Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
#1) I have never condoned, supported, justified, defended or excused, any behavior of the Southern states of America. I hold ALL of America responsible for the institution of slavery, and it's existence in our nation for the century before the war, and the systemic discrimination against blacks for the century to follow. YOU want to place the onus on Southerners. I suspect this is some form of assuaging your own personal guilt, and absolving yourself of any responsibility.
#2) If humans are predisposed based on where they happen to be born, this is true with ALL humans, not just the ones who are born in Southern states. Liberty simply reversed your same argument, and applied it to you, and then you thought the notion was absurd. That's what we call, Complete PWNAGE!
#3) If our secession from England in 1776 was not "treasonous" then how can secession from the US in 1861 be "treasonous?" Both were a rebellion against a central government who they believed were violating their fundamental rights... so that's not different... One was more about taxation and the other was more about property... so that wasn't really different... The only fundamental difference I can see, is the South lost their war, and the Revolutionaries won theirs. Wise old saying: The Victors write the History Books!
#4) The CSAs position was, that the US Federal government, had overstepped it's authority and sought to violate it's own Constitution, by trashing the fundamental Constitutional rights of those in the South who owned cotton plantations. From their perspective, not only were they justified in seceding from such a union, they were morally obligated and compelled to do so, by the very wording of the Constitution itself. I've posted this excerpt previously: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
What is that well-used pinhead line? ....One man's terrorism is another man's freedom fight? I can't remember it exactly, but something like that, can be applied here... One man's "treason" was another man's "call to arms." The fundamental disconnect between revisionist like you, and the actual FACTS of history, is absolutely stunning to me... It's as if you think America was some kind of racially divided nation fighting for 'civil rights' for black minorities in 1860... and that was not the case at all. You pretend that southern regions were bigoted and racist, while the northern regions were tolerant and righteous. "The South chose to..." "The South believed...." "The South wanted..." "The South held the view..." as if, every person who lived below the Mason-Dixon was of one mind, speaking in unison together, and they were all saying they wanted to keep slavery and continue to enslave black people against their will, while northern abolitionists cried for justice! It's the most widely-inaccurate portrayal of history that I have ever seen.
#5) Let's talk about the "complete lack of character" in the South, versus the same "complete lack of character" in the North? Did the CSA appoint the court that decided slavery would be legal in America? Did the CSA have anything to do with their decisions in Plessy or Dred Scott? Did the CSA draft a Constitution which guaranteed freedom for all, and then explain how "all" doesn't include black slaves? Did the CSA want to count slaves as whole people or 3/5 of a person? When the Civil War was over, was it the CSA or Union Army, who allowed hundreds, if not, thousands, of freed slaves, to literally DIE in what amounted to refugee camps with no supplies or food? And let's not forget the "character" of the Great Emancipator himself, who said; "I do not feel the negro will ever hold an equal station in society with the whites." ...who attempted to 'solve' the slave problem by shipping boat-loads of slaves off to die on some undeveloped coastal land they bought from Haiti, Africa, and Central America... who was more than willing to compromise with "The South" on slavery, allowing it to exist well into the 1900's... who's father-in-law actually OWNED SLAVES! ...Let's talk about "character" here across the board, not just confined to those in the Southern states.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The slavers and segregationists were Democrats.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;805607 said:
Yes he is. Like libtards always do.
He refused to accept anything except a yes or no answer, after 5 previous attempts to explain what I said. So, I answered "YES" ...the short answer.
Now, here are the choices....
Black people can be disgruntled, unhappy, bitter, resentful, spiteful, vindictive, rebellious, angry, hostile, or whatever.... over the issue of slavery.
OR
Black people can be "grateful" their ancestors were brought here, and spawned the generations to follow, allowing them to be here themselves, able to enjoy the bountiful prosperity of the greatest nation on Earth.
If the choice is to be bitter and angry over slavery, or be positive and grateful, as things turned out pretty good in the end for them? ...I am an optimist, I can't help but pick the later. What useful purpose does the anger and bitterness serve us now? No one today is alive who owned slaves or condoned slavery... we can't punish the dead. How can we punish people who were their descendants? Who is going to distinguish which people should be punished more? Surely people who are descendants of those who ran the underground railroad, would be spared, right? What about the millions who never owned a slave or knew anyone who did? Should their descendants have to pay the same price as descendants of northern shipping magnates who made fortunes shipping cotton? So it is pointless for us to dwell in never-ending anger and bitterness over something that can never be changed or rectified. We have to live with it... and since we have to do that, we may as well try to look at it objectively and find the positives... one of those being, without slavery, most black Americans would either, not be here at all, or they would be somewhere in poverty-ridden Africa, in much worse shape than they are now.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;805686 said:
I believe you (assuming you are black) are much better off being grateful and seeing the positives, rather than being bitter and angry over a past you will never change. I believe one is productive and has benefit, and the other is foolish and ignorant. This might be a good time to point out, I am 1/8 Native-American, 1/8 Asian, and 1/16 African-American. Slavery might actually be responsible for ME being here! Who knows? But the point is, it doesn't do anyone any good to be angry and bitter over something we can't ever change... does it? I mean... does that HELP you to be that way? Am I missing something with that? The way I see it, we can either remain like this... bitter and divided over something that will never be resolved or rectified... or we can be positive and move forward. Which is best, in your opinion, I really would like to know?
Apparently you need it in simple word meanings.
As I said, there is no better sign that you are stuck on stubborn than when you start with the "Dumo" comments. I'll let you get on with it. It is unimportant. They were Americans in rebellion and never were citizens of another nation. I agree with the US government, the "Confederate States" never officially existed so there was nothing for them to leave to...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;805425 said:
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;805607 said:
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;805686 said:
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;805804 said:
very much legion like obsession....you also asked dixie the question about a half dozen times or more....but as per your usual, you deleted the questions so you wouldn't look like a moron, but unfortunately for you, dixie captured the responses in his reply
:lol:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;805813 said:
6
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿ are you going to answer my question? (I answered yours SIX times.)
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, it isn't. But whatever.
Yes it is, and anyone who cares to review the thread can see that. You and Threedee argued the people in the south were NOT Americans, and I maintained they WERE Americans.... you just stated, the were "Americans in rebellion" which was all I said.
Whatever. I simply let you have your stubborn silliness as it is unimportant. If you need to think it is a "great victory" then by all means do. What I said was accurate, and it was the same thing that Threedee said at the beginning. It was not what you "said all along".
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
We've been over this already, the posts are there for anyone to read... You and Threedee argued that Confederates were Confederates, and NOT Americans. You even went so far as to try and give me a rudimentary history lesson. I argued they were always Americans, the war didn't change what they were. You insisted it did change what they were, and continued to insist that for almost 24 hrs. before you finally admitted, they were "Americans in rebellion" ...which is the exact same thing I said all along... they WERE Americans!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I wasn't referring to slavery. I was referring to the behavior of secession. Your argument is also invalid, because it is a deflection.
LOLZ, you missed the point. Not once did I ever deny Liberty's point, or call it invalid. I merely posed a question which I hoped he would answer "yes" to, so that I would have him on record, much like the troll trying to get you to answer the question about slavery, so that he could throw your answer in your face. He argued that I am predisposed to be patriotic due to where I was born. Why the hell would I argue against that? Remember, my whole argument has always been that the South sucks balls. His point isn't absurd, because it simply comes back to the fact that the people there are the reason why it sucks balls.
Nor am I arguing that it wasn't. I simply pointed out that the American colonists did view themselves as Englishmen, even up to the point that where they were fighting in 1775. In fact, the colonists never formally denounced the king until more than a year into the fighting. Which act of treason are you willing to admit to supporting? Ironically, the traitors of the American Revolution were called "Patriots," while the opponents were called "Loyalists." This is America, you can read all sorts of bullshit about the Southern cause, and if you are retarded and live in the South, you might happen to buy into it.
If this is all true, then why did the South wait until the election of Lincoln in November of 1860 to secede from the Union? It didn't secede in 1807 after Jefferson signed the Embargo Act to try and avoid global conflict with the European Powers. It didn't secede after the War of 1812, when Madison went back on his word and rechartered the National Bank. It didn't secede in the the 1830s, when Jackson signed new tariffs into law, and only South Carolina threatened secession at all. In fact, none of economic and fiscal policies of the age are ever referred to as secession crises except for the South Carolina Nullification Crisis. The only times the nation was thrust into crisis were in 1820, when the slave balance of power was jeopardized by the statehood of Maine; in 1850, when the slave balance of power was wrecked by the statehood of California; and throughout the 1850s with incidents such as Bleeding Kansas, Bleeding Sumter, Northern legislation against the Fugitive Slave Laws, and the raid on Harper's Ferry.
Overall, since we live in the USA, the patriotism and treason which matter, are that which concerns the US and the Constitution, both of which were relevant in 1860-65.
One point I will make about the lack of character of the South was its hypocracy. All throughout the period leading up to secession, it always argued for state's rights, but only when it benefited the South's objectives. Clearly the South never truly did believe in state's rights at all. The 3/5 Clause violated the North's right to equal representation in Congress as well as the Presidency. The Fugitive Slave Laws didn't respect the Free Laws of the North, and forced slavery upon the Northern States. Dred Scot did the same thing, forcing the Northern States to allow slaves to be brought into their sovereignty, and not go free as state laws would have done. There was also the Southern support for the illegitimate and illegal government set up in Lecompton, Kansas, after the people of the territory had democratically elected a free government and territorial Constitution in Topeka. The Democratic President James Buchanan even tried to recognize the Lecompton, over the will of the people.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The "behavior" of secession is something that is addressed in the preamble of the Constitution, is it not? "When in the Course of human events..."
Yes, you called it "absurd" but it was the same exact argument you used against Southerners who happened to be born in the South.
By 1776, the majority of people here, were not born in England, they were born in America, and did not consider themselves "Englishmen" at all. They routinely referred to themselves as "Colonists" or "Colonials" and later, "Americans."
I don't view either the American Revolution OR the Civil War as an "act of treason" ...that is YOUR perception, and it is baseless according to the very preamble of the Constitution. Just as our Founders in 1776 were compelled to sever the bonds, so were the Confederates, from their perspective... problem is, you have difficulty seeing anything from their perspective. I am quite sure, people in Britain during the Revolution, felt the same way about the Colonists... that they had betrayed the King and committed a treasonous act. Had the Brits won the war and put down the rebellion, perhaps people like George Washington would be remembered as "traitors" guilty of treason? As I said before, the victors write the history books!
Because that was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Once Lincoln was elected, southerners realized the Federal government was about to confiscate their property without compensation... a flagrant and egregious violation of the 4th Amendment. Up until then, that was not a serious threat, there were issues over money and what was fair... but this went way over the line of mere 'fairness' and into a question of Constitutionality. And let's be clear, it was NOT the CSA which had determined slaves were property that people had a right to own, it was the illustrious Supreme Court of your beloved United States of America, who made that ruling... the South was merely abiding by what the court had decided. If the Founding Fathers had outlawed slavery to begin with, there would have never been an issue. If the SCOTUS, at any point in the 85 years before the Civil War, had decided that slaves were NOT property, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Exactly... and the 4th Amendment is very clear and concise... the government does not have the right to seize property without compensation. That was what they threatened to do, and the people in the South rebelled. You somehow want to try and make the argument that it was okay for the government to shit on the Constitutional rights of people, because it was "morally just" to do so. But that is why we have the Supreme Court, isn't it?
And the only point I have made is, there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around. That's how we had a Constitution which guaranteed freedom to all, but not to black people. Incidentally, the CSA had nothing to do with that... it was done LONG before there ever was a CSA.
The North are the ones who INSISTED on the 3/5 Clause.
Again, you are citing stuff done by the US Government and the US Supreme Court, and NOT the Confederacy.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
1) Human is an ideal, Dixie. One which the South has never lived up to.
2) I did not call it absurd, Dixie. I called it ironic. Stop lying.
3) The best people--the people of New England; the people exclusively responsible for the Revolution occuring--were majority Englishmen. Americans viewed themselves as English by nationality. Why else do you suppose the South was so lopsidedly Loyalist compared with the rest of the colonies?
4) You are the one who brought up the "treason" of the American Patriots.
5) What did the South have to fear from the conciliatory Lincoln? All the South had was a little thing called perception. There was not one fact, nor one iota of reason or deliberation, nor any grasp of reality, in how the South responded to his democratic election. All that can be said for sure is that the election of Lincoln was the first time since 1800 that a man had been elected president who did not represent or appear to represent the interests of the South (John Q. Adams was elected in a disputed election 1824 being one exeption).
6) When ever did the Courts or the Congress shit on the rights of the good people of the South?
7) John Marshall died in 1835. After 1801, there weren't really any decent justices appointed to the high courts, because they were all selected by Southerners and Democrats, such as Andrew Jackson's own Roger B. Taney, who was Chief over the Dred Scott decision.
8) The 3/5 clause prevented slaves from being counted as whole statistics in the apportionment of representatives, Electors, and revenues for the Southern states. Of course, they were supposed to be property, and not people, so it was grossly inappropriate for them to be counted at all. Either way, it got Jefferson elected in 1800, and plunged the country down the dark road toward Civil War, and generally lousy policy.
9) Those things were done by the persons and ideologies which would become the Confederacy.
2) I did not call it absurd, Dixie. I called it ironic. Stop lying.
3) The best people--the people of New England; the people exclusively responsible for the Revolution occuring--were majority Englishmen. Americans viewed themselves as English by nationality. Why else do you suppose the South was so lopsidedly Loyalist compared with the rest of the colonies?
4) You are the one who brought up the "treason" of the American Patriots.
5) What did the South have to fear from the conciliatory Lincoln? All the South had was a little thing called perception. There was not one fact, nor one iota of reason or deliberation, nor any grasp of reality, in how the South responded to his democratic election. All that can be said for sure is that the election of Lincoln was the first time since 1800 that a man had been elected president who did not represent or appear to represent the interests of the South (John Q. Adams was elected in a disputed election 1824 being one exeption).
6) When ever did the Courts or the Congress shit on the rights of the good people of the South?
7) John Marshall died in 1835. After 1801, there weren't really any decent justices appointed to the high courts, because they were all selected by Southerners and Democrats, such as Andrew Jackson's own Roger B. Taney, who was Chief over the Dred Scott decision.
8) The 3/5 clause prevented slaves from being counted as whole statistics in the apportionment of representatives, Electors, and revenues for the Southern states. Of course, they were supposed to be property, and not people, so it was grossly inappropriate for them to be counted at all. Either way, it got Jefferson elected in 1800, and plunged the country down the dark road toward Civil War, and generally lousy policy.
9) Those things were done by the persons and ideologies which would become the Confederacy.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Human is an ideal? ...I may have to change my sig line for that one! What the fuck does that even MEAN? You stated you were talking about the "behavior of secession" but I pointed out, the Constitution itself, compels us to secede from tyrannic rule. I even posted the portion of the preamble which articulates this very point. Human is a SPECIES, and last I checked, people in the South fit the criteria just like people in the North.
Okay, I don't care what you called it... you didn't appreciate the fact that Liberty used your same argument to show you what a fucking bigoted idiot you are. That's all that matters with #2.
There are no "best people" according to the Constitution... I think you may have ended up in the wrong country. As far as what they were called, no one called them Englishmen, everyone called them Colonists or Colonials. The terms "loyalist" and "revolutionary" were applied in context of the debate of the time, it doesn't define what people are. It's like "pro-lifer" and "pro-choicer" it states your position on an issue, it doesn't define who you are or what you are. Even taking your point into consideration, these so-called "Englishmen" didn't suddenly stop being English when the war broke out. That is the claim you made with regard to AMERICANS who seceded from the Union.
I only pointed out, what the Revolutionaries did, was no different than what the Confederates did. You can't argue one was an act of treason and the other was not. They were both the same.... so if one was treason, the other was as well. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Again, you really need to brush up on history... it's shameful you claim to be a historian, and know so very little. First of all, stop referring to "The South" as if it were another country before the Civil War. The southern states were the same as all the other states, they all belonged to the same United States, and people were elected to office based on votes from American people in the North and South, it wasn't two different countries. No one was ever elected to office to represent solely the South, without regard for the North or visa versa. Every representative was elected to represent their state, and Southern people were elected to represent Southern states, just as Northern people were elected to represent Northern states. Presidents were either from the North or South, there was never a president elected who ignored the issues or needs of the North or South, because the President represents the whole country. These are all false perceptions you seem to be having about history, and I don't know why.
As for the courts or Congress, I never said they violated the rights of Southern slave owners. Lincoln, as president, threatened to end slavery and confiscate property from Southerners without compensation. The 4th Amendment makes it very clear, that would be a flagrant violation of their rights. Now, it's fine to take a moral stand on this, and claim Lincoln was justified in violating the 4th Amendment in this case, but that isn't the responsibility of the president, that is what the Supreme Court is for... that is what Congress is for. You may think it is abhorrent to refer to slaves as property, but you'll have to blame that on the United States, not the Confederacy... they didn't have anything to do with that.
Again, you want to act like The South was it's own entity and nation, and it simply wasn't. It was PART OF the United States. What you are doing now, is applying "guilt by association" in saying the judge who ruled in Dred Scott, was appointed by a SOUTHERNER! OMG! Wye... if it had been a NORTHERNER... he would have NEVER ruled slaves were property... because EVERYONE up NORTH thought of slaves as people, just like them! The North was it's own independent nation, vehemently opposed to what was being done in The South nation... that is the fucked up picture you want to paint here, and it's just not historically accurate. The northern states benefited as much, if not more, from the cotton produced in the southern states, than anyone. This is why slavery continued in America for 85 years before the war... this is why the SCOTUS and the Congress upheld slavery all those years, and this is why our Founding Fathers didn't outlaw slavery in the very beginning of the country.
I understand EXACTLY why the 3/5 clause was devised, but it is often one of those things brought up by the ignorant, in their condemnation of the South, as if Southerners didn't want to count slaves as whole people.... it was actually NORTHERNERS who didn't want to count slaves as whole people. And let's get something else straight, what plunged us down the road to the Civil War, was 85 years of AMERICAN policy upholding the institution of slavery, Supreme Court rulings which determined slaves were property, failure of our founding fathers to outlaw slavery, and greed from Southern A-N-DNorthern businessmen, who profited greatly from cotton.
Now you are again trying to convey a picture of America as a divided nation BEFORE the war, and that is just not historically accurate. Those things were done by United States courts, who were appointed by presidents of the United States, elected by citizens of the United States, and condoned by the Congress of the United States, and it was ALL done before there was ever a Confederacy.