Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 6:04:18 GMT
I simply smile at all of this. You're listing quotes after you have dismissed so many relevant quotes for no good reason. Why do your quotes deserve weight when all the rest do not? Alexander Stephens was *also* "actually involved." So were the folks who drafted those secession documents. Yet we ignore them. And I laugh at your response. My quotes are simply counterpoints to those that you claim are the definitive, end of discussion, gotcha statements allegedly proving that slavery was the only reason for all of it.
I'm demonstrating the complexity and nuance inherent in this issue...establishing reasonable doubt, as it were. Point, counterpoint tend to cancel out.
That "peculiar institution" was the trigger, the fuse, the tipping point, the symptom...but not the cause. A bit like a firecracker thrown in a crowd to see what the reaction might be; the North's reaction was revealed as authoritarianism and centralization in betrayal of the Constitution. That betrayal, that breach of contract, that abdication of responsibilities showed the abject lack of character and integrity in the North.
Why assign such a cartoonish, monolithic caricature to the majority of Southerners of that era when we all know the diversity of thought, ideas and motivations among people today. Do you imagine that such complexity only came into existence when the mighty TL was born?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 6:42:04 GMT
I've provide facts to back up everything that I've said on this thread as well as factually refuted the "official" (i.e., the politically correct fiction based on the "magic word) narrative. Yea.. No .. About that. Any honest reader of this thread will conclude that you haven't refuted anything and certainly not factually refuted. That whitewashed version of the Civil War South was debunked decades ago. At very best you've slammed your head against these facts to the point that you've enter into the coma of unenlightenment that we so often see in aspirant and accomplished racists.. Conceivably out of dishonesty or hopefully inherited ignorance you've consistently ignored the very words of those leading your beloved secession. You've dismissed the same facts with which I and I'm sure others pinned you to the mat a year or more ago. (though the Confederate memorial dedication speeches were a deliciously perfect addition to the drubbing you've earned). This thread is for certain the final nail in your denialist coffin .. it is a definitive takedown of the revisionist's fantasy of an honorable South. At this point I think the more interesting discussion to be had is in examining the pathology of a Confederate Apologist.. And with that .. LinkAnother empty Fiddler tirade; ironically, he's making conclusions not in evidence. I've parried every attempt to portray the history of the era as the laughably cartoonish, intellectually weak fiction that you folks have thrust into this discussion.
This is a tough subject to master; most people don't have the intelligence to understand the complexities of the rift between North and South as I do. An intelligent man would have long ago realized that the issues and motivations of that time were just as labyrinthine as are those of today, perhaps more so. But to admit to that fact is to commit a grave sin against the religion of political correctness and the cult of Lincoln; it is blasphemy to dare to vocalize that the South had a legitimate grievance, a legal right to secede and an honorable cause that was not about slavery.
But that reality IS why the former Confederates were revered after the war by those who lived through that time.
Like Martin Luther at the Wittenburg church door, I've stood against these Lincolnite priests and their mindless screams of "heretic!" and I'm still here. If you'd actually won anything, this thread would have been a lot shorter. Sorry for your loss.
Bless your heart.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,609
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 18, 2020 7:42:28 GMT
A darkie? You're nominating paleocon for an award named after a darkie? He's probably in the ER being treated for the vapors as we speak. As for Ray Charles lending his name to an award given for racial apathy, it's probably a good thing that he didn't live to see this. Notice that he's glad that a BLIND man didn't live to "see this". You just can't make this stuff up. And I thought that Jasmine had Post of the Year locked up. Here, it appears, she has some competition. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Jul 18, 2020 12:47:06 GMT
Your referendum propaganda is a non sequitur; it's a logical fallacy to propose that the votes in the referendum were all or mostly cast for the same reason that the 1% favored during the dissolution.
And yes, I'm sure that anyone who rolls out that tired ole' "lies, damn lies...." cliche is not familiar with statistics. And then claim a "sleight of hand" without anything to back that up.
If you say that secession was about slavery, that implies a majority was motivated by that institution. I'm saying that it wasn't even close to a majority even among the 1%. It's as simple as that. I'll be waiting on your evidence; it would be the first of any significance that I have received.
First, that's laughable, just shows how you try to dismiss anything that contradicts your narrative. Second, you're still engaging in a straw man. No one has said the votes in the referendum were all or mostly cast for the same reason. However, the existence of the referenda does undermine your feeble 1 percent argument, which is the real fallacy here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 15:06:48 GMT
I simply smile at all of this. You're listing quotes after you have dismissed so many relevant quotes for no good reason. Why do your quotes deserve weight when all the rest do not? Alexander Stephens was *also* "actually involved." So were the folks who drafted those secession documents. Yet we ignore them. And I laugh at your response. My quotes are simply counterpoints to those that you claim are the definitive, end of discussion, gotcha statements allegedly proving that slavery was the only reason for all of it.
I'm demonstrating the complexity and nuance inherent in this issue...establishing reasonable doubt, as it were. Point, counterpoint tend to cancel out.
That "peculiar institution" was the trigger, the fuse, the tipping point, the symptom...but not the cause. A bit like a firecracker thrown in a crowd to see what the reaction might be; the North's reaction was revealed as authoritarianism and centralization in betrayal of the Constitution. That betrayal, that breach of contract, that abdication of responsibilities showed the abject lack of character and integrity in the North.
Why assign such a cartoonish, monolithic caricature to the majority of Southerners of that era when we all know the diversity of thought, ideas and motivations among people today. Do you imagine that such complexity only came into existence when the mighty TL was born?
You can laugh all you want but you're stuck in a corner in this discussion, dismissing everything which cuts against your chosen narrative and making arguments that no one finds convincing. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,609
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 18, 2020 16:06:23 GMT
Yea.. No .. About that. Any honest reader of this thread will conclude that you haven't refuted anything and certainly not factually refuted. That whitewashed version of the Civil War South was debunked decades ago. At very best you've slammed your head against these facts to the point that you've enter into the coma of unenlightenment that we so often see in aspirant and accomplished racists.. Conceivably out of dishonesty or hopefully inherited ignorance you've consistently ignored the very words of those leading your beloved secession. You've dismissed the same facts with which I and I'm sure others pinned you to the mat a year or more ago. (though the Confederate memorial dedication speeches were a deliciously perfect addition to the drubbing you've earned). This thread is for certain the final nail in your denialist coffin .. it is a definitive takedown of the revisionist's fantasy of an honorable South. At this point I think the more interesting discussion to be had is in examining the pathology of a Confederate Apologist.. And with that .. LinkAnother empty Fiddler tirade; ironically, he's making conclusions not in evidence. I've parried every attempt to portray the history of the era as the laughably cartoonish, intellectually weak fiction that you folks have thrust into this discussion.
This is a tough subject to master; most people don't have the intelligence to understand the complexities of the rift between North and South as I do. An intelligent man would have long ago realized that the issues and motivations of that time were just as labyrinthine as are those of today, perhaps more so. But to admit to that fact is to commit a grave sin against the religion of political correctness and the cult of Lincoln; it is blasphemy to dare to vocalize that the South had a legitimate grievance, a legal right to secede and an honorable cause that was not about slavery.
But that reality IS why the former Confederates were revered after the war by those who lived through that time.
Like Martin Luther at the Wittenburg church door, I've stood against these Lincolnite priests and their mindless screams of "heretic!" and I'm still here. If you'd actually won anything, this thread would have been a lot shorter. Sorry for your loss.
Bless your heart.
Nobody else involved in this discussion is denying the interconnectedness of all things antebellum. Rather, it is you who are denying the undeniable importance, impact and influence of slavery on all aspects of life in America, from our beginning until this very day. And though you are failing in that effort, you are succeeding as a racist, so much so in fact that you have become the forum apologist for the very institution of slavery that the rest of us so rightfully and righteously despise. You are not a scholar. You are a denialist. You do not enlighten. You darken. You muddle. You obfuscate. You bury. And all the while, you pretend to hold and defend a rhetorical high ground which does not exist. An imaginary high ground, which if it did exist, would and could only be the trash heap of denialist history. But you guard it anyway, yapping and ankle biting, then yelping and claiming victory while the rest of us wonder what's wrong with you. Sure the South had grievances. Who doesn't? But to deny the undeniable importance of the issue of slavery on this country is to almost entirely miss the point. So much so, in truth, that it disqualifies the denier. My only question for you is this: Why do you do it? What about this issue so fascinates, motivates and animates you? Why are you such a denialist kook? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 16:14:14 GMT
Another empty Fiddler tirade; ironically, he's making conclusions not in evidence. I've parried every attempt to portray the history of the era as the laughably cartoonish, intellectually weak fiction that you folks have thrust into this discussion.
This is a tough subject to master; most people don't have the intelligence to understand the complexities of the rift between North and South as I do. An intelligent man would have long ago realized that the issues and motivations of that time were just as labyrinthine as are those of today, perhaps more so. But to admit to that fact is to commit a grave sin against the religion of political correctness and the cult of Lincoln; it is blasphemy to dare to vocalize that the South had a legitimate grievance, a legal right to secede and an honorable cause that was not about slavery.
But that reality IS why the former Confederates were revered after the war by those who lived through that time.
Like Martin Luther at the Wittenburg church door, I've stood against these Lincolnite priests and their mindless screams of "heretic!" and I'm still here. If you'd actually won anything, this thread would have been a lot shorter. Sorry for your loss.
Bless your heart.
Nobody else involved in this discussion is denying the interconnectedness of all things antebellum. Rather, you are denying the undeniable importance, impact and influence of slavery on all aspects of life in America, from our beginning until this very day. And you are deliberately failing to do so, so much in fact that you have become an apologist for the very institution of slavery that the rest of us so rightfully and righteously despise. You are not a scholar. You are a denialist. You do not enlighten. You darken. You muddle. You obfuscate. You bury. And all the while, you pretend to hold and defend a rhetorical high ground which does not exist. An imaginary high ground, which if it did exist, would and could only be the trash heap of denialist history. But you guard it anyway, yapping and ankle biting, then yelping and claiming victory while the rest of us wonder what's wrong with you. Sure the South had grievances. Who doesn't? But to deny the undeniable importance of the issue of slavery on this country is to almost entirely miss the point. So much so, in truth, that it disqualifies the denier. My only question for you is this: Why do you do it? What about this issue so fascinates, motivates and animates you? Why are you such a denialist kook? He's a racist is sheep's clothing? |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,609
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 18, 2020 16:23:59 GMT
Nobody else involved in this discussion is denying the interconnectedness of all things antebellum. Rather, you are denying the undeniable importance, impact and influence of slavery on all aspects of life in America, from our beginning until this very day. And you are deliberately failing to do so, so much in fact that you have become an apologist for the very institution of slavery that the rest of us so rightfully and righteously despise. You are not a scholar. You are a denialist. You do not enlighten. You darken. You muddle. You obfuscate. You bury. And all the while, you pretend to hold and defend a rhetorical high ground which does not exist. An imaginary high ground, which if it did exist, would and could only be the trash heap of denialist history. But you guard it anyway, yapping and ankle biting, then yelping and claiming victory while the rest of us wonder what's wrong with you. Sure the South had grievances. Who doesn't? But to deny the undeniable importance of the issue of slavery on this country is to almost entirely miss the point. So much so, in truth, that it disqualifies the denier. My only question for you is this: Why do you do it? What about this issue so fascinates, motivates and animates you? Why are you such a denialist kook? He's a racist is sheep's clothing? Busy trying to pull the wool over our eyes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 16:31:49 GMT
He's a racist is sheep's clothing? Busy trying to pull the wool over our eyes. And fooling no one. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,116
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 19, 2020 2:18:38 GMT
Another empty Fiddler tirade; ironically, he's making conclusions not in evidence. I've parried every attempt to portray the history of the era as the laughably cartoonish, intellectually weak fiction that you folks have thrust into this discussion.
This is a tough subject to master; most people don't have the intelligence to understand the complexities of the rift between North and South as I do. An intelligent man would have long ago realized that the issues and motivations of that time were just as labyrinthine as are those of today, perhaps more so. But to admit to that fact is to commit a grave sin against the religion of political correctness and the cult of Lincoln; it is blasphemy to dare to vocalize that the South had a legitimate grievance, a legal right to secede and an honorable cause that was not about slavery.
But that reality IS why the former Confederates were revered after the war by those who lived through that time.
Like Martin Luther at the Wittenburg church door, I've stood against these Lincolnite priests and their mindless screams of "heretic!" and I'm still here. If you'd actually won anything, this thread would have been a lot shorter. Sorry for your loss.
Bless your heart.
Nobody else involved in this discussion is denying the interconnectedness of all things antebellum. Rather, it is you who are denying the undeniable importance, impact and influence of slavery on all aspects of life in America, from our beginning until this very day. And though you are failing in that effort, you are succeeding as a racist, so much so in fact that you have become the forum apologist for the very institution of slavery that the rest of us so rightfully and righteously despise. You are not a scholar. You are a denialist. You do not enlighten. You darken. You muddle. You obfuscate. You bury. And all the while, you pretend to hold and defend a rhetorical high ground which does not exist. An imaginary high ground, which if it did exist, would and could only be the trash heap of denialist history. But you guard it anyway, yapping and ankle biting, then yelping and claiming victory while the rest of us wonder what's wrong with you. Sure the South had grievances. Who doesn't? But to deny the undeniable importance of the issue of slavery on this country is to almost entirely miss the point. So much so, in truth, that it disqualifies the denier. My only question for you is this: Why do you do it? What about this issue so fascinates, motivates and animates you? Why are you such a denialist kook?
Denialist? Would nihilist be a more accurate description?
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,609
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 19, 2020 4:30:56 GMT
Nobody else involved in this discussion is denying the interconnectedness of all things antebellum. Rather, it is you who are denying the undeniable importance, impact and influence of slavery on all aspects of life in America, from our beginning until this very day. And though you are failing in that effort, you are succeeding as a racist, so much so in fact that you have become the forum apologist for the very institution of slavery that the rest of us so rightfully and righteously despise. You are not a scholar. You are a denialist. You do not enlighten. You darken. You muddle. You obfuscate. You bury. And all the while, you pretend to hold and defend a rhetorical high ground which does not exist. An imaginary high ground, which if it did exist, would and could only be the trash heap of denialist history. But you guard it anyway, yapping and ankle biting, then yelping and claiming victory while the rest of us wonder what's wrong with you. Sure the South had grievances. Who doesn't? But to deny the undeniable importance of the issue of slavery on this country is to almost entirely miss the point. So much so, in truth, that it disqualifies the denier. My only question for you is this: Why do you do it? What about this issue so fascinates, motivates and animates you? Why are you such a denialist kook?
Denialist? Would nihilist be a more accurate description?
I don't think so. He's not saying that nothing matters. He's mainly saying that the truth doesn't matter. But he is also pissing on history, crapping on context and picking at a scab rather than letting it heal. He doesn't seem to care about the harm that can be done by people with attitudes not unlike his own. People who won't win well. People who are neither graceful nor gracious even in victory. Especially when their most important victory came by birthright, time and place, and not by anything they themselves did to earn or deserve it. In fact, they came to it as heirs of ancestors who discovered the natives to death, while importing darker ones from African to own and use as slaves, for centuries. FOR CENTURIES. HUNDREDS OF YEARS. But paleo doesn't seem to care about that. No, he'd rather rehash his reject-from-the-KKK-wannabe-academy thesis about the Civil War being caused by a careless caress or a hormone imbalance. Meh, maybe you're right after all. |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 19, 2020 4:42:43 GMT
Let’s see if I have this right:
Destroying public property = Look the other way
Don’t wear a mask = “ARREST THAT IDIOT!!!”
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,116
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 19, 2020 5:40:00 GMT
Let’s see if I have this right: Destroying public property = Look the other way Don’t wear a mask = “ARREST THAT IDIOT!!!”
Jasman's fake Christian position: "Kill them all!!!"
By the way, aren't you supposed to be on a six month timeout?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 19, 2020 18:39:48 GMT
Let’s see if I have this right: Destroying public property = Look the other way Don’t wear a mask = “ARREST THAT IDIOT!!!”
No.. You don't have it right. But I don't doubt that you believe it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2020 17:34:54 GMT
Notice that he's glad that a BLIND man didn't live to "see this". You just can't make this stuff up. And I thought that Jasmine had Post of the Year locked up. Here, it appears, she has some competition. Nah, your goof has already secured the top spot. Even Biden wouldn't make that kind of slip up very often and he's old, creepy and senile. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2020 17:49:47 GMT
Your referendum propaganda is a non sequitur; it's a logical fallacy to propose that the votes in the referendum were all or mostly cast for the same reason that the 1% favored during the dissolution.
And yes, I'm sure that anyone who rolls out that tired ole' "lies, damn lies...." cliche is not familiar with statistics. And then claim a "sleight of hand" without anything to back that up.
If you say that secession was about slavery, that implies a majority was motivated by that institution. I'm saying that it wasn't even close to a majority even among the 1%. It's as simple as that. I'll be waiting on your evidence; it would be the first of any significance that I have received.
First, that's laughable, just shows how you try to dismiss anything that contradicts your narrative. Second, you're still engaging in a straw man. No one has said the votes in the referendum were all or mostly cast for the same reason. However, the existence of the referenda does undermine your feeble 1 percent argument, which is the real fallacy here. The existence of the referenda are do not undercut the 1% argument at all. It's the MOTIVATION of the 1% vs. the remainder that is the key question. Having a public vote was simply a way to confirm that the citizens agreed on the idea of secession, not to confirm why they wanted secession. For the political and planter class, i.e., the 1%, slavery was a strong motivator, but that's not evidence that it motivated anyone else. If Bezos, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Ellison and Buffet issued a manifesto, would it reflect what the rest of us think?
Again, I'm taking apart your (collective "you") alleged "evidence" that slavery was the primary cause of secession and war. If your evidence wasn't so thin and weak, I woudn't be able to counter it as easily as I have. I''l say it again; slavery was the last straw, the tipping point, the lit fuse, and the symptom, but NOT the cause nor the overarching primary issue. That's why Corwin failed to bring the South back to the Union.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Jul 21, 2020 18:02:14 GMT
You've taken apart nothing. You just ignore or dismiss out of hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2020 18:02:29 GMT
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Jul 21, 2020 18:08:48 GMT
Why do they have to be replaced with anything?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2020 18:11:49 GMT
Why do they have to be replaced with anything? And why do they have to be replaced right away? |
|
