an issue without further investigation. Union camps were rather unhealthy places, especially when it came to communicable diseases, so it was a bad idea, though an understandable one, to flee to. And during a war other concerns take a backseat. The headline in the Guardian article says that millions of slaves died but Downs says about a million slaves either died or suffered from illness. So which is it, if either? I can think of a few other reasons that blacks did not move north in the years after the war. Correlation is not causation. The homicide rate started to spike in the early 1900s and kept going up until the early 1930s, then started to do down until the early-mid 1960s. What happened to the conservative belief in personal responsibility? Individuals have abortions, not societies. The Nazis were killing people not fetuses. The people responsible for the abortion of 20 million black babies are their mothers. Those tools didn't work here. Lincoln proposed compensated emancipation to the Border states and they weren't interested. Mencken was a racist. It's no surprise that he would be pro-Confederate. Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist but he still managed to free the slaves. Thus the difference.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 4, 2024 16:14:38 GMT
HolyMoly, a rather liberal frog in the pot of near boiling water, says "Come on in! The water's fine!". Those predictions are already true, even if they haven't reached you.
On secession without war, you are correct that I didn't add the intended context in my previous post.
No, as I've shown you repeatedly, secession damaged slavery before there was any war and the damage would not have been undone even if there had been no war. You're getting warmer, but you keep dancing around the real issue that was the South's cause. It wasn't slavery, but the fact that Lincoln represented the perverted centralization of power that would let the federal government make those kind of decisions, a clear betrayal of the Constitution and the Founding principles of this country.
Average intelligence would require that you not ignore the evidence or pretend it doesn't matter. You just flunked the test of intelligence.
So, any historian that challenges your narrative must be doubted? A critical thinker would see the truth in what Downs has said because history shows that Northern armies ignored and neglected the horde of former slaves following them. A critical thinker would realize that the destruction of Southern infrastructure by the North would leave millions of blacks to fend for themselves. The North didn't really care what happened to blacks after the war. They had black codes (Jim Crow laws in the North before it was a thing in the South) to keep blacks out of their states; that's why the majority of blacks remained in the South until the early 20th century.
I guess you could ask a slave, just not the hundreds of thousands that died because of the North's power grab and neglect. Or the 620,000 soldiers on both sides that died in Lincoln's corrupt, unnecessary war.
The war was essentially over when Lincoln died, yet he had made no effort to help the blacks in areas controlled by the Union. Blacks were already dying in droves as camp followers before Lincoln died. Stop pretending that such a tyrant would care what happened to ex-slaves after the war.
Don't be stupidly naive on where the spike in crime came from starting in the 1960s. it came from YOUR side of the aisle:
No one held a gun to the heads of the Nazis when they were killing Jews either, but it was still as genocidal nightmare based on Germany's official government policies. Liberals are responsible for the butchery of those unborn children, including 20 million black babies.
I didn't try to link the causes of secession to what happened to ex-slaves. I pointed out that those ex-slaves lost their lives and likely would not have died if the North hadn't waged war on the South for simply wanting its independence. You and animals like thor lie to criticize compensated emancipation and gradual manumission, but those were the tools used by the rest of the world to end slavery.
I your case wasn't so weak, you would have addressed what Mencken actually said about the Confederacy rather than to point out his flaws in other areas. Abraham Lincoln was a racist and considered blacks to be inferior. Should we therefore dismiss everything else that he said or did because he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa?
Or Tennis anyone? I don't think they've reached anyone outside of wingnut central. Secession did not damage slavery where it already existed, which was the main concern of the Confederacy. Hand, bush. It's not about avoiding evidence. It's examining the evidence and realizing it's pretty much worthless. You seem to discount the possibility of the second. AFAIK he doesn't discuss the causes of secession, which is the main narrative. A critical thinker wouldn't take one historian's take on an issue without further investigation. Union camps were rather unhealthy places, especially when it came to communicable diseases, so it was a bad idea, though an understandable one, to flee to. And during a war other concerns take a backseat. The headline in the Guardian article says that millions of slaves died but Downs says about a million slaves either died or suffered from illness. So which is it, if either? I can think of a few other reasons that blacks did not move north in the years after the war. Correlation is not causation. The homicide rate started to spike in the early 1900s and kept going up until the early 1930s, then started to do down until the early-mid 1960s. What happened to the conservative belief in personal responsibility? Individuals have abortions, not societies. The Nazis were killing people not fetuses. The people responsible for the abortion of 20 million black babies are their mothers. Those tools didn't work here. Lincoln proposed compensated emancipation to the Border states and they weren't interested. Mencken was a racist. It's no surprise that he would be pro-Confederate. Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist but he still managed to free the slaves. Thus the difference. I really don't care if you want to stay stupid while the world crumbles. Natural selection at work. We'll miss you.
Secession did damage slavery where it already existed. Staying in the Union would have improved slavery where it existed because the Constitution itself dictated that slaves must be returned to their masters. Combine that with the Corwin Amendment concessions and slavery's best hope for long term existence was to stay in the Union. The fatal damage was that the institution slavery was isolated by secession, with movement into U.S. territories forbidden and every escaped slave permanently gone. Without the political influence of the combined nation, the Confederacy was at the mercy of foreign players where they would have gotten the goods that they needed (from the North was no longer an option because of the high tariffs).
Ignoring facts only shows your worthlessness. You've debunked exactly nothing that I've posted, it's all been factual or conclusions based on facts. If you think that facts are worthless, make your case (after this long, I'm betting that you are incapable of making your case because the facts DO stand against you).
No one said Downs was going to discuss the causes of secession. You're welcome to investigate further. This book has been in print and available for peer review at any time and no one has seriously disputed his conclusions. Unlike the lie that slavery was the South's cause, which has been roundly and effectively disputed in historical circles.
So, it was OK for the lives of black people to sacrificed so that the Union could continue its terroristic invasion, according to you. The liberal Guardian's headline was clickbait, of course. Use a little common sense on such things, if you possess any.
I see that you claim to know why blacks didn't move North, but as usual, seem incapable of sharing any. Most of the time, you're all hat and no cattle.
The high homicide rate in the early to mid 20th century was due to the wild 1920s, the desperation of the depression and Prohibition. Liberal crime policies were the kickoff in the 1960s, unless you can make a better case.
We still believe in personal responsibility, just not extending it to kill innocent children. Individuals in Germany killed Jews, which their society enabled and condoned, just as ours' enables and condones abortion. Fetuses ARE people (please don't be as stupid as citizen on that fact). The black mothers that killed their children were enabled by pro-abortion policies started by liberals. Just as individual Nazis were using their government's laws to pursue and kill Jews.
Those "tools" for peaceful manumission were never tried here. Compensated emancipation was offered in the middle of a war where Lincoln was invading states that disagreed with him. Those border states were likely waiting to see who won....had they been victorious, the Confederacy would have likely grown with the addition of some of the border states.
I've already shown you that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause are the racists. Mencken didn't believe that lie. And trying to tie Antisemitism to being pro-Confederate is as dishonest and perverted as it gets. Jews were well regarded in the Confederate South and fought for the Confederacy
Perhaps Mencken was racist and antisemitic because he was an atheist (yeah, that sounds about as stupid as your harebrained conclusion).
Once again, claiming that the South's cause was slavery is the same as stupidly claiming that the Patriots in the American Revolution fought for cheaper tea and stamps.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 5, 2024 23:21:43 GMT
Or Tennis anyone? I don't think they've reached anyone outside of wingnut central. Secession did not damage slavery where it already existed, which was the main concern of the Confederacy. Hand, bush. It's not about avoiding evidence. It's examining the evidence and realizing it's pretty much worthless. You seem to discount the possibility of the second. AFAIK he doesn't discuss the causes of secession, which is the main narrative. A critical thinker wouldn't take one historian's take on an issue without further investigation. Union camps were rather unhealthy places, especially when it came to communicable diseases, so it was a bad idea, though an understandable one, to flee to. And during a war other concerns take a backseat. The headline in the Guardian article says that millions of slaves died but Downs says about a million slaves either died or suffered from illness. So which is it, if either? I can think of a few other reasons that blacks did not move north in the years after the war. Correlation is not causation. The homicide rate started to spike in the early 1900s and kept going up until the early 1930s, then started to do down until the early-mid 1960s. What happened to the conservative belief in personal responsibility? Individuals have abortions, not societies. The Nazis were killing people not fetuses. The people responsible for the abortion of 20 million black babies are their mothers. Those tools didn't work here. Lincoln proposed compensated emancipation to the Border states and they weren't interested. Mencken was a racist. It's no surprise that he would be pro-Confederate. Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist but he still managed to free the slaves. Thus the difference. I really don't care if you want to stay stupid while the world crumbles. Natural selection at work. We'll miss you.
Secession did damage slavery where it already existed. Staying in the Union would have improved slavery where it existed because the Constitution itself dictated that slaves must be returned to their masters. Combine that with the Corwin Amendment concessions and slavery's best hope for long term existence was to stay in the Union. The fatal damage was that the institution slavery was isolated by secession, with movement into U.S. territories forbidden and every escaped slave permanently gone. Without the political influence of the combined nation, the Confederacy was at the mercy of foreign players where they would have gotten the goods that they needed (from the North was no longer an option because of the high tariffs).
Ignoring facts only shows your worthlessness. You've debunked exactly nothing that I've posted, it's all been factual or conclusions based on facts. If you think that facts are worthless, make your case (after this long, I'm betting that you are incapable of making your case because the facts DO stand against you).
No one said Downs was going to discuss the causes of secession. You're welcome to investigate further. This book has been in print and available for peer review at any time and no one has seriously disputed his conclusions. Unlike the lie that slavery was the South's cause, which has been roundly and effectively disputed in historical circles.
So, it was OK for the lives of black people to sacrificed so that the Union could continue its terroristic invasion, according to you. The liberal Guardian's headline was clickbait, of course. Use a little common sense on such things, if you possess any.
I see that you claim to know why blacks didn't move North, but as usual, seem incapable of sharing any. Most of the time, you're all hat and no cattle.
The high homicide rate in the early to mid 20th century was due to the wild 1920s, the desperation of the depression and Prohibition. Liberal crime policies were the kickoff in the 1960s, unless you can make a better case.
We still believe in personal responsibility, just not extending it to kill innocent children. Individuals in Germany killed Jews, which their society enabled and condoned, just as ours' enables and condones abortion. Fetuses ARE people (please don't be as stupid as citizen on that fact). The black mothers that killed their children were enabled by pro-abortion policies started by liberals. Just as individual Nazis were using their government's laws to pursue and kill Jews.
Those "tools" for peaceful manumission were never tried here. Compensated emancipation was offered in the middle of a war where Lincoln was invading states that disagreed with him. Those border states were likely waiting to see who won....had they been victorious, the Confederacy would have likely grown with the addition of some of the border states.
I've already shown you that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause are the racists. Mencken didn't believe that lie. And trying to tie Antisemitism to being pro-Confederate is as dishonest and perverted as it gets. Jews were well regarded in the Confederate South and fought for the Confederacy
Perhaps Mencken was racist and antisemitic because he was an atheist (yeah, that sounds about as stupid as your harebrained conclusion).
Once again, claiming that the South's cause was slavery is the same as stupidly claiming that the Patriots in the American Revolution fought for cheaper tea and stamps.
OMG. The world is going to crumble? Yikes. If folks want to believe that junk, it's up to them. I just LMAO. Southerners were not satisfied with the Constitutional provision for returning slaves, thus the Fugitive Salve Act of 1850. And to make a long story short: Hand, bush. I've debunked them to my satisfaction, I don't care about yours. IOW, the Guardian headline was inaccurate. Got it. And the Civil War was no more terroristic than other wars of the period. And slavery as the cause is the majority opinion of historians. They were brought into a sharecropping system that was hard to get out of. They were also too poor to afford transportation to go to other parts of the country, and then the fact of inertia, not wanting to leave what they were used to. The increase in the homicide rate started well before the 1920s. Again correlation is not causation. Jews were killed in Germany by an organized effort by the German gov't, not by individuals. If fetuses are born, they're people, if not, they're not. The American gov't is not killing fetuses, their mothers are. And no one is forcing them to do so. Another silly false equivalence. They were tried. The fact is compensated manumission was offered to the Border states. They turned it down. So much for the idea that compensated emancipation would have made a difference. You've shown that your theories go to the nonsensical extent that people who believe that slavery was the cause are racists. Totally idiotic. I didn't tie anti- Semitism to the Confederacy, but rather racism. Jews fighting for the Confederacy is an interesting bit of trivia but it has little to do with the reason for secession. There were even a few Jews who fought for the Nazis. And there is obviously a stronger tie between white supremacy and the Confederacy than any tie with atheism. Deo vindice y'all. I've never said the American revolutionaries were fighting for cheaper tea and stamps.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 12, 2024 14:57:05 GMT
I really don't care if you want to stay stupid while the world crumbles. Natural selection at work. We'll miss you.
Secession did damage slavery where it already existed. Staying in the Union would have improved slavery where it existed because the Constitution itself dictated that slaves must be returned to their masters. Combine that with the Corwin Amendment concessions and slavery's best hope for long term existence was to stay in the Union. The fatal damage was that the institution slavery was isolated by secession, with movement into U.S. territories forbidden and every escaped slave permanently gone. Without the political influence of the combined nation, the Confederacy was at the mercy of foreign players where they would have gotten the goods that they needed (from the North was no longer an option because of the high tariffs).
Ignoring facts only shows your worthlessness. You've debunked exactly nothing that I've posted, it's all been factual or conclusions based on facts. If you think that facts are worthless, make your case (after this long, I'm betting that you are incapable of making your case because the facts DO stand against you).
No one said Downs was going to discuss the causes of secession. You're welcome to investigate further. This book has been in print and available for peer review at any time and no one has seriously disputed his conclusions. Unlike the lie that slavery was the South's cause, which has been roundly and effectively disputed in historical circles.
So, it was OK for the lives of black people to sacrificed so that the Union could continue its terroristic invasion, according to you. The liberal Guardian's headline was clickbait, of course. Use a little common sense on such things, if you possess any.
I see that you claim to know why blacks didn't move North, but as usual, seem incapable of sharing any. Most of the time, you're all hat and no cattle.
The high homicide rate in the early to mid 20th century was due to the wild 1920s, the desperation of the depression and Prohibition. Liberal crime policies were the kickoff in the 1960s, unless you can make a better case.
We still believe in personal responsibility, just not extending it to kill innocent children. Individuals in Germany killed Jews, which their society enabled and condoned, just as ours' enables and condones abortion. Fetuses ARE people (please don't be as stupid as citizen on that fact). The black mothers that killed their children were enabled by pro-abortion policies started by liberals. Just as individual Nazis were using their government's laws to pursue and kill Jews.
Those "tools" for peaceful manumission were never tried here. Compensated emancipation was offered in the middle of a war where Lincoln was invading states that disagreed with him. Those border states were likely waiting to see who won....had they been victorious, the Confederacy would have likely grown with the addition of some of the border states.
I've already shown you that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause are the racists. Mencken didn't believe that lie. And trying to tie Antisemitism to being pro-Confederate is as dishonest and perverted as it gets. Jews were well regarded in the Confederate South and fought for the Confederacy
Perhaps Mencken was racist and antisemitic because he was an atheist (yeah, that sounds about as stupid as your harebrained conclusion).
Once again, claiming that the South's cause was slavery is the same as stupidly claiming that the Patriots in the American Revolution fought for cheaper tea and stamps.
OMG. The world is going to crumble? Yikes. If folks want to believe that junk, it's up to them. I just LMAO. Southerners were not satisfied with the Constitutional provision for returning slaves, thus the Fugitive Salve Act of 1850. And to make a long story short: Hand, bush. I've debunked them to my satisfaction, I don't care about yours. IOW, the Guardian headline was inaccurate. Got it. And the Civil War was no more terroristic than other wars of the period. And slavery as the cause is the majority opinion of historians. They were brought into a sharecropping system that was hard to get out of. They were also too poor to afford transportation to go to other parts of the country, and then the fact of inertia, not wanting to leave what they were used to. The increase in the homicide rate started well before the 1920s. Again correlation is not causation. Jews were killed in Germany by an organized effort by the German gov't, not by individuals. If fetuses are born, they're people, if not, they're not. The American gov't is not killing fetuses, their mothers are. And no one is forcing them to do so. Another silly false equivalence. They were tried. The fact is compensated manumission was offered to the Border states. They turned it down. So much for the idea that compensated emancipation would have made a difference. You've shown that your theories go to the nonsensical extent that people who believe that slavery was the cause are racists. Totally idiotic. I didn't tie anti- Semitism to the Confederacy, but rather racism. Jews fighting for the Confederacy is an interesting bit of trivia but it has little to do with the reason for secession. There were even a few Jews who fought for the Nazis. And there is obviously a stronger tie between white supremacy and the Confederacy than any tie with atheism. Deo vindice y'all. I've never said the American revolutionaries were fighting for cheaper tea and stamps. Your lack of situational awareness is as disturbing as your painfully obvious ignorance of history. But we understand....the Ministry of Truth has told you there's nothing to worry about and you couldn't defy such propaganda if you tried. Your idea of "debunking" is, in reality, historical negationism on your part, the willful perversion of history that runs counter to the facts and evidence. What you've done here is what propagandists do, and you certainly qualify as that kind of fanatical adherent to the regime fairy tale. You are exceedingly talented at missing the point even when you're the one making it. You stop at the shallow conclusion that "Southerners were not satisfied with the Constitutional provision for returning slaves" without asking WHY they were dissatisfied and what was the larger issue behind that disagreement. The Northern states were demonstrating an easy willingness to ignore and violate the provisions of the compact agreement, the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't slavery that was the root issue, but the violation of trust, the lack of fealty by the North to the contract and the obvious trend toward regional political and economic superiority centered in and filtered through the central government.
That's why it is absolutely racist to embrace the shallow lie that slavery was the South's cause and refuse to go deeper into the root cause of which slavery was only a symptom, a last straw and a tipping point.
"Hand, bush" is this simpleton’s way of saying that he doesn’t have a clue, so he just adds a cliché or two to stifle the conversation. Secession significantly weakened the "hand" in that the act of secession (not the subsequent war) damaged slavery severely and perhaps fatally.
Why do you hate science? "If fetuses are born, they're people, if not, they're not" is scientifically, anatomically and morally one of the most stupidly false things that any person can believe. Do you not see how moronic it is to conclude that a child that is moments from being born is not a person? Can you not see how dehumanizing and evil such an idea has always been?
So, as long as the government subcontracts the slaughter of dehumanized children to individuals rather than by government officials, it's OK to you? Genocide is genocide, no matter who is doing it or how it's structured.
No, you didn't say "the American revolutionaries were fighting for cheaper tea and stamps" and you wouldn't because it's ridiculous to think that the Patriots were fighting over property and wealth rather than a higher purpose, right? Yet you stupidly and ridiculously pretend that the Confederates WERE fighting over property and wealth rather than a higher purpose. Are you getting the point yet, cultist?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on May 12, 2024 15:36:11 GMT
OMG. The world is going to crumble? Yikes. If folks want to believe that junk, it's up to them. I just LMAO. Southerners were not satisfied with the Constitutional provision for returning slaves, thus the Fugitive Salve Act of 1850. And to make a long story short: Hand, bush. I've debunked them to my satisfaction, I don't care about yours. IOW, the Guardian headline was inaccurate. Got it. And the Civil War was no more terroristic than other wars of the period. And slavery as the cause is the majority opinion of historians. They were brought into a sharecropping system that was hard to get out of. They were also too poor to afford transportation to go to other parts of the country, and then the fact of inertia, not wanting to leave what they were used to. The increase in the homicide rate started well before the 1920s. Again correlation is not causation. Jews were killed in Germany by an organized effort by the German gov't, not by individuals. If fetuses are born, they're people, if not, they're not. The American gov't is not killing fetuses, their mothers are. And no one is forcing them to do so. Another silly false equivalence. They were tried. The fact is compensated manumission was offered to the Border states. They turned it down. So much for the idea that compensated emancipation would have made a difference. You've shown that your theories go to the nonsensical extent that people who believe that slavery was the cause are racists. Totally idiotic. I didn't tie anti- Semitism to the Confederacy, but rather racism. Jews fighting for the Confederacy is an interesting bit of trivia but it has little to do with the reason for secession. There were even a few Jews who fought for the Nazis. And there is obviously a stronger tie between white supremacy and the Confederacy than any tie with atheism. Deo vindice y'all. I've never said the American revolutionaries were fighting for cheaper tea and stamps. Your lack of situational awareness is as disturbing as your painfully obvious ignorance of history. But we understand....the Ministry of Truth has told you there's nothing to worry about and you couldn't defy such propaganda if you tried. Your idea of "debunking" is, in reality, historical negationism on your part, the willful perversion of history that runs counter to the facts and evidence. What you've done here is what propagandists do, and you certainly qualify as that kind of fanatical adherent to the regime fairy tale. You are exceedingly talented at missing the point even when you're the one making it. You stop at the shallow conclusion that "Southerners were not satisfied with the Constitutional provision for returning slaves" without asking WHY they were dissatisfied and what was the larger issue behind that disagreement. The Northern states were demonstrating an easy willingness to ignore and violate the provisions of the compact agreement, the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't slavery that was the root issue, but the violation of trust, the lack of fealty by the North to the contract and the obvious trend toward regional political and economic superiority centered in and filtered through the central government.
That's why it is absolutely racist to embrace the shallow lie that slavery was the South's cause and refuse to go deeper into the root cause of which slavery was only a symptom, a last straw and a tipping point.
"Hand, bush" is this simpleton’s way of saying that he doesn’t have a clue, so he just adds a cliché or two to stifle the conversation. Secession significantly weakened the "hand" in that the act of secession (not the subsequent war) damaged slavery severely and perhaps fatally.
Why do you hate science? "If fetuses are born, they're people, if not, they're not" is scientifically, anatomically and morally one of the most stupidly false things that any person can believe. Do you not see how moronic it is to conclude that a child that is moments from being born is not a person? Can you not see how dehumanizing and evil such an idea has always been?
So, as long as the government subcontracts the slaughter of dehumanized children to individuals rather than by government officials, it's OK to you? Genocide is genocide, no matter who is doing it or how it's structured.
No, you didn't say "the American revolutionaries were fighting for cheaper tea and stamps" and you wouldn't because it's ridiculous to think that the Patriots were fighting over property and wealth rather than a higher purpose, right? Yet you stupidly and ridiculously pretend that the Confederates WERE fighting over property and wealth rather than a higher purpose. Are you getting the point yet, cultist?
Paleo endorses slavery. Again. And why did you run from this?: 'OK, bitch. You get to be a slave, but for 'only' 20 years. You are telling us you would be OK with that?'
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 12, 2024 19:39:51 GMT
Your lack of situational awareness is as disturbing as your painfully obvious ignorance of history. But we understand....the Ministry of Truth has told you there's nothing to worry about and you couldn't defy such propaganda if you tried. Your idea of "debunking" is, in reality, historical negationism on your part, the willful perversion of history that runs counter to the facts and evidence. What you've done here is what propagandists do, and you certainly qualify as that kind of fanatical adherent to the regime fairy tale. You are exceedingly talented at missing the point even when you're the one making it. You stop at the shallow conclusion that "Southerners were not satisfied with the Constitutional provision for returning slaves" without asking WHY they were dissatisfied and what was the larger issue behind that disagreement. The Northern states were demonstrating an easy willingness to ignore and violate the provisions of the compact agreement, the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't slavery that was the root issue, but the violation of trust, the lack of fealty by the North to the contract and the obvious trend toward regional political and economic superiority centered in and filtered through the central government.
That's why it is absolutely racist to embrace the shallow lie that slavery was the South's cause and refuse to go deeper into the root cause of which slavery was only a symptom, a last straw and a tipping point.
"Hand, bush" is this simpleton’s way of saying that he doesn’t have a clue, so he just adds a cliché or two to stifle the conversation. Secession significantly weakened the "hand" in that the act of secession (not the subsequent war) damaged slavery severely and perhaps fatally.
Why do you hate science? "If fetuses are born, they're people, if not, they're not" is scientifically, anatomically and morally one of the most stupidly false things that any person can believe. Do you not see how moronic it is to conclude that a child that is moments from being born is not a person? Can you not see how dehumanizing and evil such an idea has always been?
So, as long as the government subcontracts the slaughter of dehumanized children to individuals rather than by government officials, it's OK to you? Genocide is genocide, no matter who is doing it or how it's structured.
No, you didn't say "the American revolutionaries were fighting for cheaper tea and stamps" and you wouldn't because it's ridiculous to think that the Patriots were fighting over property and wealth rather than a higher purpose, right? Yet you stupidly and ridiculously pretend that the Confederates WERE fighting over property and wealth rather than a higher purpose. Are you getting the point yet, cultist?
Paleo endorses slavery. Again. And why did you run from this?: 'OK, bitch. You get to be a slave, but for 'only' 20 years. You are telling us you would be OK with that?' <DELETED>
Only a liar claims that I've ever endorsed. What the f*ck is wrong with you, boy?
I ran from nothing, especially the out of context, nonsensical garbage that you rendered above.
Would I have advocated for compensated or gradual manumission LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD USED TO END SLAVERY? To avoid the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of half this country? You bet I would
Only a retarded fool like you prefers the brutal slaughter of an entire generation, North and South, and the untold deaths of former slaves left to starve and die by the conquering Union army over a peaceful solution.
Keep family-related comments out of your conversations, please.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on May 12, 2024 20:46:41 GMT
Paleo endorses slavery. Again. And why did you run from this?: 'OK, bitch. You get to be a slave, but for 'only' 20 years. You are telling us you would be OK with that?' <DELETED>
Only a liar claims that I've ever endorsed. What the f*ck is wrong with you, boy?
I ran from nothing, especially the out of context, nonsensical garbage that you rendered above.
Would I have advocated for compensated or gradual manumission LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD USED TO END SLAVERY? To avoid the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of half this country? You bet I would
Only a retarded fool like you prefers the brutal slaughter of an entire generation, North and South, and the untold deaths of former slaves left to starve and die by the conquering Union army over a peaceful solution.
Unlike you, Stupid Boy, <deleted>. So, no interest in being a slave in favor of 'gradual' emancipation. What a filthy degenerate you are.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on May 12, 2024 20:56:25 GMT
Your mama must have cried when she saw that she'd given birth to an nasty little bastard like you.
Only a liar claims that I've ever endorsed. What the f*ck is wrong with you, boy?
I ran from nothing, especially the out of context, nonsensical garbage that you rendered above.
Would I have advocated for compensated or gradual manumission LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD USED TO END SLAVERY? To avoid the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of half this country? You bet I would
Only a retarded fool like you prefers the brutal slaughter of an entire generation, North and South, and the untold deaths of former slaves left to starve and die by the conquering Union army over a peaceful solution.
Unlike you, Stupid Boy, <deleted>. So, no interest in being a slave in favor of 'gradual' emancipation. What a filthy degenerate you are. I'm sure <deleted>.
What disgusting filth you are....you'd rather see people die by the hundreds of thousands, including the slaves that you claim to care about, rather than have a peaceful solution that might have taken longer.
|
|