Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My point, again, is that there were a few legislators fighting for racial equality. Especally the ELECTED Black congressmen of the day!

The thing is... NO THEY WEREN'T! They certainly weren't pushing for desegregation! There are a small handful of people, mostly black people and some white Mormon and Quaker preachers, who promoted the idea of racial equality, and that was IT for 1875 America! These people had less political power than pretty much any group of that time! It was an "extreme" viewpoint, not one embraced by the majority of Americans, or anywhere NEAR a majority, or to any real political degree at all. Again, this line of political and social thought, did not begin to take hold until after WWII, and the movement became a forefront issue in the 1960s.

You want to take a modern interpretation of the Constitution, and apply it to the thinking of 1875 Americans, and it simply doesn't comport with logic or reason. We can't argue things on the basis of what the future will find, we have no way of knowing what future generations will do, or how they will interpret things then, so we can't apply it to our thinking today! Take the Abortion issue... we both have an opinion on it... what if, 50 years from now, the Supreme Court rules that unborn fetuses have Constitutional rights? Does that mean that retroactively, we can claim all persons who are currently advocating "woman's right to choice" are guilty of infanticide and murder? That pro-choicer's are flagrantly violating the intent and meaning (future) of the Constitution, and that pro-lifers have established the Constitution meant to apply to the unborn? That is a viewpoint contradictory to history, isn't it? That would be me applying a future court finding to the current interpretation and understanding of the Constitution and the law today, and that would be devoid of logic and rationality.

I have shown you where the legislation you've presented, says NOTHING about desegregation or integration of blacks into white society. Not one damn word about that! It DOES indicate equality, but we have to look at history in perspective of the times, to determine what they meant by "EQUALITY" ....A modern, post-1954 interpretation is irrelevant to that discussion! In 1875, it was considered completely "equal" to require black men and white men to both take a literacy test to vote! It was considered completely "equal" to require all voters to own property or pay a poll tax! And the literal policies of racial segregation, were said to be "separate but equal" as if, we had already established a criteria for "equality" through the actual segregating of society!

Segregationists would argue in Plessy, that policies of segregation actually HELPED promote racial harmony! Putting blacks in separate schools, actually helped them avoid the stigma of being black, the ostracizing for being different, they were saved the "shame" of their race, so we were actually doing them a favor, helping them to realize "equality" in society, by segregating them! I shit you not... THIS was their argument!

To me, it would be absolutely laughable (if it weren't so sad), to believe that 1875 Americans were advocating integration or racial equality in ANY way, because that is simply not what history shows. You keep wanting to interject little "gotchas" on minutia of what is said, as if you are disproving some point I have made, but so far, you haven't. Let's take ALL of the assorted "red text" corrections you've interjected... let's pretend for a moment that you are 100% correct in your conclusions... how does any of it change the fundamental point I have made in the opening commentary of this thread? It doesn't! Because all it amounts to, is your inane ignorance of history and historical facts, and lack of comprehension of reality and rationality.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
See folks, according to Dixie, you come from a family of slave owners, then go off to war to fight for the Confederacy, but YOU ARE NOT SUPPORTING SLAVERY. So to use Dixie's own logic, since NONE of these men OFFICIALLY stated that they were AGAINST the slavery that benefitted their child rearing and young adult years, NO ONE CAN SAY THAT THEY WERE AGAINST SLAVERY. The information I presented extrapolates from census of the times, documentation of who and how many owned slaves. Correlated that with enlistments, losses, and one would be hard pressed to say that NO SLAVE OWNER fought for the Confederacy.

Again, Dixie states that he knows for certain that no slave owner fought for the Confederacy. Pity his vast knowledge overlooked Jefferson Davis, James Z. George, notable confederate military leaders in the field, and slave owners.
That's just for starters. But it's a stark indicator of the dishonesty of Dixie's argument, and his warped, delusion that his intense need to defend the Confederacy from it's congenital racism.

Again... I didn't say that no Confederate owned slaves, NO ONE SAID YOU DID, YOU LYING SOS! YOU STATED THAT NO SLAVE OWNER FOUGHT IN THE CIVIL WAR! I PROVED YOU WRONG WITH JUST 2 REFERENCES! GROW UP AND DEAL, MAN....IT'S AN ANONYMOUS FORUM, NONE OF YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY WILL KNOW THAT YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG. that is a ridiculous statement you wish to attribute to me because you are either too fucking ignorant to read and comprehend the rather simple statement I posted, or you are being deliberately dishonest. Take your pick!


All of this other conjecture you're coming up with, is based on your ignorant perception of what I DIDN'T SAY! Now Chicklet, as much as I would love to go back and change my points and make my argument something ridiculous, so you can feel like you "won" an argument here, I am not going to do that. We have to go by the chronology of the posts, you see? We have to argue what has actually been said, and what the intent of the point was, not what we wish it could have been, or would like for it to be.

I understand you are an intolerant bigot who wishes I were the stereotypical redneck racist Southerner, so you could strut around acting like you are moral and courageous for putting me in my place. I realize that you want that so badly to be the case, you will resort to outright lies and distortions of what I say, in order to try and cajole the conversation into what you wish in your racist arrogance it could be. The problem is, I am just no cooperating with you on that, and it's frustrating, I know! Now, you can keep banging your head against a brick wall, wishing and hoping for me to slip up and say something "racist" that you can have a field day with... maybe if you keep yapping at me, eventually I will do that, perhaps this is what you're thinking? I don't think your strategy will work, basically because I am not racist and never have been. I am sorry I disappointed your bigoted prejudiced stereotype of me, I wish I could do something about that, but I guess you're going to just have to live with your closed-minded bigotry.

My GOD, that was a LOT of BS you just spewed....unfortunately, your rants and smokescreens won't erase the chronology of the posts, which shows you being proven wrong logically and factually...and how cowardly and dishonest you are when you can't logically and factually refute the valid, historical evidence. Posts #201, 546, 568, and 591.

You're done, Dixie....like every other intellectually bankrupt bigoted propagandist, you just want a forum to repeat your dreck over and over. Well, I've put your garbage to rest time and again...and during the exchanges you've offered information that reveals a warped and disturbing mindset that warrants serious therapy with regards to you need to be racially accepted by your peers on one level. You've been exposed for what you are, and my job is done. You may regurgitate the last predictable diatribe. Adios.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

NO ONE SAID YOU DID, YOU LYING SOS! YOU STATED THAT NO SLAVE OWNER FOUGHT IN THE CIVIL WAR! I PROVED YOU WRONG WITH JUST 2 REFERENCES! GROW UP AND DEAL, MAN....IT'S AN ANONYMOUS FORUM, NONE OF YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY WILL KNOW THAT YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG.

Here is what I actually said:

There is a cold hard fact that escapes people like Chicklet, who don't understand the history of the Civil War... Not one single soldier who fought and died in the Civil War, owned any slaves.

Can you see the subtle difference in what you dishonestly CLAIM was said, and what I actually said? I think most HONEST people can, but maybe you can't.

Here's the deal, by your very own sources, around 30% of the CSA army came from slave-holding families. Now, that in of itself seems to contradict the assertion that ALL 100% of them were fighting to keep slavery! Why would 70% of the army be committed to dying for something that didn't effect them? So just that one detail, nullifies the assertions that Southerners were fighting for slavery. It was only a slim minority of the CSA army who even came from families which owned slaves.

But let's look further at the actual policies and procedures of the time. Plantation owners were the people who technically "owned" slaves. They represented about 2% of the population of the South. Since they were wealthy plantation owners, they took full advantage of a provision common in that time, of sending a "proxy" to serve for them, if they were eligible for military service. The sons of the wealthy plantation owners, generally got the best assignments and fast-tracked promotions to officers, if they even had to serve at all. The men who manned the rifles and cannons, the ones who died by the thousands and Antietam , were not men who owned slaves! Perhaps their General was from a slave-owning family, but that wasn't what I said, was it?

Let's be clear about my statement and what was meant by it, because you've now clouded the water with your petulant bullshit... I am not making an excuse for the Confederacy or slavery! I am not claiming that no Southerners supported or condoned slavery! I am not saying that Confederate soldiers were against slavery or didn't care about slavery! I have merely pointed out, that the men who fought and died under the Confederate flag, were not slave owners, and that is true.

 

[Jarod]

Okay, lets try to keep this simple so you cant confuse the issue over and over again...

Did you say:

"The truth, as ugly as it may be, is that every politician prior to 1965, is responsible for supporting segregationist policy, because they DID! Repeatedly! For a century, every president, every Congress, and every Judge they appointed, upheld and maintained a system of complete and total segregation in America!"

????????????????????????????????????

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, lets try to keep this simple so you cant confuse the issue over and over again...

Did you say:

"The truth, as ugly as it may be, is that every politician prior to 1965, is responsible for supporting segregationist policy, because they DID! Repeatedly! For a century, every president, every Congress, and every Judge they appointed, upheld and maintained a system of complete and total segregation in America!"

????????????????????????????????????

Yes, these are my words. And yes, you have shown where I was technically wrong to say "EVERY" because you found an obscure Reconstruction-era example to prove that wrong! I am still trying to figure out how that disproved my point in any way... just like I am still trying to figure out what abhorrently racist thing I have said here, to warrant Chicklet calling me David Duke and acting like I have espoused hate speech.

Look at the history, I posted a chunk of it back on Page 11, and it supports my argument that America did NOT support or endorse desegregation until well into the later half of the 20th century....Oh...ooops... sorry, Harry Truman did something in 1948 with the military, and that is technically not in the "later half" of the century... so Dixie is WRONG again!

Fucking retard!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Yes, apparently Dixie has a problem with 1/2 as well as 1/3...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes, apparently Dixie has a problem with 1/2 as well as 1/3...

He's fucking insane! He makes a statement that no slave owner fought in the Civil War...I provide JUST 2 names of famous Confederate officers that fought in the Civil war....his response: they had to have died as well in order for him to admit he was wrong!

He just doesn't split a hair....he removes it, replaces it with a transplant from his ass and douses it with rogain!

The guy needs some SERIOUS help.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

He's fucking insane! He makes a statement that no slave owner fought in the Civil War...I provide JUST 2 names of famous Confederate officers that fought in the Civil war....his response: they had to have died as well in order for him to admit he was wrong!

He just doesn't split a hair....he removes it, replaces it with a transplant from his ass and douses it with rogain!

The guy needs some SERIOUS help.

Here is what I actually said:

"There is a cold hard fact that escapes people like Chicklet, who don't understand the history of the Civil War... Not one single soldier who fought and died in the Civil War, owned any slaves."

That is a direct quote of what I posted. You continue to argue that I posted something else... maybe you need to follow the chronology of the posts with your happy little ass, back to where I originally posted this, and you can see that I have not edited the post, and you have misquoted me. This is the second time I have corrected your misquote, and you now insist that I am insane for not admitting to a quote I never made, and which the chronology of the posts shows I never made.

It takes a really fucked up sociopath to tell an outright lie about text that is right there in black and white for all to read, and continue to insist it says something else! I think YOU are the one in need of mental help, Chicklet!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Here is what I actually said:

"There is a cold hard fact that escapes people like Chicklet, who don't understand the history of the Civil War... Not one single soldier who fought and died in the Civil War, owned any slaves."

That is a direct quote of what I posted. You continue to argue that I posted something else... maybe you need to follow the chronology of the posts with your happy little ass, back to where I originally posted this, and you can see that I have not edited the post, and you have misquoted me. This is the second time I have corrected your misquote, and you now insist that I am insane for not admitting to a quote I never made, and which the chronology of the posts shows I never made.

It takes a really fucked up sociopath to tell an outright lie about text that is right there in black and white for all to read, and continue to insist it says something else! I think YOU are the one in need of mental help, Chicklet!

Oh right, so the "fought and died" part were just covering the bases because the real emphasis was that, according to you, no slave owner fought in the Civil War.

Hey genius, when I named JUST two famous slave owning Confederate officers (soldiers of higher rank, don't cha know) that fought in the Civil WAR...you didn't acknowledge that, did you? A matter of history, a matter of fact that proves you wrong....and you don't have the honesty or courage to admit you're wrong. It's in the chronology of the thread, genius. If I'll link the post so you can try and rewrite that piece of history.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Segregation now, segregation forever!

I detest liars like you....more so lying little racists cretins like you who parrot revisionist history. As I've told you many times before, the only intellectually lightweight "chicklet" on these boards is YOU.

You may now resume your ad nauseum repetition, sputtering and bullhorn.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh right, so the "fought and died" part were just covering the bases because the real emphasis was that, according to you, no slave owner fought in the Civil War.

That is neither what I said or what I meant, you are claiming I said it, and inferring a meaning to what I said, but the words are there for all to read, and they do not say what you claim they say, nor were they intended the way you infer. I don't mind continuing to correct you and point that out, I think it illustrates how dishonest you are. And anyone who would lie about something so obvious and clear, even after THREE corrections, can't really be trusted to tell the truth on anything, in my opinion.

Hey genius, when I named JUST two famous slave owning Confederate officers (soldiers of higher rank, don't cha know) that fought in the Civil WAR...you didn't acknowledge that, did you? A matter of history, a matter of fact that proves you wrong....and you don't have the honesty or courage to admit you're wrong. It's in the chronology of the thread, genius. If I'll link the post so you can try and rewrite that piece of history.

Well, If I had made the statement you lied and claimed I made, you would have a point. However, I never claimed Confederate officers didn't own any slaves. Read the statement I made again, until sinks in, is all I can say. No solider (not officer) who fought and died (not served in the CSA) ever owned (not just relatives of someone who owned) a single slave! If you finish the sentence without trying to parse it or twist the meaning, you will see that I never said what you continue to insist I said!

I detest liars like you....more so lying little racists cretins like you who parrot revisionist history. As I've told you many times before, the only intellectually lightweight "chicklet" on these boards is YOU.

Well that explains your disposition, you hate yourself because you are the biggest liar on this board! As all the "folks" can see by the chronology of the posts, you lie and continue to lie, even when your lie is pointed out and clearly shown to be a lie! It's fairly common for people to lie on message boards, but they usually pick something that can't be shown to be a lie, and when it is shown to be a lie THREE times, they usually have enough integrity to admit they were wrong, or misspoke, or something... they don't continue to argue the other party is insane because they won't admit they said something they never said! My experience is, only SOCIOPATHS think that way!

Throughout this thread, nothing I have said has been a revision of history, I posted actual accounts of things that actually happened in America. I have explained the context of thinking in the days we are talking about, and those mindsets were how people thought back in that day. The Constitution clearly outlines rights to the people, so why was slavery not permanently outlawed and abolished in 1787 when the Constitution became law? Well, it was because of the way people thought back then! Slaves were not considered people, they were considered property, like a horse or cow! The Founders simply never intended for the Constitution to apply to slaves! It would be another century... 1876, before we find people with THAT interpretation and mindset. This is not me revising history, it's me putting history into perspective and context of the time. It would be another century after that (1964) before we interpreted "equality" did not include segregation!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Dixie wrote:
Well, If I had made the statement you lied and claimed I made, you would have a point. However, I never claimed Confederate officers didn't own any slaves. Read the statement I made again, until sinks in, is all I can say. No solider (not officer) who fought and died (not served in the CSA) ever owned (not just relatives of someone who owned) a single slave! If you finish the sentence without trying to parse it or twist the meaning, you will see that I never said what you continue to insist I said!

Okay, one more time for the cheap seats:

I named just 2 famous soldiers for who fought for the Confederacy that owned slaves in the Civil War. So you stating that NO soldier who fought owned slaves is wrong.....they were soldiers and they fought and they owned slaves...they also happen to be famous Confederate officers. Deal with it.

See, you're such a coward that you try to split hairs like a petulant child refusing to be wrong....and you just dig yourself deeper into that pit of racist revisionist stubborness. So be it. It just indicates the assinine stances you take to defend/justify/deny/excuse the disgusting legacy of racism that stains the Confederate flag...your denial of the intent of the CRA of 1866 and 1875 would be laughable if it weren't so ignorant and pathetic....as was your original post trying to equate modern day Democratic Party with the Dixiecrat driven party of old. The Chronology of the thread proves me out to the objective reader...your denial and repetition nonwithstanding.

As I said before, the only intellectually lightweight "chick-let" here is YOU.

Say goodnight gracie...shows over for you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, If I had made the statement you lied and claimed I made, you would have a point. However, I never claimed Confederate officers didn't own any slaves. Read the statement I made again, until sinks in, is all I can say. No solider (not officer) who fought and died (not served in the CSA) ever owned (not just relatives of someone who owned) a single slave! If you finish the sentence without trying to parse it or twist the meaning, you will see that I never said what you continue to insist I said!


Okay, one more time for the cheap seats:

I named just 2 famous soldiers for who fought for the Confederacy that owned slaves in the Civil War. So you stating that NO soldier who fought owned slaves is wrong.....they were soldiers and they fought and they owned slaves...they also happen to be famous Confederate officers. Deal with it.

And again for your stubborn ass... I never said that! Name two SOLDIERS WHO FOUGHT AND DIED WHO ALSO OWNED SLAVES! You haven't done that, Chicklet! You can't do that, because what I stated was the truth! This is why you have to twist and distort what was said, and lie about it! I am well aware there were OFFICERS who owned slaves, or more appropriately, who's FATHERS owned them! They weren't manning the cannons and guns in the fields of battle, they were not FIGHTING and DYING in the war as SOLDIERS! Can you get that through that thick cranium or do we need a crowbar?

See, you're such a coward that you try to split hairs like a petulant child refusing to be wrong....and you just dig yourself deeper into that pit of racist revisionist stubborness.

There is NO SPLITTING HAIRS! You LIE and CLAIM that I said something I didn't say! It has been pointed out to you FOUR times now... at least! There is no splitting of a hair at all, there is what I actually said, and what you are LYING about, claiming I said! Nothing of which, has been racist in any context or possible way! Actually, YOUR argument IS racist and revisionist!

So be it. It just indicates the assinine stances you take to defend/justify/deny/excuse the disgusting legacy of racism that stains the Confederate flag...your denial of the intent of the CRA of 1866 and 1875 would be laughable if it weren't so ignorant and pathetic....as was your original post trying to equate modern day Democratic Party with the Dixiecrat driven party of old. The Chronology of the thread proves me out to the objective reader...your denial and repetition nonwithstanding.

Racism became associated with the Confederate flag LONG AFTER the Civil War! I am sorry they taught you that in public school, but that is dishonest. The Confederacy did not legalize slavery in America! The CSA did NOT establish slavery as the law of the land! That was the UNION, years before the Civil War or the Confederacy was even dreamed of!

The INTENT of the CRA of 1875, was to establish EQUALITY, but just as the Constitution in 1776, EQUALITY was a subjective opinion, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with a modern post-1954 finding of the courts, regarding EQUALITY! To try and apply such an intent or interpretation retroactively, is just plain dishonest, and doesn't comport with reason or logic. It is sociopath insanity to attempt to make that argument, as the very lengthy history study I posted on page 11 indicates! The intent most certainly wasn't to establish integration, because that is NOT what happened!

You and Jarhead want to live in this revisionist fantasy world, where all Northerners were opposed to slavery all along... hell, let's just go back and exonerate the founding fathers too, they didn't condone or want slavery either... only lowly racist Southerners who flew the Rebel flag, wanted slavery! Everyone else in America was appalled and wanted it to end! But the stubborn racist Southerners wouldn't do it, they just violated the Constitution and intent of the Founding Fathers, and the will of the rest of the people for a hundred years, until we just couldn't take it anymore, and we had to put a stop to it! So we fought the Civil War and whooped those racist Southerners and finally freed the slaves! And still to this day... we have to beat down the racist Southerners, because they want to drag us back to the days of old..... This is how fucked up you two are in the head!

 

[Taichiliberal]

And again for your stubborn ass... I never said that! Name two SOLDIERS WHO FOUGHT AND DIED WHO ALSO OWNED SLAVES! You haven't done that, Chicklet! You can't do that, because what I stated was the truth! This is why you have to twist and distort what was said, and lie about it! I am well aware there were OFFICERS who owned slaves, or more appropriately, who's FATHERS owned them! They weren't manning the cannons and guns in the fields of battle, they were not FIGHTING and DYING in the war as SOLDIERS! Can you get that through that thick cranium or do we need a crowbar?



There is NO SPLITTING HAIRS! You LIE and CLAIM that I said something I didn't say! It has been pointed out to you FOUR times now... at least! There is no splitting of a hair at all, there is what I actually said, and what you are LYING about, claiming I said! Nothing of which, has been racist in any context or possible way! Actually, YOUR argument IS racist and revisionist!



Racism became associated with the Confederate flag LONG AFTER the Civil War! I am sorry they taught you that in public school, but that is dishonest. The Confederacy did not legalize slavery in America! The CSA did NOT establish slavery as the law of the land! That was the UNION, years before the Civil War or the Confederacy was even dreamed of!

The INTENT of the CRA of 1875, was to establish EQUALITY, but just as the Constitution in 1776, EQUALITY was a subjective opinion, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with a modern post-1954 finding of the courts, regarding EQUALITY! To try and apply such an intent or interpretation retroactively, is just plain dishonest, and doesn't comport with reason or logic. It is sociopath insanity to attempt to make that argument, as the very lengthy history study I posted on page 11 indicates! The intent most certainly wasn't to establish integration, because that is NOT what happened!

You and Jarhead want to live in this revisionist fantasy world, where all Northerners were opposed to slavery all along... hell, let's just go back and exonerate the founding fathers too, they didn't condone or want slavery either... only lowly racist Southerners who flew the Rebel flag, wanted slavery! Everyone else in America was appalled and wanted it to end! But the stubborn racist Southerners wouldn't do it, they just violated the Constitution and intent of the Founding Fathers, and the will of the rest of the people for a hundred years, until we just couldn't take it anymore, and we had to put a stop to it! So we fought the Civil War and whooped those racist Southerners and finally freed the slaves! And still to this day... we have to beat down the racist Southerners, because they want to drag us back to the days of old..... This is how fucked up you two are in the head!

My GOD, that was a LOT of BS you just spewed....unfortunately, your rants and smokescreens won't erase the chronology of the posts, which shows you being proven wrong logically and factually...and how cowardly and dishonest you are when you can't logically and factually refute the valid, historical evidence. Posts #501, 546, 568, and 591.

You're done, Dixie....like every other intellectually bankrupt bigoted propagandist, you just want a forum to repeat your dreck over and over. Well, I've put your garbage to rest time and again...and during the exchanges you've offered information that reveals a warped and disturbing mindset that warrants serious therapy with regards to you need to be racially accepted by your peers on one level. You've been exposed for what you are, and my job is done. You may regurgitate the last predictable diatribe. Adios.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Chicklet's own source:
It needs to be said at the outset that any effort to estimate the number of Confederate soldiers from slave-holding families is an exercise fraught with difficulties. A lot of the data is very inexact, and the results can be considered as very rough estimates, only. Nonetheless, we can gain some insight into the situation by considering different estimates. Just bear in mind that all of the final results are "soft estimates."

Based on this range of values, I would say that a decent estimate for the number of men from slave-holding families in the Confederate army would be around 30-35%.

I can make the statement that the US participated and fought WWII for the express purpose of ending atrocities against the Jewish people of Germany. Is that a true statement? Does it make it more true if I show you where 3 in 10 soldiers who fought for the US, had ties to Judaism? Certainly, the end result of our winning the war, was the liberation of millions of Jews from concentration camps, and an end to the atrocities being committed against them at the hands of the Nazis, but is that an honest assessment and evaluation of WHY we fought WWII?

Your attempted sidetrack has nothing to do with the ENTIRE information given in the link...something your cowardly and dishonest bigoted self conveniently left out in your carefully chosen excerpt. No matter, the original post is intact as is the link....people will read and see your folly. The article I linked is quite honest in it's approach, unlike you. But they do use bonafide census records to make their theories:



.....The first problem to be resolved is the size of the Confederate army, measured in terms of total enlistments of different men. A wide range of estimates exists, from a low of 600,000 to a high of well over a million. E.B. Long, in Civil War, Day by Day, accepts an estimate of 750,000. James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (Chapter 9, note 41) accepts an estimate of roughly 880,000. Livermore's Numbers and Losses in the Civil War deduces a number of different figures, using different means, the smallest of which is nearly 1,000,000. The Encyclopedia of the Civil War (Patricia Faust, editor), uses a figure of 900,000. We will use the 880,000 figure as our primary estimate, with some estimates being computed using the 600,000 and 1,000,000 figures in order to provide perspective.

.......Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.


......The census data allows us to determine this on a state-by-state basis and from this we get that there were about 454,000 men from slave-holding families available to the Confederacy, using the larger manpower pool; and about 370,000, using the smaller manpower pool.

Only an imbecile would state that no slave owning soldier fought in the Civil War, as you did...unless you're proposing that a large part of the Southern Army magically came back to life a few times to pick up the slack over the years.

Once again, your own revisionist bent paints you into a corner. Now, repeat all your previous BS.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL: Those two posts are an exact repeat of post 432, 357, 292, 187, 114, and 78.. oh, and 21! Good Parrot imitation, Chicklet!

Point stands... you lied, you continue to stand by your lie, you've distorted history, and this has been demonstrated by my accurate accounts of history, and you continue to claim some moral high ground you simply aren't entitled to here. You've demonstrated you are morally bankrupt and incapable of admitting your own lies, when they are slapping you upside your stupid pinhead! Now you have resorted to repeating yourself like the droning idiot you are! Chickie-dee, you are truly a predictable critter!

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL: Those two posts are an exact repeat of post 432, 357, 292, 187, 114, and 78.. oh, and 21! Good Parrot imitation, Chicklet!

Point stands... you lied, you continue to stand by your lie, you've distorted history, and this has been demonstrated by my accurate accounts of history, and you continue to claim some moral high ground you simply aren't entitled to here. You've demonstrated you are morally bankrupt and incapable of admitting your own lies, when they are slapping you upside your stupid pinhead! Now you have resorted to repeating yourself like the droning idiot you are! Chickie-dee, you are truly a predictable critter!

How can they be exact repeats when different information is offered to different posts by you, genius? Post 501 is the first time that information is put forth to refute some error ridden diatribe of yours....and like the coward you are, you never DID give any logical or fact based retort....in other words, you dodged and bullshitted to avoid admitting error. 546 and 548 put forth new information and two other points that you DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE as bonafide fact. 591 just points out what a coward you are in not addressing FACTS that prove you're just regurgitating BS. You're claiming otherwise won't change the contents...as all one has to do is access the posts to see your lame attempt at out-of-context excerpts and distortions.

And what is it that I lied about? I want cut and paste proof that will logically stand up, not your worthless opinion. Put up or shut, because I've damn sure proven time again what racist little shit of a joke you are.

chicklet-chick-a-dee? I guess these are big insults down your way...doesn't mean a thing to me other than you're another clown who thinks that by trying to verbally emasculate your opponent, you "win" a point. Actually, it just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are. As I told you before..the only intellectually lightweight "chick-let" here is YOU!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

How can they be exact repeats when different information is offered to different posts by you, genius? Post 501 is the first time that information is put forth to refute some error ridden diatribe of yours....and like the coward you are, you never DID give any logical or fact based retort....in other words, you dodged and bullshitted to avoid admitting error. 546 and 548 put forth new information and two other points that you DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE as bonafide fact. 591 just points out what a coward you are in not addressing FACTS that prove you're just regurgitating BS. You're claiming otherwise won't change the contents...as all one has to do is access the posts to see your lame attempt at out-of-context excerpts and distortions.

And what is it that I lied about? I want cut and paste proof that will logically stand up, not your worthless opinion. Put up or shut, because I've damn sure proven time again what racist little shit of a joke you are.

chicklet-chick-a-dee? I guess these are big insults down your way...doesn't mean a thing to me other than you're another clown who thinks that by trying to verbally emasculate your opponent, you "win" a point. Actually, it just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are. As I told you before..the only intellectually lightweight "chick-let" here is YOU!

Translation:

I want
:tantrum:​

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How can they be exact repeats when different information is offered to different posts by you, genius? Post 501 is the first time that information is put forth to refute some error ridden diatribe of yours....and like the coward you are, you never DID give any logical or fact based retort....in other words, you dodged and bullshitted to avoid admitting error. 546 and 548 put forth new information and two other points that you DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE as bonafide fact. 591 just points out what a coward you are in not addressing FACTS that prove you're just regurgitating BS. You're claiming otherwise won't change the contents...as all one has to do is access the posts to see your lame attempt at out-of-context excerpts and distortions.

And what is it that I lied about? I want cut and paste proof that will logically stand up, not your worthless opinion. Put up or shut, because I've damn sure proven time again what racist little shit of a joke you are.

chicklet-chick-a-dee? I guess these are big insults down your way...doesn't mean a thing to me other than you're another clown who thinks that by trying to verbally emasculate your opponent, you "win" a point. Actually, it just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are. As I told you before..the only intellectually lightweight "chick-let" here is YOU!

All I see in post 501, is another one of your LIES about what I didn't ever say!

Unless you're totally ignorant of American history regarding slavery and Jim Crow laws, you're insane notion that segregation wasn't "official" and therefore not technically existent (and therefore no law was against it) [AN ARGUMENT NEVER POSTED BY DIXIE] reeks of the revisionist blatherings found in the writings of David Duke and like minded trolls.

You continue to demonstrate a sociopath mentality of interjecting your opinions into what I have said. If you are going to continue to do this, you can't even start to refute what I have actually said, you are stuck on a LIE, a complete fabrication of what you WISH that I had said. I've already shown where you are guilty of this, and you still insist you didn't LIE! It's right there in black and white, what you CLAIM was said, and what was actually posted by me... and you STILL refuse to admit your LIE! Instead, you just jump back over to another LIE, and keep right on going!

You are nothing but a dishonest lying blowhard, and you have nothing to offer to this debate or any other that I've seen you in. Looks like you just want to strut around the board insulting people and being belligerent, like that makes you some kind of a big man. I can only imagine it is because in real life, you are a little man, no one respects much of what you have to say, or pays you much thought in your pathetic existence. It's pretty sad when you have to be a bully on a message board because you lack the balls to be one in real life. Total waste of the Internet if you ask me.

 

[Jarod]

Yes, these are my words. And yes, you have shown where I was technically wrong to say "EVERY" because you found an obscure Reconstruction-era example to prove that wrong! I am still trying to figure out how that disproved my point in any way... just like I am still trying to figure out what abhorrently racist thing I have said here, to warrant Chicklet calling me David Duke and acting like I have espoused hate speech.

Look at the history, I posted a chunk of it back on Page 11, and it supports my argument that America did NOT support or endorse desegregation until well into the later half of the 20th century....Oh...ooops... sorry, Harry Truman did something in 1948 with the military, and that is technically not in the "later half" of the century... so Dixie is WRONG again!

Fucking retard!

Okay, so now we are getting somewhere!

 

[Jarod]

Great, now lets stick with this so you still cant confuse the issue.....

Did you say:

"Throughout history, there have not been people in political power, advocating change in our segregationist policy, prior to 1963! It doesn't exist, because black people were shut out of the political process, and it was not an issue, it was presumed and assumed you supported and condoned segregationist policy, because that was how things were in America. No one stood up and said it was bad! Everyone accepted it, and continued to condone it!"

??????????????????????????????????????