Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 14:15:57 GMT
One major difference between them: their goals. The revolutionaries of the American Revolution fought to free themselves from the British so they could self govern in a more liberal way (less taxes, fewer tariffs, rights of property against forced quartering, sound money, etc) where as the southern "revolutionaries" were fighting to maintain a foot in the feudal world, with slavery, hierarchy and status as the animating principle of their society, rather than the liberal notion of equality before the law. To the extent the revolutionaries of the American Revolution shared the southerner's preference for a status/hierarchy/feudal style society, with apartheid and slavery, they too were not liberals. And here you are doubling down with more garbage. Have you ever had an original thought? Doesn't look like it; you follow the propaganda like a good little lemming. Again, ninety four percent of all Southerners owned no slaves and could have never afforded even one, yet you expect us to believe that they gave up everything, left their families, starved, and repeatedly walked into a deadly wall of lead and steel for four years so that they could protect a "feudal world, with slavery, hierarchy and status as the animating principle of their society"? Do you not have the self awareness to realize how bloody stupid that sounds? Do you know any actual human beings that might help you learn about human nature? You seem incapable of logic and common sense in discerning the complex truth about human motivations. The majority of Confederates DID fight to free themselves from a tyrannical government, and were seeking less taxes, fewer tariffs, rights of property against forced quartering, sound money, etc. Most of them had no interest nor would they have ever in their lifetime owned a single slave. Once again, the majority of Southerners were fighting for the same GOALS as were the Patriots of 1776; that's why the war was deemed the "Second American Revolution" and why George Washington was the centerpiece of the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America. Southerners were the classical liberals of their day, not the Yankees. That author stupidly quotes the 1% elitists to pretend that such opinions represented the other 99% of Southerners. Like you and you Confederate monument nonsense, Rhea takes a few crumbs and attempts to conflate them as representative of the entire bakery. Don't you know that these Southern Fireeaters fell out of favor after the war started?
That “terrible cause” of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the “Civil War was about slavery, nothing more.”
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state’s rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.www.huffpost.com/entry/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 14:22:17 GMT
The southerners who fought for slavery but didn't own slaves were fighting for a vision of society as a racial hierarchy. They were fighting against the idea that a black man would ever be their equal. That's a conservative project: (desiring a society based on status and hierarchy rather than equality before the law) You can't be a liberal and believe in inequality before the law, slavery, or some 2-tier system of justice. You don't know what liberalism is. This is an absurd argument you are making. Jump on in, TL. The water's fine to dunk on Paleo. In the game of life, you're nothing more than the ugliest cheerleader on the squad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 20:09:29 GMT
One major difference between them: their goals. The revolutionaries of the American Revolution fought to free themselves from the British so they could self govern in a more liberal way (less taxes, fewer tariffs, rights of property against forced quartering, sound money, etc) where as the southern "revolutionaries" were fighting to maintain a foot in the feudal world, with slavery, hierarchy and status as the animating principle of their society, rather than the liberal notion of equality before the law. To the extent the revolutionaries of the American Revolution shared the southerner's preference for a status/hierarchy/feudal style society, with apartheid and slavery, they too were not liberals. The majority of Confederates DID fight to free themselves from a tyrannical government, and were seeking less taxes, fewer tariffs, rights of property against forced quartering, sound money, etc. Most of them had no interest nor would they have ever in their lifetime owned a single slave. Once again, the majority of Southerners were fighting for the same GOALS as were the Patriots of 1776; that's why the war was deemed the "Second American Revolution" and why George Washington was the centerpiece of the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America. Southerners were the classical liberals of their day, not the Yankees. If that was what they were fighting for, they should have said so. But they didn't. They spoke about slavery. Miscegenation. Preserving hierarchy over inferiors. You want to read minds and ignore what is actually written. The 1%? Sorry. No. This was a survey of a wide swath of southern society and referenced what was being said in churches and by community leaders. Go back and read the link. You can't just dismiss everything that goes against your narrative. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 22:39:07 GMT
If that was what they were fighting for, they should have said so. But they didn't. They spoke about slavery. Miscegenation. Preserving hierarchy over inferiors. You want to read minds and ignore what is actually written. You've latched onto the handful of bloviations of the 1%....the Bezos, Zuckerburg, Dorsey types of that era. Assigning their views to everyone else is akin to claiming that the majority of our current military is fighting and dying to protect the monopolies of Silicon Valley. Does that sound stupid to you? If so, now you know what your garbage sounds like to me. The 1%? Sorry. This was a survey of a wide swath of southern society and referenced what was being said in churches and by community leaders. Go back and read the link. You can't just dismiss everything that goes against your narrative. A "survey"? Rhea, a lawyer not a historian, cherry picked (a bad habit that you seem to have) a few isolated quotes from a few speakers (again, just like you did on the Confederate monument issue) and uses such nonsense to imagine the motivations of the other five million Southerners. That's an unforgivable logical fallacy that deserves to be laughed at. The same rhetoric against blacks was being spewed up North as well; even Lincoln used such language against blacks, even during the war.
By your alleged logic, wouldn't that mean that the entire Union was motivated by racist hatred simply because one man, Lincoln expressed such disdain? The Yankee-created, Lincoln-endorsed 1861 Corwin Amendment alone was more than the South had ever pushed for as far as a protection of slavery. See where cherry picking gets you in trouble? Finally, I only "dismiss" the lies....and yes, I CAN and will dismiss all of those. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 0:10:03 GMT
If that was what they were fighting for, they should have said so. But they didn't. They spoke about slavery. Miscegenation. Preserving hierarchy over inferiors. You want to read minds and ignore what is actually written. You've latched onto the handful of bloviations of the 1%....the Bezos, Zuckerburg, Dorsey types of that era. Assigning their views to everyone else is akin to claiming that the majority of our current military is fighting and dying to protect the monopolies of Silicon Valley. Does that sound stupid to you? If so, now you know what your garbage sounds like to me. The 1%? Sorry. This was a survey of a wide swath of southern society and referenced what was being said in churches and by community leaders. Go back and read the link. You can't just dismiss everything that goes against your narrative. A "survey"? Rhea, a lawyer not a historian, cherry picked (a bad habit that you seem to have) a few isolated quotes from a few speakers (again, just like you did on the Confederate monument issue) and uses such nonsense to imagine the motivations of the other five million Southerners. That's an unforgivable logical fallacy that deserves to be laughed at. The same rhetoric against blacks was being spewed up North as well; even Lincoln used such language against blacks, even during the war.
By your alleged logic, wouldn't that mean that the entire Union was motivated by racist hatred simply because one man, Lincoln expressed such disdain? The Yankee-created, Lincoln-endorsed 1861 Corwin Amendment alone was more than the South had ever pushed for as far as a protection of slavery. See where cherry picking gets you in trouble? Finally, I only "dismiss" the lies....and yes, I CAN and will dismiss all of those. The 1%, blah blah. You claim no one but the 1% felt this way but offer no proof. Meanwhile, all the proof that cuts the other way is waived away. Your own narrative is substituted, evidence free, with nothing but the weight of your projected certainty to support it. This is where I exit. Good day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 3:56:40 GMT
You've latched onto the handful of bloviations of the 1%....the Bezos, Zuckerburg, Dorsey types of that era. Assigning their views to everyone else is akin to claiming that the majority of our current military is fighting and dying to protect the monopolies of Silicon Valley. Does that sound stupid to you? If so, now you know what your garbage sounds like to me. A "survey"? Rhea, a lawyer not a historian, cherry picked (a bad habit that you seem to have) a few isolated quotes from a few speakers (again, just like you did on the Confederate monument issue) and uses such nonsense to imagine the motivations of the other five million Southerners. That's an unforgivable logical fallacy that deserves to be laughed at. The same rhetoric against blacks was being spewed up North as well; even Lincoln used such language against blacks, even during the war.
By your alleged logic, wouldn't that mean that the entire Union was motivated by racist hatred simply because one man, Lincoln expressed such disdain? The Yankee-created, Lincoln-endorsed 1861 Corwin Amendment alone was more than the South had ever pushed for as far as a protection of slavery. See where cherry picking gets you in trouble? Finally, I only "dismiss" the lies....and yes, I CAN and will dismiss all of those. The 1%, blah blah. You claim no one but the 1% felt this way but offer no proof. Meanwhile, all the proof that cuts the other way is waived away. Your own narrative is substituted, evidence free, with nothing but the weight of your projected certainty to support it. This is where I exit. Good day. Thus exits the troll who, while demanding proof from others, ironically offered no proof to back up this laughable statement: "the southern "revolutionaries" were fighting to maintain a foot in the feudal world, with slavery, hierarchy and status as the animating principle of their society, rather than the liberal notion of equality before the law." Common sense and statistics tells us that any such group was small since the number of slave owners was small, but logic is wasted on these leftist zealots. |
|
|
|
Post by VYPR on Jun 17, 2021 4:51:17 GMT
The 1%, blah blah. You claim no one but the 1% felt this way but offer no proof. Meanwhile, all the proof that cuts the other way is waived away. Your own narrative is substituted, evidence free, with nothing but the weight of your projected certainty to support it. This is where I exit. Good day. Thus exits the troll who, while demanding proof from others, ironically offered no proof to back up this laughable statement: "the southern "revolutionaries" were fighting to maintain a foot in the feudal world, with slavery, hierarchy and status as the animating principle of their society, rather than the liberal notion of equality before the law." Common sense and statistics tells us that any such group was small since the number of slave owners was small, but logic is wasted on these leftist zealots. With all your lies, misinformation and revisionist history, you come across as sad, very sad, that you never had the chance to be a slave owner during the golden era of the deep south. It must be a deep psychic pain, like a boil on your ass, that you could never wield the whip in a benevolent fashion and show everyone what a top-flight plantation owner you could have been in the Great Southern Paradise. . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 12:03:23 GMT
Thus exits the troll who, while demanding proof from others, ironically offered no proof to back up this laughable statement: "the southern "revolutionaries" were fighting to maintain a foot in the feudal world, with slavery, hierarchy and status as the animating principle of their society, rather than the liberal notion of equality before the law." Common sense and statistics tells us that any such group was small since the number of slave owners was small, but logic is wasted on these leftist zealots. With all your lies, misinformation and revisionist history, you come across as sad, very sad, that you never had the chance to be a slave owner during the golden era of the deep south. It must be a deep psychic pain, like a boil on your ass, that you could never wield the whip in a benevolent fashion and show everyone what a top-flight plantation owner you could have been in the Great Southern Paradise. I just presented the facts, which does tend to push liberals like this one toward apoplexy. Troll, you can look like a moron by posting more fecal nonsense like your pile of crap above, or you can engage in the conversation like an adult. You'd lose, of course, but we'd laugh at you less (maybe).
Anything else, troll?
|
|
|
|
Post by VYPR on Jun 17, 2021 13:40:09 GMT
With all your lies, misinformation and revisionist history, you come across as sad, very sad, that you never had the chance to be a slave owner during the golden era of the deep south. It must be a deep psychic pain, like a boil on your ass, that you could never wield the whip in a benevolent fashion and show everyone what a top-flight plantation owner you could have been in the Great Southern Paradise. I just presented the facts, which does tend to push liberals like this one toward apoplexy. Troll, you can look like a moron by posting more fecal nonsense like your pile of crap above, or you can engage in the conversation like an adult. You'd lose, of course, but we'd laugh at you less (maybe).
Anything else, troll?
So do you think you would have been a good slave owner? Would you have driven the people you owned to high levels of productivity? Would you have been a strict but fair practitioner of slavery? . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 18:39:30 GMT
I just presented the facts, which does tend to push liberals like this one toward apoplexy. Troll, you can look like a moron by posting more fecal nonsense like your pile of crap above, or you can engage in the conversation like an adult. You'd lose, of course, but we'd laugh at you less (maybe).
Anything else, troll?
So do you think you would have been a good slave owner? Would you have driven the people you owned to high levels of productivity? Would you have been a strict but fair practitioner of slavery? I would have likely been in the 94% that owned none and wanted none and didn't fight to preserve slavery. Just as I'll never be a Bezos or Zuckerburg or Dorsey now.
Are you intelligent enough to realize that slave owners made up only a tiny fraction of the Southern population? Do you have brains enough to realize that Southerners then were like soldiers now.....today our troops are not motivated to fight and die to protect the monopolies of Silicon Valley or the urban abortion clinics but they'll kick a foreign enemy's ass if he tries to invade Southern California or any other part of this country. THAT'S what motivated Confederate soldiers and citizens, not slavery.
Got it yet, troll, or do we just need to give you a box of crayons and stick you in the corner?
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 17, 2021 18:40:22 GMT
So do you think you would have been a good slave owner? Would you have driven the people you owned to high levels of productivity? Would you have been a strict but fair practitioner of slavery? I would have likely been in the 94% that owned none and wanted none and didn't fight to preserve slavery. Just as I'll never be a Bezos or Zuckerburg or Dorsey now.
Are you intelligent enough to realize that slave owners made up only a tiny fraction of the Southern population? Do you have brains enough to realize that Southerners then were like soldiers now.....today our troops are not motivated to fight and die to protect the momopolies Silicon Valley but they'll kick a foreing enemy's ass if he tries to invade Southern California.
Got it yet, troll, or do we just need to give you a box of crayons and stick you in the corner?
There he goes again. Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 18:42:52 GMT
I would have likely been in the 94% that owned none and wanted none and didn't fight to preserve slavery. Just as I'll never be a Bezos or Zuckerburg or Dorsey now.
Are you intelligent enough to realize that slave owners made up only a tiny fraction of the Southern population? Do you have brains enough to realize that Southerners then were like soldiers now.....today our troops are not motivated to fight and die to protect the momopolies Silicon Valley but they'll kick a foreing enemy's ass if he tries to invade Southern California.
Got it yet, troll, or do we just need to give you a box of crayons and stick you in the corner?
There he goes again. Greg The truth is always worth repeating. With you around, it must be repeated. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 17, 2021 18:44:09 GMT
The truth is always worth repeating. With you around, it must be repeated. Like a broken record (if anybody remembers what THAT was)... Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 20:05:43 GMT
These are cute arguments. Not terribly thoughtful or convincing. But seriously cute.
|
|
