# If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution



## Sundance508

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

 Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

 "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.


----------



## Natural Citizen

I recommend "The Real Abe Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.


----------



## Sundance508

Natural Citizen said:


> I recommend "The Real Abe Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.




An excellent source.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> .


*Alexander H. Stephens* (born *Alexander Hamilton Stephens*; February 11, 1812 – March 4, 1883) was an American politician who served as the Vice President of the Confederate States of America

Shocking- the Vice President of the Confederacy blames the Civil War on Lincoln.

LOL.

Who is this 'patriot' you quote?

On March 21, 1861, Stephens gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy.

As his wealth increased, Stephens began acquiring land and slaves. By the time of the Civil War, Stephens owned 34 slaves and several thousand acres. He entered politics in 1836,

So tell us more about why you are such a fan as a man who declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

The OP is anti-American, racialist, and in favor of a white ethno-state.


----------



## there4eyeM

The root problem was the refusal of certain individuals in certain states to abide by the documents that established a "Perpetual Union". The is no 'understanding' of the Constitution if the meaning of the words is ignored.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.



No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.


----------



## Likkmee

frigidweirdo said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
Click to expand...


The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT


----------



## frigidweirdo

Likkmee said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
Click to expand...


Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..


----------



## Likkmee

frigidweirdo said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
Click to expand...


Hey Both fighters have to be paid.


----------



## fncceo

And no cool movies about the Civil War...


----------



## Sundance508

frigidweirdo said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
Click to expand...


If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together ...also in a peaceful manner and the U.S. today would be immensely more powerful, strong and united than it is today...and without most of the problems that divide us today.  The costs of the civil war in human lives lost and the trillions of dollars wasted in revenue could have been avoided and we would have progressed much faster in terms of financial and military power...not even to mention the potential of all those killed would have had for the nation....tremendous,tremendous loss.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nonsense, Sundance.


----------



## Syriusly

Likkmee said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
Click to expand...


God save us from ignorant idiots.

The fact is that the United States defeated Imperial Japan- with assistance from the UK, China, Australia and a few other allies.

Japan had already been driven back to Japan's home islands, but had not given up on its imperial dreams- and had no sign of giving them up- when the worlds first two atomic bomb attacks convinced them otherwise- the United States defeated Japan.

And Germany- certainly the Soviet Union(not Russia) carried the most water in the European Theater- but without the allies diverting resources to the West- the Soviets may not have saved Stalingrad or even Moscow.

And without American Lend Lease- the Soviets could not have sustained its offensive- most of the trucks and locomotive engines that supported the Soviet forces were U.S. made- and transported.

To recap: the United States defeated Imperial Japan with support from allies.

The Soviet Union and the Western Allies defeated Nazi Germany.

i


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together .
Click to expand...


A) And by 'initiating his 'illegal' war- you mean after the Confederacy attacked American Army troops in an American fort......
B) Why would the North and South have eventually gotten back together again? The Confederate States formed- as per their Consitution- to protect in perpetuity- their right to own slaves. That was the reason they seceded, it was the reason for their union- why would two nations that disagreed on the issue that caused the South to try to secede- join back together again?


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together ...also in a peaceful manner and the U.S. today would be immensely more powerful, strong and united than it is today...and without most of the problems that divide us today.  The costs of the civil war in human lives lost and the trillions of dollars wasted in revenue could have been avoided and we would have progressed much faster in terms of financial and military power...not even to mention the potential of all those killed would have had for the nation....tremendous,tremendous loss.
Click to expand...


And virtually all of this would have been prevented- if the South had not attempted its illegal secession attempt and committed treason by attacking the American Army at Fort Sumter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The revisionists on American history are amazing.  It's like they are writing a privileged _uber _nationalist point of view several decades old.  The evidence is clear.

America took the SW from the Mexicans and the First Peoples.  Fact.

The South had no legal or moral or ethical rationale to attack an American fort the land on which had been ceded to the US by contract.

Buncha amazing dolts.


----------



## mamooth

Too bad the south couldn't handle state's rights. Namely, the rights of northern states to not return escaped slaves. That's one of the reasons the southern states stated as a reason for secession.

In contrast, the north was fine with the right of the southern states to hold slaves, while the south rejected state's rights. Slaver apologists like to pretend the opposite, but they're always revising history.

And if the south had separated, they'd still be holding slaves today. After all, the entire sick Confederate culture was slavery-based. And the conservatives would be fine with that.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.


Everyone remember this.  Whenever republicans claim that they are still the same party that freed the slaves and defeated the Confederacy, remember that they hate Lincoln and celebrate that Confederacy.


----------



## TheParser

As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.

I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.

 I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South would not compromise.  They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.

They chose war.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> Nonsense, Sundance.



You are entitled to your opinion but that is all you have and it is not enough aka.......opinions are like assholes....everyone has one.  hehheh


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> The South would not compromise.  They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.
> 
> They chose war.



Propaganda.   Mr. Lincoln is the one who wanted war.

Let me try and edumacate you mah boy...............Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln was in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's?
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, Thomas DiLorenzo in his book about Lincoln  has made an excellent case that  portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still........ 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
The Real  Lincoln that you were  never taught abut in school—reveals a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and  unnecessary holocaust aptly called The War Between The States of which... you see the results all around us today....a nation besotted with political correctness, trillions of dollars in debt ...under the greatest threats in our history from at least 3 diffrerent sources...islamic terrorism, China and N. Korea. 

When one recognizes that a tiny rogue nation aka...the hermit kingdom has managed to put America under the gun of a nuclear strike then you should understand just what kind of shape we are in today. 

We now have a President who is trying to get us back on track...but you see all of the major media sources constantly attacking him and too many naive folks watch the charade of the msm and actually believe their propaganda.


----------



## Sundance508

TheParser said:


> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.



Good to see another intelligent fellow on dis here boid...so few of us.  hehheh

Secession: It’s constitutional


----------



## jillian

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.



so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance loves the GOP because it freed the slaves, and loves the CSA because it had slaves.

jillian, he is not very sound in his thinking.

Lincoln was willing to endure slavery if (1) no slavery was allowed in the territories; (2) if all federal installations in the South were returned to the government; and (3) it the Southern States renounced the right to secede.

Instead, the South chose War and Lincoln murdered the Old South.


----------



## Sundance508

jillian said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
Click to expand...


When the consitution was written the negro was legal property.  No consideration of the Negroes was given in the costitution nor were they entitled to any.  We did them a great favor by bringing them to a civilized nation where they became to a certain degree civilized and many of them became Christians.  Have you ever heard of one that wanted to go back...to this day slavery flourishes in Africa.

Slavery in Africa Is Alive, Well and Ignored


----------



## DarkFury

jillian said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
Click to expand...

*Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!*


----------



## Defiant1

jillian said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
Click to expand...



Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance508 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the consitution was written the negro was legal property.  No consideration of the Negroes was given in the costitution nor were they entitled to any.  We did them a great favor by bringing them to a civilized nation where they became to a certain degree civilized and many of them became Christians.  Have you ever heard of one that wanted to go back...to this day slavery flourishes in Africa.
> 
> Slavery in Africa Is Alive, Well and Ignored
Click to expand...

Neo-American barbarism of white privilege.  Step off.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DarkFury said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!*
Click to expand...

And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters.  Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.


----------



## jillian

JakeStarkey said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters.  Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.
Click to expand...


he's just angry because I call him out for being a putin puppet.

it makes the slug feel better to call me slut and pretend I lie like he does.

I wonder how much Vladimir pays him for his imbecilic nonsense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Indeed, he and VanCleef are Putin puppets.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> The South would not compromise.  They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.
> 
> They chose war.





mamooth said:


> Too bad the south couldn't handle state's rights. Namely, the rights of northern states to not return escaped slaves. That's one of the reasons the southern states stated as a reason for secession.
> 
> In contrast, the north was fine with the right of the southern states to hold slaves, while the south rejected state's rights. Slaver apologists like to pretend the opposite, but they're always revising history.
> 
> And if the south had separated, they'd still be holding slaves today. After all, the entire sick Confederate culture was slavery-based. And the conservatives would be fine with that.




On January 31, 1865, the United States Congress narrowly passed an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery; that this was accomplished thanks to the American Civil War is undeniable. That destroying slavery became a primary goal of the Civil War, however, was not initially expected. Many northerners were extremely reluctant to abolish the institution.  Could slavery have been abolished without the Civil War?

The abolishment of Slavery in the South could have been accomplished peacefully as it was in the rest of The Western World....it was already on its way out in the United States and, with time, would have died naturally due to the advancement of technology if nothing else...huge numbers of slaves would no longer have been required on the large plantations.  How possible is that scenario, though? 

Slavery was retreating across the nation, starting in the northeast and eventually the South. However, biology and geography explain this historical trend. Enslavement was never widespread in the North, not because northerners were more moral, but geography dictated that they did not need as many African workers. Malaria, which did not exist in the Americas before 1492, thrives where mosquitoes do--south of the Mason-Dixon line. Africans have a greater resistance to malaria and could survive the disease better than Europeans. That enslavement did not last in the North just means that black slaves were not ecologically necessary (and consequently, it was easier to jettison the practice when the revolutionary ideas of equality appeared in 1776).

Holding enslaved people was capitalistic and economical. An enslaved person was more than a worker, they were an investment. Many enslavers purchased slaves to grow their wealth, own collateral for borrowing, or profit from “breeding.” By the 1850s, Deep South slavers complained that Upper South states were becoming “breeder states,” where slave owners purchased female slaves to breed them and then sell the children. However repugnant, the practice was economical. Although the price of a slave by 1860 was around $800—which is $260,000 in 2011 dollars—this was still less than the cost of a paid worker. Remember, you only have to pay for a slave once. A wage earner is paid for every day he works. Slaves are cheaper than wage earners. Moreover, there was the tremendous (titanic is better) amount of money invested in enslaving humans. In 1860, the value of slaves was $2.5 billion, more than the value of all the land in the South.

Likewise today and for years---we  have seen America rely on illegal mexican labor to do the work that Negroes would no longer do due to government welfare programs that sustained them...why work when the government will give you what you need to live?

The truth of the matter is that any advanced society must have a servant class.....are people working for minimum wage(and in the case of illegal mexicans...working for even less than that) really free?  Much hyprocisy in America.

Meanwhilst we also buy cheap goods from China produced by slaves....where is the outrage.  It is easy to beat up our Southern Culture of more than a couple of hundred years ago...but not to fret about going to Walmart to purchase the cheapest imports from China.

Would it not be better to establish a Legal Servant Class in America...pass laws to insure they be treated humanely and allow them to better themselves eventually and to gain citizenship once they have demonstrated they have the ability to support themselves and pay taxes?


----------



## Sundance508

Defiant1 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
Click to expand...



Exactly....and of course under communism no such thing exists.  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude but do not protest at all about the 20 millions of white folk who perished under slavery under a leftwing and socialist system in Russia...can anyone say  ....Hypocrites?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance508 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South would not compromise.  They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.
> 
> They chose war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the south couldn't handle state's rights. Namely, the rights of northern states to not return escaped slaves. That's one of the reasons the southern states stated as a reason for secession.
> 
> In contrast, the north was fine with the right of the southern states to hold slaves, while the south rejected state's rights. Slaver apologists like to pretend the opposite, but they're always revising history.
> 
> And if the south had separated, they'd still be holding slaves today. After all, the entire sick Confederate culture was slavery-based. And the conservatives would be fine with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On January 31, 1865, the United States Congress narrowly passed an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery; that this was accomplished thanks to the American Civil War is undeniable. That destroying slavery became a primary goal of the Civil War, however, was not initially expected. Many northerners were extremely reluctant to abolish the institution.  Could slavery have been abolished without the Civil War?
> 
> The abolishment of Slavery in the South could have been accomplished peacefully as it was in the rest of The Western World....it was already on its way out in the United States and, with time, would have died naturally due to the advancement of technology if nothing else...huge numbers of slaves would no longer have been required on the large plantations.  How possible is that scenario, though?
> 
> Slavery was retreating across the nation, starting in the northeast and eventually the South. However, biology and geography explain this historical trend. Enslavement was never widespread in the North, not because northerners were more moral, but geography dictated that they did not need as many African workers. Malaria, which did not exist in the Americas before 1492, thrives where mosquitoes do--south of the Mason-Dixon line. Africans have a greater resistance to malaria and could survive the disease better than Europeans. That enslavement did not last in the North just means that black slaves were not ecologically necessary (and consequently, it was easier to jettison the practice when the revolutionary ideas of equality appeared in 1776).
> 
> Holding enslaved people was capitalistic and economical. An enslaved person was more than a worker, they were an investment. Many enslavers purchased slaves to grow their wealth, own collateral for borrowing, or profit from “breeding.” By the 1850s, Deep South slavers complained that Upper South states were becoming “breeder states,” where slave owners purchased female slaves to breed them and then sell the children. However repugnant, the practice was economical. Although the price of a slave by 1860 was around $800—which is $260,000 in 2011 dollars—this was still less than the cost of a paid worker. Remember, you only have to pay for a slave once. A wage earner is paid for every day he works. Slaves are cheaper than wage earners. Moreover, there was the tremendous (titanic is better) amount of money invested in enslaving humans. In 1860, the value of slaves was $2.5 billion, more than the value of all the land in the South.
> 
> Likewise today and for years---we  have seen America rely on illegal mexican labor to do the work that Negroes would no longer do due to government welfare programs that sustained them...why work when the government will give you what you need to live?
> 
> The truth of the matter is that any advanced society must have a servant class.....are people working for minimum wage(and in the case of illegal mexicans...working for even less than that) really free?  Much hyprocisy in America.
> 
> Meanwhilst we also buy cheap goods from China produced by slaves....where is the outrage.  It is easy to beat up our Southern Culture of more than a couple of hundred years ago...but not to fret about going to Walmart to purchase the cheapest imports from China.
> 
> Would it not be better to establish a Legal Servant Class in America...pass laws to insure they be treated humanely and allow them to better themselves eventually and to gain citizenship once they have demonstrated they have the ability to support themselves and pay taxes?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  The Turner thesis, modified or not, was exploded long ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters.  Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.
Click to expand...


Even the U.N. admits that slavery works in Africa today...in fact it is also quite widespread in China...hardly a thing of the past.

The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters.  Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.
Click to expand...


Go to Hell Hypocrite..................
*The modern-day 'slave class' is anyone who cannot do math... and that's about 95% of the population*







Throughout human history, most slavery has been enforced physically -- with whips and chains. You either did what you were told or they beat you into submission.

Most modern people mistakenly believe slavery has been largely eradicated across our world. They don't see people shackled in chains or being ordered what to do by their owners. Modern culture no longer accepts overt slavery, right? ...Or does it?

It is not something that only existed two centuries ago as you naively assume....your ignorance and those like you who obviously believe in the fallacious idea that slavery only existed in the American Southland and was ended by the the Civil War are beyond help....just too ignorant to edumacate.....as in..............Slavery Still Exists — We Just Don’t Talk about It


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.





JakeStarkey said:


> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.



"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South would not compromise.  They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.
> 
> They chose war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the south couldn't handle state's rights. Namely, the rights of northern states to not return escaped slaves. That's one of the reasons the southern states stated as a reason for secession.
> 
> In contrast, the north was fine with the right of the southern states to hold slaves, while the south rejected state's rights. Slaver apologists like to pretend the opposite, but they're always revising history.
> 
> And if the south had separated, they'd still be holding slaves today. After all, the entire sick Confederate culture was slavery-based. And the conservatives would be fine with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On January 31, 1865, the United States Congress narrowly passed an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery; that this was accomplished thanks to the American Civil War is undeniable. That destroying slavery became a primary goal of the Civil War, however, was not initially expected. Many northerners were extremely reluctant to abolish the institution.  Could slavery have been abolished without the Civil War?
> 
> The abolishment of Slavery in the South could have been accomplished peacefully as it was in the rest of The Western World....it was already on its way out in the United States and, with time, would have died naturally due to the advancement of technology if nothing else...huge numbers of slaves would no longer have been required on the large plantations.  How possible is that scenario, though?
> 
> Slavery was retreating across the nation, starting in the northeast and eventually the South. However, biology and geography explain this historical trend. Enslavement was never widespread in the North, not because northerners were more moral, but geography dictated that they did not need as many African workers. Malaria, which did not exist in the Americas before 1492, thrives where mosquitoes do--south of the Mason-Dixon line. Africans have a greater resistance to malaria and could survive the disease better than Europeans. That enslavement did not last in the North just means that black slaves were not ecologically necessary (and consequently, it was easier to jettison the practice when the revolutionary ideas of equality appeared in 1776).
> 
> Holding enslaved people was capitalistic and economical. An enslaved person was more than a worker, they were an investment. Many enslavers purchased slaves to grow their wealth, own collateral for borrowing, or profit from “breeding.” By the 1850s, Deep South slavers complained that Upper South states were becoming “breeder states,” where slave owners purchased female slaves to breed them and then sell the children. However repugnant, the practice was economical. Although the price of a slave by 1860 was around $800—which is $260,000 in 2011 dollars—this was still less than the cost of a paid worker. Remember, you only have to pay for a slave once. A wage earner is paid for every day he works. Slaves are cheaper than wage earners. Moreover, there was the tremendous (titanic is better) amount of money invested in enslaving humans. In 1860, the value of slaves was $2.5 billion, more than the value of all the land in the South.
> 
> Likewise today and for years---we  have seen America rely on illegal mexican labor to do the work that Negroes would no longer do due to government welfare programs that sustained them...why work when the government will give you what you need to live?
> 
> The truth of the matter is that any advanced society must have a servant class.....are people working for minimum wage(and in the case of illegal mexicans...working for even less than that) really free?  Much hyprocisy in America.
> 
> Meanwhilst we also buy cheap goods from China produced by slaves....where is the outrage.  It is easy to beat up our Southern Culture of more than a couple of hundred years ago...but not to fret about going to Walmart to purchase the cheapest imports from China.
> 
> Would it not be better to establish a Legal Servant Class in America...pass laws to insure they be treated humanely and allow them to better themselves eventually and to gain citizenship once they have demonstrated they have the ability to support themselves and pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  The Turner thesis, modified or not, was exploded long ago.
Click to expand...


Are you really that coinfused?


----------



## DarkFury

JakeStarkey said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters.  Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.
Click to expand...

*My BETTERS? A fake lawyer and a fake conservative? Yeah, right faggot.*


----------



## Sundance508

TheParser said:


> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.



Exactly............................Why Did Lincoln Invade the South? - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) And by 'initiating his 'illegal' war- you mean after the Confederacy attacked American Army troops in an American fort......
> B) Why would the North and South have eventually gotten back together again? The Confederate States formed- as per their Consitution- to protect in perpetuity- their right to own slaves. That was the reason they seceded, it was the reason for their union- why would two nations that disagreed on the issue that caused the South to try to secede- join back together again?
Click to expand...


Mr. Lincoln well knew if he attempted to re-supply a yankee fort in the South that would mean war...which is what he wanted and he is quoted to that effect.

Ron Paul Is Correct About 'Not So Honest' Abe Lincoln


----------



## regent

America's history would be far different today. States seceding, then  joining other states then seceding again. And then the wars. the alliances the joining with other nations in the world and so on. What a mess we would be in today.


----------



## Sundance508

regent said:


> America's history would be far different today. States seceding, then  joining other states then seceding again. And then the wars. the alliances the joining with other nations in the world and so on. What a mess we would be in today.



That would be 'one' way to look at it..but it would be the wrong way.  Americans were too much alike and too close together and ultimately dependent on each other to have seperated for long.  All the South wanted was to be treated fairly and for the constitution to be abided by....Mr. Lincoln had nefarious motives but he would have passed on and replaced by someone more rational and peace loving....if the costs ...tremendous costs in terms of lives, property and wealth had been avoided this nation would have progressed much more quickly than it did.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> The South would not compromise.  They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.
> 
> They chose war.



You are wrong and obviously know nothing of the Hampton Rds. Peace Conference.........Why Did Lincoln Invade the South? - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## Sundance508

there4eyeM said:


> The root problem was the refusal of certain individuals in certain states to abide by the documents that established a "Perpetual Union". The is no 'understanding' of the Constitution if the meaning of the words is ignored.




Why a war when virtually everyone was for peace? "Consensus historians" would have us believe that theirs is the only interpretation of history that we need to know. Their theory that slavery was the one and only "cause" of Lincoln's War is to be accepted blindly with no questions asked. They encourage us to join their idolatry of Lincoln for all the good he allegedly accomplished by having some two million Americans killed. But, there is far more to this story than they would ever wish us to know. Slavery had been an issue between and among the several states ever since the slave trade cranked up in New England in the 1600s. It was made legal and  Party. Economics, commerce, taxes, power ... all became huge issues in the mid-1800s which gradually erupted into war in 1861. Were Major Anderson and his men truly starving? Had they been starving at Fort Moultrie? Did they receive supplies regularly at Fort Sumter? Why did a Union war fleet appear off the Charleston coast in April, 1861? Why a war fleet to deliver a "boatload of biscuit and pork?" Why a war instead of a national peace conference? constitutional by the Constitution itself when voted into existence by the State of New Hampshire. Five so-called "slave states" ratified the document, and eight so-called "free states" did the same. Eight free states! All thirteen, therefore, legalized slavery as well. Yet, when slavery was fully "passed on" to just the Southern states, the North became "fanatically abolitionist" and anti-South as noted by the extremist politics of the new RepublicanLearn many facts you were never taught in any history class. Learn who truly started this horrid war. Learn who wanted peace and who wanted power; what happened "at the North"; why the Border States did not secede.


jillian said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
Click to expand...


Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”


*Dred Scott decision*

In 1857, the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in the Dred Scott case, affirming the right of slave owners to take their slaves into the Western territories.

At the heart of the case was the most important question of the 1850s: Should slavery be allowed in the West? As part of the Compromise of 1850, residents of newly created territories could decide the issue of slavery by vote, a process known as popular sovereignty. When popular sovereignty was applied in Kansas in 1854, however, violence erupted. Americans hoped that the Supreme Court could settle the issue that had eluded a congressional solution.

Dred Scott was a slave whose owner, an army doctor, had spent time in Illinois, a free state, and Wisconsin, a free territory at the time of Scott’s residence. 

 Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority decision, which was issued on March 6, 1857. The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.

Slavery had been an issue between and among the several states ever since the slave trade cranked up in New England in the 1600s. It was made legal and constitutional by the Constitution itself when voted into existence by the State of New Hampshire. Five so-called "slave states" ratified the document, and eight so-called "free states" did the same. Eight free states! All thirteen, therefore, legalized slavery as well. Yet, when slavery was fully "passed on" to just the Southern states, the North became "fanatically abolitionist" and anti-South as noted by the extremist politics of the new Republican Party.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The silliness of Sundance and dfvancleef is quite obvious.

You can yammer all you want, but the South chose war against the Perpetual Union and was slain for it.

DarkFury gets crazy when confronted by people who know better than him, who are classier than him, and who love America when he simply works for Russia's interest.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.


WOW

I didn't get through all of that.

The absurdity of it was just to much for me.

The negro was created to be our slaves?  What kind of mental dysfunction is needed to even consider that let alone put it down in writing?


God
Fucking
Damn

someone needs to reopen stormfront so these useless crackers can get into the echo chamber.


----------



## jillian

DarkFury said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters.  Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *My BETTERS? A fake lawyer and a fake conservative? Yeah, right faggot.*
Click to expand...


like the other trumptard loons, you wish, bubbalah.

send my love to Vlad, 

you're so funny when you're hysterical and stamping your feet. go do a poop tweet like your orange Jesus.


----------



## jillian

there4eyeM said:


> The root problem was the refusal of certain individuals in certain states to abide by the documents that established a "Perpetual Union". The is no 'understanding' of the Constitution if the meaning of the words is ignored.



no. the problem was that southerners wanted to own people and northerners thought that was immoral.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only crazy people are suggesting that the black should be the slave of the white.

That was no acceptable reason for a civil war.

The US was the only nation in the Americas that required a war to end the sin and crime of slavery.


----------



## there4eyeM

There was no "Mr. Lincoln's War". Attempts at secession were against the founding documents of the nation. Thus, military acts to secede were outright treason. The fact that economics in the South necessitated the continuation of slavery gave the entire situation a socio-political twist that allows for convoluted argumentation. Nevertheless, it was the effort to renege on agreement to the "Perpetual Union" that led directly to war.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South attacked Old Glory, the Constitution, and 71 years of perpetual union.

The leaders were most fortunate they were not executed.


----------



## Sundance508

jillian said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The root problem was the refusal of certain individuals in certain states to abide by the documents that established a "Perpetual Union". The is no 'understanding' of the Constitution if the meaning of the words is ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no. the problem was that southerners wanted to own people and northerners thought that was immoral.
Click to expand...


My Dear I am sure you mean well and hopefully most will overlook your lack of historical knowledge and your desire to feel more moral than Southerners....just mere sectionalism on display...quite sad and of course just another reason this nation remains divided.  Anyhow I will take a few moments to attempt to edumacate you.

 Remember Yankee General U.S. Grant? At the beginning of the war, his wife owned slaves. At the end of the war, she still owned slaves.

Her slaves were freed only after the war by the Thirteenth Amendment, not by Lincoln’s utterly phony Emancipation Proclamation. Grant explained, “Good help is so hard to come by these days.” Of course Grant was a notorious drunk; maybe he was drunk when he said it. As President, he ran a crooked show. Maybe he was still drunk.

Did you know that about 6% – six per cent – 6% of Southern whites in 1860 owned slaves? Let’s see, would that not mean that 94% – ninety four per cent – 94% did not? Among the did notters was the immortal General Robert E. Lee. Other Southern leaders who did not own slaves were Generals Joseph Johnston, A.P. Hill, Fitzhugh Lee and J.E.B. Stuart.

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races. . . . I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Who said that? Strom Thurmond? Adolf Hitler? No, the author of the statement was Abraham Lincoln, in an 1858 debate. Does that mean Lincoln was a Nazi skinhead? No, Lincoln was a Communist. Lincoln was our first Communist President.

Yankee Colonel John B. Turchin pillaged Athens, Alabama. In his presence or with his knowledge, his men “attempted an indecent outrage on a servant girl, destroyed a stock of fine Bibles, went to the plantation and quartered in the Negro huts for weeks, debauching the females, committed rape on the person of a colored girl.” They caused the miscarriage and death of a Mrs. Hollingsworth.

The truncated quotation above comes from the court-martial of Turchin, which also found that such outrages were perpetrated wherever Turchin went. Yes, this monster was even too foul for the Yankees. Notice that most of his victims in Athens were black. Indeed, Yankee soldiers ravished black women throughout the South. General Don Carlos Buell published the findings of the court-martial on August 6, 1862.

The matter went to Lincoln. What would you imagine that Communist monster did about this criminal who had been found guilty as charged? On August 5, 1862, after Turchin was convicted, the day before General Buell published the findings, Lincoln promoted Turchin to Brigadier General, in which capacity he served another two years.

The real reason for the war was not slavery but the tariff. Asked why the North did not just let the South go, Communist monster Lincoln exclaimed, “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!” The _New York Times_ ran many stories to the effect that Yankee commerce would be lost to New Orleans because of the low Southern tariff.

The New York _Evening Post_ said this: “. . . Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern ports.”

In other words, rather than compete, the Yankees elected to invade. As in an Al Jolson blackface routine, they belatedly chose slavery to becloud the utter criminality of their motives. To protect their profits they killed 600,000 men and innumerable civilians. They destroyed our federal system and gave all power to Washington, a danger the Founding Fathers feared most.

In 1807, New Jersey barred blacks from voting. In 1814, Connecticut did so. In 1822, Rhode Island did so. In 1838, Pennsylvania did so. In 1867, while Congress was forcing the South to accept unqualified suffrage, Ohio rejected a proposed law that would have allowed blacks there to vote. In New York City, Yankees kidnapped free blacks and sold them into slavery. There were 33 such cases in one year alone.

On April 2, 1862, Member of Congress John Sherman, brother of serial killer General W.T. Sherman, said this: “We do not like the negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana said yesterday: ‘The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among them.’ . . .”

Slavery was a permanent institution among African blacks long before the first white man ever set foot on that continent. Long before the English (our permanent enemy) and the Yankees got into it, the Arabs created the international slave trade. According to the 1830 census, free blacks in this country owned more than 10,000 slaves.

In Sumter, South Carolina, in 1860, William Ellison, a free black, owned 70 slaves who worked his plantation. In St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, Auguste Donatto also owned 70 slaves. He needed that many to work his 500-acre plantation. Even in New York City, eight free blacks owned seventeen slaves in 1830.

Did you know that while the Yankees still owned and traded slaves, Virginia made it illegal to import them? The law was enacted on October 5, 1778, when Patrick Henry was governor. It stipulated that any slave brought into the state would be free. Even before that, the Virginia House of Burgesses had many times tried to stop the slave trade, but was overruled by the royal governor. Later, Yankee commercial interests participated in protecting the “infernal traffick.”

According to President John Adams, slavery in the North was abandoned only because white Yankee workers refused to compete with blacks. “. . . The common people would not suffer the labor, by which alone they could obtain a subsistence, to be done by blacks. If the gentlemen had been permitted by law to hold slaves, the common white people would have put the slaves to death, and their masters too perhaps.”

Did you know that thousands of blacks fought for the South in Confederate uniforms? Why have we never seen this in a movie? More than 3,000 black Confederates under the immortal Stonewall Jackson occupied Frederick, Maryland in 1862. According to Yankee Dr. Lewis Steiner, chief inspector of the U.S. Army Sanitary Commission, “Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. . . . and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army.”

Captain Arthur L. Fremantle was an English observer attached to Lee’s army. In 1863, in Gettysburg, he saw a black soldier in charge of white Yankee prisoners. Fremantle wrote this: “This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and of his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist. . . . Nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous Negroes with Southern armies speak of their liberators.”

Along these lines, what did Southern slaves say themselves? In the late 1930s, Washington sent WPA (Works Projects Administration) journalists to collect first-hand testimony from ex-slaves who were still alive. That testimony is maintained in the National Archives and is known as the “Narratives.”

No pretense is made here that all slaves felt as did the ones quoted below. Some may have strenuously disagreed. We also do not recommend that slavery be revived. (We are slaves of the federal government right now.) But the Kennedys report that “a vast majority (more than seventy percent) of ex-slaves had only good experiences to report about life as a slave and about the Old South.”

Simon Phillips, of Alabama, says this: “People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him. . . .Sometime we loaned the massa money when he was hard pushed.” (N.B. This is exactly the way the federal government recorded these statements – in dialect.)

Mary Rice, also of Alabama: “. . . Once when I was awful sick, Mistis Ma’y Jane had me brung in de Big House and put me in a room dat sot on de ‘other side of the kitchen so she could take kere of me herself…”

Elija Henry Hopkins, Little Rock: “I was fed just like I was one of the master’s children. They even done put me to bed with them. You see, this discrimination on color wasn’t as bad then as it is now. . . . In slavery times, a poor white man was worse off than a ******.”

Jane Georgiana, Alabama: “Ole Marster dead an’ gone an’ Ole Mistis too, but I ‘members ‘em jus’ lak dey was, when dey looked atter us whenst we belonged to ‘em or dey belong to us, I dunno which it was.”

Hannah Irwin, Alabama: “. . . An’ as for dey a-settin’ me free! Miss, us ******* on de Bennett place wuz free as soon as we wuz bawn. I always been free!”

At the very least, we have established that everything the Yankee monsters have told us is a lie. We need to know that, because only if we know the past can we influence the future. The Yankees understand that. Look at the enormous effort they have made to conceal it. Fellow Southerners, black and white! The “Lost Cause” of Southern liberty is not lost. The war goes on. As long as the principle of national independence survives, it lives!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance displays a most sophomoric grasp of the essentials of the Civil War and the history and culture leading up to the Southern revolt against human decency.

Be nice to him because he knows no better.


----------



## Sundance508

there4eyeM said:


> There was no "Mr. Lincoln's War". Attempts at secession were against the founding documents of the nation. Thus, military acts to secede were outright treason. The fact that economics in the South necessitated the continuation of slavery gave the entire situation a socio-political twist that allows for convoluted argumentation. Nevertheless, it was the effort to renege on agreement to the "Perpetual Union" that led directly to war.



A 'little knowledge' can be a dangerous thing as you aptly demonstrate and that was also a huge contributing factor in regards to how Northern Radicals influenced  Mr. Lincoln's decision to invade the South and force them militarily to accept Yankee control.

Let me try to edumacate you or at least broaden your horizons.  

The Civil War was largely fought over different  interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.  The right vs. the wrong interpetation  aka The Truth of The Souths interpetation vs.  The yankees fallacious interpetation.

The interpretative debate—and ultimately the war—turned on the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the meaning of a single word: sovereignty.

Southern leaders like John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis argued that the Constitution was essentially a contract between sovereign states—with the contracting parties retaining the inherent authority to withdraw from the agreement. Northern leaders like Abraham Lincoln insisted the Constitution was neither a contract nor an agreement between sovereign states. It was an agreement with the people, and once a state enters the Union, it cannot leave the Union.

It is a touchstone of American constitutional law that this is a nation based on federalism—the union of states, which retain all rights not expressly given to the federal government. After the Declaration of Independence, when most people still identified themselves not as Americans but as Virginians, New Yorkers or Rhode Islanders, this union of “Free and Independent States” was defined as a “confederation.” Some framers of the Constitution, like Maryland’s Luther Martin, argued the new states were “separate sovereignties.” Others, like Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, took the opposite view that the states “were independent, not Individually but Unitedly.”

Supporting the individual sovereignty claims is the fierce independence that was asserted by states under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which actually established the name “The United States of America.” The charter, however, was careful to maintain the inherent sovereignty of its composite state elements, mandating that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.” It affirmed the sovereignty of the respective states by declaring, “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence [sic].” There would seem little question that the states agreed to the Confederation on the express recognition of their sovereignty and relative independence.  

A convention was called in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation, but several delegates eventually concluded that a new political structure—a federation—was needed. As they debated what would become the Constitution, the status of the states was a primary concern. George Washington, who presided over the convention, noted, “It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all.” Of course, Washington was more concerned with a working federal government—and national army—than resolving the question of a state’s inherent right to withdraw from such a union. The new government forged in Philadelphia would have clear lines of authority for the federal system. The premise of the Constitution, however, was that states would still hold all rights not expressly given to the federal government.

 Lincoln's views disregarded the Constitution but prevailed my military force.

On January 21, 1861, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi went to the well of the U.S. Senate one last time to announce that he had “satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States.” Before resigning his Senate seat, Davis laid out the basis for Mississippi’s legal claim, coming down squarely on the fact that in the Declaration of Independence “the communities were declaring their independence”—not “the people.” He added, “I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the Union.”

Davis’ position reaffirmed that of John C. Calhoun, the powerful South Carolina senator who had long viewed the states as independent sovereign entities. In an 1833 speech upholding the right of his home state to nullify federal tariffs it believed were unfair, Calhoun insisted, “I go on the ground that [the] constitution was made by the States; that it is a federal union of the States, in which the several States still retain their sovereignty.” Calhoun allowed that a state could be barred from secession by a vote of two-thirds of the states under Article V, which lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution.

Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, was one of the least auspicious beginnings for any president in history. His election was used as a rallying cry for secession, and he became the head of a country that was falling apart even as he raised his hand to take the oath of office. His first inaugural address left no doubt about his legal position: “No State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

While Lincoln expressly called for a peaceful resolution, this was the final straw for many in the South who saw the speech as a veiled threat...and their views regarding Lincoln proved correct.  


Lincoln implicitly rejected the view of his predecessor, James Buchanan. Buchanan agreed that secession was not allowed under the Constitution, but he also believed the national government could not use force to keep a state in the Union

Lincoln's scruples did not stop him from clearly violating the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus in 1861 and 1862. His argument also rejects the suggestion of people like Calhoun that, if states can change the Constitution under Article V by democratic vote, they can agree to a state leaving the Union. Lincoln’s view was absolutist in nature  and treated secession as nothing more than rebellion. Ironically, as Lincoln himself acknowledged, that places the states in the same position as the Constitution’s framers (and presumably himself as King George).

 The South did in fact secede because it was unwilling to accept decisions by a majority in Congress.  Davis and Calhoun’s argument was compelling under the Articles of Confederation, where there was no express waiver of withdrawal. The reference to the “perpetuity” of the Union in the Articles and such documents as the Northwest Ordinance does not necessarily mean each state is bound in perpetuity, but that the nation itself is so created.

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution says states can not secede.  What was needed for the sake of clarity was a duly enacted amendment to the Constitution that would allow secession. In such a case, Lincoln would clearly have been warring against the democratic process he claimed to defend.

The controversy of State's rights was not settled by the Civil War.  The Civil war merely deprived the South of its Constitutional Rights by military force....for the time being at least.


----------



## there4eyeM

Perpetual Union.


----------



## Syriusly

TheParser said:


> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.



Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?

Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.

And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South would not compromise.  They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.
> 
> They chose war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda.   ..
Click to expand...


This whole thread is propaganda- starting with you citing your slavery loving Confederate.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the consitution was written the negro was legal property.  No consideration of the Negroes was given in the costitution nor were they entitled to any.  We did them a great favor by bringing them to a civilized nation where they became to a certain degree civilized and many of them became Christians.
Click to expand...


Ah yes- and here it comes down to it- the old 'we did a great favor to blacks by raping their women and murdering their men'

Basically its the rapist telling kids that they should be thanking him for raping their mother.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> [Q
> The abolishment of Slavery in the South could have been accomplished peacefully as it was in the rest of The Western World..



And the Confederate States seceded just to prevent that from happening. But in a karmic twist of fate- the Confederate states by trying to ensure that slavery would endure in perpetuity in the United States- took the action that doomed slavery in the United States.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Those ^^^ ungrateful black Americans!


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude
Click to expand...


And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln
Click to expand...


Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol


----------



## Syriusly

JakeStarkey said:


> Sundance displays a most sophomoric grasp of the essentials of the Civil War and the history and culture leading up to the Southern revolt against human decency.
> 
> Be nice to him because he knows no better.



He is just an echo chamber of the black hating white supremacists.

I wonder who he voted for in the last election?


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) And by 'initiating his 'illegal' war- you mean after the Confederacy attacked American Army troops in an American fort......
> B) Why would the North and South have eventually gotten back together again? The Confederate States formed- as per their Consitution- to protect in perpetuity- their right to own slaves. That was the reason they seceded, it was the reason for their union- why would two nations that disagreed on the issue that caused the South to try to secede- join back together again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Lincoln well knew if he attempted to re-supply a yankee fort in the South that would mean war.n
Click to expand...


And South Carolina knew that if they fired on the Army of the United States- that would mean war. 

And South Carolina chose war.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) And by 'initiating his 'illegal' war- you mean after the Confederacy attacked American Army troops in an American fort......
> B) Why would the North and South have eventually gotten back together again? The Confederate States formed- as per their Consitution- to protect in perpetuity- their right to own slaves. That was the reason they seceded, it was the reason for their union- why would two nations that disagreed on the issue that caused the South to try to secede- join back together again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Lincoln well knew if he attempted to re-supply a yankee fort in the South that would mean war.n
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And South Carolina knew that if they fired on the Army of the United States- that would mean war.
> 
> And South Carolina chose war.
Click to expand...


When an aggressor nation invades your territory then any nation is entitled by International Law to resist the aggressor.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol
Click to expand...


My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature. 

*"The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War*" is a biography of Abraham Lincoln written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2002. The biography differs from traditional books about Lincoln in presenting a severely critical view of his presidency.

In discussing Lincoln's legacy, DiLorenzo discusses civil liberties abuses such as the suspension of habeas corpus, violations of the first amendment, war crimes committed by generals in the American Civil War, and the expansion ofgovernment power. DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln's views on race exhibited forms of bigotry that are commonlyoverlooked today (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery). DiLorenzo also argues that Lincoln instigated the Civil War notover slavery but rather to centralize power and to enforce the strongly protectionist Morrill Tariff; similarly, he criticizesLincoln for his strong support of Henry Clay's American System.

 For more on Lincoln I recommend.................The Real Lincoln


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance, your recommendations are worth the value of your posts.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) And by 'initiating his 'illegal' war- you mean after the Confederacy attacked American Army troops in an American fort......
> B) Why would the North and South have eventually gotten back together again? The Confederate States formed- as per their Consitution- to protect in perpetuity- their right to own slaves. That was the reason they seceded, it was the reason for their union- why would two nations that disagreed on the issue that caused the South to try to secede- join back together again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Lincoln well knew if he attempted to re-supply a yankee fort in the South that would mean war.n
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And South Carolina knew that if they fired on the Army of the United States- that would mean war.
> 
> And South Carolina chose war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When an aggressor nation invades your territory then any nation is entitled by International Law to resist the aggressor.
Click to expand...


And by 'agressor nation' you mean when the United States aggressively sat in a fort of the United States - and forced South Carolina to fire upon it?


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature.n
Click to expand...


And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
Click to expand...


Slavery was begun in Africa long before it was exported to the Western World....and of course it still exists there today.     The Arab Muslim Slave Trade Of Africans, The Untold Story – Originalpeople.org


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was begun in Africa long before it was exported to the Western World....and of course it still exists there today.
Click to expand...


And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance, that has nothing to do with this discussion.

You lost it long ago.  You can't take what you dish.  Advice: sneak away.  Quickly and quietly.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature.n
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.
Click to expand...


Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?  hehheh   You gonna start a movement to tear down his statues and rename all those thousands and thousands of streets named after him.   bwaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If  Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) And by 'initiating his 'illegal' war- you mean after the Confederacy attacked American Army troops in an American fort......
> B) Why would the North and South have eventually gotten back together again? The Confederate States formed- as per their Consitution- to protect in perpetuity- their right to own slaves. That was the reason they seceded, it was the reason for their union- why would two nations that disagreed on the issue that caused the South to try to secede- join back together again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Lincoln well knew if he attempted to re-supply a yankee fort in the South that would mean war.n
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And South Carolina knew that if they fired on the Army of the United States- that would mean war.
> 
> And South Carolina chose war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When an aggressor nation invades your territory then any nation is entitled by International Law to resist the aggressor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agressor nation' you mean when the United States aggressively sat in a fort of the United States - and forced South Carolina to fire upon it?
Click to expand...


The fort was in S. Carolina terroitory....the feds not only refused to vacate it but chose to re-supply it....clearly.....a provocative and aggressive act
https://americancivilwar.com/author...ln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> Sundance, that has nothing to do with this discussion.
> 
> You lost it long ago.  You can't take what you dish.  Advice: sneak away.  Quickly and quietly.



bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  You are entitled to your opinion irregardless of how ignorant it may be.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was begun in Africa long before it was exported to the Western World....and of course it still exists there today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
Click to expand...


Where does this Negroid Servitude you mention exist?  Certainly not in America....the Federal Government ended that here in America long ago....perhaps you are referring to our new servants....aka illegal mexicans?


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> Sundance, your recommendations are worth the value of your posts.



The truth does not appeal to everyone....dat is foe sho boy o


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance displays a most sophomoric grasp of the essentials of the Civil War and the history and culture leading up to the Southern revolt against human decency.
> 
> Be nice to him because he knows no better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is just an echo chamber of the black hating white supremacists.
> 
> I wonder who he voted for in the last election?
Click to expand...


Correction:  I am a White Nationalist


----------



## JakeStarkey

Correction: Sundance is an unAmerican.

Sundance would not know truth if Jesus told him.

Those who rise up against the Perpetual Union die.

Simple fact.

One of the great moments of my life was standing on the side walk on when the cops took John King out the courthouse door after being sentenced to death.

The crowd members, white and black, were chanting, "Buh bye, Mr. King, buh bye."

White nationalist dodos get what they deserve.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?
> 
> Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.
> 
> And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was under the influence of radical elements in the North....he should have resisted such insane advice and since he was President-- formulated his own strategy for dealing with his Southern Brethern....if he truly believed we were all 'one people' that is.   It would have been extremely easy for him to prevent war....first of all he should have vacated Ft. Sumpter and not attempted to re-supply it...clear actions of someone who wanted war.

He could have negotiated with the Southerners regarding all their complaints which led them to do something they really did not want to do..but felt forced to do by much ill treatment.  Lots or room for compromise and negotiations....but....Mr. Lincoln wanted war.

The Real Lincoln - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only a President who did not believe the union was perpetual would have acted in the cowardly way suggested by whitenationalistboy.

All the South had to do was to give up its claim to national slavery, accept it in the old South, and to respect federal properties on land ceded to the national government by contract.

The South had no honor, no sense of being American.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?
> 
> Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.
> 
> And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was under the influence of radical elements in the North....he should have resisted such insane advice and since he was President-- formulated his own strategy for dealing with his Southern Brethern....if he truly believed we were all 'one people' that is.   It would have been extremely easy for him to prevent war....first of all he should have vacated Ft. Sumpter and not attempted to re-supply it...clear actions of someone who wanted war.
Click to expand...


You know what clear actions of someone who didn't want war would be?

a) Not trying to secede and
b) Not firing on American troops.


----------



## rightwinger

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.


You are a racist asshole

No need to engage in discussion with you


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?
> 
> Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.
> 
> And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could have negotiated with the Southerners regarding all their complaints which led them to do something they really did not want to do..but felt forced to do by much ill treatment.  Lots or room for compromise and negotiations...
Click to expand...


Yeah- since the first states seceded prior to Lincoln being in office, and having the authority to negotiate anything- that dog doesn't bite. 

And what was that 'ill treatment'- some Northern States- defending their own interpretation of states rights- refused to return the human property to the Southern States.

And of course- the expansion of slavery into the new territories was being threatened. 

If the Confederates wanted negotiations- they could have tried negotiations- before secedding- the South wanted a war- and they got it.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> Correction: Sundance is an unAmerican.
> 
> Sundance would not know truth if Jesus told him.
> 
> Those who rise up against the Perpetual Union die.
> 
> Simple fact.
> 
> One of the great moments of my life was standing on the side walk on when the cops took John King out the courthouse door after being sentenced to death.
> 
> The crowd members, white and black, were chanting, "Buh bye, Mr. King, buh bye."
> 
> White nationalist dodos get what they deserve.



If you enjoy death....go back to Afreeka boy o.


rightwinger said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a racist asshole
> 
> No need to engage in discussion with you
Click to expand...


hehheh   Another one bites the dust....that is what the truth does to some.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance displays a most sophomoric grasp of the essentials of the Civil War and the history and culture leading up to the Southern revolt against human decency.
> 
> Be nice to him because he knows no better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is just an echo chamber of the black hating white supremacists.
> 
> I wonder who he voted for in the last election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction:  I am a White Nationalist
Click to expand...


Ah so you can't vote because of your criminal convictions. 

Did you just put up a Trump sign in front of your trailer?


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance, your recommendations are worth the value of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth does not appeal to everyone....dat is foe sho boy o
Click to expand...


Nothing is further from the truth than the propaganda you are spewing.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was begun in Africa long before it was exported to the Western World....and of course it still exists there today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does this Negroid Servitude you mention exist?
Click to expand...


I am merely quoting you and your obsession with "Negroid Servitude"


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?
> 
> Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.
> 
> And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was under the influence of radical elements in the North....he should have resisted such insane advice and since he was President-- formulated his own strategy for dealing with his Southern Brethern....if he truly believed we were all 'one people' that is.   It would have been extremely easy for him to prevent war....first of all he should have vacated Ft. Sumpter and not attempted to re-supply it...clear actions of someone who wanted war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what clear actions of someone who didn't want war would be?
> 
> a) Not trying to secede and
> b) Not firing on American troops.
Click to expand...



The South did not want war but felt compelled to stand up for liberty.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?
> 
> Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.
> 
> And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could have negotiated with the Southerners regarding all their complaints which led them to do something they really did not want to do..but felt forced to do by much ill treatment.  Lots or room for compromise and negotiations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- since the first states seceded prior to Lincoln being in office, and having the authority to negotiate anything- that dog doesn't bite.
> 
> And what was that 'ill treatment'- some Northern States- defending their own interpretation of states rights- refused to return the human property to the Southern States.
> 
> And of course- the expansion of slavery into the new territories was being threatened.
> 
> If the Confederates wanted negotiations- they could have tried negotiations- before secedding- the South wanted a war- and they got it.
Click to expand...


Secession could have been dealt with in a peaceful manner...if you are sitting at supper with your brother and he recites a long list of grievances he has against you and says he will leave your house unless you address his complaints what would you do?  Would you try to reason with him or take out a pistol and shoot him?

Mr. Lincoln could have easily sat down with the Southern Governors in the White House...gone over their long list of grievances and have come to some sort of compromise to avoid war...Lincoln could have very easilly avoided the war.

How Lincoln Could Have Prevented Civil War by Sanderson Beck


----------



## JakeStarkey

So you are a white nationalist, a criminal, and can't vote, Sundance.

You are useless.  Blather on.


----------



## jillian

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?
> 
> Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.
> 
> And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was under the influence of radical elements in the North....he should have resisted such insane advice and since he was President-- formulated his own strategy for dealing with his Southern Brethern....if he truly believed we were all 'one people' that is.   It would have been extremely easy for him to prevent war....first of all he should have vacated Ft. Sumpter and not attempted to re-supply it...clear actions of someone who wanted war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what clear actions of someone who didn't want war would be?
> 
> a) Not trying to secede and
> b) Not firing on American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The South did not want war but felt compelled to stand up for liberty.
Click to expand...


no. they "stood" for the right to own people.

nothing more. nothing less. and you can make up anything you want to try to cover that.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> So you are a white nationalist, a criminal, and can't vote, Sundance.
> 
> You are useless.  Blather on.


Another racist trying to troll the board


----------



## jillian

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was begun in Africa long before it was exported to the Western World....and of course it still exists there today.     The Arab Muslim Slave Trade Of Africans, The Untold Story – Originalpeople.org
Click to expand...


and?


----------



## koshergrl

frigidweirdo said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
Click to expand...


That's a great little fantasy you have there.


----------



## Sundance508

jillian said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, many people at that time  sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.
> 
> I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.
> 
> I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?
> 
> Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.
> 
> And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was under the influence of radical elements in the North....he should have resisted such insane advice and since he was President-- formulated his own strategy for dealing with his Southern Brethern....if he truly believed we were all 'one people' that is.   It would have been extremely easy for him to prevent war....first of all he should have vacated Ft. Sumpter and not attempted to re-supply it...clear actions of someone who wanted war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what clear actions of someone who didn't want war would be?
> 
> a) Not trying to secede and
> b) Not firing on American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The South did not want war but felt compelled to stand up for liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no. they "stood" for the right to own people.
> 
> nothing more. nothing less. and you can make up anything you want to try to cover that.
Click to expand...


My dear I know you mean well but please try and keep up............Slavery was started in the North.. by the Dutch... in the region known as New Netherlands --later to be renamed New York. 

Slavery of Africans became prevalent in both the North and the South at around the same time.. 

Northern slavery grew out of the paradox that in the new world  so much land was available, so cheaply, that no one was willing to come to America and sign on to work as a laborer. 

The dream that drew Europeans across the Atlantic was owning acres of land or making a fortune in a trade or a craft. It was an attainable dream. 

Yet workers were needed in the new continent to clear the land, work the soil, build towns and because of this acute labor shortage -- all the American colonies turned to compulsory labor.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> So you are a white nationalist, a criminal, and can't vote, Sundance.
> 
> You are useless.  Blather on.



Since you call me by name....................

*What is White Nationalism?*
1. Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

2. Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

3. Q. Do White Nationalists seek to dominate other races?

A. Not at all. In fact, formation of a White Nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others.

4. Q. Do White Nationalists seek to insulate themselves from competition from other races?

A. No. A separate White Nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White Nation would not protect Whites from economic competition.

5. Q. Well if White Nationalists don't feel superior, don't want to dominate others, and don't seek protection from competition, then why would they want a separate nation?

A. To avoid exploitation.

6. Q. Exploitation? This is rich! So how is it that Whites are exploited?

A. It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, race-normed employment tests, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for vandalism and assaults committed by Whites if the perpetrators have a history of anti-egalitarian thought. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits.

But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-whites living in the United States.

The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-white demands.

If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non- whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.

8. Q. You claim that non-whites are the aggressors and haters in race relations. Aren't you afraid that most Whites will think this is ridiculous?

A. Not in the slightest. For the past 30 years most Whites have taken part in a mass migration or "white flight" away from neighborhoods inhabited by non-whites. Aggressors don't flee. For example, on a per-capita basis, blacks are 49 times more likely to assault a White than a White is to assault a black. The best measure of racism is the number of non-economically motivated attacks. Whites score low in this regard, non-whites high.

The fact is that non-whites are clamoring to enter this country in droves. Whites are fleeing en masse to less densely inhabited areas to escape these new arrivals.

9. Q. But how can Whites be exploited when it is whites who have enacted these racial preferences, the taxation, the welfare payments and the immigration laws?

A. Excellent question! It is true that Whites are exploited by their fellow whites. In fact, we do not expect any resistance to the formation of a separate nation from non-whites. We expect white integrationist elites to resist. They are the ones who have a great deal to lose.

10. Q. If life in America is so bad for Whites why don't you just move back to Europe?

A. We are a majority. We do not have to move back. We can resolve to defend ourselves against this onslaught. We have the option of peacefully ceding lands already inhabited by non-whites to separate non-white nations. We would save money, and could restore our civil liberties and free ourselves from constant threats of violence by so doing.

11. Q. What would your separate state look like?

A. The truth is we don't know yet. Our separate state would follow the geographic outlines of White flight. The model for this state would be the modern gerrymander created by the Voting Rights Act to create majority non-white congressional districts. We would simply cede these to a separate nation. The mechanics of this process will be explained more fully later in a post entitled "sweating the details."

12. Q. Would all Whites be welcome in your separate state?

A. Absolutely. There would be no restriction by country of origin, and no genetic tests, skin color or hair color tests or any nonsense like that. The only restriction would be that those who wish to recreate the present system by importing non- whites and then encouraging their hostility would not be welcome. They would have to remain in or move to the lands ceded to the non-whites.

13. Q. Would Asians be welcome in your separate state?

A. Unresolved. As a general rule, Asian-Americans show very little aggression towards Whites, either personally or politically. Thus, there is no reason to exclude them. There is no desire on the part of White Nationalists to insulate themselves from competition from non-whites who are already here, and who get along well with us.

14. Q. Would the same hold true for hispanics?

A. The census bureau classifies half of all hispanics as White. White Nationalists generally feel the same way. That portion of the Hispanic population that blends in and displays no hostility of a personal or political kind may remain. The "Mecha" members who want to see the Southwestern U.S. annexed to Mexico would not be welcome.

15. Q. You are proposing that inclusion and exclusion be based on ideology and feelings. Won't your act of nation splitting turn into a witch hunt?

A. For white liberals it is definitely going to feel like a witch hunt! When the time comes, those who are guilty of "integrationism" should do the sensible thing and flee. It will spare us all a lot of pain.

16. Q. Is this White Nation something that you intend to pursue right away?

A. No. The White Nation is, by most accounts, about 20 years off. When the rest of the U.S. begins to look like Southern California it will happen more or less automatically, without much of a push from us.

16. Q. Why do you use the term "European-American"?

A. All Whites are descended from European immigrants. The term European-American has political significance for two reasons. First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify american Whites as "Irish" or "German" or "Italian". But more important, use of the term "European-American" is intended to recognize that white elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-white demands.

17. Q. What is White separatism?

A. A White separatist will agree on most points with a White Nationalist, except that he may not see a need to establish a separate nation within the present territorial boundaries of the U.S.

18. Q. What is a White supremacist?

A. That is a White who wishes to subjugate other races by force, ordinarily by military conquest. White supremacists are very rare in 1994, and there is no visible trend or base of support which would allow them to carry such a political program into effect. White supremacists are generally an embarrassment to White Nationalists.

19. Q. Do White Nationalists think of Adolph Hitler or National Socialism as a model to emulate?

A. White Nationalists do not seek to recreate the German experience of 1936-1945. Hitler's Reich is not a model for White Nationalism. White Nationalism is defensive. It is not externally aggressive. It would most likely be a government of very limited powers, with a federal structure that assures localities considerable latitude to experiment with moral and social laws, with the idea of fostering traditional communities and traditional religions in places where the overwhelming majority of people want such things - and secularism where the majority wish to have that as well.

However, within the ranks of White Nationalists, there are some significant differences of opinion about the _historical_ significance of Hitler, and whether he was a help or a hindrance to the cause of White survival. Also, there are those who argue that Hitler's military exploits were a defensive reaction to the ethnically motivated slaughters by (predominantly jewish) Marxists in Russia. This debate among White Nationalists can get emotional at times, but has little to do with the practicality of White survival or the probable characteristics of any new White Nation today.

20. Q. Are White Nationalists anti-semitic?

A. That depends on what you mean by "anti-semitic". Most White Nationalists believe that Jews are not monolithic in their views and should not be viewed as a racial or ethnic enemy. However, the activities of Jewish organizations are another matter entirely. From Jewish organized and financed bolshevism, to the Frankfurt School and the AJC, various Jewish financed and managed "civil rights" organizations such as the the NAACP, various Jewish pro-immigration groups, the ADL with its vicious anti-white "hate crime" laws, to AIPAC and the various Jewish Neo-Con think tanks advocating pre-emptive wars, collective guilt and the slaughter of civilians - the activities of organized Jewish political groups are the primary cause of all the political and policy ills of which White Nationalists complain. Because of this, most White Nationalists feel that there is no way out of the ugliness and injustice of multi-culturalism except through vigorous opposition to organized Jewish political groups and their agendas. Indeed, White survival depends on successfully countering the power and influence of organized Jewish groups.

21. Q. What is the difference between political conservatism and White Nationalism?

A. Surprisingly little. White Nationalists generally diagnose the problems of the United States in exactly the same way as do most paleo-conservatives. Indeed Thomas Sowell's treatise on the universality of racial strife worldwide and the tendency of governments worldwide to aggravate that strife are the factual raw material for the White Nationalist argument.

Conservatives generally believe that different races can live peacefully in a single country as long as the government has limited powers and serves as a "loose confederation" guaranteeing individual rights. White Nationalists are very sympathetic to this conservative viewpoint.

However, White Nationalists will point out that there is no existing example of such a loose confederation in which racial autonomy and peace has been achieved, nor is there any reason to believe that a government (such as the United States Government) which starts out as a loose confederation with limited powers will remain so for long if subjected to the competing demands of different races.

White Nationalists believe that the urge to use governmental power to gain racial advantage is so great that the safest and most humane choice is to break up multi-racial empires and place each race under a separate government. In broad outline, Russia is headed in the right direction in preventing ethnic conflict by allowing different races their own separate governments.

Conservatives assume liberals are motivated by good intentions, and that the destructiveness of their policies should be forgiven. White nationalists believe that liberals are motivated by a lust for power and carefully cloaked ethnic and cultural hatreds and that their destructive social policies achieve their real (as opposed to their stated) aims. Because our federal and most state governments are dominated by liberals, those governments are illegitimate and the people have the right of immediate rebellion.

White Nationalists, believe that liberal elites will never tolerate the loss of power that comes from stripping down the U.S. Government to its original conception of a loose confederation, and that liberals would resort to any and all means including electoral fraud, suspension of freedom of speech and of the press, warrantless arrests, suspension of habeas corpus, inciting racial violence, and inciting mass migrations into the United States to avoid any such loss of power.

Most White Nationalists view our liberal elites as extremely dangerous, - as vicious and manipulative in the use of police power as they are cowardly in their personal lives. Most White Nationalists also view the "Waco" incident not as an aberration, but as the preferred response of liberals to dissident religious or anti-egalitarian Whites, and are convinced that the result of this incident represents the preferred outcome from the liberal perspective. It is clear that liberal elites think of dissident religious or anti-egalitarian Whites as, at best, a form of undesirable "property" and would view any unilateral secession attempt as a convenient excuse to order the military to undertake a general slaughter.

Since it is clear that many Americans approve of our current politicians and judges, most White Nationalists would prefer to minimize conflict with the liberal elites and their racial allies by ceding to them the 10% to 15% of the U.S. in which they and their racial allies are concentrated and then declaring the independence of the remaining American land mass from liberalism.

This may sound far-fetched now, but if present trends continue, conditions will get worse and the attitudes of the average voter will change.


----------



## Sundance508

jillian said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .  Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was begun in Africa long before it was exported to the Western World....and of course it still exists there today.     The Arab Muslim Slave Trade Of Africans, The Untold Story – Originalpeople.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance, buddy, you are for grins and giggles.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> Sundance, buddy, you are for grins and giggles.






*Needling:*simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand.

Needling is also Ad Hominem if you know what that means.

In a nutshell if you cannot address any of the arguments or controversies on this thread why waste board space?


----------



## Sundance508

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful.  Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves  regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

*….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war*

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business 

dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices  – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.





The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. *If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British.* Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.




          This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.




          Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

_Confederate Memorial Day 1910_





The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”




The historical record shows that *even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery *(check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – *what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!*

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

          How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

*Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. *And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

*When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! *When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. *The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.*


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

*……See also*
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent


----------



## deanrd

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.


Republicans miss slavery so much.

Full text of "Constitution of the Confederate States of America"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance508 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance, buddy, you are for grins and giggles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Needling:*simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand.
> 
> Needling is also Ad Hominem if you know what that means.
> 
> In a nutshell if you cannot address any of the arguments or controversies on this thread why waste board space?
Click to expand...

You have needled and talked down to others, a form of _ad hom_, so I am not much concerned with how you feel about getting what you dish.

You finally buckled, so now I can put you on Ignore.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.
> 
> Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful.  Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves  regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.
> 
> *….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war*
> 
> The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business
> 
> dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices  – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.
> 
> The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.
> 
> Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. *If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British.* Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
> 
> _Confederate Memorial Day 1910_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record shows that *even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery *(check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.
> 
> With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”
> 
> Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – *what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!*
> 
> Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.
> 
> How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”
> 
> The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.
> 
> *Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. *And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.
> 
> *When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! *When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. *The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.*
> 
> 
> The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.
> 
> *……See also*
> More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent
> 
> A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent



LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.

And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.
> 
> Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful.  Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves  regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.
> 
> *….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war*
> 
> The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business
> 
> dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices  – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.
> 
> The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.
> 
> Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. *If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British.* Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
> 
> _Confederate Memorial Day 1910_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record shows that *even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery *(check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.
> 
> With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”
> 
> Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – *what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!*
> 
> Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.
> 
> How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”
> 
> The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.
> 
> *Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. *And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.
> 
> *When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! *When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. *The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.*
> 
> 
> The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.
> 
> *……See also*
> More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent
> 
> A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent



Fun statements.  I like rewriting history at times too.   This ones about as good as mine that the Civil War was about Abraham Lincoln creating Nuclear weapons.  

Don't you find it interesting that in the reasons for secessions the states that seceded wrote NOT ONE mentioned these tariffs you speak of?  Maybe becase the tarriff law in place was written by a southern Senator (he became the VP of the confederacy)?    Hmmm, it would be like if the new tax law passes and in 100 years we get to hear how Republicans revolted in 2018 over the new tax laws.  It's that dumb of a theory.  

They did mention slavery though.  Oh yeah, protecting that showed up everywhere.  Not just as a way for free labor, but as a God given right to the white man and the cornerstone of their rebellion.  

As for the "Yankee invasion", ummm, remember Military bases are federal property, not state property.  You can even find the deed for Fort Sumter where it is ceded to the Government of the US.   And when the USA failed to hand it over it was bombed for 24 hours straight.   Cuba has asked us to give Guantanemo back plenty of times.  We've said no.  If they bombed our soldiers and Marines there for a day straight because of that I hope the US would defend it's assets and military lives as well.   Remember, the South seceded and took EVERYTHING they could from the US.   Ships that belonged to the federal Gov't.  Bases.  Mints.  Banks.  Money.  Just told them to stuff it.   Then attacked a US military installation for the first shots of the war.  

Slavery did exist in slave states a long time.   Remember Northern states were taking action to ban slavery and ban the slave trade in their states DURING the American Revolution.   They went to the original Continental Congresses with ideas of a slave free US.   But Southern states would not join a Union without slavery, so in the best interests of a nation to defeat the British they gave in on that.  

Just because most Germans, poor men, fought for their country rather than the 3rd Reichs dream of a superior race and world domination, doesn't mean Hitler was a good guy.  It doesn't mean his ideals were good ones.  Honestly it makes it even worse that he would send people to their deaths over them.  Same with the Confederacy.   I don't hate those that fought and died.   But those that sent them to war against the USA over the institution of slavery.  Fuck them.  


That's a nice study about the 5% of them.   Granted that seems to be completely the opposite of what the 1860 census showed us.  You know.   The actual facts of the time, rather than us deciding to throw them away and create new ones that suit our needs. 

In 1860 the census found out what percent of families owned slaves.  35% of those in Alabama did for example.  49% in Mississippi.  46% in South Carolina. Now granted if dad owns a slave, I am sure you are breaking down the numbers that even though that slave works for the family, an 8 person family means only 12% of those in that house would have anything to do with a slave.  It's an easy and rather lazy way to bend the truth for your needs.  

Again, you can rewrite this new version of history all you want.  The great thing about the history of the US is it is written down.  You can read the congressional meetings at state assemblies on the issue and see slavery was the defining reason they wanted out of the union.  You can identify the states rights they felt were being infringed upon.  Runaway slaves not being returned to slave states.  Slavery not being able to expand to new states.  States not having a right to re-open the slave trade.  Of course now we need to call those "states rights" since pro-slavery rights doesn't fit the new agenda we all like.  

Kinda funny how you Lincoln said the war wasn't a war on slavery early on.   Remember, when the states were starting to secede and the war was starting, Washington DC was between two slave states.   Yeah he could have said it was a war on slavery.  And woken up the next day in the heart of the Confederacy and waved a white flag and surrendered the US.  He could have spoken tougher on slavery when he was giving his campaign speeches in slave states and his opponents were calling him a "black republican" and that he'd send the country to war over slavery, but that would have lost him votes.  Just like Trump says he is pro-immigrant and Hillary says she is pro-gun when campaigning in those area's that are for those things.  

In the end, Lincolns acts were a war on slavery.   Immediately in office he free'd the slaves in the one place he could (Washington DC).  As soon as he wasn't under attack from the South, when he was having to be slipped out of Washington DC so they couldnt catch him, and they beat the rebels back, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Something most people call the most questionable use of presidential powers ever.  After the war many called him the dirtiest politician ever.  Bringing up exposing secrets and damning stories on other politicians if they wouldn't work to create that amendment to free all the slaves.  He is still the only president ever to sign an amendment, the one that free'd the slaves.   But yeah, even though his life was chock full of a battle against slavery.  Even though he was from the abolitionist party, he wasn't anti-slavery lol.   That'd be like in 150 years some guy trying to rewrite history that Trump wasn't anti-illegal immigrants.  That he was actually anti-2nd amendment.   It's literally that dumb of a statement.  

I kinda had fun reading your re-write on US history there.  But you are going to need to break into the Library of Congress with a LOT of white out to remove the actual history that's written down to get that story you made up through.  

Thanks for the fun fantasy though.


----------



## Slash

The "blacks fought for the south" bit is fun as well.   Yes we all know that lots of Generals and leaders would take their slaves and force them to support the war effort.   But wheres the proof of anything beyond that?  Why is it only something we've discovered in the past 20 years?  I mean we've got easy numbers on blacks in the Northern army.  About 10% of the forces, about 10,000 casualties on the records and hundreds of records supporting it.  The only writing about black soldiers from the confederacy was that it was against the law for Blacks to be soldiers.   March 13, 1865 was when it became finally legal in the South for the Confederacy to admit and train black soldiers, and too soon for any to ever face battle.  A few weeks after that was made law... Lee surrendered. It was a desperate move at the end.   But somehow I'm supposed to believe it had been already legal?   I mean the documents are right there in the Library of Congress.  

But we've got the intentionally photoshopped stories of blacks fighting for the south right? 

I mean we have hundreds of references by Confederate military leaders counting their white and black laborers.  Black slaves in their camp cooking and cleaning.  But not one.  NOT EVEN ONE account by a single Confederate leader of a black slave fighting in the military. 

Not just the official documents.  Not one confederate soldiers diary ever mentioned a black soldier.   Not one confederate letter home ever mentioned a black soldier.  Not one of the "lost cause" former Confederate soldiers, when trying to deny the war was about slavery but other things ever mentioned blacks fighting along side them.  Here was the PERFECT opportunity to make a case on that, but not ONE ever mentioned it. 

Union reports after battles would mention who was caught and rounded up and taken prisoner.  They had these meticulous records. Troops, support staff, black support staff.  NEVER A SINGLE BLACK SOLDIER. 

Now, only after the veterans of that war who would have laughed this away are LONG GONE, do we get these stories.  80,000 black fighting men... more than Lee had at Gettysburgh hidden out there.   It's a sad joke.   It makes me think in another 50 years we will have to listen to morons telling us that Hitler really liked the Jews.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.
> 
> Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful.  Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves  regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.
> 
> *….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war*
> 
> The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business
> 
> dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices  – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.
> 
> The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.
> 
> Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. *If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British.* Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
> 
> _Confederate Memorial Day 1910_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record shows that *even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery *(check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.
> 
> With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”
> 
> Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – *what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!*
> 
> Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.
> 
> How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”
> 
> The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.
> 
> *Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. *And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.
> 
> *When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! *When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. *The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.*
> 
> 
> The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.
> 
> *……See also*
> More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent
> 
> A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.
> 
> And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.
Click to expand...


To begin with racism is a useless word.......and only has been around for a relatively short period of time.  Anyone who has been on many of these boards sees very quickly how most make up their own definitions of it....I go with the original definition of it in the Oxford English Dictionary....which simply acknowledges the power of genes and how they shape the human genome.now of course the liberals changed the dictionary definition of it in order to be able to use it as a political tool and they have been quite successful in that regards and the evidence is that this country is now more divided than at any time since the so called civil war(misnomer) and a lot of that unfortunately has to do with how liberals have played the 'politics of victimhood' game....wherein the blacks are always innocent victims....clearly demonstrated by the Zimmerman case....and another example is how the liberals supported Israel until they became rather successful...the liberals then switched to supporting the Palestinians' because they now perceive them as the victims and the Israelis as Evil Zionists...thus getting a lick in on both Israel and Jehovah.

The Origins of ‘Racism’:  The curious beginnings of a useless word (Samuel Francis)


----------



## Sundance508

The debate over black Confederates has reached a kind of impasse: Neither side is listening to the other. As the historian William Freehling quietly acknowledged in a footnote: “This important subject is now needlessly embroiled in controversy, with politically correct historians  refusing to see the importance (indeed existence) of slaves who were black Confederates,

Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of _*The Root, *_have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that some blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy....after all the South was their home too and many of them were very loyal not only to their Mastahs but to the Confederacy as well and viewed the yankees with much disfavor.


How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, a good estimate is that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.

We know that blacks made up more than half the toilers at Richmond’s Tredegar Iron Works and more than 75 percent of the workforce at Selma, Ala.’s naval ordnance plant. And slaves grew the crops that fed the Confederacy. As Frederick Douglass noted, blacks were “the stomach of the rebellion.”

The total number of black Confederate soldiers are insignificant as they
carry immense symbolic weight, for they explode the myth that a slave wouldn’t fight on behalf of masters. Scholars recognize that throughout history, slave societies have armed slaves, at times with the promise of freedom. They also acknowledge that a small number of African Americans were slave owners (about 3,700, according to Loren Schweninger).

BTW....most soldiers in any Army are not engaged in combat....most serve in non combat roles aka.........in logistics etc.

Even in WWI and WWII and Korea most blacks served in non-combat roles such as cooks, truck drivers etc.  The only black airborne unit in WWII served as smoke jumpers in Oregon....not until Vietnam did  any black soldiers of significant numbers serve in combat roles....and many know of the problems assiciated with that.

Black Confederates


----------



## JakeStarkey

Half a million slaves fled the Confederacy on foot rather than serve the slaveocracy.

185 thousand blacks served in the Union's military forces, 33000 thousand of them doing.

Talk about actual and symbolic importance!


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> The debate over black Confederates has reached a kind of impasse: Neither side is listening to the other. As the historian William Freehling quietly acknowledged in a footnote: “This important subject is now needlessly embroiled in controversy, with politically correct historians  refusing to see the importance (indeed existence) of slaves who were black Confederates,
> 
> Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of _*The Root, *_have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that some blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy....after all the South was their home too and many of them were very loyal not only to their Mastahs but to the Confederacy as well and viewed the yankees with much disfavor.
> 
> 
> How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, a good estimate is that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.
> 
> We know that blacks made up more than half the toilers at Richmond’s Tredegar Iron Works and more than 75 percent of the workforce at Selma, Ala.’s naval ordnance plant. And slaves grew the crops that fed the Confederacy. As Frederick Douglass noted, blacks were “the stomach of the rebellion.”
> 
> The total number of black Confederate soldiers are insignificant as they
> carry immense symbolic weight, for they explode the myth that a slave wouldn’t fight on behalf of masters. Scholars recognize that throughout history, slave societies have armed slaves, at times with the promise of freedom. They also acknowledge that a small number of African Americans were slave owners (about 3,700, according to Loren Schweninger).



There is no debate.   The only way to create the debate is to rewrite history.  It's to Ignore the history that occurred and rewrite a new one that better suits the story we would like to tell today.   It has no basis in written historical fact.  We have to embellish (oh black slaves were part of the effort because their masters took them along).  

This is one of the most easily disproven conspiracy theories.   Believers of this one make flat earthers look like Einsteins in comparison.   But unfortunately many are willing to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to seeing and hearing the truth, just in order to keep their own beliefs.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.
> 
> Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful.  Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves  regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.
> 
> *….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war*
> 
> The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business
> 
> dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices  – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.
> 
> The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.
> 
> Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. *If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British.* Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
> 
> _Confederate Memorial Day 1910_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record shows that *even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery *(check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.
> 
> With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”
> 
> Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – *what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!*
> 
> Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.
> 
> How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”
> 
> The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.
> 
> *Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. *And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.
> 
> *When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! *When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. *The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.*
> 
> 
> The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.
> 
> *……See also*
> More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent
> 
> A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.
> 
> And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To begin with racism is a useless word.......)
Click to expand...


Racism is a wonderfully descriptive word for the condition you suffer from and wish to inflict on others.

You and your fellow traitorous Confederate fanboys.


----------



## Sundance508

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.
> 
> Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful.  Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves  regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.
> 
> *….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war*
> 
> The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business
> 
> dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices  – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.
> 
> The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.
> 
> Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. *If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British.* Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
> 
> _Confederate Memorial Day 1910_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record shows that *even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery *(check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.
> 
> With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”
> 
> Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – *what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!*
> 
> Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.
> 
> How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”
> 
> The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.
> 
> *Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. *And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.
> 
> *When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! *When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. *The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.*
> 
> 
> The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.
> 
> *……See also*
> More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent
> 
> A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.
> 
> And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To begin with racism is a useless word.......)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism is a wonderfully descriptive word for the condition you suffer from and wish to inflict on others.
> 
> You and your fellow traitorous Confederate fanboys.
Click to expand...


Just another personal attack(apparantly that is all you are capable of)Your logical fallacy is ad hominem


----------



## Slash

You are right that Henry Louis Gates is one of the very few historians who have bought into the black confederates.  When studying for the "finding your roots" episode on Bryant Gumbel, he came across a member of his family in the Louisiana Native Guard.  A group of free blacks who wished to help in their cities in the South.  

They had their first formal review in late November of 1861.  In January of 1862 as soon as it was realized what they wished to be, it was reorganized into only ...free white males capable of bearing arms… ”.  The only ones of that group with any proof that they served in ANY armed forces are the ones who joined the Union army.  


When Mr Gates reached out to experts on the subject he was told that there was no proof of any sort that "these men were ever accepted into service by the Confederacy".  And of course if you look through all the minutes and articles of government by the Confederacy, you can find that to be true.   But that's not good TV unfortunately.  So Mr Gates took the lack of evidence as a lack of proof instead, and stuck with his claim that they were black Confederate soldiers.   He had been pressed to put his claim into writing for a peer review, but never has on that subject, likely because he can't find the evidence to support it.  

It's this kind of fake evidence, a combination of ignoring fact, creating your own story, and embellishing other parts, that creates this Black Confederate myth.   It's been used by KKK, White Nationalist, Nazi and other groups of that type in their efforts to rewrite a new history.   And of course it's completely irrelevant.   It goes right in the wastebasket along with the "Holocaust never happened" group.  It also at best is a distraction.  It doesn't change that the Civil War was about the South's desire to maintain and expand slavery.  Just like Hitler having Jews serving in his forces doesn't mean the 3rd reich was "good".


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Just another personal attack(apparantly that is all you are capable of)Your logical fallacy is ad hominem



While I don't know you so I can't call you a racist, what you are saying is a common trope of conspiracies and lies that are easily proven that racist groups tend to use that they somehow think defends the despicable act of slavery.   

Personally I am fine with Americans fighting against the Nazi's, KKK, White Nationalists, and their ilk.   They are trying to be the "nicer gentler" ones, but you still see the same sick demented beliefs come out.   Shave Hitlers mustache and he's still Hitler.  

If they weren't so awfully sick, I would almost feel sorry for them.  I mean they got their asses kicked in the Civil War.  Got stomped in WWII.   Got kicked out of South Africa.  Get banned across Europe.  Lost the Civil Rights movement.  Had their groups all labeled as hate groups by the US and international groups.  Losing their monuments.   It's been a really rough last 150 years for those twisted bastards.  I mean Wil E Coyote is probably looking at them going "damn you guys just never win, don't you". 
They've gone from a position of power in the South, able to have their lynchings and flag burnings, to having to spend their weekend signing up for renting space in a park, going down to bed bath and beyond and buying Tiki Torches, and trying to take part in the worlds largest sausage fest, or posting anonymously on internet chat boards.  It really would be sad if they weren't such an evil bunch.


----------



## Sundance508

100,000 *Union* *soldiers* *were* boys under 15 years old 


Photos of children who fought the American Civil War | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> 100,000 *Union* *soldiers* *were* boys under 15 years old
> 
> 
> Photos of children who fought the American Civil War | Daily Mail Online



Yes they were.  Age of adulthood back then was 13-16 years old across the world.    In 150 years if they make it 21 to be an adult we may end up looking back at today going "holy cow, the US military had people who were only 18 in it back then!"

Not going to say war isn't hell.  Not going to say there was a perfect side.   But there was a side who's leaders were fighting for the perpetuity of slavery.  And a side who's leaders weren't.


----------



## Sundance508

Slavery is alive and well and arises when economics demands it....we are well on our way to that point....if the elitist establishment forces prevail we will see a new form of slavery arise in America.  And of course..........as has been shown it exists even in the old form in many areas of the world as we speak...so the civil war solved nothing....the issues that were the basis for that struggle are still with us.

Economics of Slavery

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal  but it also exists in many other countries illegally.


----------



## Sundance508

*by Amy M. Wrobel*
amy_wrobel@att.net

This is not written to offend anyone who doesn't share my same beliefs, but I can assure you that if you were taught and believe the "Northern ways of life" that this will, for lack of better terms, piss you off. I will warn you now I am a very intellectual individual and if you try to contradict me I can throw a book of solid facts at you. I am going to speak about the black Confederates. Yes, they existed and there were over 65,000 of them, both slave and free. What the war was really about, and both the point of view of Confederate Generals and Union Generals on the act of slavery. I will also touch on how blacks were treated both before and after the war and how the white population is being treated now as a minority.

First things first, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln was against social and political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriages, supported the Illinois Constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, defended a slave owner who was seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended slaves or runaways themselves, and he was a lifelong advocate of colonization - of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America - anywhere but in the United States. In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery.

Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis not only envisioned black confederate veterans but also envisioned them receiving bounty lands for their service. There would have been no future for slavery once the armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

*< Mod Edit -- Shortened for "Fair Use"  Sundance508 *

I will not deny that most slaves were treated poorly. I feel pity for those who had to endure lashes for not doing their "masters bidding". But as I said before, Africans sold their OWN people into slavery and there is still slavery going on in other parts of the world. And do not think that blacks were the only ones in this country who were slaves. During the 17th century Native Americans (My Ancestors) were enslaved by colonists on a common basis. But just because Southern whites owned slaves it is now taken out on the white population today. My family never once owned a slave and a select few of my ancestors fought beside them in the Civil War. My Aunt Evelynn is a Southern black woman whom I love dearly. As well as friends of both my husband and myself who are colored. I do not agree with slavery on any point. There were free blacks whom owned slaves and a large majority of northerners owned slaves.

*< Mod Edit -- Shortened for "Fair Use"  Sundance508 *

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written off by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war." Confederate General Patrick R. Cleburne 1864

CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: The Civil war was NOT over slavery


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Slavery is alive and well and arises when economics demands it....we are well on our way to that point....if the elitist establishment forces prevail we will see a new form of slavery arise in America.  And of course..........as has been shown it exists even in the old form in many areas of the world as we speak...so the civil war solved nothing....the issues that were the basis for that struggle are still with us.
> 
> Economics of Slavery
> 
> 15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal  but it also exists in many other countries illegally.



The Civil war solved nothing huh?  All them N!ggers would be just as well off with the white man as their master for generations huh?   How many slaves freed?  Only a really sick racist individual would think that stopping the perpetuation and spread of slavery in the United States and freeing 4 million slaves amounted to... Nothing?  really?  Tired of letting that racism lay low huh, it kinda pops it's head out pretty blatantly when you aren't looking doesn't it?    

Based on your website you link there, that would be like freeing half of the existing slaves in the world today.  Same percentage of the worlds population.   But you think that is... NOTHING.  

I don't know how people get this kind of sick mentality, but I'm glad we no longer let them control the world anymore and have shoved them down to anonymous internet trolls.   That's one dying breed that we sure won't miss.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> *by Amy M. Wrobel*
> amy_wrobel@att.net
> 
> This is not written to offend anyone who doesn't share my same beliefs, but I can assure you that if you were taught and believe the "Northern ways of life" that this will, for lack of better terms, piss you off. I will warn you now I am a very intellectual individual and if you try to contradict me I can throw a book of solid facts at you. I am going to speak about the black Confederates. Yes, they existed and there were over 65,000 of them, both slave and free. What the war was really about, and both the point of view of Confederate Generals and Union Generals on the act of slavery. I will also touch on how blacks were treated both before and after the war and how the white population is being treated now as a minority.
> 
> First things first, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln was against social and political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriages, supported the Illinois Constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, defended a slave owner who was seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended slaves or runaways themselves, and he was a lifelong advocate of colonization - of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America - anywhere but in the United States. In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery.
> 
> Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not.
> 
> Confederate President Jefferson Davis not only envisioned black confederate veterans but also envisioned them receiving bounty lands for their service. There would have been no future for slavery once the armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.
> 
> John Parker, a former slave, recorded that many colored Confederate soldiers were killed in action. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen who saw action at the 1st Battle of Bull Run. There were also two black regiments, one free and one slave, who participated in the same battle on behalf of the South. One black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer by the name of James Washington. One was in Company D, 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army and became 3rd Sergeant. There were also higher ranking commissioned black Confederates. James Russell was a free 'man of color' and the cook for Company C, 24th South Carolina Volunteer Infantry. Unfortunately, he was killed in action at Missionary Ridge on November 25th, 1863. Private Louis Napoleon Nelson was also a free man of color and served time in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry under General Nathan Bedford Forrest. He fought at Shiloh, Lookout Mountain, Brice's Crossing, and Vicksburg and survived the war.
> 
> General Grant made the comment that, "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side" in a letter to the Chicago Tribune 1862. Union General William T. Sherman said in 1864 "I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage." As I said before, these two men both owned slaves, and did not want to free them. I honestly do not see how so many "politically correct" people can stand there and say the "North was right."
> 
> Confederate General Robert E. Lee, however, saw the world of slavery from a different view. He said "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery is an institution of a moral and political evil" In 1858. In 1866 he also made a statement that "All the south ever desired was that the union, as established by our forefathers, be preserved; and that the Government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." It wasn't a far fetched idea yet the people in this country then and still today are yet to grasp hold of something like morals, purity, or truth. But I guess that's where Confederate States President Jefferson Davis comes in with "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."
> 
> I will not deny that most slaves were treated poorly. I feel pity for those who had to endure lashes for not doing their "masters bidding". But as I said before, Africans sold their OWN people into slavery and there is still slavery going on in other parts of the world. And do not think that blacks were the only ones in this country who were slaves. During the 17th century Native Americans (My Ancestors) were enslaved by colonists on a common basis. But just because Southern whites owned slaves it is now taken out on the white population today. My family never once owned a slave and a select few of my ancestors fought beside them in the Civil War. My Aunt Evelynn is a Southern black woman whom I love dearly. As well as friends of both my husband and myself who are colored. I do not agree with slavery on any point. There were free blacks whom owned slaves and a large majority of northerners owned slaves.
> 
> Now because of slavery over 150 years ago, whites are being treated like dirt. It is almost like the mentality of a kid I knew in school who told me once that since I'm white that my family owned slaves and I should owe him everything I own. That's not the mentality of a country that should be living together in harmony. You never see the ones who are pissed at the white population for crimes committed 150 plus years ago ever leaving to go live in Africa. If you are going to hold every white person accountable for the acts of whites AND blacks more than a lifetime ago, then go to Africa and hold them accountable as well. Until then, learn the facts before you speak. If you speak intellectually I will gladly listen to and respect you, otherwise I will blow you off as another ignorant individual who couldn't pay attention to true history to save your life.
> 
> If you would like the sources from which I found all this information, message me and I will gladly send it to you. I applaud those who actually will look up the correct history on their own.
> 
> "Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written off by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war." Confederate General Patrick R. Cleburne 1864
> 
> CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: The Civil war was NOT over slavery



Kinda funny you try and say Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.  Remind me what his party was founded on?  Remind me what his opponents claimed he was?  Remind me what other leaders claimed he was?  Remind me what one of the first things he did in office was (Free'd the slaves in DC).  Remind me what was one of the largest arguable misuses of presidential power was (emancipation).   Remind me the ONLY President to ever sign an amendment was.... (Lincoln on the 13th). 

Personally I've always believed actions speak louder than words, especially words on the campaign trail.   

I've already given you why Lincoln didn't want his abolitionist leanings to be the known cause of war.   2 reasons.  Getting votes in middle states.   Those speeches and campaigns were basically the opponents claiming he was going to start a war of abolitionism, and him trying to seem moderate.   And of course waking up the next day losing the USA to an enemy is a pretty strong detractor isn't it?   The two states around DC were slave states that had yet to secede.  Telling them the war was over slavery at the begining would have ensured their secession and the fall of Washington DC. 

And you have a nice Lee quote there don't you.  Why didn't you keep going on it?   Was it because when he starts going into the "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race," bit it kind of loses that myth that he was a kind man. 

Maybe it was more based in the fact that Lee was known as a particularly brutal slave owner.  Who would even break up families of slaves which was something pretty rare due to the absolute terror it caused the families.  Maybe it was because even though his father in law's will called for his slaves to be freed, he kept them, nearly causing a revolt until a court judgement finally forced him to let them go.   But yeah, lets parse down a little bit of that quote and think that's who he was instead.   Because why read history when we can just pick and choose the little pieces we want to hear, and then try and burn the rest we disagree with. 

Kinda funny on the Grant quote how quickly his statement changed when he was no longer fighting to keep Washington DC from falling between two seceding states.   Remind me what he said soon after why they fought.. ""Not only save the Union, *but destroy slavery*,"    Hmmm, and then again "as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, *that slavery must be destroyed*. *We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."
*
He also said "*There had to be an end of slavery.* *Then we were fighting an enemy with whom we could not make a peace. We had to destroy him. No convention, no treaty was possible – only destruction."
*
You are going to need to burn a LOT of books to erase that history.  You are going to need a LOT of white out.   Just because you choose which quotes to parse and use, doesn't mean the others fail to exist.   That's called context.   Ask ANYONE how important it is to understanding history and it's the KEY part.   And you for some reason want to ignore it.  Care to tell me why the context is something you wish erased?  

That's what sickens me.  These racist jackasses who would rather burn and twist America's history to suit their beliefs than just read it.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery is alive and well and arises when economics demands it....we are well on our way to that point....if the elitist establishment forces prevail we will see a new form of slavery arise in America.  And of course..........as has been shown it exists even in the old form in many areas of the world as we speak...so the civil war solved nothing....the issues that were the basis for that struggle are still with us.
> 
> Economics of Slavery
> 
> 15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal  but it also exists in many other countries illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil war solved nothing huh?  All them N!ggers would be just as well off with the white man as their master for generations huh?   How many slaves freed?  Only a really sick racist individual would think that stopping the perpetuation and spread of slavery in the United States and freeing 4 million slaves amounted to... Nothing?  really?  Tired of letting that racism lay low huh, it kinda pops it's head out pretty blatantly when you aren't looking doesn't it?
> 
> Based on your website you link there, that would be like freeing half of the existing slaves in the world today.  Same percentage of the worlds population.   But you think that is... NOTHING.
> 
> I don't know how people get this kind of sick mentality, but I'm glad we no longer let them control the world anymore and have shoved them down to anonymous internet trolls.   That's one dying breed that we sure won't miss.
Click to expand...


What do you think happened to all those Negroes that were freed by the l3th amendment?  There were no food stamps in those days.  There was no welfare dept. in those days.  So what do you think happened to all those former slaves after the war was over?


----------



## Slash

The "he only freed slaves in the Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation" bit is equally retarded.  

In the United States we elect a president.  He is not our King.  He does not write laws.  He is in what we call the EXECUTIVE branch.  Meaning he executes laws that the LEGISLATIVE branch writes.  

So saying he didn't free slaves in the middle states that didn't revolt is like saying Trump likes Obamacare since he didn't repeal it.  Not in his power.  
Lincoln though decided that states in open rebellion were not protected by the Constitution.  Therefore he didn't need legislation and could just have an executive order that freed their slaves. 

After the war, he realized that wouldn't stand up in court, especially with those states no longer in rebellion.  So he went all in, dirty politics and all pushing congress to pass the 13th amendment.  He fought so hard for it, that when it was passed, Congress brought him in to sign the Amendment.  Still the only Amendment to ever have the signature of a President on it.  


But hey, if we ignore context and try to rewrite history we can tell your side of the story.  lol


----------



## Sundance508

True and comprehensive emancipation came in 1865 with passage of the 13th Amendment. Union troops went to many plantations and had the slave owners tell the slaves that they were just as free as they, the owners, were. There was often rejoicing at first, but as Booker T. Washington noted, after the initial joy, many slaves worried about what they would do. If they had good masters, many stayed on the plantation, continued to work and received the food, clothing, shelter and healthcare they were provided as slaves. Some masters did not tell their slaves they were free, and this was not all bad for the slaves. Many slaves wanted to leave their plantations to prove they were free, but then found the same work at neighboring plantations.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> The "he only freed slaves in the Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation" bit is equally retarded.
> 
> In the United States we elect a president.  He is not our King.  He does not write laws.  He is in what we call the EXECUTIVE branch.  Meaning he executes laws that the LEGISLATIVE branch writes.
> 
> So saying he didn't free slaves in the middle states that didn't revolt is like saying Trump likes Obamacare since he didn't repeal it.  Not in his power.
> Lincoln though decided that states in open rebellion were not protected by the Constitution.  Therefore he didn't need legislation and could just have an executive order that freed their slaves.
> 
> After the war, he realized that wouldn't stand up in court, especially with those states no longer in rebellion.  So he went all in, dirty politics and all pushing congress to pass the 13th amendment.  He fought so hard for it, that when it was passed, Congress brought him in to sign the Amendment.  Still the only Amendment to ever have the signature of a President on it.
> 
> 
> But hey, if we ignore context and try to rewrite history we can tell your side of the story.  lol



The official end of slavery in the United States happened in stages. 

State laws in Northern states had begun the process in the late 18th century. 

In April 1862 the U.S. Congress passed & Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in Washington D.C. 

But the first great _national_ step came with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which went into effect on January 1, 1863. It declared free all persons held as slaves in areas then in rebellion against the United States, and authorized the armed forces to enforce it. 

Meanwhile, several of the border slave-states still in the Union passed their own laws to end slavery. 

Finally, the full legal end of slavery throughout the nation was established with the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment - recommended by Congress in January 1865, completing the state-ratification process n December of that year.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> What do you think happened to all those Negroes that were freed by the l3th amendment?  There were no food stamps in those days.  There was no welfare dept. in those days.  So what do you think happened to all those former slaves after the war was over?



They were FREED!   Can you believe that!   For years they weren't even people.   Now, when they had a kid, that kid didn't belong to master and could be sold off.  It was their baby.  No longer had to have sex with master to stay alive.  Many moved North for work.  Many West to the new Frontier. Many found their families that they had been ripped apart from when sold off to others.  And for all of those, no longer were they living in a government that would kill them for moving!

Many continued working in the same line of work as wage laborers for their former owners too.   Without the slave laws that prevented them from reading, many began to get educations.  And gradually life continued to improve for them.   Along came Civil Rights.  And we started booting those racist fucks out of our government.  

Yeah it was tough, the white nationals weren't the pussy version of today, and would lynch and murder and make it as hard for them as possible.  Pass laws to keep them down.  But their lives were immensurably better because they were people for once, and they had a say in what their life would be.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> The official end of slavery in the United States happened in stages.
> 
> State laws in Northern states had begun the process in the late 18th century.
> 
> In April 1862 the U.S. Congress passed & Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in Washington D.C.
> 
> But the first great _national_ step came with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which went into effect on January 1, 1863. It declared free all persons held as slaves in areas then in rebellion against the United States, and authorized the armed forces to enforce it.
> 
> Meanwhile, several of the border slave-states still in the Union passed their own laws to end slavery.
> 
> Finally, the full legal end of slavery throughout the nation was established with the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment - recommended by Congress in January 1865, completing the state-ratification process n December of that year.



Exactly.  The first national steps to freeing the slaves, or abolishing slavery, by Lincoln.  The Abolitionist by action. 

And feel free to read up on Lincoln and his cabinet and how they fought members of congress on passing the 13th.  Pretty amazing read.   Plenty of people call Lincoln the president who had the dirtiest politics and overstepped his powers the most.   And both of those were in his fight against slavery.  Which makes it kinda retarded when you hear someone say "well on this campaign speech he said"...  

Actions are what matter in your life.  If you say "I respect women" then rape 20 women, I don't think you respect women.  But that's how these "Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist" people talk.... Well he said it so that is all that matters...


----------



## Sundance508

Less than 200,000 were freed by Abraham Lincoln after the victory of the civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation, because Lincoln didn't have permission to effect slavery in some southern states. 

Updated: It's actually a lot worse than this. 

The Emancipation Proclamation (1862) was strictly a political move to punish the secessionist states of the Confederacy, which were economically dependent on slavery. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states than did not secede from the Union, or who were willing to return. 

There was also some thinking that advancing Union armies would be able to arm freed slaves and turn them against their former masters. This executive order did free about 20,000 slaves in Union occupied Confederate states, many of whom were drafted in to the Union army. 

While is it factual the Lincoln and his Republican party campaigned against the expansion of slavery, if the states of the Confederacy had negotiated their position (as the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware did) instead of seceding (1861), slavery might well have continued for another generation in the United States. 

The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation did not really free (all) slaves, nor did it make slavery illegal (everywhere), and was not passed as a result of winning the civil war, but as a political move early in the conflict to facilitate the Union using slaves, both economically and as soldiers, to win the war. It did, eventually (1865), provide the legal framework used to free nearly all of the 4 million -odd slaves in the US after the war, but that decision was very controversial, and was why Lincoln was assassinated (1865).


----------



## Sundance508

Henry Louis Gates Jr.










_*How many Africans were taken to the United States during the entire history of the slave trade?*_


Perhaps you, like me, were raised essentially to think of the slave experience primarily in terms of our black ancestors here in the United States. In other words, slavery was primarily about _us,_ right, from Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Banneker and Richard Allen, all the way to Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. Think of this as an instance of what we might think of as _African-American exceptionalism._ (In other words, if it's in "the black Experience," it's got to be about black Americans.) Well, think again. 

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 _million_ Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. 

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? _Only about 388,000. _That's right: a tiny percentage. 


In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received _4.86 million Africans alone!_ Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately _450,000 _Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. 

Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans. And I, for one, find this amazing.

By the way, how did historian Joel A. Rogers—writer of the 1934 book_ 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof, and to whom this series is an homage—_do on this question? Well, incredibly, in his "Amazing Fact #30," Rogers says, "About 12,000,000 Negroes were brought to the New World!" Not even W.E.B. Du Bois got this close to the most accurate count of the number of Africans shipped across the Atlantic in the slave trade.  

_Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and founding director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University. He is also editor-in-chief of _*The Root.*_ Follow him on Twitter andFacebook._


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think happened to all those Negroes that were freed by the l3th amendment?  There were no food stamps in those days.  There was no welfare dept. in those days.  So what do you think happened to all those former slaves after the war was over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were FREED!   Can you believe that!   For years they weren't even people.   Now, when they had a kid, that kid didn't belong to master and could be sold off.  It was their baby.  No longer had to have sex with master to stay alive.  Many moved North for work.  Many West to the new Frontier. Many found their families that they had been ripped apart from when sold off to others.  And for all of those, no longer were they living in a government that would kill them for moving!
> 
> Many continued working in the same line of work as wage laborers for their former owners too.   Without the slave laws that prevented them from reading, many began to get educations.  And gradually life continued to improve for them.   Along came Civil Rights.  And we started booting those racist fucks out of our government.
> 
> Yeah it was tough, the white nationals weren't the pussy version of today, and would lynch and murder and make it as hard for them as possible.  Pass laws to keep them down.  But their lives were immensurably better because they were people for once, and they had a say in what their life would be.
Click to expand...


A man with a empty stomach is not free to begin with.  Now one must understand that most of the freed negroes had no money....thus they could not afford to go very far...not much farther than their feet would carry them in  a day or two...thus out of necessity they had to go back to doing the same kind of work they did before and if not for their former mastahs...one not too far away.  The great Black Migration to the North did not happen until the WWII era.  A few did manage to get out West but a very small percentage.

Great Migration - Black History - HISTORY.com


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Less than 200,000 were freed by Abraham Lincoln after the victory of the civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation, because Lincoln didn't have permission to effect slavery in some southern states.
> 
> Updated: It's actually a lot worse than this.
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation (1862) was strictly a political move to punish the secessionist states of the Confederacy, which were economically dependent on slavery. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states than did not secede from the Union, or who were willing to return.
> 
> There was also some thinking that advancing Union armies would be able to arm freed slaves and turn them against their former masters. This executive order did free about 20,000 slaves in Union occupied Confederate states, many of whom were drafted in to the Union army.
> 
> While is it factual the Lincoln and his Republican party campaigned against the expansion of slavery, if the states of the Confederacy had negotiated their position (as the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware did) instead of seceding (1861), slavery might well have continued for another generation in the United States.
> 
> The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation did not really free (all) slaves, nor did it make slavery illegal (everywhere), and was not passed as a result of winning the civil war, but as a political move early in the conflict to facilitate the Union using slaves, both economically and as soldiers, to win the war. It did, eventually (1865), provide the legal framework used to free nearly all of the 4 million -odd slaves in the US after the war, but that decision was very controversial, and was why Lincoln was assassinated (1865).



And that's where we have to rewrite history that "oh it was just a political move".  It was one that didn't earn him any supporters outside of his own party, but hey, what does that matter.   3 million slaves legal status changed that day and stayed changed.  The 13th amendment protected his proclamation (and freed that final 41,000 or so slaves still in the US).  What it really did is backed his proclamation with an amendment that would stand up if someone challenged it in court.  

And Lincoln didn't "allow" slavery in the non-seceding states anymore than Trump has allowed Obamacare to exist.  It was outside of his powers plain and simple.   We try and give him these KING type powers and say "well he didn't change that" when that's not how our government even works.  

And just read about his re-election campaign.  It's #1 goal was pushing that 13th amendment.  That's what he rode on.   And he took over with a lame duck congress.  One wanting to sit back and win their next election before doing anything.  And he pushed through one of the most controversial amendments on a lame duck congress.  

And slavery may have continued one more generation.  Or two... or ten.   The thing is, no one knows.   I mean what is the entirety of the US trade deficit based around?   Cheap labor.   People keep saying "well in a more modern world slave labor would be phased out by machines"..   China and Vietnam don't make better machines than the US, they don't pay their employees what we do here.   

So there's no more proof that those slaves would be freed within a generation as there is that they would still be slaves today.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> A man with a empty stomach is not free to begin with.  Now one must understand that most of the freed negroes had no money....thus they could not afford to go very far...not much farther than their feet would carry them in  a day or two...thus out of necessity they had to go back to doing the same kind of work they did before and if not for their former mastahs...one not too far away.  The great Black Migration to the North did not happen until the WWII era.  A few did manage to get out West but a very small percentage.



Absolutely they were free.   Freedom doesn't mean you get everything handed to you on a silver platter.  The first people to come to America from Europe, the pilgrims and initial settlers from the West had it VERY hard here, and were coming for freedoms.

So yes, while it was hard on them, obviously MUCH MUCH MUCH better off as free men than someone else's property with no rights.  

And many really did move.   According to the US census, in the late 1800's 70% of the blacks in Cincinnatti, and 65% of the blacks in Detroit were southern born.  Over half in Chicago as well.  I agree that a lot of racist white nationalists were in politics, especially in the South that fought and fought to keep them down.   

But if you think for a moment that slavery was a better option, let me ask you.  How many blacks ever fought to have the 13th amendment repealed so they could go back to how it was?


----------



## Sundance508

While on vacation last month, I had the opportunity to visit the Slater Mill in Pawtucket, RI. This was the first textile mill in the United States, opened in 1792. The textile mill, as well as the nearby machine shop and the house of one of the owners, have been restored and are open for tours by the public. While the site is not directly Civil War-related, I recommend it to any student of history who wants to visit the area.

During my tour, the point was emphasized over and over how many dangers the mill workers faced and how little concern was shown for their safety. The guys who worked in the machine shop, who faced the most dangerous conditions, were paid $12 per week, which was considered very good, compared to what the people who worked in the textile mill (who also faced numerous threats to their health and safety) were being paid. And if someone got sick or hurt, the company simply hired someone else to take their place.

We were also told that the mill workers lived in company housing, were required to do all their shopping at the company store, and were even obliged to attend worship at a company-approved church.

Technically, these workers were not slaves. But I came away with the impression that the company owned them every bit as securely as the plantation owners owned their slaves.

And these sort of conditions for workers up north existed before and after the War...I am talking about white workers as well as black workers....not technically slaves....but was there any difference?  Many informed persons have claimed that white workers up north actually had worse living and working conditions than black slaves did down south.

http://solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/WhiteSlaves.pdf


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Technically, these workers were not slaves. But I came away with the impression that the company owned them every bit as securely as the plantation owners owned their slaves.
> 
> And these sort of conditions for workers up north existed before and after the War...I am talking about white workers as well as black workers....not technically slaves....but was there any difference?  Many informed persons have claimed that white workers up north actually had worse living and working conditions than black slaves did down south.
> 
> http://solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/WhiteSlaves.pdf




I see a HUGE difference there.  Lets say one of them was working at the mill and had a baby.   Would that baby become property of the Mill to decide what to do with it? Would it be forced to abandon any education?  Could the mill owner sell that employees baby to another mill owner?

Lets say someone there after working decided to quit.  Would they be killed for that decision? 

Lets say someone failed to show up for work or did a poor job.   For how long could their boss beat them or rape their wife?  

Could you castrate or otherwise mutilate workers there for poor performance or leaving the job?  

Could those employees vote and run for office? 

Were they protected by the Constitution and laws of the US?  

They literally had laws in the South that REQUIRED punishments for runaway slaves.  The owner HAD to punish them and some said those punishments HAD to be physical.   

Life was hard for a lot of people back in the day.  But no, life as a slave, as a piece of property rather than a person is not something I'd like.  

Norway by EVERY quality of life survey I've seen has a better quality of life than the USA.   Doesn't mean if someone from Norway stole my kids and made them their slaves, I would be saying "well at least their quality of life is better".


----------



## Sundance508

Life is always hard for the poor..black,white, free, sharecropper or slave.


The South has long carried the stigma of racism and bigotry The fact that slavery ended abruptly because the South lost the War serves to reinforce this common stereotype. For this reason, most Southerners take little pride in their nation's role in the War Between the States. The only thing they can boast about is how well they fought — but they are not allowed to defend the cause itself. They have been told that they cannot talk of principle or speak of righteousness. The institution of slavery has so blackened the Southern position that nothing about the South can be viewed as good or right. Slavery is considered to be such a wicked practice that it alone is sufficient to answer the question of which side was right in that unfortunate war. The fact that the South practiced slavery is enough to cause many moderns to feel they do not even have to listen to the various biblical and constitutional arguments that swirled around that controversy. Consequently, to have a closed mind on this issue is to be cloaked in virtue. How could men have supported slavery? The question is especially difficult when we consider that these were men who lived in a pervasively Christian culture

We have all heard of the heartlessness — the brutalitites, immoralities, and cruelties — that were supposedly inherent in the system of Southern slavery. We have heard how slave families were broken up, of the forcible rape of slave women, of the brutal beatings, about the horrible living conditions, and of the unrelenting work schedule and back-breaking routine — all of which go together to form our impression of the crushing oppression which was slavery in the South. The truthfulness of this description has seldom been challenged.

The point of this is to establish that this impression is largely false. It is important to note, however, that the impression is not _entirely _false. The truth is, Southern slavery is open to criticism because it did not follow the biblical pattern at every point.

Slavery was not the “crushing oppression” we think it was but _slavery was not all good_.  The South had a “pervasively Christian culture” and that the impression so  many have of the brutality of the south is “largely false.” The South was a truly Christian culture and that slavery in the south was much less brutal and more harmonious than our history books would suggest.

*The Abolitionists Were Godless Lying Provocateurs*

By the time of the War, the intellectual leadership of the South was conservative, orthodox, and Christian. In contrast, the leadership of the North was radical and Unitarian. This is not to say there were no Christians in the North, or that no believers fought for the North. It is simply the recognition that the drums of war were being beaten by the abolitionists, who were in turn driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God as well of the South.

Slavery is sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures but Southern Slavery was not in line with Old Testament Slavery.
 An important distinction between _Hebrew _slavery — i.e. slavery in a nation covenanted with God, with laws received from His hand — and the slavery seen in the pages of the New Testament. In the former, we see how God’s laws govern and regulate the practice of slavery in a nation called by His name. In the latter, we see God’s laws as they teach His people how to live within a culture having ungodly laws concerning slavery. In the Roman Empire the system of slavery was, along with the rest of that culture, in rebellion against the true and living God. In the Hebrew republic — the only permanent slaves were foreigners (Lev. 25:44-46) or Hebrews who voluntarily submitted themselves to a more permanent servile status (Ex. 21:5-6). But in the Greco/Roman world, the system of slavery was pagan from top to bottom, with the slaves having virtually no recognized rights at all. So a vast difference exists between the laws God gave to His covenant people for the regulation of slavery among themselves, and the laws God gave to His covenant people to regulate their conduct in the midst of a pagan system.

 Some of the state laws regulating slavery cannot be defended biblically (the laws forbidding the teaching of reading and writing, for example). One cannot defend the abuse some slaves had to endure. None can excuse the immorality some masters and overseers indulged in with some slave women. The separation of families that sometimes occurred was deplorable. These were sad realities in the Southern system. Our purpose here is not to defend any such practices — where and when they occurred.
 But the question still needs to be asked, "How widespread were these instances of unbiblical and ungodly treatment on the part of Southern slave holders?" We have condemned such abuses, but were they commonplace or exceptional? Our concern is first to lay out certain biblical principles, and then turn to facts which are seldom addressed in public, though they are not altogether unknown. An accurate representation of the nature of Southern slavery has yet to be widely disseminated. And as a consequence, there has been a great deal of falsehood paraded about in the pretense of truth. The South has been stigmatized and slandered, and generations have been misled over the true nature of the "peculiar institution" and, as a consequence, they have not understood the true nature of the South in general. We must know the truth about slavery. We have no concern to whitewash the sins of the South — or the North, for that matter.  To be continued............


----------



## Sundance508

*Sin, let us freely confess and forsake it. But because we have resolved to abandon sin, this must include the sin of believing a lie. *
In the mid-seventies, American evangelicals began to wake up to the fact that our culture was beginning to tumble down around our ears. In 1973 the Supreme Court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for the various states to outlaw the dismemberment of the unborn. Men like Francis Schaeffer were used by God to rattle the pervasive evangelical complacency and to make us realize the ramifications of what was occurring — and what was coming. So a significant minority of the evangelical church began to mobilize and plunged into a cultural war for which we were woefully unprepared. All we knew was that they had begun to kill babies. How can they do that? This was America. As the political battle began to take shape, the lack of historical perspective among evangelicals became more and more manifest. This lack of historical understanding was harmful in two ways — and in both ways the integrity of God's Word was attacked. The first was the result of the attempt by evangelicals to portray the pro-life movement as a modern form of abolitionism. We were taught that earlier Christian social "reformers" like Charles Finney were ardent abolitionists, and we pro-lifers were walking in their footsteps. We were taught that Roe v. Wade was comparable to the Dred Scott decision. And so we argued and talked and marched accordingly. The only problem was... it wasn't true. For the sake of a convenient argument against the monstrosity of abortion, we abandoned the clear teaching of the Bible on another subject — how slavery was to be understood. Suppose a man presented himself for membership in your church. Upon inquiring as to what he did for a living, you learned that he was an abortionist. Should he be admitted into membership. Of course not. Now suppose this same church was moved back in time, and a man presented himself for membership along with three of his slaves. Now what do you do? If he is admitted to membership, then it is clear that abortion and slavery are not considered analogous. And if he is refused membership, then what are you going to do when he (his name was Philemon) goes back and tells the apostle Paul what you did to him? It is obvious that in a fallen world, an institution like slavery will be accompanied by many attendant evils. Such evils existed with ancient Hebrew slavery, ancient Roman slavery, and with American slavery. The issue is not whether sinners will sin, but rather how Christians are commanded to respond to such abuses and evils. And nothing is clearer — the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Ephsians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1, and 1 Timothy 6:1-5. But we mentioned that the harm was two-fold. The embarrassment of evangelicals over the plain teaching of the Bible can be put to an adept use by those in rebellion against God. Dr. Jerry Falwell was once in a television debate with a liberal Episcopalian bishop. Sad to say, the liberal bishop mauled Dr. Falwell badly regarding sodomy, and Falwell was maintaining the biblical position, and the bishop responded by saying yes, but the Bible allows for slavery. Now what was Falwell going to do on national television? Does he say that the bishop is correct, the Bible does allow for slavery, and that he has no problem with it? We can see the headlines now. Or perhaps he could say that the bishop was wrong — but the good bishop was right. So he did the only thing he could do, which was to hem and haw. One time a man was handing out tracts at a gay and lesbian dance. Those attending the dance did not appear to be pleased, and someone apparently called a liberal Methodist pastor to come and deal with him. He came down, and in the course of the discussion, the Christian said that Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an abomination. The liberal pastor responded by saying yes, but the Old Testament allowed for slavery. The Christian responded by saying yes, it certainly did. "So what's your point?" If those who hate the Word of God can succeed in getting Christians to be embarrassed by any portion of the Word of God, then that portion/will continually be employed as a battering ram against the/godly principles that are currently under attack. In our day, three of the principle issues are abortion, feminism, and sodomy. If we respond to the "embarrassing parts" of Scripture by saying, "That was then, this is now," we will quickly discover that liberals can play that game even more effectively than embarrassed conservatives. Paul prohibited eldership to women? That was then, this is now. Moses condemned sodomy? That was then, this is now. In a certain sense, we are backing into an informed discussion of the War Between the States. You have been told many times that the war was over slavery, but in reality it was over the biblical meaning of constitutional government. The inflammatory issue is slavery, however, and so the real issue is obscured in the minds of many. But is this not curious? The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here..aka... I will say (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this "inflammatory" position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct, it was not politically correct one hundred thirty years ago. This points to the need for Christians to learn the biblical way of avoiding "problem texts." This is the way of a priori submission. Christians must recognize that they are under the authority of God, and they may not develop their ideas of what is "right" and "fair" apart from the Word of God. And when the Bible is our only standard of right and wrong, problem texts disappear. This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?  To be continued....If I do not get banned or this thread is not buried.


----------



## Sundance508

In the early nineteenth century, the intellectual leadership of the North apostatized from their previous cultural commitment to the Christian faith. The watershed event in this regard the capture of Harvard by the Unitarians in 1805. This cultural apostasy was not nearly as advanced in the South, although there were some signs of it. By the time of the War, the intellectual leadership of the South was conservative, orthodox, and Christian. In contrast, the leadership of the North was radical and Unitarian. This is not to say there were no Christians in the North, or that no believers fought for the North. It is simply the recognition that the drums of war were being beaten by the abolitionists, who were in turn driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God as well as of The South.

 As an aside, it is interesting to note the revival that took place in the Confederate army during the War. It was so widespread that it has been estimated that (with the possible exception of Cromwell's army) the Confederate Army was the largest body of evangelicals under arms in the history of the world. This of course raises the obvious question — if the South was so "right" and "Christian" as all that, then why did she lose the War? Didn't God know how right the South was? We must reject the childish mentality which seeks to engage in mindless partisanship at the expense of truth. All attempts to say that the North represented nothing good, and that the South contained nothing sinful are examples of this kind of infantilism. R.L. Dabney, a godly man who fought for the South, made the point that the South lost the war because she was under the judgment of God. When northern Israel led the way in rebellion against God, the conservatism of southern Judah did not avoid final apostasy, but simply traveled that path more slowly than Israel to the north. In a similar way, the South had not been entirely free from the various currents of unbelief. Although the South stood for much that was admirable, the biblical principle remains — to whom much is given, much is required. And although the South was correct about the central issues of that War, southern diehards must learn the hard lesson of Habbakuk, who had to accept that God can use an ungodly nation to judge another nation which is "not as bad" (Hab. 1:13). Some Christians balk at having a sympathetic view of the South because they know that racism is evil. This following is a very important point to emphasize. Like abolitionism, all forms of race hatred or racial vainglory are forms of rebellion against God. Such things are to be vigorously opposed because the Word of God opposes them. In brief, God has raised up all nations from one man (Acts 17:26). We are all cousins. And not only are the races connected through God's creation of Adam, we are united (this time in harmony) in the redemption purchased by the Son of God. "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev. 5:9-10). We must remember that the leadership of the early church at Antioch contained at least one black man (Acts 13:1). And what happened to Miriam when she opposed the marriage of Moses to a black woman (Num. 12)? As Christians, we regard the gift at Pentecost to be a great reversal of Babel, and we believe that our missionary efforts will result in the elimination of racial hatreds in Christ. Because of a strong popular bigotry against the South, it is necessary for us to assert as strongly as we can that racism and sympathy for the Southern cause are not necessary companions. Rather, when biblically understood, they are antithetical. Because of this, economic death of slavery in our nation would have been hastened had there been more widespread obedience to the Word of God on the part of everyone — abolitionists, slaves, and slave owners.  To be continued...............


----------



## Sundance508

So whenever true racism appears (North, South, East, or West), or whenever it appears (this century or the last), it must be opposed by consistent Christians. But this does not require us to be ignorant of the great theological and cultural issues that were at stake in the War. This is necessary because these same issues are with us today. Sodomites parade in the streets, claiming that if we do not appropriate more money to study why people with foul sexual habits get sick, we are somehow violating their civil rights. Feminists, in rebellion against God, invert the order of the home established by God. They do so in a way that seeks to rob women of their beauty in submission and their security in being loved. For two decades, we have seen millions of unborn children slaughtered in abortion clinics. How did we get here, and what is the way out? The question cannot be answered fully without careful study of the War Between the States and the controversies surrounding it. Slavery was one of those controversies. The Bible's View of Slavery The Bible is not silent on the subject of slavery. We must be careful, however, if we use the phrase biblical slavery. What do we mean by it? A common confusion blurs an important distinction between Hebrew slavery — i.e. slavery in a nation covenanted with God, with laws received from His hand — and the slavery seen in the pages of the New Testament. In the former, we see how God's laws govern and regulate the practice of slavery in a nation called by His name. In the latter, we see God's laws as they teach His people how to live within a culture having ungodly laws concerning slavery. In the Roman Empire the system of slavery was, along with the rest of that culture, in rebellion against the true and living God. In the Hebrew republic, slavery was akin to indentured servanthood — the only permanent slaves were foreigners (Lev. 25:44-46) or Hebrews who voluntarily submitted themselves to a more permanent servile status (Ex. 21:5-6). But in the Greco/Roman world, the system of slavery was pagan from top to bottom, with the slaves having virtually no recognized rights at all. So a vast difference exists between the laws God gave to His covenant people for the regulation of slavery among themselves, and the laws God gave to His covenant people to regulate their conduct in the midst of a pagan system. When we ask the question whether slavery in the South was a biblical slaver, the answer must consequently be yes and no. Was the South a nation in covenant with the Lord Jesus Christ? Had it undertaken formally to conform all its laws, including its laws on slavery, to the laws of Scripture? The answer is clearly no: the South was not a Christian utopia. If, however, we ask whether the South contained many conscientious Christians, both slaveowning and enslaved, who endeavored to follow the requirements of Scripture set down in the New Testament for believers in slave-holding societies, then the answer is yes. Not surprisingly, the large number of these believers in the Old South did have the effect of "Christianizing" it. This means that the system of slave-holding in the South was far more humane than that of ancient Rome, although the Christian church had not yet had the full influence that God intends His kingdom to have in the world. The discipleship of the nations is a process. This means that the South was (along with all other nations) in transition from a state of pagan autonomy to a full submission to the Lordship of Christ. Christian influence in the South was considerable and extensive, but we must acknowledge that the laws of the South fell short of the biblical pattern. In acknowledging this, however, we must remember that the Christian and Reformed influence on ante bellum Southern culture was far more extensive than anywhere else in the world. Nevertheless, God's law does not grade on a curve, and Southern sanctification fell short of the biblical standard at a number of points. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 6 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 This is why someone like R.L. Dabney could maintain the justice of the Southern cause, and at the same time acknowledge that the South lost the war because of her sins. "A righteous God, for our sins toward Him, has permitted us to be overthrown by our enemies and His."2 When we turn to individuals and families, the situation is very different. The abolitionists maintained that slave-owning was inherently immoral under any circumstance. But in this matter, the Christians who owned slaves in the South were on firm scriptural ground. May a Christian own slaves, even when this makes him a part of a larger pagan system which is not fully scriptural, or perhaps not scriptural at all? Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves. Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing... (1 Tim. 6:1-4a). The slavery of Rome was anti-scriptural, and because of the evil of the slave trade, the larger system of slavery in the South was certainly sub-scriptural. Nevertheless, the
 the Bible prohibits us from saying that slave-owning in such contexts is sin. The Bible teaches that a man may be a faithful Christian and a slave-owner in a pagan slave system. If he owns slaves, then Scripture does put a series of requirements on him, which the church of Christ may and must insist upon. But beyond those requirements, the church may not presume to legislate.


----------



## Sundance508

and slave owners. So whenever true racism appears (North, South, East, or West), or whenever it appears (this century or the last), it must be opposed by consistent Christians. But this does not require us to be ignorant of the great theological and cultural issues that were at stake in the War. This is necessary because these same issues are with us today. Sodomites parade in the streets, claiming that if we do not appropriate more money to study why people with foul sexual habits get sick, we are somehow violating their civil rights. Feminists, in rebellion against God, invert the order of the home established by God. They do so in a way that seeks to rob women of their beauty in submission and their security in being loved. For two decades, we have seen millions of unborn children slaughtered in abortion clinics. How did we get here, and what is the way out? The question cannot be answered fully without careful study of the War Between the States and the controversies surrounding it. Slavery was one of those controversies. The Bible's View of Slavery The Bible is not silent on the subject of slavery. We must be careful, however, if we use the phrase biblical slavery. What do we mean by it? A common confusion blurs an important distinction between Hebrew slavery — i.e. slavery in a nation covenanted with God, with laws received from His hand — and the slavery seen in the pages of the New Testament. In the former, we see how God's laws govern and regulate the practice of slavery in a nation called by His name. In the latter, we see God's laws as they teach His people how to live within a culture having ungodly laws concerning slavery. In the Roman Empire the system of slavery was, along with the rest of that culture, in rebellion against the true and living God. In the Hebrew republic, slavery was akin to indentured servanthood — the only permanent slaves were foreigners (Lev. 25:44-46) or Hebrews who voluntarily submitted themselves to a more permanent servile status (Ex. 21:5-6). But in the Greco/Roman world, the system of slavery was pagan from top to bottom, with the slaves having virtually no recognized rights at all. So a vast difference exists between the laws God gave to His covenant people for the regulation of slavery among themselves, and the laws God gave to His covenant people to regulate their conduct in the midst of a pagan system. When we ask the question whether slavery in the South was a biblical slaver, the answer must consequently be yes and no. Was the South a nation in covenant with the Lord Jesus Christ? Had it undertaken formally to conform all its laws, including its laws on slavery, to the laws of Scripture? The answer is clearly no: the South was not a Christian utopia. If, however, we ask whether the South contained many conscientious Christians, both slaveowning and enslaved, who endeavored to follow the requirements of Scripture set down in the New Testament for believers in slave-holding societies, then the answer is yes. Not surprisingly, the large number of these believers in the Old South did have the effect of "Christianizing" it. This means that the system of slave-holding in the South was far more humane than that of ancient Rome, although the Christian church had not yet had the full influence that God intends His kingdom to have in the world. The discipleship of the nations is a process. This means that the South was (along with all other nations) in transition from a state of pagan autonomy to a full submission to the Lordship of Christ. Christian influence in the South was considerable and extensive, but we must acknowledge that the laws of the South fell short of the biblical pattern. In acknowledging this, however, we must remember that the Christian and Reformed influence on ante bellum Southern culture was far more extensive than anywhere else in the world. Nevertheless, God's law does not grade on a curve, and Southern sanctification fell short of the biblical standard at a number of points. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 6 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 This is why someone like R.L. Dabney could maintain the justice of the Southern cause, and at the same time acknowledge that the South lost the war because of her sins. "A righteous God, for our sins toward Him, has permitted us to be overthrown by our enemies and His."2 When we turn to individuals and families, the situation is very different. The abolitionists maintained that slave-owning was inherently immoral under any circumstance. But in this matter, the Christians who owned slaves in the South were on firm scriptural ground. May a Christian own slaves, even when this makes him a part of a larger pagan system which is not fully scriptural, or perhaps not scriptural at all? Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves. Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing... (1 Tim. 6:1-4a). The slavery of Rome was anti-scriptural, and because of the evil of the slave trade, the larger system of slavery in the South was certainly sub-scriptural. Nevertheless, God's law does not grade on a curve, and Southern sanctification fell short of the biblical standard at a number of points. Southern Slavery As It Was: This is why someone like R.L. Dabney could maintain the justice of the Southern cause, and at the same time acknowledge that the South lost the war because of her sins. "A righteous God, for our sins toward Him, has permitted us to be overthrown by our enemies and His."2 When we turn to individuals and families, the situation is very different. The abolitionists maintained that slave-owning was inherently immoral under any circumstance. But in this matter, the Christians who owned slaves in the South were on firm scriptural ground. May a Christian own slaves, even when this makes him a part of a larger pagan system which is not fully scriptural, or perhaps not scriptural at all? Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves. Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing... (1 Tim. 6:1-4a). The slavery of Rome was anti-scriptural, and because of the evil of the slave trade, the larger system of slavery in the South was certainly sub-scriptural. Nevertheless, the Bible prohibits us from saying that slave-owning in such contexts is sin. The Bible teaches that a man may be a faithful Christian and a slave-owner in a pagan slave system. If he owns slaves, then Scripture does put a series of requirements on him, which the church of Christ may and must insist upon. But beyond those requirements, the church may not presume to legislate.


----------



## Sundance508

Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him (Eph. 6:5-9). Paul says something very similar elsewhere (Col. 3:22-4:1). As far as the apostle was concerned, nothing can be plainer than the fact that a Christian could simultaneously be a slave owner and a member in good standing in a Christian church. The authors of this small booklet are both pastors, and for us many of the issues become clear if the proper question is asked. Today if an abortionist sought membership at either of our churches, he would be refused unless he repented and abandoned his murderous practice. But if our churches had existed in the ante bellum South, and a godly slave owner sought membership, we could not refuse him without seeking to be holier than Christ. Such a desire would be wicked, and this wickedness was at the heart of the abolitionist dogma. The most plausible argument against slavery comes from the acknowledged wickedness of the slave trade


For example, Gary DeMar has recently argued that because the Bible  prohibits man-stealing (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:10), Christians could not consistently participate at any point in a process that resulted from the man-stealing. "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21:16).3 Before discussing whether slave-owning in itself constitutes an indirect support of this capital offense, we should first ask if believers in the South engaged in direct opposition to this evil. Here, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. R.L. Dabney, in his Defense of Virginia and the South, begins his chapter on the slave trade with these words: "This iniquitous traffick . . ."4 The duty of southern Christians was clear — they had to oppose the slave trade. They did so, fervently and zealously. Dabney's vehement attack on the slave trade was representative of many others. Were they hypocrites in this opposition because they raised the cry against the slave trade while indirectly supporting that trade by owning slaves? Not at all. The Bible defines hypocrisy. Remember that in ancient Rome the acquisition of slaves was not according to the law of God either. A Christian slave owner in that system, like Philemon, was duty-bound to oppose those features of that society, and at the same time was required to treat his slaves in a gracious and thoughtful manner. He was not required to release his individual slaves because of the general societal disobedience. He was not even required to release his slaves if they came into the Christian faith (1 Tim. 6:1-4). At the same time he should have acknowledged that his believing slaves were now Christ's freemen, and they should take any opportunity for freedom provided for them (1 Cot. 7:20). Secondly, we must also remember that the consequences and ramifications of the African slave trade went far beyond the situation described in Exodus 21. In that situation, when the kidnapper was discovered, he would be tried and executed, and the one kidnapped would be restored to his home. The issues were simple and clear. With the slave trade, the vast majority of the slaves had already been enslaved in Africa by other blacks. They were then taken down to the coast and sold to the traders. The traders transported them, usually under wicked conditions, to those places where a market did exist for their labor, but where the civil leaders had repeatedly and consistently tried to stop the slave traders.5 One of those places, Virginia, had attempted on no less than twenty-eight occasions to arrest the slave trade, but was stopped by higher (non-Southern) authorities. If the slaves were not sold in the South, they were taken on to Haiti and Brazil, where the condition and treatment of slaves was simply horrendous.6 The restoration of these slaves to their former condition was a physical impossibility. Now, under these conditions, was it a sin for a Christian to purchase such a slave, knowing that he would take him home and treat him the way the Bible requires? If he did not do so, nothing would be done to improve the slave's condition, and much could happen that would make it worse. The slaves were not stolen cars; they were human beings — and the many Christians who treated them lawfully were in no way disobedient. The requirements for godly treatment of slaves by individual masters is clearly laid out in the Bible. The requirements for a godly prohibition of man-stealing on the part of the civil magistrate is also required in the Bible. On both counts, southern Christians distinguished themselves in carefully seeking to implement both requirements. Their personal treatment of slaves is indicated in the rest of this booklet. Their political agitation for a godly abolition of the slave trade was equally notable. Virginia was the first commonwealth in the world to outlaw the practice, and this after many previous unsuccessful attempts. Dabney said it well. "Virginia has the honour of being the first Commonwealth on earth to declare against the African slave trade, and to make it a penal offense.For example, Gary DeMar has recently argued that because the Bible Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 7 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 prohibits man-stealing (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:10), Christians could not consistently participate at any point in a process that resulted from the man-stealing. "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21:16).3 Before discussing whether slave-owning in itself constitutes an indirect support of this capital offense, we should first ask if believers in the South engaged in direct opposition to this evil. Here, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. R.L. Dabney, in his Defense of Virginia and the South, begins his chapter on the slave trade with these words: "This iniquitous traffick . . ."4 The duty of southern Christians was clear — they had to oppose the slave trade. They did so, fervently and zealously. Dabney's vehement attack on the slave trade was representative of many others. Were they hypocrites in this opposition because they raised the cry against the slave trade while indirectly supporting that trade by owning slaves? Not at all. The Bible defines hypocrisy. Remember that in ancient Rome the acquisition of slaves was not according to the law of God either. A Christian slave owner in that system, like Philemon, was duty-bound to oppose those features of that society, and at the same time was required to treat his slaves in a gracious and thoughtful manner. He was not required to release his individual slaves because of the general societal disobedience. He was not even required to release his slaves if they came into the Christian faith (1 Tim. 6:1-4). At the same time he should have acknowledged that his believing slaves were now Christ's freemen, and they should take any opportunity for freedom provided for them (1 Cot. 7:20). Secondly, we must also remember that the consequences and ramifications of the African slave trade went far beyond the situation described in Exodus 21. In that situation, when the kidnapper was discovered, he would be tried and executed, and the one kidnapped would be restored to his home. The issues were simple and clear. With the slave trade, the vast majority of the slaves had already been enslaved in Africa by other blacks. They were then taken down to the coast and sold to the traders. The traders transported them, usually under wicked conditions, to those places where a market did exist for their labor, but where the civil leaders had repeatedly and consistently tried to stop the slave traders.5 One of those places, Virginia, had attempted on no less than twenty-eight occasions to arrest the slave trade, but was stopped by higher (non-Southern) authorities. If the slaves were not sold in the South, they were taken on to Haiti and Brazil, where the condition and treatment of slaves was simply horrendous.6 The restoration of these slaves to their former condition was a physical impossibility. Now, under these conditions, was it a sin for a Christian to purchase such a slave, knowing that he would take him home and treat him the way the Bible requires? If he did not do so, nothing would be done to improve the slave's condition, and much could happen that would make it worse. The slaves were not stolen cars; they were human beings — and the many Christians who treated them lawfully were in no way disobedient. The requirements for godly treatment of slaves by individual masters is clearly laid out in the Bible. The requirements for a godly prohibition of man-stealing on the part of the civil magistrate is also required in the Bible. On both counts, southern Christians distinguished themselves in carefully seeking to implement both requirements. Their personal treatment of slaves is indicated in the rest of this booklet. Their political agitation for a godly abolition of the slave trade was equally notable. Virginia was the first commonwealth in the world to outlaw the practice, and this after many previous unsuccessful attempts. Dabney said it well. "Virginia has the honour of being the first Commonwealth on earth to declare against the


----------



## Sundance508

prohibits man-stealing (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:10), Christians could not consistently participate at any point in a process that resulted from the man-stealing. "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21:16).3 Before discussing whether slave-owning in itself constitutes an indirect support of this capital offense, we should first ask if believers in the South engaged in direct opposition to this evil. Here, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. R.L. Dabney, in his Defense of Virginia and the South, begins his chapter on the slave trade with these words: "This iniquitous traffick . . ."4 The duty of southern Christians was clear — they had to oppose the slave trade. They did so, fervently and zealously. Dabney's vehement attack on the slave trade was representative of many others. Were they hypocrites in this opposition because they raised the cry against the slave trade while indirectly supporting that trade by owning slaves? Not at all. The Bible defines hypocrisy. Remember that in ancient Rome the acquisition of slaves was not according to the law of God either. A Christian slave owner in that system, like Philemon, was duty-bound to oppose those features of that society, and at the same time was required to treat his slaves in a gracious and thoughtful manner. He was not required to release his individual slaves because of the general societal disobedience. He was not even required to release his slaves if they came into the Christian faith (1 Tim. 6:1-4). At the same time he should have acknowledged that his believing slaves were now Christ's freemen, and they should take any opportunity for freedom provided for them (1 Cot. 7:20). Secondly, we must also remember that the consequences and ramifications of the African slave trade went far beyond the situation described in Exodus 21. In that situation, when the kidnapper was discovered, he would be tried and executed, and the one kidnapped would be restored to his home. The issues were simple and clear. With the slave trade, the vast majority of the slaves had already been enslaved in Africa by other blacks. They were then taken down to the coast and sold to the traders. The traders transported them, usually under wicked conditions, to those places where a market did exist for their labor, but where the civil leaders had repeatedly and consistently tried to stop the slave traders.5 One of those places, Virginia, had attempted on no less than twenty-eight occasions to arrest the slave trade, but was stopped by higher (non-Southern) authorities. If the slaves were not sold in the South, they were taken on to Haiti and Brazil, where the condition and treatment of slaves was simply horrendous.6 The restoration of these slaves to their former condition was a physical impossibility. Now, under these conditions, was it a sin for a Christian to purchase such a slave, knowing that he would take him home and treat him the way the Bible requires? If he did not do so, nothing would be done to improve the slave's condition, and much could happen that would make it worse. The slaves were not stolen cars; they were human beings — and the many Christians who treated them lawfully were in no way disobedient. The requirements for godly treatment of slaves by individual masters is clearly laid out in the Bible. The requirements for a godly prohibition of man-stealing on the part of the civil magistrate is also required in the Bible. On both counts, southern Christians distinguished themselves in carefully seeking to implement both requirements. Their personal treatment of slaves is indicated in the rest of this booklet. Their political agitation for a godly abolition of the slave trade was equally notable. Virginia was the first commonwealth in the world to outlaw the practice, and this after many previous unsuccessful attempts. Dabney said it well. "Virginia has the honour of being the first Commonwealth on earth to declare against the  African slave trade, and to make it a penal offense. Her action antedates by thirty years the much bepraised legislation of the British parliament, and by ten years the earliest movement of Massachusetts on the subject .... , Virginia appealed to the King to stop the trade, saying that they had long regarded it as a practice of "great inhumanity." In 1778, Virginia prohibited the introduction of slaves into their state. Georgia was the first state to write a prohibition of the slave trade into its constitution. And we must remember that the Confederate Constitution outlawed the slave trade (Art. I/Section 9). In contrast, the slave trade by New Englanders and Northeasterners continued illegally until 1861. "As late as 1861 the Congress of the United States was appropriating nearly two million dollars in an effort to stamp it [i.e. the illegal slave trade] out."8 The slave trade was an abomination. The Bible condemns it, and all who believe the Bible are bound to do the same. Owning slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way. But if we were to look in history for Christians who reflected this biblical balance — i.e. a hatred of the slave trade and an acceptance of slavery in itself under certain conditions — we will find ourselves looking at the ante bellum South. To conclude this point, Dabney is worth quoting again. It is one of the strange freaks of history, that this commonwealth, which was guiltless in this thing, and which always presented a steady protest against the enormity, should become, in spite of herself, the home of the largest number of African slaves found within any of the States, and thus, should be held up by Abolitionists as the representative of the 'sin of slaveholding;' while Massachusetts, which was, next to England, the pioneer and patroness of the slave trade, and chief criminal, having gained for her share the wages of iniquity instead of the persons of the victims, has arrogated to herself the post of chief accuser of Virginia. To say the least, it is strange that the thing the Bible condemns (slave-trading) brings very little opprobrium upon the North, yet that which the Bible allows (slave-ownership) has brought down all manner of condemnation upon the South.  The simplistic understanding of the relationship of slavery to the War for Southern Independence must be rejected. As George Lunt noted in 1866, "Slavery was the cause of the War, just as property is the cause of robbery." The True Nature of Slavery in The South If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence. Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were


----------



## Sundance508

I was trying to present the whole article for those who do like to click on links....but I somehow did not get it in order...............so for those who are interested click here to see the whole article in order........................http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Documents/060175768QRAsouthern_slavery_as_it_was.pdf


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Less than 200,000 were freed by Abraham Lincoln after the victory of the civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation, because Lincoln didn't have permission to effect slavery in some southern states.
> 
> Updated: It's actually a lot worse than this.
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation (1862) was strictly a political move to punish the secessionist states of the Confederacy, which were economically dependent on slavery. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states than did not secede from the Union, or who were willing to return.
> 
> There was also some thinking that advancing Union armies would be able to arm freed slaves and turn them against their former masters. This executive order did free about 20,000 slaves in Union occupied Confederate states, many of whom were drafted in to the Union army.
> 
> While is it factual the Lincoln and his Republican party campaigned against the expansion of slavery, if the states of the Confederacy had negotiated their position (as the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware did) instead of seceding (1861), slavery might well have continued for another generation in the United States.
> 
> The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation did not really free (all) slaves, nor did it make slavery illegal (everywhere), and was not passed as a result of winning the civil war, but as a political move early in the conflict to facilitate the Union using slaves, both economically and as soldiers, to win the war. It did, eventually (1865), provide the legal framework used to free nearly all of the 4 million -odd slaves in the US after the war, but that decision was very controversial, and was why Lincoln was assassinated (1865).



Actually 3 million slaves had their status changed by the US government to free people.   But hey, why not just re-write US history with new facts.   I'll join you.  You grab the white out.  I'll get the lighters.   We can burn all the books and then tell our own new story of what really happen.  

"Did you know the Emancipation Proclamation actually forced slaves to work in sweat shops making Iphones for decades in the 1800's"

"Lincoln was really a black Jew sent from hades itself to push the US back to the stone age, and reincarnated himself as Communism"

Dude, you are really pushing your crazy conspiracy theories, can we get back to reality now for a bit?


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Henry Louis Gates Jr.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you, like me, were raised essentially to think of the slave experience primarily in terms of our black ancestors here in the United States._._



No, history books are pretty clear on that.  We force bred our slaves.  Northern states were very anti-slavery from the start.  The only reason the US didn't free the slaves on day 1, was at the early continental congresses, southern States claimed they wouldn't join the US if they banned slavery.  And the only way we would win freedom from Britian was being United.  

But leaders in the North got an almost immediate ban on US ships being involved in the slave trade, and as soon as possible banned the slave trade altogether.  Which led to most of the slave trade happening South of us.  

So slave states started a new method, that actually cost less.  A breeding program.   whether voluntarily or through rape, they were able to breed more slaves, which is why we ended up with millions of them.  Honestly if you are trying to say that's better or something, you are doing a poor job of making that point.


----------



## Slash

Sundance.. When you get into the "abolitionists were lying godless provocateurs" bit, you kinda lose me and start looking more and more like one of them KKK shits that goes around chanting nazi slogans and that's not cool.  

When you talk of how slaves were treated as a "supposed" cruelty... when there were actually thousands of proofs that cruelty existed, you seem like one of those white nationalist twats that would rather burn history than admit its existence.

Being anti-slavery isn't evil.  It's not being anti-God if you oppose the ownership of a group of people based on their race.   

The abolitionists were just people strongly opposed to slavery.   There were abolitionist preachers so there goes the godless men part.  Heck I am an abolitionist, as is 99.99% of us here in America today.  And there's no "supposed" about the cruelties endured.   They weren't people to those owners.  So there was no shame in mentioning that they castrated a slave in their records. There is no "supposed".  Telling a person their child is now your property is one of the cruelest things a man can do.  

Your rant is looking really really deranged there.  You realize that right?  That's not a normal thought for a person to have.  That's a sick and demented thought.


----------



## Sundance508

If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
  objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued

in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding


----------



## Slash

Yeah the minute you started saying Slavery was godly and that slaves had it better off how they were I kinda shut you off kid.   


You can't say you are after truth and twist historical fact as much as you do.  You can't say you are after truth and try and white out and burn history.  You can't say you are after truth and create lies that COMPLETELY disagree with historical fact.  It's like hearing someone say they are boycotting McDonalds as they eat a Big Mac.  You really are that retarded with your beliefs.  But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, enjoy your nazi parties and all that I guess.  

Spew your hate and lies, not into either of those things.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Slavery is alive and well and arises when economics demands it...so the civil war solved nothing...



I do find it fascinating when the Confederate Fanboys are also openly defenders of slavery. 

Just another racist Confederate fanboy.

Probably still has his Trump sign out in front of his trailer.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? T



LOL- there were thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding the end of slavery. That is why the Confederate slave states fled- because they were scared of the abolitionists who were gaining more power in Congress. 

And yes- there were hundreds of slave rebellions. 

_*North America*
Numerous black slave rebellions and insurrections took place in North America during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. There is documentary evidence of more than 250 uprisings or attempted uprisings involving ten or more slaves. Three of the best known in the United States during the 19th century are the revolts by Gabriel Prosser in Virginia in 1800, Denmark Vesey in Charleston, South Carolina in 1822, and Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831.


Drapetomania was a supposed mental illness described by American physician Samuel A. Cartwright in 1851 that caused black slaves to flee captivity. Today, drapetomania is considered an example of pseudoscience, and part of the edifice of scientific racism.


Slave resistance in the antebellum South did not gain the attention of academic historians until the 1940s when historian Herbert Aptheker started publishing the first serious scholarly work on the subject. Aptheker stressed how rebellions were rooted in the exploitative conditions of the southern slave system. He traversed libraries and archives throughout the South, managing to uncover roughly 250 similar instances.


The 1811 German Coast Uprising, which took place in rural southeast Louisiana, then the Territory of Orleans, early in 1811, involved up to 500 insurgent slaves. It was suppressed by white militias and a detachment of the United States Army. In retaliation for the deaths of two white men and the destruction of property, the authorities killed at least 40 black men in a violent confrontation (the numbers cited are inconsistent); at least 29 more were executed (combined figures from two jurisdictions, St. Charles Parish and Orleans Parish). There was a third jurisdiction for a tribunal and what amounted to summary judgments against the accused, St. John the Baptist Parish. Several men (fewer than 20) are said to have escaped; some of those were later caught and killed, on their way to freedom._


----------



## Sundance508

Sundance508 said:


> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding





Sundance508 said:


> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding




The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding or promiscuity.31 Sexual Exploitation? Didn't sexual exploitation undermine and destroy the black family? Critics of the South have consistently answered in the affirmative. They accuse slave owners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems. Again, unfortunately for the thesis, the evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions are based is extremely limited. Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters.32 It would have been much easier, and less risky, for owners of large plantations to keep a mistress in town than to risk the possibility of the destruction of his own family by taking up with a slave woman. For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarters, once discovered, was often his job. Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack selfcontrol on so vital an issue. Further, to imply that black men would be indifferent to the sexual abuse of their women is to imply that they were somehow less manly than other men who would be indignant over such abuse. This common assumption about slave men is not only unrealistic and unsubstantiated but an insult to their humanity and patently racist. The Strength of the Slave Family Apart from the motive supplied by Christianity, slave owners had strong economic incentives to promote high standards of morality among their slaves. Planters encouraged strong families not only for the well-being of the slaves, but also for the well-being of the plantation. Strong families promote happiness and contentment. Happy, contented workers are good workers. Thus, even if a slave owner was not a Christian, there were important reasons to discourage immorality. Marriage was encouraged. Adultery was punished and divorce was discouraged by the whip.33 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 15 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, slave families were not matriarchal as is commonly assumed. "For better or worse, the dominant role in slave society was played by men, not women. It was men who occupied virtually all of the managerial slots available to slaves .... Men occupied nearly all the artisan crafts...."34 "It was the male who initiated the period of courtship. And it was the man who secured the permission of the planter to marry."35 The husband was the head of the house and there was a strong familial bond between family members. This kind of bond is not the product of widespread promiscuity. One could argue that the black family has never been stronger than it was under slavery. It was certainly stronger under the southern slave system that it is today under our modern destructive welfare state. Living Conditions The belief that the typical slave was poorly fed is without foundation in fact. There was no deficiency in the amount of meat allotted to slaves. On average, they consumed six ounces of meat per day, just an ounce less than the average quantity of meat consumed by the free population. The high consumption of meat, sweet potatoes, and peas made the slave diet not only adequate, but it actually exceeded modern recommended daily


----------



## Sundance508

Sundance508 said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding or promiscuity.31 Sexual Exploitation? Didn't sexual exploitation undermine and destroy the black family? Critics of the South have consistently answered in the affirmative. They accuse slave owners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems. Again, unfortunately for the thesis, the evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions are based is extremely limited. Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters.32 It would have been much easier, and less risky, for owners of large plantations to keep a mistress in town than to risk the possibility of the destruction of his own family by taking up with a slave woman. For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarters, once discovered, was often his job. Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack selfcontrol on so vital an issue. Further, to imply that black men would be indifferent to the sexual abuse of their women is to imply that they were somehow less manly than other men who would be indignant over such abuse. This common assumption about slave men is not only unrealistic and unsubstantiated but an insult to their humanity and patently racist. The Strength of the Slave Family Apart from the motive supplied by Christianity, slave owners had strong economic incentives to promote high standards of morality among their slaves. Planters encouraged strong families not only for the well-being of the slaves, but also for the well-being of the plantation. Strong families promote happiness and contentment. Happy, contented workers are good workers. Thus, even if a slave owner was not a Christian, there were important reasons to discourage immorality. Marriage was encouraged. Adultery was punished and divorce was discouraged by the whip.33 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 15 of 22 Site Unavailable 11/25/2006 Furthermore, slave families were not matriarchal as is commonly assumed. "For better or worse, the dominant role in slave society was played by men, not women. It was men who occupied virtually all of the managerial slots available to slaves .... Men occupied nearly all the artisan crafts...."34 "It was the male who initiated the period of courtship. And it was the man who secured the permission of the planter to marry."35 The husband was the head of the house and there was a strong familial bond between family members. This kind of bond is not the product of widespread promiscuity. One could argue that the black family has never been stronger than it was under slavery. It was certainly stronger under the southern slave system that it is today under our modern destructive welfare state. Living Conditions The belief that the typical slave was poorly fed is without foundation in fact. There was no deficiency in the amount of meat allotted to slaves. On average, they consumed six ounces of meat per day, just an ounce less than the average quantity of meat consumed by the free population. The high consumption of meat, sweet potatoes, and peas made the slave diet not only adequate, but it actually exceeded modern recommended levels of the chief nutrients.The clothing of slaves, though not lavish, was fairly standard for what the average free white man would have had. Many slaves had far better clothes than poor whites. On the question of shelter, the most systematic housing information comes from the census of 1860, which included a count of slave houses. These data show that on average there were 5.2 slaves per house on large plantations. The number of persons per free household was 5.3. The single-family household was the rule.37 The quality of housing varied. Comments of observers suggest that the most typical slave houses of the late ante bellum period were cabins about eighteen by twenty feet. They usually had one or two rooms. Lofts, where the children slept, were also quite common. Windows were not glazed, but closed by wooden shutters. Chimneys were of brick or stone. Building material was either logs or wood. Floors were usually planked and raised off the ground. Such housing may sound mean by modern standards but actually compared well with the homes of free workers in the ante bellum era. The typical slave cabin probably contained more sleeping space per person than was available to most of New York City's working-class in 1900.38 The medical care was good. Generally, the slaves received the same medical care the family received. The doctor attending to the slaves was usually the same doctor who ministered to the planter's family. Good medical care is reflected in the statistics for life expectancy. U.S. slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe. The Problems of Slavery Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 16 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Slavery was attended with evils. As it existed in the South, it was not in any way perfect or utopian. But too often the real problems with slavery were not the problems we have been told about. However, as discussed earlier, Christians should be quick to notice the discrepancies between biblical slavery and that practiced in the South. These differences between the biblical standard and Southern slavery do make impossible an unqualified defense of the institution as it existed and operated in the South. Furthermore, the cruel mistreatment given to some slaves is inexcusable and truly despicable. All such evil was wicked and indefensible. When modern Christians condemn such things, however, they must recognize that they are not condemning something defended by the South. This mistreatment was reprobated by the majority of ante bellum Southerners as well. Modern condemnations of these abuses are several centuries late. Third, a problem with slavery not yet discussed is the fact that slavery promoted what can be called a "slave mentality" in the minds of some blacks. Not everyone, as we have seen, was so affected. There are amazing stories regarding the industry and ingenuity of many slaves. Not everyone imbibed the "slave mentality," but many did. There are many complaints in the Slave Narratives which indicate this. The majority of those interviewed complain that they would rather be slaves again than to be free with all the responsibilities that freedom entails. Ironically, if slavery had not been so pleasant an experience for the majority, this mentality would not likely have such a strong hold upon the minds of some of their descendants today. Finally, slavery gave an issue to radical revolutionaries by which they could provoke animosity against the South and, consequently, the "old order" which held sway in this nation prior to 1861. The War that resulted gave these radicals opportunity to increase the size and power of the federal Government in this nation to undreamed-of proportions. Our nation, after 1865, was transformed into a distinctly different entity than it had been before. The nation established by the founding fathers, a limited, constitutional republic, a union of free States, was no more. And the modern, messianic State which seeks to bring salvation by law, was firmly established. After the death of the Old American Republic, the nation created by the new revolutionaries became a nightmare for the newly-freed black men and women. The laws which were ostensibly passed to help them were used more and more to exclude them from the privileges they once enjoyed under the restricted freedom of slavery. For example, licensure requirements and the rise of unionism have systematically excluded black artisans and craftsmen from making the living they had made before the War. Welfare laws have removed the black man from his position of breadwinner and head over the home, and the black family has been gradually destroyed. Blacks were freed from the southern plantations only to become the slaves of an impersonal state. Professors Fogel and Engerman observe, What antislavery critics generally objected to was not the fact that slavery constrained the opportunities open to blacks, but the form which these constraints took. While physical force was unacceptable, legal restrictions were not. Thus many one-time crusaders against slavery sat idly by, or even collaborated in passing various laws which served to improve the economic position of whites at the expense of blacks.39 Henry Banner, a former slave from Arkansas, put it more succinctly, "Before the war you belonged to somebody. After the war you weren't nothin' but a ******."40 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 17 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Unexpected Blessings But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot o
Click to expand...


----------



## Sundance508

Sundance508 said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding or promiscuity.31 Sexual Exploitation? Didn't sexual exploitation undermine and destroy the black family? Critics of the South have consistently answered in the affirmative. They accuse slave owners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems. Again, unfortunately for the thesis, the evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions are based is extremely limited. Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters.32 It would have been much easier, and less risky, for owners of large plantations to keep a mistress in town than to risk the possibility of the destruction of his own family by taking up with a slave woman. For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarters, once discovered, was often his job. Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack selfcontrol on so vital an issue. Further, to imply that black men would be indifferent to the sexual abuse of their women is to imply that they were somehow less manly than other men who would be indignant over such abuse. This common assumption about slave men is not only unrealistic and unsubstantiated but an insult to their humanity and patently racist. The Strength of the Slave Family Apart from the motive supplied by Christianity, slave owners had strong economic incentives to promote high standards of morality among their slaves. Planters encouraged strong families not only for the well-being of the slaves, but also for the well-being of the plantation. Strong families promote happiness and contentment. Happy, contented workers are good workers. Thus, even if a slave owner was not a Christian, there were important reasons to discourage immorality. Marriage was encouraged. Adultery was punished and divorce was discouraged by the whip.33 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 15 of 22 Site Unavailable 11/25/2006 Furthermore, slave families were not matriarchal as is commonly assumed. "For better or worse, the dominant role in slave society was played by men, not women. It was men who occupied virtually all of the managerial slots available to slaves .... Men occupied nearly all the artisan crafts...."34 "It was the male who initiated the period of courtship. And it was the man who secured the permission of the planter to marry."35 The husband was the head of the house and there was a strong familial bond between family members. This kind of bond is not the product of widespread promiscuity. One could argue that the black family has never been stronger than it was under slavery. It was certainly stronger under the southern slave system that it is today under our modern destructive welfare state. Living Conditions The belief that the typical slave was poorly fed is without foundation in fact. There was no deficiency in the amount of meat allotted to slaves. On average, they consumed six ounces of meat per day, just an ounce less than the average quantity of meat consumed by the free population. The high consumption of meat, sweet potatoes, and peas made the slave diet not only adequate, but it actually exceeded modern recommended levels of the chief nutrients.The clothing of slaves, though not lavish, was fairly standard for what the average free white man would have had. Many slaves had far better clothes than poor whites. On the question of shelter, the most systematic housing information comes from the census of 1860, which included a count of slave houses. These data show that on average there were 5.2 slaves per house on large plantations. The number of persons per free household was 5.3. The single-family household was the rule.37 The quality of housing varied. Comments of observers suggest that the most typical slave houses of the late ante bellum period were cabins about eighteen by twenty feet. They usually had one or two rooms. Lofts, where the children slept, were also quite common. Windows were not glazed, but closed by wooden shutters. Chimneys were of brick or stone. Building material was either logs or wood. Floors were usually planked and raised off the ground. Such housing may sound mean by modern standards but actually compared well with the homes of free workers in the ante bellum era. The typical slave cabin probably contained more sleeping space per person than was available to most of New York City's working-class in 1900.38 The medical care was good. Generally, the slaves received the same medical care the family received. The doctor attending to the slaves was usually the same doctor who ministered to the planter's family. Good medical care is reflected in the statistics for life expectancy. U.S. slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe. The Problems of Slavery Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 16 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Slavery was attended with evils. As it existed in the South, it was not in any way perfect or utopian. But too often the real problems with slavery were not the problems we have been told about. However, as discussed earlier, Christians should be quick to notice the discrepancies between biblical slavery and that practiced in the South. These differences between the biblical standard and Southern slavery do make impossible an unqualified defense of the institution as it existed and operated in the South. Furthermore, the cruel mistreatment given to some slaves is inexcusable and truly despicable. All such evil was wicked and indefensible. When modern Christians condemn such things, however, they must recognize that they are not condemning something defended by the South. This mistreatment was reprobated by the majority of ante bellum Southerners as well. Modern condemnations of these abuses are several centuries late. Third, a problem with slavery not yet discussed is the fact that slavery promoted what can be called a "slave mentality" in the minds of some blacks. Not everyone, as we have seen, was so affected. There are amazing stories regarding the industry and ingenuity of many slaves. Not everyone imbibed the "slave mentality," but many did. There are many complaints in the Slave Narratives which indicate this. The majority of those interviewed complain that they would rather be slaves again than to be free with all the responsibilities that freedom entails. Ironically, if slavery had not been so pleasant an experience for the majority, this mentality would not likely have such a strong hold upon the minds of some of their descendants today. Finally, slavery gave an issue to radical revolutionaries by which they could provoke animosity against the South and, consequently, the "old order" which held sway in this nation prior to 1861. The War that resulted gave these radicals opportunity to increase the size and power of the federal Government in this nation to undreamed-of proportions. Our nation, after 1865, was transformed into a distinctly different entity than it had been before. The nation established by the founding fathers, a limited, constitutional republic, a union of free States, was no more. And the modern, messianic State which seeks to bring salvation by law, was firmly established. After the death of the Old American Republic, the nation created by the new revolutionaries became a nightmare for the newly-freed black men and women. The laws which were ostensibly passed to help them were used more and more to exclude them from the privileges they once enjoyed under the restricted freedom of slavery. For example, licensure requirements and the rise of unionism have systematically excluded black artisans and craftsmen from making the living they had made before the War. Welfare laws have removed the black man from his position of breadwinner and head over the home, and the black family has been gradually destroyed. Blacks were freed from the southern plantations only to become the slaves of an impersonal state. Professors Fogel and Engerman observe, What antislavery critics generally objected to was not the fact that slavery constrained the opportunities open to blacks, but the form which these constraints took. While physical force was unacceptable, legal restrictions were not. Thus many one-time crusaders against slavery sat idly by, or even collaborated in passing various laws which served to improve the economic position of whites at the expense of blacks.39 Henry Banner, a former slave from Arkansas, put it more succinctly, "Before the war you belonged to somebody. After the war you weren't nothin' but a ******."40 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 17 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Unexpected Blessings But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot overlook the benefits of slavery for both blacks and whites. We refer here to several matters of some importance. First was the influence of Christianity. More than one slave lived to thank God for his servitude — despite all the hardships involved. Martin Jackson of Texas puts it this way: "I believe that slavery in this country, taking everything into consideration, was a Godsend for the slaves. The twenty million Negroes are descended from four million sent over from Africa. If it had not been for the slave traffic, we would still be living in Africa. I would be a heathen and my children would be heathens."41 More than one former slave had reason to stand in the place of the biblical Joseph and say, "Men meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." The slavery they were delivered from was far worse than any they suffered in this country. Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts. Listen to a few examples: George Fleming of Laurens, South Carolina said: "I longed to see Marse Sam Fleming. Lawd, chile, dat's de best white man what ever breathed de good air. I still goes to see whar he buried every time I gits a chance to venture t'wards Laurens. As old as I is, I still draps a tear when I sees his grave, fer he sho' was good to me and all his
Click to expand...


----------



## Sundance508

Sundance508 said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding or promiscuity.31 Sexual Exploitation? Didn't sexual exploitation undermine and destroy the black family? Critics of the South have consistently answered in the affirmative. They accuse slave owners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems. Again, unfortunately for the thesis, the evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions are based is extremely limited. Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters.32 It would have been much easier, and less risky, for owners of large plantations to keep a mistress in town than to risk the possibility of the destruction of his own family by taking up with a slave woman. For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarters, once discovered, was often his job. Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack selfcontrol on so vital an issue. Further, to imply that black men would be indifferent to the sexual abuse of their women is to imply that they were somehow less manly than other men who would be indignant over such abuse. This common assumption about slave men is not only unrealistic and unsubstantiated but an insult to their humanity and patently racist. The Strength of the Slave Family Apart from the motive supplied by Christianity, slave owners had strong economic incentives to promote high standards of morality among their slaves. Planters encouraged strong families not only for the well-being of the slaves, but also for the well-being of the plantation. Strong families promote happiness and contentment. Happy, contented workers are good workers. Thus, even if a slave owner was not a Christian, there were important reasons to discourage immorality. Marriage was encouraged. Adultery was punished and divorce was discouraged by the whip.33 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 15 of 22 Site Unavailable 11/25/2006 Furthermore, slave families were not matriarchal as is commonly assumed. "For better or worse, the dominant role in slave society was played by men, not women. It was men who occupied virtually all of the managerial slots available to slaves .... Men occupied nearly all the artisan crafts...."34 "It was the male who initiated the period of courtship. And it was the man who secured the permission of the planter to marry."35 The husband was the head of the house and there was a strong familial bond between family members. This kind of bond is not the product of widespread promiscuity. One could argue that the black family has never been stronger than it was under slavery. It was certainly stronger under the southern slave system that it is today under our modern destructive welfare state. Living Conditions The belief that the typical slave was poorly fed is without foundation in fact. There was no deficiency in the amount of meat allotted to slaves. On average, they consumed six ounces of meat per day, just an ounce less than the average quantity of meat consumed by the free population. The high consumption of meat, sweet potatoes, and peas made the slave diet not only adequate, but it actually exceeded modern recommended levels of the chief nutrients.The clothing of slaves, though not lavish, was fairly standard for what the average free white man would have had. Many slaves had far better clothes than poor whites. On the question of shelter, the most systematic housing information comes from the census of 1860, which included a count of slave houses. These data show that on average there were 5.2 slaves per house on large plantations. The number of persons per free household was 5.3. The single-family household was the rule.37 The quality of housing varied. Comments of observers suggest that the most typical slave houses of the late ante bellum period were cabins about eighteen by twenty feet. They usually had one or two rooms. Lofts, where the children slept, were also quite common. Windows were not glazed, but closed by wooden shutters. Chimneys were of brick or stone. Building material was either logs or wood. Floors were usually planked and raised off the ground. Such housing may sound mean by modern standards but actually compared well with the homes of free workers in the ante bellum era. The typical slave cabin probably contained more sleeping space per person than was available to most of New York City's working-class in 1900.38 The medical care was good. Generally, the slaves received the same medical care the family received. The doctor attending to the slaves was usually the same doctor who ministered to the planter's family. Good medical care is reflected in the statistics for life expectancy. U.S. slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe. The Problems of Slavery Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 16 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Slavery was attended with evils. As it existed in the South, it was not in any way perfect or utopian. But too often the real problems with slavery were not the problems we have been told about. However, as discussed earlier, Christians should be quick to notice the discrepancies between biblical slavery and that practiced in the South. These differences between the biblical standard and Southern slavery do make impossible an unqualified defense of the institution as it existed and operated in the South. Furthermore, the cruel mistreatment given to some slaves is inexcusable and truly despicable. All such evil was wicked and indefensible. When modern Christians condemn such things, however, they must recognize that they are not condemning something defended by the South. This mistreatment was reprobated by the majority of ante bellum Southerners as well. Modern condemnations of these abuses are several centuries late. Third, a problem with slavery not yet discussed is the fact that slavery promoted what can be called a "slave mentality" in the minds of some blacks. Not everyone, as we have seen, was so affected. There are amazing stories regarding the industry and ingenuity of many slaves. Not everyone imbibed the "slave mentality," but many did. There are many complaints in the Slave Narratives which indicate this. The majority of those interviewed complain that they would rather be slaves again than to be free with all the responsibilities that freedom entails. Ironically, if slavery had not been so pleasant an experience for the majority, this mentality would not likely have such a strong hold upon the minds of some of their descendants today. Finally, slavery gave an issue to radical revolutionaries by which they could provoke animosity against the South and, consequently, the "old order" which held sway in this nation prior to 1861. The War that resulted gave these radicals opportunity to increase the size and power of the federal Government in this nation to undreamed-of proportions. Our nation, after 1865, was transformed into a distinctly different entity than it had been before. The nation established by the founding fathers, a limited, constitutional republic, a union of free States, was no more. And the modern, messianic State which seeks to bring salvation by law, was firmly established. After the death of the Old American Republic, the nation created by the new revolutionaries became a nightmare for the newly-freed black men and women. The laws which were ostensibly passed to help them were used more and more to exclude them from the privileges they once enjoyed under the restricted freedom of slavery. For example, licensure requirements and the rise of unionism have systematically excluded black artisans and craftsmen from making the living they had made before the War. Welfare laws have removed the black man from his position of breadwinner and head over the home, and the black family has been gradually destroyed. Blacks were freed from the southern plantations only to become the slaves of an impersonal state. Professors Fogel and Engerman observe, What antislavery critics generally objected to was not the fact that slavery constrained the opportunities open to blacks, but the form which these constraints took. While physical force was unacceptable, legal restrictions were not. Thus many one-time crusaders against slavery sat idly by, or even collaborated in passing various laws which served to improve the economic position of whites at the expense of blacks.39 Henry Banner, a former slave from Arkansas, put it more succinctly, "Before the war you belonged to somebody. After the war you weren't nothin' but a ******."40 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 17 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Unexpected Blessings But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot overlook the benefits of slavery for both blacks and whites. We refer here to several matters of some importance. First was the influence of Christianity. More than one slave lived to thank God for his servitude — despite all the hardships involved. Martin Jackson of Texas puts it this way: "I believe that slavery in this country, taking everything into consideration, was a Godsend for the slaves. The twenty million Negroes are descended from four million sent over from Africa. If it had not been for the slave traffic, we would still be living in Africa. I would be a heathen and my children would be heathens."41 More than one former slave had reason to stand in the place of the biblical Joseph and say, "Men meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." The slavery they were delivered from was far worse than any they suffered in this country. Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts. Listen to a few examples: George Fleming of Laurens, South Carolina said: "I longed to see Marse Sam Fleming. Lawd, chile, dat's de best white man what ever breathed de good air. I still goes to see whar he buried every time I gits a chance to venture t'wards Laurens. As old as I is, I still draps a tear when I sees his grave, fer he sho' was good to me and all his
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Sundance508

Sundance508 said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery had been as bad as the abolitionists maintained that it was, and as we have been reminded countless times on supposedly good authority, then why were there not thousands of rabid abolitionists demanding an end to the evil? Or, even more to the point, why were there not hundreds of slave rebellions? These questions have not been asked often or loudly enough. The answer would shock and dismay the vast majority of our nation who have been carefully schooled in abolitionist propaganda. As we have already mentioned, the "peculiar institution" of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 9 of 22 Site Unavailable 11/25/2006 reworking of abolitionist propaganda. Judge George L. Christian observed, In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence.12 Prior to the War, the South was visited many times by journalists from the North, as well as from Europe. The purpose of their visits was to send back first-hand reports on the nature of the South in general, and of slavery in particular. In the 1840's the Englishman, Sir Charles Lyell, traveled through the nation and published the results of his observations in Travels in North America in the Years 1841-1842. Lyell's description of slavery as it operated in the South was widely publicized in the North and pointedly contradicted the abolitionist propaganda. Lyell noted the remarkable affection that existed between master and slave, and on the fact that he found the slaves "better fed than a large part of the laboring class of Europe." There were no whips, chains, or accounts of gross mistreatment in Lyell's picture. To Lyell, slavery was a mild, kindly, if inefficient and uneconomical, institution. This view was confirmed by others including fellow Britisher, the Earl of Carlisle, James Strictland, and prominently by the American northerner, Frederick Law Olmstead, who was staunchly against slavery. This sober testimony was ignored in favor of abolitionist rant. But the people of the North in the 19th century have not been the only ones to ignore facts. The same problem continues today. Whenever a people decide to overlook the facts, however, they sometimes discover that there is a great deal to overlook. The Old South was a caste society, but not a compartmentalized society. There were specific roles for blacks and whites, and each "knew their place" as it were, but what is often overlooked is the high level of interaction between the races which was a common and everyday experience. Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on "civil rights" propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. During the New Deal, President Roosevelt commissioned a number of journalists to interview former slaves, and record the results. The results of this project collected in the multi-volume Slave Narratives surprised everyone with preconceived notions of the slave institution. The reports did not fit with the established and reigning orthodoxy, and consequently the Slave Narratives have been largely ignored ever since. One would think that the verbal testimony of over 2,300 former slaves would be a fairly important piece of information when it comes to forming our views of the institution as it really functioned. After all, these were interviews with former slaves, not with former masters. But surprisingly (i.e., surprising to those who still think scholars are neutral and led by nothing more than an
> objective desire to know the facts) the Slave Narratives have had little effect upon the modern historiography of this period. Why have these narratives been ignored? The answer is quite predictable. The Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called "heartless slave holders" abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care. In the narratives taken as a whole, there is no pervasive cry of rage and anguish. We see no general expression of bitterness and outrage. instead we find, on page after page, expressions of affection for a condition which, in the words of one historian, "shames the civilized world." The overwhelmingly positive view of slavery is all the more striking when one considers that the period being remembered by these former slaves could arguably be called the most harsh years of the institution — those years when it was under fierce attack, and when slave owners had circled the wagons. Predictably, the modern heirs of the abolitionists have fallen over themselves in an effort to discredit this amazing testimony. "They were old and their memories were defective . . . They were suffering under the Great Depression, many would think of slavery in a warm way under the conditions they suffered... They were talking to white people and weren't about to say things that might get them 'in trouble.'" However these efforts to explain away the overall testimony of the Narratives fall to the ground. These explanations fall because the testimony is not unanimous. There are those, scattered here and there, who mention atrocities, and complain of the meanness and immorality of their owners. There are those whose voices drip with the bitterness brought on by years of unjust treatment and ungodly oppression. They were not too old to remember the outrage they felt then; nor had that outrage diminished over the years. They did not look back on their experience with affection and nostalgia. They weren't afraid of what "Whitey" might think. In fact they were happy for the opportunity to make their bitterness known. Their testimony adds the clear note of authenticity to the Narratives. There was mistreatment, there were atrocities, there was a great deal of wickedness on the part of some — but, as the Narratives make plain, these abuses came from a distinct and very small minority. The Narratives have the ring of truth because they present the mixed picture which might be expected in an examination of any human institution. The surprise for moderns is that the mixture contains such an overwhelmingly positive view of master/slave relations before the War. R.L. Dabney, William S. White, Charles Colcock Jones, and many other defenders of the South had long acknowledged the existence of mistreatment and wickedness among some slave holders. But they nevertheless maintained that these instances were relatively rare and infrequent. Dabney is careful to note: "Now, while we freely admit that there were in the South, instances of criminal barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion." A Presbyterian pastor, William S. White observed: In all lands there are husbands and fathers who maltreat their wives and  children. So there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. But the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways. Their mutual dependence begets mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with incidents, occurring under my own eyes, illustrating this statement; but I write for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionists. This judgment is confirmed powerfully by the recent study done by professors Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman entitled Time on the Cross. They were proressors of Economics and History at the time of their writing of this book, and Professor Fogel later taught at Harvard University. The book sent shock waves through modern academia when it was published in the early 70's, and still provides a satisfactory shock whenever it is mentioned. They have done perhaps the most thorough examination of plantation records and first-hand accounts that has ever been done, and their results destroy the current but assumed view of slavery at point after point. Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely selfish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.15 Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites. For example, a slave named Robin was captured with his master during Morgan's raid into Ohio. He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, "I will never disgrace my family by such an oath."16 Remember, his "family" was his master's family. A number of servants captured at Vicksburg were offered their freedom with Federal protection but refused, choosing rather to be sent to Northern prisons to suffer with their fellow (white) soldiers.17 After their capture, a group of white Virginia slave owners and their slaves were asked if they would take the loyalty oath in exchange for their freedom. A free black among them stated indignantly, "I can't take no such oath. I'm a secesh Negro."18 A slave in the same group, when he learned that his master had refused to take the oath, proudly replied, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take."19 But lest anyone think this reflects a servile and cowed attitude, we should consider another occasion when a planter captured at Point Lookout did agree to take the oath of allegiance. His slave refused. When asked why he refused when his master had not refused, the slave replied with disgust, "Massa has no principles."20 These facts, and countless others, refuse to conform to modern abolitionists' myth of a harshly oppressed people who constantly seethed with resentment. The fact that there were very few slave uprisings in the South further confirms the fact that slaves were well-treated and often had a deep loyalty to, and affection for, their masters. Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 12 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 The Treatment of Slaves Whenever any human society is scrutinized, a biblical view of man would teach us to expect to find sin and evil. However, a partisan critic will seize upon any such problems and magnify it as though it were representative of the whole. We see this pattern today in feminist treatments of marriage, socialist treatments of the effects of free markets, and so forth. In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us. Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence. But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22 To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. All this evidence points to the fact that slaves lived at various levels of income. The average pecuniary income received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker. Some slaves saved their money and were quite wealthy after the war. Simon Phillips, a slave from Alabama says, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed."24 Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free Negro in the South. A comparison between New York and New Orleans reveals that New York Negroes lived in more crowded housing, had a lower proportion of craftsmen, and less wealth per capita than free Negroes in New Orleans.25 Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and, had a much easier existence. Most slaves worked under the "task system" Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 13 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 which allowed for a great deal of flexibility as work was adapted to the abilities of the individual slave. Forest McDonald comments in regard to this "task system": Normally these [tasks] were light enough so that a worker could complete them in three or four hours. His time was his own when his task was done, and it was not uncommon for slaves, in their free time, to work the acres that were uniformly allotted to them by their masters and thereby to accumulate personal property. It was more common for slaves to double up on their work — to do two or even three tasks in a day — and then to take several days off, during which they might travel many miles by horse or boat to visit friends, family, or lovers on other plantations.26 The Stability of the Slave Family On average, only one slave holder out of every twenty-two sold a slave in any given year, and roughly one third of these were estates of deceased persons.27 With the trading that did occur, some of the families of slaves were broken up. The question is how widespread was this? Data contained in the sales records in New Orleans, by far the largest market.....to be continued
> 
> in the interregional trade, sharply contradict the popular view that the destruction of slave marriages was at least a frequent, if not a universal, consequence of the slave trade. These records, which cover thousands of transactions during the years from 1804 to 1862, indicate that about 2% of the marriages of slaves involved in the westward trek were destroyed in the process of migration. Nor is it by any means clear that the destabilizing effects of the westward migration on marriages was significantly greater among blacks than it was among whites.28 There is no reason to believe that the age and sex structure of interstate sales at New Orleans were markedly different from those of other south-central cities. Moreover, New Orleans, more than any other city, dominated the interregional slave trade, receiving annually about one third of the slaves sold between states.29 The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Myth of Slave Breeding The thesis that systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market accounted for a major share of the net income or profit of slave holders, is often espoused. This thesis involves two interrelated concepts. First, it is assumed that the slave owners interfered in the normal sexual habits of slaves to maximize female fertility through such devices as mating women with especially potent men. Second, it is assumed that this raising of slaves occurred with sale as the main motive. Unfortunately for the thesis, the many thousands of hours of research by professional historians into plantation records have failed to produce a single authenticated case of the "stud" plantations alleged in abolitionist literature. Nor was the sale of slaves all that profitable. The sweet potato crop brought more income to slave owners than the interregional sale of their bondsmen.30 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 14 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Furthermore, the proponents of the breeding thesis have been misled by their failure to recognize the difference between human beings and animals. What increases fertility among animals actually reduces fertility among men. Promiscuity increases venereal disease and reduces fertility. Emotional factors are of considerable significance in successful human conception. To imply that these factors would not be present in black people is inherently racist. Clearly, had there been widespread sexual misconduct, the effects on slave morale would have been disastrous. Distraught and disgruntled slaves did not make good field hands. Consequently, most planters shunned direct interference in the sexual practices of slaves, and attempted to influence fertility patterns through a system of positive economic incentives — incentives that are akin to those practiced by various governments today. Instructions from slave owners to their overseers frequently contain caveats against "undue familiarity" which might undermine slave morale and discipline. No set of instructions to overseers has been uncovered which explicitly or implicitly encouraged selective breeding or promiscuity.31 Sexual Exploitation? Didn't sexual exploitation undermine and destroy the black family? Critics of the South have consistently answered in the affirmative. They accuse slave owners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems. Again, unfortunately for the thesis, the evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions are based is extremely limited. Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters.32 It would have been much easier, and less risky, for owners of large plantations to keep a mistress in town than to risk the possibility of the destruction of his own family by taking up with a slave woman. For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarters, once discovered, was often his job. Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack selfcontrol on so vital an issue. Further, to imply that black men would be indifferent to the sexual abuse of their women is to imply that they were somehow less manly than other men who would be indignant over such abuse. This common assumption about slave men is not only unrealistic and unsubstantiated but an insult to their humanity and patently racist. The Strength of the Slave Family Apart from the motive supplied by Christianity, slave owners had strong economic incentives to promote high standards of morality among their slaves. Planters encouraged strong families not only for the well-being of the slaves, but also for the well-being of the plantation. Strong families promote happiness and contentment. Happy, contented workers are good workers. Thus, even if a slave owner was not a Christian, there were important reasons to discourage immorality. Marriage was encouraged. Adultery was punished and divorce was discouraged by the whip.33 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 15 of 22 Site Unavailable 11/25/2006 Furthermore, slave families were not matriarchal as is commonly assumed. "For better or worse, the dominant role in slave society was played by men, not women. It was men who occupied virtually all of the managerial slots available to slaves .... Men occupied nearly all the artisan crafts...."34 "It was the male who initiated the period of courtship. And it was the man who secured the permission of the planter to marry."35 The husband was the head of the house and there was a strong familial bond between family members. This kind of bond is not the product of widespread promiscuity. One could argue that the black family has never been stronger than it was under slavery. It was certainly stronger under the southern slave system that it is today under our modern destructive welfare state. Living Conditions The belief that the typical slave was poorly fed is without foundation in fact. There was no deficiency in the amount of meat allotted to slaves. On average, they consumed six ounces of meat per day, just an ounce less than the average quantity of meat consumed by the free population. The high consumption of meat, sweet potatoes, and peas made the slave diet not only adequate, but it actually exceeded modern recommended levels of the chief nutrients.The clothing of slaves, though not lavish, was fairly standard for what the average free white man would have had. Many slaves had far better clothes than poor whites. On the question of shelter, the most systematic housing information comes from the census of 1860, which included a count of slave houses. These data show that on average there were 5.2 slaves per house on large plantations. The number of persons per free household was 5.3. The single-family household was the rule.37 The quality of housing varied. Comments of observers suggest that the most typical slave houses of the late ante bellum period were cabins about eighteen by twenty feet. They usually had one or two rooms. Lofts, where the children slept, were also quite common. Windows were not glazed, but closed by wooden shutters. Chimneys were of brick or stone. Building material was either logs or wood. Floors were usually planked and raised off the ground. Such housing may sound mean by modern standards but actually compared well with the homes of free workers in the ante bellum era. The typical slave cabin probably contained more sleeping space per person than was available to most of New York City's working-class in 1900.38 The medical care was good. Generally, the slaves received the same medical care the family received. The doctor attending to the slaves was usually the same doctor who ministered to the planter's family. Good medical care is reflected in the statistics for life expectancy. U.S. slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe. The Problems of Slavery Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 16 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Slavery was attended with evils. As it existed in the South, it was not in any way perfect or utopian. But too often the real problems with slavery were not the problems we have been told about. However, as discussed earlier, Christians should be quick to notice the discrepancies between biblical slavery and that practiced in the South. These differences between the biblical standard and Southern slavery do make impossible an unqualified defense of the institution as it existed and operated in the South. Furthermore, the cruel mistreatment given to some slaves is inexcusable and truly despicable. All such evil was wicked and indefensible. When modern Christians condemn such things, however, they must recognize that they are not condemning something defended by the South. This mistreatment was reprobated by the majority of ante bellum Southerners as well. Modern condemnations of these abuses are several centuries late. Third, a problem with slavery not yet discussed is the fact that slavery promoted what can be called a "slave mentality" in the minds of some blacks. Not everyone, as we have seen, was so affected. There are amazing stories regarding the industry and ingenuity of many slaves. Not everyone imbibed the "slave mentality," but many did. There are many complaints in the Slave Narratives which indicate this. The majority of those interviewed complain that they would rather be slaves again than to be free with all the responsibilities that freedom entails. Ironically, if slavery had not been so pleasant an experience for the majority, this mentality would not likely have such a strong hold upon the minds of some of their descendants today. Finally, slavery gave an issue to radical revolutionaries by which they could provoke animosity against the South and, consequently, the "old order" which held sway in this nation prior to 1861. The War that resulted gave these radicals opportunity to increase the size and power of the federal Government in this nation to undreamed-of proportions. Our nation, after 1865, was transformed into a distinctly different entity than it had been before. The nation established by the founding fathers, a limited, constitutional republic, a union of free States, was no more. And the modern, messianic State which seeks to bring salvation by law, was firmly established. After the death of the Old American Republic, the nation created by the new revolutionaries became a nightmare for the newly-freed black men and women. The laws which were ostensibly passed to help them were used more and more to exclude them from the privileges they once enjoyed under the restricted freedom of slavery. For example, licensure requirements and the rise of unionism have systematically excluded black artisans and craftsmen from making the living they had made before the War. Welfare laws have removed the black man from his position of breadwinner and head over the home, and the black family has been gradually destroyed. Blacks were freed from the southern plantations only to become the slaves of an impersonal state. Professors Fogel and Engerman observe, What antislavery critics generally objected to was not the fact that slavery constrained the opportunities open to blacks, but the form which these constraints took. While physical force was unacceptable, legal restrictions were not. Thus many one-time crusaders against slavery sat idly by, or even collaborated in passing various laws which served to improve the economic position of whites at the expense of blacks.39 Henry Banner, a former slave from Arkansas, put it more succinctly, "Before the war you belonged to somebody. After the war you weren't nothin' but a ******."40 Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson Page 17 of 22 http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm 11/25/2006 Unexpected Blessings But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot overlook the benefits of slavery for both blacks and whites. We refer here to several matters of some importance. First was the influence of Christianity. More than one slave lived to thank God for his servitude — despite all the hardships involved. Martin Jackson of Texas puts it this way: "I believe that slavery in this country, taking everything into consideration, was a Godsend for the slaves. The twenty million Negroes are descended from four million sent over from Africa. If it had not been for the slave traffic, we would still be living in Africa. I would be a heathen and my children would be heathens."41 More than one former slave had reason to stand in the place of the biblical Joseph and say, "Men meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." The slavery they were delivered from was far worse than any they suffered in this country. Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts. Listen to a few examples: George Fleming of Laurens, South Carolina said: "I longed to see Marse Sam Fleming. Lawd, chile, dat's de best white man what ever breathed de good air. I still goes to see whar he buried every time I gits a chance to venture t'wards Laurens. As old as I is, I still draps a tear when I sees his grave, fer he sho' was good to me and all his other *******.........continued
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [
> 
> And, with this use of the word ******, it is important for us to remember the mutable nature of human language. What today constitutes a gross insult did not have the same connotations a century ago. Clara Davis of Alabama said this: Dem was de good ole days. How ! longs to be back dar wid my ole folks an' a playin' wid de chillun down by de creek. 'Taint nothin' lak it today, nawsuh.... Dey tells me dat when a pusson crosses dat ribber, de Lawd gives him whut he wants. I done tol' de Lawd I don't want nothin' much ... only my home, white folks. I don't think dats much to ax' for. I suppose he'll send me back dar. I been a-waitin' for him to call.  Adeline Johnson, Winnsboro, South Carolina: "I hope and prays to get to heaven. I'll be satisfied to see my Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preached about. I want to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them, and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time. That will be enough heaven for Adeline." There is a nobility to these old servants that humbles us: Nicey Pugh says, "I was born a slave but I ain't neber been one. I'se been a worker for good peoples. You wouldn't calls dat bein' a slave would you, white folks.
> 
> Conclusion........http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Documents/060175768QRAsouthern_slavery_as_it_was.pdf
Click to expand...


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Yeah the minute you started saying Slavery was godly and that slaves had it better off how they were I kinda shut you off kid.
> 
> 
> You can't say you are after truth and twist historical fact as much as you do.  You can't say you are after truth and try and white out and burn history.  You can't say you are after truth and create lies that COMPLETELY disagree with historical fact.  It's like hearing someone say they are boycotting McDonalds as they eat a Big Mac.  You really are that retarded with your beliefs.  But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, enjoy your nazi parties and all that I guess.
> 
> Spew your hate and lies, not into either of those things.



You have been well indoctrinated into political correctness and the myths associated with slavery and the evil of the South in general....try and read the whole article posted....it was difficult to post due to its length and might seem rather herky jerky the way it was posted...just click on the link provided and you can read it all in order.  As the article makes perfectly clear.....Slavery was sanctioned by the Holy Bible.....though the Southern Form was not perfect and differed from the form of Slavery sactioned by the Bible in some ways.
http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Documents/060175768QRAsouthern_slavery_as_it_was.pdf


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the minute you started saying Slavery was godly and that slaves had it better off how they were I kinda shut you off kid.
> 
> 
> You can't say you are after truth and twist historical fact as much as you do.  You can't say you are after truth and try and white out and burn history.  You can't say you are after truth and create lies that COMPLETELY disagree with historical fact.  It's like hearing someone say they are boycotting McDonalds as they eat a Big Mac.  You really are that retarded with your beliefs.  But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, enjoy your nazi parties and all that I guess.
> 
> Spew your hate and lies, not into either of those things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been well indoctrinated into political correctness and the myths associated with slavery and the evil of the South in general....try and read the whole article posted....it was difficult to post due to its length and might seem rather herky jerky the was it was posted...just click on the link provided and you can read it all in order.  As the article makes perfectly clear.....Slavery was sanctioned by the Holy Bible.....though the Southern Form was not perfect and differed from the form of Slavery sactioned by the Bible in some ways.
Click to expand...



Dude, you are claiming that slavery is good and not bad to the blacks.   Just stop.  You are an embarrasment to the human race.

You speak of "myths of the south" then try and erase written history, and rewrite your own story.   That says ALL YOU NEED TO SAY.  

And yes.  The old testament also said that we should ""Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear."  That doesn't mean your tassel-less jacket is ungodly does it?   

I am guessing the roof of your house doesn't have a battlement on it.  So you are an ungodly man correct?   Eating a cheeseburger is against God (can't mix milk and meat, all fat must be saved for God).

Wearing a cotton Poly blend T-shirt is ungodly (can't mix fabrics in clothing).  

But you don't want to follow any of those but the "hey, owning other human beings is what God wants".   Remind me, what church believes in that translation?   Oh that's right.  The KKK is the ONLY one.  Hmmm....

Come on.  Don't go full retard here.


----------



## Sundance508

You have no better understanding of religion than you do of American History...but I am not here to educate you personally...I merely post the truth for whoever may be interested.

*The Christian Scriptures and Slavery:*
Neither Jesus, nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Judea, Galilee, in the rest of the Roman Empire, and elsewhere during New Testament times. The practice continued in England, Canada and the rest of the English Empire until the early 19th century; it continued in the U.S. until later in the 19th century.

Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861:

"Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave."* 1*


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> You have no better understanding of religion than you do of American History...but I am not here to educate you personally...I merely post the truth for whoever may be interested.



Aww, is that how you respond to "I like these laws from the OT, but not those ones"???  You brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code.  I brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code.   But mine are obviously not ok, while your choice ones are. 

I am curious what church you follow.  

Your diversions though are pretty weak honestly.  You seemed to talk a lot earlier, but now you seem to clam up pretty quickly and give some sort of non-answer when confronted here.  

Kind of odd that every time I bring up a truth, you don't actually counter it either.  Just go off on another non-related rant.   You just try and divert the topic elsewhere and on to the next topic.  It's like nailing jello to the wall.


----------



## gipper

there4eyeM said:


> Perpetual Union.


Fuck that!


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.
> 
> Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful.  Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves  regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.
> 
> *….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war*
> 
> The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business
> 
> dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices  – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.
> 
> The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.
> 
> Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. *If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British.* Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
> 
> _Confederate Memorial Day 1910_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record shows that *even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery *(check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.
> 
> With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”
> 
> Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – *what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!*
> 
> Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.
> 
> How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”
> 
> The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.
> 
> *Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. *And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.
> 
> *When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! *When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. *The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.*
> 
> 
> The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.
> 
> *……See also*
> More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent
> 
> A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun statements.  I like rewriting history at times too.   This ones about as good as mine that the Civil War was about Abraham Lincoln creating Nuclear weapons.
> 
> Don't you find it interesting that in the reasons for secessions the states that seceded wrote NOT ONE mentioned these tariffs you speak of?  Maybe becase the tarriff law in place was written by a southern Senator (he became the VP of the confederacy)?    Hmmm, it would be like if the new tax law passes and in 100 years we get to hear how Republicans revolted in 2018 over the new tax laws.  It's that dumb of a theory.
> 
> They did mention slavery though.  Oh yeah, protecting that showed up everywhere.  Not just as a way for free labor, but as a God given right to the white man and the cornerstone of their rebellion.
> 
> As for the "Yankee invasion", ummm, remember Military bases are federal property, not state property.  You can even find the deed for Fort Sumter where it is ceded to the Government of the US.   And when the USA failed to hand it over it was bombed for 24 hours straight.   Cuba has asked us to give Guantanemo back plenty of times.  We've said no.  If they bombed our soldiers and Marines there for a day straight because of that I hope the US would defend it's assets and military lives as well.   Remember, the South seceded and took EVERYTHING they could from the US.   Ships that belonged to the federal Gov't.  Bases.  Mints.  Banks.  Money.  Just told them to stuff it.   Then attacked a US military installation for the first shots of the war.
> 
> Slavery did exist in slave states a long time.   Remember Northern states were taking action to ban slavery and ban the slave trade in their states DURING the American Revolution.   They went to the original Continental Congresses with ideas of a slave free US.   But Southern states would not join a Union without slavery, so in the best interests of a nation to defeat the British they gave in on that.
> 
> Just because most Germans, poor men, fought for their country rather than the 3rd Reichs dream of a superior race and world domination, doesn't mean Hitler was a good guy.  It doesn't mean his ideals were good ones.  Honestly it makes it even worse that he would send people to their deaths over them.  Same with the Confederacy.   I don't hate those that fought and died.   But those that sent them to war against the USA over the institution of slavery.  Fuck them.
> 
> 
> That's a nice study about the 5% of them.   Granted that seems to be completely the opposite of what the 1860 census showed us.  You know.   The actual facts of the time, rather than us deciding to throw them away and create new ones that suit our needs.
> 
> In 1860 the census found out what percent of families owned slaves.  35% of those in Alabama did for example.  49% in Mississippi.  46% in South Carolina. Now granted if dad owns a slave, I am sure you are breaking down the numbers that even though that slave works for the family, an 8 person family means only 12% of those in that house would have anything to do with a slave.  It's an easy and rather lazy way to bend the truth for your needs.
> 
> Again, you can rewrite this new version of history all you want.  The great thing about the history of the US is it is written down.  You can read the congressional meetings at state assemblies on the issue and see slavery was the defining reason they wanted out of the union.  You can identify the states rights they felt were being infringed upon.  Runaway slaves not being returned to slave states.  Slavery not being able to expand to new states.  States not having a right to re-open the slave trade.  Of course now we need to call those "states rights" since pro-slavery rights doesn't fit the new agenda we all like.
> 
> Kinda funny how you Lincoln said the war wasn't a war on slavery early on.   Remember, when the states were starting to secede and the war was starting, Washington DC was between two slave states.   Yeah he could have said it was a war on slavery.  And woken up the next day in the heart of the Confederacy and waved a white flag and surrendered the US.  He could have spoken tougher on slavery when he was giving his campaign speeches in slave states and his opponents were calling him a "black republican" and that he'd send the country to war over slavery, but that would have lost him votes.  Just like Trump says he is pro-immigrant and Hillary says she is pro-gun when campaigning in those area's that are for those things.
> 
> In the end, Lincolns acts were a war on slavery.   Immediately in office he free'd the slaves in the one place he could (Washington DC).  As soon as he wasn't under attack from the South, when he was having to be slipped out of Washington DC so they couldnt catch him, and they beat the rebels back, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Something most people call the most questionable use of presidential powers ever.  After the war many called him the dirtiest politician ever.  Bringing up exposing secrets and damning stories on other politicians if they wouldn't work to create that amendment to free all the slaves.  He is still the only president ever to sign an amendment, the one that free'd the slaves.   But yeah, even though his life was chock full of a battle against slavery.  Even though he was from the abolitionist party, he wasn't anti-slavery lol.   That'd be like in 150 years some guy trying to rewrite history that Trump wasn't anti-illegal immigrants.  That he was actually anti-2nd amendment.   It's literally that dumb of a statement.
> 
> I kinda had fun reading your re-write on US history there.  But you are going to need to break into the Library of Congress with a LOT of white out to remove the actual history that's written down to get that story you made up through.
> 
> Thanks for the fun fantasy though.
Click to expand...

The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war.  Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the minute you started saying Slavery was godly and that slaves had it better off how they were I kinda shut you off kid.
> 
> 
> You can't say you are after truth and twist historical fact as much as you do.  You can't say you are after truth and try and white out and burn history.  You can't say you are after truth and create lies that COMPLETELY disagree with historical fact.  It's like hearing someone say they are boycotting McDonalds as they eat a Big Mac.  You really are that retarded with your beliefs.  But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, enjoy your nazi parties and all that I guess.
> 
> Spew your hate and lies, not into either of those things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been well indoctrinated into political correctness and the myths associated with slavery and the evil of the South in general....try and read the whole article posted....it was difficult to post due to its length and might seem rather herky jerky the was it was posted...just click on the link provided and you can read it all in order.  As the article makes perfectly clear.....Slavery was sanctioned by the Holy Bible.....though the Southern Form was not perfect and differed from the form of Slavery sactioned by the Bible in some ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are claiming that slavery is good and not bad to the blacks.   Just stop.  You are an embarrasment to the human race.
> 
> You speak of "myths of the south" then try and erase written history, and rewrite your own story.   That says ALL YOU NEED TO SAY.
> 
> And yes.  The old testament also said that we should ""Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear."  That doesn't mean your tassel-less jacket is ungodly does it?
> 
> I am guessing the roof of your house doesn't have a battlement on it.  So you are an ungodly man correct?   Eating a cheeseburger is against God (can't mix milk and meat, all fat must be saved for God).
> 
> Wearing a cotton Poly blend T-shirt is ungodly (can't mix fabrics in clothing).
> 
> But you don't want to follow any of those but the "hey, owning other human beings is what God wants".   Remind me, what church believes in that translation?   Oh that's right.  The KKK is the ONLY one.  Hmmm....
> 
> Come on.  Don't go full retard here.
Click to expand...

Slavery should have been terminated at the Founding, but unfortunately Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others were slave owners.  

At any rate, Lincoln’s War was entirely unjustified, unconstitutional, and heinous. The mass murder of 850k Americans, destruction of half the nation, and decades of racist actions hardly makes the war worthwhile.  Lincoln was a tyrant, fool, and a dumbass statist like Jake.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war.  Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.



Actually they didn't.  They offered to buy some, but most bases, and ships and gold they just took.   

And Cuba has offered deals to get back Guantanemo.  We have said no.  If their answer was bombing our soldiers and marines there for a full day straight, I hope we would fight back too.  That's an act of war.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slavery should have been terminated at the Founding, but unfortunately Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others were slave owners.
> 
> At any rate, Lincoln’s War was entirely unjustified, unconstitutional, and heinous. The mass murder of 850k Americans, destruction of half the nation, and decades of racist actions hardly makes the war worthwhile.  Lincoln was a tyrant, fool, and a dumbass statist like Jake.



And that's how many want to re-write our history.  First of all the war was justified.  States were in rebellion and the Supreme court ruled that the secession was illegal.   ANd unless you want to rip up the Constitution of the US, the Supreme Court determines the "law of the land".  

Now who started it is easy.   South in their rebellion took over US bases, ships, ports, gold, and weapons.  Then they were also the first to attack, bombing a US military base for a 24 hour period.  

If California decided to leave the US, take some nuclear subs from the US, then bomb our troops and bases on US Federal property in California, I would hope we would fight back against those rebelling. 

But who needs facts, when we can just burn the books, white out what we don't want to read, and come up with a new narrative that makes us feel happier and warmer.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery should have been terminated at the Founding, but unfortunately Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others were slave owners.
> 
> At any rate, Lincoln’s War was entirely unjustified, unconstitutional, and heinous. The mass murder of 850k Americans, destruction of half the nation, and decades of racist actions hardly makes the war worthwhile.  Lincoln was a tyrant, fool, and a dumbass statist like Jake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's how many want to re-write our history.  First of all the war was justified.  States were in rebellion and the Supreme court ruled that the secession was illegal.   ANd unless you want to rip up the Constitution of the US, the Supreme Court determines the "law of the land".
> 
> Now who started it is easy.   South in their rebellion took over US bases, ships, ports, gold, and weapons.  Then they were also the first to attack, bombing a US military base for a 24 hour period.
> 
> If California decided to leave the US, take some nuclear subs from the US, then bomb our troops and bases on US Federal property in California, I would hope we would fight back against those rebelling.
> 
> But who needs facts, when we can just burn the books, white out what we don't want to read, and come up with a new narrative that makes us feel happier and warmer.
Click to expand...

The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree.  LMFAO. 

The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union.  How dumb is that?  His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me.  Like a crazy estranged husband. 

Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war.  As such, he was the aggressor.  While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS.  The exact definition of TREASON.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war.  Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they didn't.  They offered to buy some, but most bases, and ships and gold they just took.
> 
> And Cuba has offered deals to get back Guantanemo.  We have said no.  If their answer was bombing our soldiers and marines there for a full day straight, I hope we would fight back too.  That's an act of war.
Click to expand...

Fuck that!  War is always the health of the State, but statist like it.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war.  Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they didn't.  They offered to buy some, but most bases, and ships and gold they just took.
> 
> And Cuba has offered deals to get back Guantanemo.  We have said no.  If their answer was bombing our soldiers and marines there for a full day straight, I hope we would fight back too.  That's an act of war.
Click to expand...

Yes they did.  But your boy Dishonest Abe, said fuck off and DIE!

Statist suck.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no better understanding of religion than you do of American History...but I am not here to educate you personally...I merely post the truth for whoever may be interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, is that how you respond to "I like these laws from the OT, but not those ones"???  You brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code.  I brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code.   But mine are obviously not ok, while your choice ones are.
> 
> I am curious what church you follow.
> 
> Your diversions though are pretty weak honestly.  You seemed to talk a lot earlier, but now you seem to clam up pretty quickly and give some sort of non-answer when confronted here.
> 
> Kind of odd that every time I bring up a truth, you don't actually counter it either.  Just go off on another non-related rant.   You just try and divert the topic elsewhere and on to the next topic.  It's like nailing jello to the wall.
Click to expand...


"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America (Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.)


----------



## Sundance508

Demolishing the Lincoln Myth:  

'Lincoln mythology is the ideological cornerstone of American statism. He was in reality the most hated of all American presidents during his lifetime according to an excellent book by historian Larry Tagg entitled The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America’s Most Reviled President. He was so hated in the North that the New York Times editorialized a wish that he would be assassinated. This is perfectly understandable: He illegally suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without due process; shut down over 300 opposition newspapers; committed treason by invading the Southern states (Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as “only levying war upon the states” or “giving aid and comfort to their enemies,” which of course is exactly what Lincoln did). He enforced military conscription with the murder of hundreds of New York City draft protesters in 1863 and with the mass execution of deserters from his army. He deported a congressional critic (Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio); confiscated firearms; and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice when the jurist issued an opinion that only Congress could legally suspend Habeas Corpus. He waged an unnecessary war (all other countries ended slavery peacefully in that century) that resulted in the death of as many as 850,000 Americans according to new research published in the last two years. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be similar to 8.5 million American deaths in a four-year war'.



“Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom . . . are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him . . . with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”

–Lerone Bennett, Jr., _Forced into Glory_, p. 114


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree.  LMFAO.
> 
> The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union.  How dumb is that?  His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me.  Like a crazy estranged husband.
> 
> Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war.  As such, he was the aggressor.  While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS.  The exact definition of TREASON.



There is ONE way to make the war unconstitutional.  That's to go and find the US Constitution and take a big container of white out.  And white out Article 3.   

That's the ONLY way.  You literally have to destroy the US Constitution to make the war unconstitutional.   

That's what these Neo-revisionists want.  Burn the books, tell a new story.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature.n
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
Click to expand...


I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.

Just like you.

Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago. 

Just like you applaud slavery.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Demolishing the Lincoln Myth:  r.



Considering that in your OP you quote an enthusiastic Slaver and the VP of the Confederate states as part of your propaganda series- really this is just more of your pro slavery, pro-racism propaganda.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree.  LMFAO.
> 
> The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union.  How dumb is that?  His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me.  Like a crazy estranged husband.
> 
> Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war.  As such, he was the aggressor.  While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS.  The exact definition of TREASON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE way to make the war unconstitutional.  That's to go and find the US Constitution and take a big container of white out.  And white out Article 3.
> 
> That's the ONLY way.  You literally have to destroy the US Constitution to make the war unconstitutional.
> 
> That's what these Neo-revisionists want.  Burn the books, tell a new story.
Click to expand...

No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America (Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.)




The ONLY mention of slavery in the New Testament.  When Paul tells Philemon to treat a slave, not as a slave but a brother in Christ.  That's the only one.   So whatever bible you are reading.... not a bible.  

Again, you pick and choose which OT laws you want to follow.  The definition of a hypocrite.   

Again, what denomination are you?


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.



Again, the Supreme court heard a case on that and ruled that the secessions that led to the Civil war were in fact illegal.  The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution of the US to be the law of the land.   

The only way you are able to say secession was Constitutional, is to burn the Constitution.


----------



## Slash

When states were in rebellion and attacking US bases, Lincoln fought the rebellion.  Exactly as his powers allowed him to.   

The only way to believe he was being treasonous against the US... is to destroy the US Constitution.  

That's the issue with those nazi fucks.  They want to destroy the constitution of the US so they can re-write this new Nazi history of theirs.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree.  LMFAO.
> 
> The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union.  How dumb is that?  His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me.  Like a crazy estranged husband.
> 
> Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war.  As such, he was the aggressor.  While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS.  The exact definition of TREASON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE way to make the war unconstitutional.  That's to go and find the US Constitution and take a big container of white out.  And white out Article 3.
> 
> That's the ONLY way.  You literally have to destroy the US Constitution to make the war unconstitutional.
> 
> That's what these Neo-revisionists want.  Burn the books, tell a new story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.
Click to expand...


Poor little snowflake.


----------



## Syriusly

Slash said:


> When states were in rebellion and attacking US bases, Lincoln fought the rebellion.  Exactly as his powers allowed him to.
> 
> The only way to believe he was being treasonous against the US... is to destroy the US Constitution.
> 
> That's the issue with those nazi fucks.  They want to destroy the constitution of the US so they can re-write this new Nazi history of theirs.



Yep. 

They revolted in order to protect their imagined threat against their 'right to own humans'- and the Confederate fanboys celebrate their revolt to continue to own slaves.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Supreme court heard a case on that and ruled that the secessions that led to the Civil war were in fact illegal.  The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution of the US to be the law of the land.
> 
> The only way you are able to say secession was Constitutional, is to burn the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Go to the bill of rights and check out the 10th amendment and decide for your self. Loosely quoted I believe it states that any powers not specifically given to the Federal government reside in the state government. 

That means that if it ain't covered in the constitution (secession was not) then the states can decide to do exactly what they did.

So yes they had the right to secede because it was not forbidden by the government and the war was unjustly prosecuted by the North as a result.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Go to the bill of rights and check out the 10th amendment and decide for your self. Loosely quoted I believe it states that any powers not specifically given to the Federal government reside in the state government.
> 
> That means that if it ain't covered in the constitution (secession was not) then the states can decide to do exactly what they did.
> 
> So yes they had the right to secede because it was not forbidden by the government and the war was unjustly prosecuted by the North as a result.



Yes it does say that.  And the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution said that the secession that preceded the civil war was not allowed in the Constitution.  

So therefore the 10th amendment doesn't apply.  

That's the law of the land, the Constitution gave the Supreme court the power to make that decision.  

Only way to take that power away... burn the US Constitution.


----------



## gipper

The statist wants to use FORCE to make sure you are controlled. They will murder you to keep you, like a murderous estranged husband.  They are proud of this.  CRAZY.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Supreme court heard a case on that and ruled that the secessions that led to the Civil war were in fact illegal.  The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution of the US to be the law of the land.
> 
> The only way you are able to say secession was Constitutional, is to burn the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Damn that is dumb , but sadly you don’t know why. 

Statists ugh!


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Damn that is dumb , but sadly you don’t know why.
> 
> Statists ugh!



Funny part is your argument.  Your only way to make it Constitutional... is to rip up the Constitution.   You are in a catch 22 there aren't ya?


----------



## Sundance508

The text of the 10th Amendment is: 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Comment: _The Tenth Amendment restates a fundamental constitutional rule: If a particular power was not assigned to the federal government by the Constitution itself, then the states may exercise the power, unless the Constitution also prohibits the states from exercising it. The Tenth Amendment also states that people are free to act, without permission of the federal government, in areas outside the scope of the federal government's powers._ It is actually the 11th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn that is dumb , but sadly you don’t know why.
> 
> Statists ugh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny part is your argument.  Your only way to make it Constitutional... is to rip up the Constitution.   You are in a catch 22 there aren't ya?
Click to expand...

It is clear to those who have studied it, secession was always believed to be a state’s right before your beloved Lincoln killed the states.  It is funny how you statists think the Union is perpetual and will murder those who wish to leave in peace.  Nothing is perpetual.


----------



## MaryL

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.


The south were traitors. They were rebels. The very thing America was founded on. Accept they were about protecting slavery, that's the issue that tears at our souls  even now. Lincoln didn't like blacks, I think he knew that was a flaw as well as the rest of us. Too bad the secessionists didn't grasp that basic fact.


----------



## gipper

Sundance508 said:


> Demolishing the Lincoln Myth:
> 
> 'Lincoln mythology is the ideological cornerstone of American statism. He was in reality the most hated of all American presidents during his lifetime according to an excellent book by historian Larry Tagg entitled The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America’s Most Reviled President. He was so hated in the North that the New York Times editorialized a wish that he would be assassinated. This is perfectly understandable: He illegally suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without due process; shut down over 300 opposition newspapers; committed treason by invading the Southern states (Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as “only levying war upon the states” or “giving aid and comfort to their enemies,” which of course is exactly what Lincoln did). He enforced military conscription with the murder of hundreds of New York City draft protesters in 1863 and with the mass execution of deserters from his army. He deported a congressional critic (Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio); confiscated firearms; and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice when the jurist issued an opinion that only Congress could legally suspend Habeas Corpus. He waged an unnecessary war (all other countries ended slavery peacefully in that century) that resulted in the death of as many as 850,000 Americans according to new research published in the last two years. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be similar to 8.5 million American deaths in a four-year war'.
> 
> 
> 
> “Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom . . . are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him . . . with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”
> 
> –Lerone Bennett, Jr., _Forced into Glory_, p. 114


So true, but statists like to kill to keep the state in power.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America (Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY mention of slavery in the New Testament.  When Paul tells Philemon to treat a slave, not as a slave but a brother in Christ.  That's the only one.   So whatever bible you are reading.... not a bible.
> 
> Again, you pick and choose which OT laws you want to follow.  The definition of a hypocrite.
> 
> Again, what denomination are you?
Click to expand...


Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Peter 2:18 (NIV)

*Biblical Underpinning for Slavery*
For many centuries slavery was perfectly acceptable to Christians. Christians had no doubt that it was divinely sanctioned, and they used a number of Old and New Testament quotations to prove their case. Looking at the relevant passages it is clear that the Bible does indeed endorse slavery. In the Old Testament God approved the practice and laid down rules for buyers and sellers (Exodus 21:1-11, Leviticus 25:44). Men are at liberty to sell their own daughters (Exodus 21:7). Slaves can be inherited (Leviticus 25:45-6). It is acceptable to beat slaves, since they are property — a master who beats his slave to death is not to be punished as long as the slave stays alive for a day or two, as the loss of the master's property is punishment enough:

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-211







If a slave is gored by a bull, it is the master, not the slave, who is to be compensated (Exodus 21:32). Time and time again the Old Testament confirms that slaves are property and their lives are of little consequence. To prove the strength of Job's faith, God sends Satan to test him by visiting disasters upon him. Amongst these disasters is the killing of Job's numerous slaves (Job 1). Neither God, nor Satan, nor the story's narrator finds it at all odd that people should be killed just to prove a point: they are only Job's property and their destruction is naturally bracketed with the loss of his livestock and vineyards.

The New Testament also regards slavery as acceptable. It instructs slaves to accept their position with humility (Ephesians 6:5-8) and to please their masters in everything (Titus 2:9, cf. Colossians 3:22). They are commanded to serve Christian slave owners better than other masters (1 Timothy 6:1-2) "so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed". Even oppressive masters are to be obeyed according to 1 Peter 2:18. Jesus himself mentioned slavery more than once according to the New Testament, but never with the slightest hint of criticism of it. He even glorified the master-slave relationship as a model of the relationship between God and humankind (Matthew 18:23ff and 25:14ff). Christians naturally interpreted this as not merely acceptance, but approval. If Jesus had opposed slavery he would have said so. .


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> The south were traitors. They were rebels. The very thing America was founded on. Accept they were about protecting slavery, that's the issue that tears at our souls  even now. Lincoln didn't like blacks, I think he knew that was a flaw as well as the rest of us. Too bad the secessionists didn't grasp that basic fact.
Click to expand...

Slavery was wrong and terrible.

Funny... but nearly every nation abolished it without bloodshed but one.  You can thank Dishonest Abe for that.

850k dead Americans, half the nation in ruins, and lead to decades of racial strife.  Was it worth it when you consider the federal government could have ended slavery for much less peacefully?


----------



## Sundance508

I am getting a little tired of having to explain everything to you....study up....do some research and then get back with us.  This board is in dire need of a better brand of liberal.


----------



## MaryL

Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> The text of the 10th Amendment is:
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Comment: _The Tenth Amendment restates a fundamental constitutional rule: If a particular power was not assigned to the federal government by the Constitution itself, then the states may exercise the power, unless the Constitution also prohibits the states from exercising it. The Tenth Amendment also states that people are free to act, without permission of the federal government, in areas outside the scope of the federal government's powers._ It is actually the 11th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



And again, the Supreme Court said that the Constitution made secession illegal.  Therefore secession was not a power given to the states.  Therefore the 10th amendment had no bearing.  

For someone who pretends to know history, you seem pretty weak on the subject.  Bet ya know the FUCK out of that 1940's german history though huh?


----------



## MaryL

Forgive me, what WAS the Confederates states of America created for, and what were they protecting? Let's clarify this issue one and for all.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slavery was wrong and terrible.
> 
> Funny... but nearly every nation abolished it without bloodshed but one.  You can thank Dishonest Abe for that.
> 
> 850k dead Americans, half the nation in ruins, and lead to decades of racial strife.  Was it worth it when you consider the federal government could have ended slavery for much less peacefully?



Actually only one country was attempted to be formed in the history of the world based on their desire to practice and spread slavery.   

And yes. I think it was worth it.  Wish the South hadn't felt slavery was that worth protecting, but they did.   Might have ended peacefully but who knows how many generations later.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> I am getting a little tired of having to explain everything to you....study up....do some research and then get back with us.  This board is in dire need of a better brand of liberal.



Actually I am a conservative.  Just one who opposes slavery and those white nationalist nazi twats.


----------



## Sundance508

gipper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> The south were traitors. They were rebels. The very thing America was founded on. Accept they were about protecting slavery, that's the issue that tears at our souls  even now. Lincoln didn't like blacks, I think he knew that was a flaw as well as the rest of us. Too bad the secessionists didn't grasp that basic fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was wrong and terrible.
> 
> Funny... but nearly every nation abolished it without bloodshed but one.  You can thank Dishonest Abe for that.
> 
> 850k dead Americans, half the nation in ruins, and lead to decades of racial strife.  Was it worth it when you consider the federal government could have ended slavery for much less peacefully?
Click to expand...


Slavery is not the great evil that liberals would have us believe...other wise the Holy Scriptures would have condemned it.

Every advanced civilization must have 'servants' which is how Southerners referred to their Negroes....The Federal Government in stages took away the nations traditional servant class....the Negroes....and then hypocritically replaced them with illegal mexicans...who come up here(who can begrudge them) to work in conditions of servitude...with no rights...even working for less than the minimum wage...the old system of servitude was better for the Negroes--there were many jobs back then for them ......but now they have an outrageous level of unemployment...especially the younger ones who usually have rap sheets longer than their arms by the time they are passed through High School.  That is the kind of results liberal do gooders produce.


----------



## Slash

You see.   Once the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution is what made the secession illegal, the 10th amendment no longer mattered.   Because that ONLY comes into play if the Constitution doesn't answer the question if slavery is legal or not.   

It did.  According to the Supreme Court, which the Constitution says is the law of the land.   So unless you revoke the Supreme Courts power (by destroying the Constitution) you are stuck with that.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Slavery is not the great evil that liberals would have us believe...other wise the Holy Scriptures would have condemned it.
> 
> Every advanced civilization must have 'servants' which is how Southerners referred to their Negroes....The Federal Government in stages took away the nations traditional servant class....the Negroes....and then hypocritically replaced them with illegal mexicans...who come up here(who can begrudge them) to work in conditions of servitude...with no rights...even working for less than the minimum wage...the old system of servitude was better for the Negroes--there were many jobs back then for them ......but now they have an outrageous level of unemployment...especially the younger ones who usually have rap sheets longer than their arms by the time they are passed through High School.  That is the kind of results liberal do gooders produce.



No, southerners didn't refer to their slaves as "servants".   Not one article of secession mentioned them as anything but slaves.  Servants would mean they were people.  

QUIT TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY TO TELL A NEW STORY YOU LIKE.  

And yes.  Slavery is bad.  Nazi and KKK logic is retarded.  Stop being retarded.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> You see.   Once the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution is what made the secession illegal, the 10th amendment no longer mattered.   Because that ONLY comes into play if the Constitution doesn't answer the question if slavery is legal or not.
> 
> It did.  According to the Supreme Court, which the Constitution says is the law of the land.   So unless you revoke the Supreme Courts power (by destroying the Constitution) you are stuck with that.


Look up the definition of treason in the constitution.  You will find Lincoln there.


----------



## MaryL

Sundance508 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> The south were traitors. They were rebels. The very thing America was founded on. Accept they were about protecting slavery, that's the issue that tears at our souls  even now. Lincoln didn't like blacks, I think he knew that was a flaw as well as the rest of us. Too bad the secessionists didn't grasp that basic fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was wrong and terrible.
> 
> Funny... but nearly every nation abolished it without bloodshed but one.  You can thank Dishonest Abe for that.
> 
> 850k dead Americans, half the nation in ruins, and lead to decades of racial strife.  Was it worth it when you consider the federal government could have ended slavery for much less peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery is not the great evil that liberals would have us believe...other wise the Holy Scriptures would have condemned it.
> 
> Every advanced civilization must have 'servants' which is how Southerners referred to their Negroes....The Federal Government in stages took away the nations traditional servant class....the Negroes....and then hypocritically replaced them with illegal mexicans...who come up here(who can begrudge them) to work in conditions of servitude...with no rights...even working for less than the minimum wage...the old system of servitude was better for the Negroes--there were many jobs back then for them ......but now they have an outrageous level of unemployment...especially the younger ones who usually have rap sheets longer than their arms by the time they are passed through High School.  That is the kind of results liberal do gooders produce.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? I am thinking we have illegal aliens from Mexico  rich whites use and excuse, but that's another issue. Or is it? We need to stop excusing exploiting  people. Slavery or neoslavery. But  if people can get away with anything, that excuses them . Seems to be the common consensus.


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> The south were traitors. They were rebels. The very thing America was founded on. Accept they were about protecting slavery, that's the issue that tears at our souls  even now. Lincoln didn't like blacks, I think he knew that was a flaw as well as the rest of us. Too bad the secessionists didn't grasp that basic fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was wrong and terrible.
> 
> Funny... but nearly every nation abolished it without bloodshed but one.  You can thank Dishonest Abe for that.
> 
> 850k dead Americans, half the nation in ruins, and lead to decades of racial strife.  Was it worth it when you consider the federal government could have ended slavery for much less peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery is not the great evil that liberals would have us believe...other wise the Holy Scriptures would have condemned it.
> 
> Every advanced civilization must have 'servants' which is how Southerners referred to their Negroes....The Federal Government in stages took away the nations traditional servant class....the Negroes....and then hypocritically replaced them with illegal mexicans...who come up here(who can begrudge them) to work in conditions of servitude...with no rights...even working for less than the minimum wage...the old system of servitude was better for the Negroes--there were many jobs back then for them ......but now they have an outrageous level of unemployment...especially the younger ones who usually have rap sheets longer than their arms by the time they are passed through High School.  That is the kind of results liberal do gooders produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me? I am thinking we have illegal aliens from Mexico  rich whites use and excuse, but that's another issue. Or is it? We need to stop excusing exploiting  people. Slavery or neoslavery.
Click to expand...

No one excuses slavery.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Look up the definition of treason in the constitution.  You will find Lincoln there.



There he was actually.  When General Lee, a US Citizen in rebellion marched his army on Washington DC and told the president of the USA to surrender himself.  

That's treason.   Thanks for playing!


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> No one excuses slavery.



There's the occasional scumbat that thinks that slavery is not the great evil that liberals would have us believe


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one excuses slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of people that think that "Slavery is not the great evil that liberals would have us believe"
Click to expand...



Certainly not and I presented the evidence that for the most part it was a very humane life for the Negro Servants down South....when they arrived in America(they were truly fortunate)the were little more than savages from the jungles of Africa...certainly not civilized....Plantation life civilized them...taught them to wear clothes etc.etc.  and many of them became good Christians under the tutelage of their Mastah............it was quite an idyllic life...especially compared to the horrors of Africa of which they were mercifully spared.  Riving to ripe old ages...had excellent food, good clothes and shelter....the mastah took very good care of his servants..because they were exceedingly valuable...it was a peaceful symbiotic relationship...each dependent on the other.  That is why so many former slaves spoke of that bygone era with much nostalgia.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up the definition of treason in the constitution.  You will find Lincoln there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he was actually.  When General Lee, a US Citizen in rebellion marched his army on Washington DC and told the president of the USA to surrender himself.
> 
> That's treason.   Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...

Funny but that never happened.


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> Excuse me? I am thinking we have illegal aliens from Mexico  rich whites use and excuse, but that's another issue. Or is it? We need to stop excusing exploiting  people. Slavery or neoslavery. But  if people can get away with anything, that excuses them . Seems to be the common consensus.




Yeah theres a BIG difference between illegals wanting to come work in the US, and slaves who were property.  Those that try to muddle that image... who can't see that owning someone in perpetuity is one of the worst things that can be done to a person are just wrong.  

Remind me what happens if an illegal working in the US wants to go home to his family in Mexico.   Do we try to catch and mutilate him for that?  publicly beat him in front of the others so they can see what happens?  Maybe take his children and sell them to another farmer across the state as punishment?   nope.   He's FREE to leave.   That's the difference.   If you have that FREEDOM, you can't be a slave.  

Next think we will be saying our soldiers are slaves.  I mean once signed up they can't leave for years.  Their pay is below minimum wage at the start.


----------



## MaryL

Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me? I am thinking we have illegal aliens from Mexico  rich whites use and excuse, but that's another issue. Or is it? We need to stop excusing exploiting  people. Slavery or neoslavery. But  if people can get away with anything, that excuses them . Seems to be the common consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah theres a BIG difference between illegals wanting to come work in the US, and slaves who were property.  Those that try to muddle that image... who can't see that owning someone in perpetuity is one of the worst things that can be done to a person are just wrong.
> 
> Remind me what happens if an illegal working in the US wants to go home to his family in Mexico.   Do we try to catch and mutilate him for that?  publicly beat him in front of the others so they can see what happens?  Maybe take his children and sell them to another farmer across the state as punishment?   nope.   He's FREE to leave.   That's the difference.   If you have that FREEDOM, you can't be a slave.
> 
> Next think we will be saying our soldiers are slaves.  I mean once signed up they can't leave for years.  Their pay is below minimum wage at the start.
Click to expand...

 I am not so sure, Illegals willingly violate immigration laws and people that exploit them use that to lord over them for profit at the expense of local workers.  And they  cynically pretend this is a humanitarian issue. And this corrupts local communities   for the benefit of rich employers that live far away from any of this. That has got to stop.


----------



## Sundance508

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up the definition of treason in the constitution.  You will find Lincoln there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he was actually.  When General Lee, a US Citizen in rebellion marched his army on Washington DC and told the president of the USA to surrender himself.
> 
> That's treason.   Thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny but that never happened.
Click to expand...


The negro servants down south had a very happy life until the yankee do gooders came meddling and all that was then gone with the wind....so sad.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Funny but that never happened.



Yup, lets burn that history too huh?  Remind me what General Jubal said he told the Union.  Hand him over and we won't attack...   Of course the USA wasn't going to.   But I believe that war that Lee's armies waged against the US came so close to killing our President that a guy standing next to him was hit.


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> I am not so sure, Illegals willingly violate immigration laws and people that exploit them use that to lord over them for profit at the expense of local workers.  And they  cynically pretend this is a humanitarian issue. And this corrupts local communities   for the benefit of rich employers that live far away from any of this. That has got to stop.



I fully agree they aren't treated the best.  Better than in their own country, but not great.   But to say that that in ANY way is similar to slavery is just a joke.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> The negro servants down south had a very happy life until the yankee do gooders came meddling and all that was then gone with the wind....so sad.



Wow you are a special kind of broken.   Go castrate yourself and let me know what that "very happy life" feels like ok?  

Give up on your "it was unconstitutional" revision to history yet?


----------



## Sundance508

Typical Servant quarters down South before the Civil War...........compare that to sleeping under a tree or in a grass hut in Africa.


----------



## MaryL

Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not so sure, Illegals willingly violate immigration laws and people that exploit them use that to lord over them for profit at the expense of local workers.  And they  cynically pretend this is a humanitarian issue. And this corrupts local communities   for the benefit of rich employers that live far away from any of this. That has got to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree they aren't treated the best.  Better than in their own country, but not great.   But to say that that in ANY way is similar to slavery is just a joke.
Click to expand...

Well, it's the best rationale these rich elitists  can do under the circumstances. Please, don't be naive. Why  do you think defending open immigration and sanctuary cities has become a "thing"? human rights/ or a cynical ploy to exploit a situation for profit?


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Typical Servant quarters down South before the Civil War...........compare that to sleeping under a tree or in a grass hut in Africa.



What happened if you left there and walked away?  What happened if they sold your wife to someone else and you left to meet her?  

Dude.  Slavery is evil.   get that through your white supremacist brain.  

That's why NO ONE is lining up to be a slave.   How about this.  I've got a really nice guest room.  Care to be a slave in perpetuity?   Oh wait... nah its kinda shitty.


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> [
> Well, it's the best rationale these rich elitists  can do under the circumstances. Please, don't be naive. Why  do you think defending open immigration and sanctuary cities has become a "thing"? human rights/ or a cynical ploy to exploit a situation for profit?



Of course it's for a profit.  Everyone gets paid less than what they are worth but enough to keep them coming back.   For some that number is less than others.  

The funny thing is that the best way to end it would be to put up massive fines on those who hire illegals.  But the issue is that Democrats don't want to kick them out, and Republicans don't want to target their voters (the farmers).  

But comparing illegal immigration vs. chattell slavery in perpetuity is not anywhere close.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Servant quarters down South before the Civil War...........compare that to sleeping under a tree or in a grass hut in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened if you left there and walked away?  What happened if they sold your wife to someone else and you left to meet her?
> 
> Dude.  Slavery is evil.   get that through your white supremacist brain.
> 
> That's why NO ONE is lining up to be a slave.   How about this.  I've got a really nice guest room.  Care to be a slave in perpetuity?   Oh wait... nah its kinda shitty.
Click to expand...


You have watched too many hollywood movies.....now for a dose of reality.........

*"A Very Valuable Man"*




_Former slave from coastal Georgia making a fishing net, early twentieth century_
(Collection of the Georgia Historical Society)





*My father was a carpenter and old massa let him have lumber and he made he own furniture out of dressed lumber and make a box to put clothes in. And he used to make spinning wheels and parts of looms. He was a very valuable man.

-- Carey Davenport, former slave from Walker County, Texas*
Slaves had many noteworthy skills and talents which made plantations economically self-sufficient. The services of slave blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, shoemakers, tanners, spinners, weavers and other artisans were all used to keep plantations running smoothly, efficiently, and with little added expense to the owners. These same abilities were also used to improve conditions in the quarters so that slaves developed not only a spirit of self-reliance but experienced a measure of autonomy. These skills, when added to other talents for cooking, quilting, weaving, medicine, music, song, dance, and storytelling, instilled in slaves the sense that, as a group, they were not only competent but gifted.  They saw themselves  as strong, valuable people that the mastah depended on and indeed he did and it makes no sense to think he would mistreat such valuable property.  

 Indeed, the Negroes  found through their artistry much happiness, particularly by telling tales which portrayed work in humorous terms or when singing songs and dancing at wedding...quite festive on the Plantation when a loyal servant got married.


----------



## MaryL

Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Well, it's the best rationale these rich elitists  can do under the circumstances. Please, don't be naive. Why  do you think defending open immigration and sanctuary cities has become a "thing"? human rights/ or a cynical ploy to exploit a situation for profit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's for a profit.  Everyone gets paid less than what they are worth but enough to keep them coming back.   For some that number is less than others.
> 
> The funny thing is that the best way to end it would be to put up massive fines on those who hire illegals.  But the issue is that Democrats don't want to kick them out, and Republicans don't want to target their voters (the farmers).
> 
> But comparing illegal immigration vs. chattell slavery in perpetuity is not anywhere close.
Click to expand...

I agree that we need to scrutinize the roots of our cheap labor, not excuse them . Minimize them or overlook them. As far as chattel goes, isn't that what this all about? We can't have slaves, so we exploit illegals instead because it's all so humanitarian. What would  Lincoln say about THAT? Slavery by another name is just as vile.


----------



## Slash

Remind me.  How many people in the US are asking to be slaves?   0 you say?   Yeah sounds like it was just great.  

Oooh Carey Davenport.  His stories are written down in the book "Dem Days was Hell". 

he said in there "I'd say old master treated us slaves bad" 

"I seen 'em beat—O, Lawd, yes. I seen 'em make a man put his head through the crack of the rail fence and then they beat him till he was bloody. They give some of 'em 300 or 400 licks.

"My father told us when freedom come. He'd been a free man, 'cause he was bodyguard to the old, old master and when he died he give my father he freedom. That was over in Richmond, Virginia. But young master steal him into slavery again. *So he was glad when freedom come and he was free again. "*
*
Yeah, this is the guy you are quoting for how good slavery was.  SMH*


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> I agree that we need to scrutinize the roots of our cheap labor, not excuse them . Minimize them or overlook them. As far as chattel goes, isn't that what this all about? We can't have slaves, so we exploit illegals instead because it's all so humanitarian. What would  Lincoln say about THAT? Slavery by another name is just as vile.



True but a comparison of illegals working for a living wage as free men and chattell slavery truly minimizes owning humans because of the color of their skin.  I've known a few illegals working on farms out here in Kansas.   They would much rather be here, they are sending money home, building their retirement, which is something they couldn't afford to do at home.  I think it's about 70 billion that they send home beyond their living wage here in the US.  

So it's hard for me to say that someone escaping into a new country to find a better life for them and their family is in any way similar to being sold into working in perpetuity for nothing and possibly having your family sold off to someone else and never seeing them again.  

It's not slavery by another name.  It's something completely different.  Still wrong absolutely. But I do think it minimizes chattell slavery to pretend it's the same thing by another name.  Kinda like when a woman says 'he was raping me with his eyes".   No... rape is a completely different thing.


----------



## Sundance508

MaryL said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Well, it's the best rationale these rich elitists  can do under the circumstances. Please, don't be naive. Why  do you think defending open immigration and sanctuary cities has become a "thing"? human rights/ or a cynical ploy to exploit a situation for profit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's for a profit.  Everyone gets paid less than what they are worth but enough to keep them coming back.   For some that number is less than others.
> 
> The funny thing is that the best way to end it would be to put up massive fines on those who hire illegals.  But the issue is that Democrats don't want to kick them out, and Republicans don't want to target their voters (the farmers).
> 
> But comparing illegal immigration vs. chattell slavery in perpetuity is not anywhere close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that we need to scrutinize the roots of our cheap labor, not excuse them . Minimize them or overlook them. As far as chattel goes, isn't that what this all about? We can't have slaves, so we exploit illegals instead because it's all so humanitarian. What would  Lincoln say about THAT? Slavery by another name is just as vile.
Click to expand...


Actually much worse......Negro Servants on plantations led a very good life....they had everything they needed and for the most part were treated with kindness which only makes sense ....they were very valuable to the mastah....his plantation depended on them for its existence...he understood that very well....so he took good care of his servants...a happy servant works much better than a un-happy one.....the Plantation owner understood all of that very well.

Since political correctness became dominant in America...Hollywood and the media have distorted and demonized the truth about Southern Slavery....very humane and civilized for the most part.  That is why so many former slaves grew very nostalgic about their former lives on the plantation.

By C. W. HARPER



 Domestic Servants on the Antebellum Plantation  Most Plantation Servants in the antebellum South labored in the fields.  Throughout the agricultural year they were busy, planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crops of the South. Winter labor was less intensive and much time was spent around their fireplaces roasting peanuts and telling stories...... In the winter time they killed hogs and prepared the meat, cut firewood etc. Life was good...they married, had children and lived to ripe old ages...many were still alive during the depression years in the thirties and writers hired by the wpa went down South to record their stories. (The Slave Narratives)

The second and most favored class of slaves on the antebellum plantation were the domestic servants, comprising those slaves who worked in and around the "Big House," i.e., nurses, cooks, body servants, butlers, chambermaids, coachmen, and those artisans who lived in close contact with the white owner and family. Domestic servants were "more sprightly, better clad, more intelligent,used better language,... and in a dozen ways show their superiority to the field hands.  Henry Bibb, who spent years as a slave, revealed that "the distinction among slaves is as marked as the classes of society are in any aristocratic community; some refusing to associate with others whom they deem beneath them in point of character, color, condition, or the superior importance of their respective masters."Joseph H. Ingraham, The Sunny South: or The Southerner at Home (Philadelphia: C.G. Evans, 1860), p. 35; Alex MacKay, The Western World: or Travels in the United States in 1846-1847

Picture of a black mammy nursing in the big house.........


----------



## MaryL

Slavery was evil. Yep. But hiring illegal aliens is OK. I have heard all the excuses,  poor whites are trash and deserve to be dispossessed.  So say those few  rich white uber  elitists that think this is a  game of chess that they deserve to win because they are so smart.


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> Slavery was evil. Yep. But hiring illegal aliens is OK. I have heard all the excuses,  poor whites are trash and deserve to be dispossessed.  So say those few  rich white uber  elitists that think this is a  game of chess that they deserve to win because they are so smart.



Nope.  I said illegal immigrant hiring was bad.   But not nearly as bad as slavery and in no way is that the same thing.  

Just because I say slapping a woman isn't as bad as taking a person's life, doesn't mean I don't hate wifebeaters.


----------



## Sundance508

MaryL said:


> Slavery was evil. Yep. But hiring illegal aliens is OK. I have heard all the excuses,  poor whites are trash and deserve to be dispossessed.  So say those few  rich white uber  elitists that think this is a  game of chess that they deserve to win because they are so smart.



Certainly not....that was just yankee propaganda......for the most part it was very humane and the black servants were protected and treated very kindly by their mastah...only logical...they needed each other....the mastahs well being and wealth were dependent on his servants....what kind of man would mistreat valuable property?  Only someone insane...but hollywood would have you believe otherwise....such stupidity the politically correct propagate but naive folks have lapped it up....try and use your noggin for something other than to place your hat on.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Remind me.  How many people in the US are asking to be slaves?   0 you say?   Yeah sounds like it was just great.
> 
> Oooh Carey Davenport.  His stories are written down in the book "Dem Days was Hell".
> 
> he said in there "I'd say old master treated us slaves bad"
> 
> "I seen 'em beat—O, Lawd, yes. I seen 'em make a man put his head through the crack of the rail fence and then they beat him till he was bloody. They give some of 'em 300 or 400 licks.
> 
> "My father told us when freedom come. He'd been a free man, 'cause he was bodyguard to the old, old master and when he died he give my father he freedom. That was over in Richmond, Virginia. But young master steal him into slavery again. *So he was glad when freedom come and he was free again. "
> 
> Yeah, this is the guy you are quoting for how good slavery was.  SMH*



He just made that crap up to get in tight with the yankees.  Plantation owners understood very well....that the plantation was dependent on his black servants...and he also knew very well how valuable they were.....no sensible man...especially no businessman would mistreat valuable property....and the Plantation owners understood business very well....you and your ilk are very gullible and have bought the pc nonsense.  Pathetic.


----------



## MaryL

Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was evil. Yep. But hiring illegal aliens is OK. I have heard all the excuses,  poor whites are trash and deserve to be dispossessed.  So say those few  rich white uber  elitists that think this is a  game of chess that they deserve to win because they are so smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I said illegal immigrant hiring was bad.   But not nearly as bad as slavery and in no way is that the same thing.
> 
> Just because I say slapping a woman isn't as bad as taking a person's life, doesn't mean I don't hate wifebeaters.
Click to expand...

Slavery was bad, now we just  repackage  exploiting people and  minimize it and call it something else. Yeah, "diversity and multiculturalism" . Well, it's not so much from my perspective. It's all just excuses.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Domestic Servants on the Antebellum Plantation  Most Plantation Servants in the antebellum South labored in the fields.  Throughout the agricultural year they were busy, planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crops of the South. Winter labor was less intensive and much time was spent around their fireplaces roasting peanuts and telling stories...... In the winter time they killed hogs and prepared the meat, cut firewood etc. Life was good...they married, had children and lived to ripe old ages...many were still alive during the depression years in the thirties and writers hired by the wpa went down South to record their stories. (The Slave Narratives)
> 
> The second and most favored class of slaves on the antebellum plantation were the domestic servants, comprising those slaves who worked in and around the "Big House," i.e., nurses, cooks, body servants, butlers, chambermaids, coachmen, and those artisans who lived in close contact with the white owner and family. Domestic servants were "more sprightly, better clad, more intelligent,used better language,... and in a dozen ways show their superiority to the field hands.  Henry Bibb, who spent years as a slave, revealed that "the distinction among slaves is as marked as the classes of society are in any aristocratic community; some refusing to associate with others whom they deem beneath them in point of character, color, condition, or the superior importance of their respective masters."Joseph H. Ingraham, The Sunny South: or The Southerner at Home (Philadelphia: C.G. Evans, 1860), p. 35; Alex MacKay, The Western World: or Travels in the United States in 1846-1847
> 
> Picture of a black mammy nursing in the big house.........





They are slaves not servants.  


And you actually used for your argument a slave who wrote about how bad slavery was and how much better life as a free man was.  That's what I mean when I say you'd rather burn history than read the whole thing.  

I mean seriously, that's why I say you KKK twats make flat earthers look like geniuses.   You literally quoted a person who talked about how much better life was being free than being a slave.   

I don't think you realize how backwards and dumb that is.  It would be like me arguing that treating your wife with respect is important.. by quoting OJ Simpson.  It would be like me talking about how how the US has never had a father and son both be president by quoting George W Bush.  

YOU LITERALLY USED A FORMER SLAVE WHO WROTE ABOUT HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS BEING A FREE MAN IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SLAVERY WAS GOOD.  

Maybe you just aren't intelligent enough to see how backwards that is.  Maybe your mind just doesn't work.  Maybe you've been so brainwashed you know you are dead wrong but just keep talking and hoping people will forget it.  

You quoted a slave.  Who talked about how great his life was once he was freed.   To prove slavery was better.   

I've heard a lot of dumb stuff from people but this has to take the cake.


----------



## Sundance508

Black Servants preparing cotton for the gin...those were happy times.


----------



## MaryL

Sundance508 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was evil. Yep. But hiring illegal aliens is OK. I have heard all the excuses,  poor whites are trash and deserve to be dispossessed.  So say those few  rich white uber  elitists that think this is a  game of chess that they deserve to win because they are so smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not....that was just yankee propaganda......for the most part it was very humane and the black servants were protected and treated very kindly by their mastah...only logical...they needed each other....the mastahs well being and wealth were dependent on his servants....what kind of man would mistreat valuable property?  Only someone insane...but hollywood would have you believe otherwise....such stupidity the politically correct propagate but naive folks have lapped it up....try and use your noggin for something other than to place your hat on.
Click to expand...

Please, slavery was going to end one day,  machines would supplant most slaves in the early 20 century. And that would have left the south high and dry. But we still have neoslaves, illegal aliens .It's a pretty big issue.


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> Slavery was bad, now we just  repackage  exploiting people and  minimize it and call it something else. Yeah, "diversity and multiculturalism" . Well, it's not so much from my perspective. It's all just excuses.



No, it's completely different.  You can't say it's just "repackaging slavery" because it's nothing near the same.   I can say that assault is really bad without saying it's as bad as murder.  

You cant just minimize chattel slavery like that.  They are two completely different things.   How many people WANT to be an illegal immigrant?  How many people WANT to be a slave?   You see the difference there?  

You can't just simplify it and say "it's modern slavery" because it isn't.  

Seriously, if being an illegal immigrant in the US is akin to slavery, what's being a Mexican in Mexico?


----------



## MaryL

Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was bad, now we just  repackage  exploiting people and  minimize it and call it something else. Yeah, "diversity and multiculturalism" . Well, it's not so much from my perspective. It's all just excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's completely different.  You can't say it's just "repackaging slavery" because it's nothing near the same.   I can say that assault is really bad without saying it's as bad as murder.
> 
> You cant just minimize chattel slavery like that.  They are two completely different things.   How many people WANT to be an illegal immigrant?  How many people WANT to be a slave?   You see the difference there? And yes, this is going a little off topic.
> 
> You can't just simplify it and say "it's modern slavery" because it isn't.
> 
> Seriously, if being an illegal immigrant in the US is akin to slavery, what's being a Mexican in Mexico?
Click to expand...

I can say that, that is what it is, where do you think all the excuses for illegal immigration comes from?  They work hard, they are human beings...please, like that's an excuse.


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> Please, slavery was going to end one day,  machines would supplant most slaves in the early 20 century. And that would have left the south high and dry. But we still have neoslaves, illegal aliens .It's a pretty big issue.



Maybe.   I mean we have a very very bad trade deficit.  And what's the #1 reason for that trade deficit?   Cheaper labor from other countries. We don't buy tons of crap from China and Vietnam because they have better machines.  We buy crap from there because they have really really inexpensive labor.  

So maybe it would have ended in 5-6 lifetimes.  Maybe not.  No one can say for sure either way.  



And neo-slave.   

So a slave was bound for life in perpetuity to his master.  
A slave's children belonged to his master
States put laws in place that mandated owners physically attack or mutilate slaves for running away
A slave could have his entire family sold away and never see them again
Slaves never had a choice to be slaves. 
Slaves were paid $0
Slaves were not considered human beings
Slaves could be disposed of for insurance benefits on them (ie kill them to collect the insurance on them)
Slaves had their names taken away and their master would name them
Slaves had their religion taken away and forced to follow their masters religion
Slaves sent $0 back home to help their families. 
Slaves were prevented an education.  Some states made it illegal to educate them. 
A slave who decided to leave his farm could be beaten or killed
Slave women were forced to comply with sexual advances by their masters legally.  
A slave who worked to slow could be whipped and beaten until he worked harder
slaves could be branded by their owner like cattle to identify them if they got away
Slaves were only treated as persons if they committed a crime
Pregnant slaves could be beaten
After being whipped a slaves master could rub red pepper in their wounds
Castration and ear amputation could commonly be used to punish slaves
Cutting out the tongue, burning with scalding water were common punishments
Slaves knew thier parents were slaves, they were slaves, their children would be slaves in perpetuity.  No retirement or going home
All this was legal and protected.



So tell me, how many of those things do these "neo-slaves" have to put up with?


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> I can say that, that is what it is, where do you think all the excuses for illegal immigration comes from?  They work hard, they are human beings...please, like that's an excuse.



No, what's the definition of slavery?

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a form of property.  

None of that follows with illegal immigrants.  They aren't the legal property of someone.   They can't be bought and sold.  It's not the same word, it's not even close to the same thing

Just because it's a bad thing done to people, doesn't mean you just re-write an entire definition and force it to fit something new.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Domestic Servants on the Antebellum Plantation  Most Plantation Servants in the antebellum South labored in the fields.  Throughout the agricultural year they were busy, planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crops of the South. Winter labor was less intensive and much time was spent around their fireplaces roasting peanuts and telling stories...... In the winter time they killed hogs and prepared the meat, cut firewood etc. Life was good...they married, had children and lived to ripe old ages...many were still alive during the depression years in the thirties and writers hired by the wpa went down South to record their stories. (The Slave Narratives)
> 
> The second and most favored class of slaves on the antebellum plantation were the domestic servants, comprising those slaves who worked in and around the "Big House," i.e., nurses, cooks, body servants, butlers, chambermaids, coachmen, and those artisans who lived in close contact with the white owner and family. Domestic servants were "more sprightly, better clad, more intelligent,used better language,... and in a dozen ways show their superiority to the field hands.  Henry Bibb, who spent years as a slave, revealed that "the distinction among slaves is as marked as the classes of society are in any aristocratic community; some refusing to associate with others whom they deem beneath them in point of character, color, condition, or the superior importance of their respective masters."Joseph H. Ingraham, The Sunny South: or The Southerner at Home (Philadelphia: C.G. Evans, 1860), p. 35; Alex MacKay, The Western World: or Travels in the United States in 1846-1847
> 
> Picture of a black mammy nursing in the big house.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are slaves not servants.
> 
> 
> And you actually used for your argument a slave who wrote about how bad slavery was and how much better life as a free man was.  That's what I mean when I say you'd rather burn history than read the whole thing.
> 
> I mean seriously, that's why I say you KKK twats make flat earthers look like geniuses.   You literally quoted a person who talked about how much better life was being free than being a slave.
> 
> I don't think you realize how backwards and dumb that is.  It would be like me arguing that treating your wife with respect is important.. by quoting OJ Simpson.  It would be like me talking about how how the US has never had a father and son both be president by quoting George W Bush.
> 
> YOU LITERALLY USED A FORMER SLAVE WHO WROTE ABOUT HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS BEING A FREE MAN IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SLAVERY WAS GOOD.
> 
> Maybe you just aren't intelligent enough to see how backwards that is.  Maybe your mind just doesn't work.  Maybe you've been so brainwashed you know you are dead wrong but just keep talking and hoping people will forget it.
> 
> You quoted a slave.  Who talked about how great his life was once he was freed.   To prove slavery was better.
> 
> I've heard a lot of dumb stuff from people but this has to take the cake.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.....you really lap up the propaganda.....failing to understand how Negroes told these tall tales to curry favor with yankees after the war was over.  Try and use some logic.

Let me ax you a question......If you were a plantation owner back in those days and of course you would have black servants .....would you mistreat such valuable property?...understanding very well that your wealth and the prosperity of the plantation depended on your servants?   Only some insane psychotic idiot would mistreat his servants.  The plantation owners knew very well that happy servants would produce more than unhappy ones....the truth is a Plantation owner would do his best to keep his servants happy.  All this nonsense you speak of you undoubtedly garnered from works of fiction.  Not even to mention the great majority of Plantation Owners were Christians and they took their religion seriously in those days.


----------



## MaryL

People forced to do work against their will for the benefit of others. But that can pretty  much be used to define any form of manual labor.  Being stole from your land against your will, that is a major distinction.  But does  that matter anymore when it comes to exploiting poor people for profit? Especially illegal immigrants?


----------



## Sundance508

Sundance508 said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Domestic Servants on the Antebellum Plantation  Most Plantation Servants in the antebellum South labored in the fields.  Throughout the agricultural year they were busy, planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crops of the South. Winter labor was less intensive and much time was spent around their fireplaces roasting peanuts and telling stories...... In the winter time they killed hogs and prepared the meat, cut firewood etc. Life was good...they married, had children and lived to ripe old ages...many were still alive during the depression years in the thirties and writers hired by the wpa went down South to record their stories. (The Slave Narratives)
> 
> The second and most favored class of slaves on the antebellum plantation were the domestic servants, comprising those slaves who worked in and around the "Big House," i.e., nurses, cooks, body servants, butlers, chambermaids, coachmen, and those artisans who lived in close contact with the white owner and family. Domestic servants were "more sprightly, better clad, more intelligent,used better language,... and in a dozen ways show their superiority to the field hands.  Henry Bibb, who spent years as a slave, revealed that "the distinction among slaves is as marked as the classes of society are in any aristocratic community; some refusing to associate with others whom they deem beneath them in point of character, color, condition, or the superior importance of their respective masters."Joseph H. Ingraham, The Sunny South: or The Southerner at Home (Philadelphia: C.G. Evans, 1860), p. 35; Alex MacKay, The Western World: or Travels in the United States in 1846-1847
> 
> Picture of a black mammy nursing in the big house.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are slaves not servants.
> 
> 
> And you actually used for your argument a slave who wrote about how bad slavery was and how much better life as a free man was.  That's what I mean when I say you'd rather burn history than read the whole thing.
> 
> I mean seriously, that's why I say you KKK twats make flat earthers look like geniuses.   You literally quoted a person who talked about how much better life was being free than being a slave.
> 
> I don't think you realize how backwards and dumb that is.  It would be like me arguing that treating your wife with respect is important.. by quoting OJ Simpson.  It would be like me talking about how how the US has never had a father and son both be president by quoting George W Bush.
> 
> YOU LITERALLY USED A FORMER SLAVE WHO WROTE ABOUT HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS BEING A FREE MAN IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SLAVERY WAS GOOD.
> 
> Maybe you just aren't intelligent enough to see how backwards that is.  Maybe your mind just doesn't work.  Maybe you've been so brainwashed you know you are dead wrong but just keep talking and hoping people will forget it.
> 
> You quoted a slave.  Who talked about how great his life was once he was freed.   To prove slavery was better.
> 
> I've heard a lot of dumb stuff from people but this has to take the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.....you really lap up the propaganda.....failing to understand how Negroes told these tall tales to curry favor with yankees after the war was over.  Try and use some logic.
> 
> Let me ax you a question......If you were a plantation owner back in those days and of course you would have black servants .....would you mistreat such valuable property?...understanding very well that your wealth and the prosperity of the plantation depended on your servants?   Only some insane psychotic idiot would mistreat his servants.  The plantation owners knew very well that happy servants would produce more than unhappy ones....the truth is a Plantation owner would do his best to keep his servants happy.   Not even to mention the great majority of Plantation Owners were Christians and they took their religion seriously in those days.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sundance508

MaryL said:


> People forced to do work against their will for the benefit of others. But that can pretty  much be used to define any form of manual labor.  Being stole from your land against your will, that is a major distinction.  But does  that matter anymore when it comes to exploiting poor people for profit?



Most of the Negro Servants on plantations  understood very well that their work not only benefited the plantation owner but themselves as well....the plantation was their home...any sane person black or white wants to protect his home and work to keep it going.

And......they were not stole from their land....they never had any land to begin with...most of them were sold into slavery by some African Chief...many of them had been captured in some war over there...and if the Chief could not sell them...they were executed.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Domestic Servants on the Antebellum Plantation  Most Plantation Servants in the antebellum South labored in the fields.  Throughout the agricultural year they were busy, planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crops of the South. Winter labor was less intensive and much time was spent around their fireplaces roasting peanuts and telling stories...... In the winter time they killed hogs and prepared the meat, cut firewood etc. Life was good...they married, had children and lived to ripe old ages...many were still alive during the depression years in the thirties and writers hired by the wpa went down South to record their stories. (The Slave Narratives)
> 
> The second and most favored class of slaves on the antebellum plantation were the domestic servants, comprising those slaves who worked in and around the "Big House," i.e., nurses, cooks, body servants, butlers, chambermaids, coachmen, and those artisans who lived in close contact with the white owner and family. Domestic servants were "more sprightly, better clad, more intelligent,used better language,... and in a dozen ways show their superiority to the field hands.  Henry Bibb, who spent years as a slave, revealed that "the distinction among slaves is as marked as the classes of society are in any aristocratic community; some refusing to associate with others whom they deem beneath them in point of character, color, condition, or the superior importance of their respective masters."Joseph H. Ingraham, The Sunny South: or The Southerner at Home (Philadelphia: C.G. Evans, 1860), p. 35; Alex MacKay, The Western World: or Travels in the United States in 1846-1847
> 
> Picture of a black mammy nursing in the big house.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are slaves not servants.
> 
> 
> And you actually used for your argument a slave who wrote about how bad slavery was and how much better life as a free man was.  That's what I mean when I say you'd rather burn history than read the whole thing.
> 
> I mean seriously, that's why I say you KKK twats make flat earthers look like geniuses.   You literally quoted a person who talked about how much better life was being free than being a slave.
> 
> I don't think you realize how backwards and dumb that is.  It would be like me arguing that treating your wife with respect is important.. by quoting OJ Simpson.  It would be like me talking about how how the US has never had a father and son both be president by quoting George W Bush.
> 
> YOU LITERALLY USED A FORMER SLAVE WHO WROTE ABOUT HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS BEING A FREE MAN IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SLAVERY WAS GOOD.
> 
> Maybe you just aren't intelligent enough to see how backwards that is.  Maybe your mind just doesn't work.  Maybe you've been so brainwashed you know you are dead wrong but just keep talking and hoping people will forget it.
> 
> You quoted a slave.  Who talked about how great his life was once he was freed.   To prove slavery was better.
> 
> I've heard a lot of dumb stuff from people but this has to take the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.....you really lap up the propaganda.....failing to understand how Negroes told these tall tales to curry favor with yankees after the war was over.  Try and use some logic.
> 
> Let me ax you a question......If you were a plantation owner back in those days and of course you would have black servants .....would you mistreat such valuable property?...understanding very well that your wealth and the prosperity of the plantation depended on your servants?   Only some insane psychotic idiot would mistreat his servants.  The plantation owners knew very well that happy servants would produce more than unhappy ones....the truth is a Plantation owner would do his best to keep his servants happy.  All this nonsense you speak of you undoubtedly garnered from works of fiction.  Not even to mention the great majority of Plantation Owners were Christians and they took their religion seriously in those days.
Click to expand...


You literally were so dumb, in order to prove that slavery wasn't bad, you tried to pull a quote from a slaves story about how slavery was awful compared to freedom and hoped I wouldn't dig in and determine the source.   

That's a grade a screwup bub.


----------



## MaryL

Sundance508 said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Domestic Servants on the Antebellum Plantation  Most Plantation Servants in the antebellum South labored in the fields.  Throughout the agricultural year they were busy, planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crops of the South. Winter labor was less intensive and much time was spent around their fireplaces roasting peanuts and telling stories...... In the winter time they killed hogs and prepared the meat, cut firewood etc. Life was good...they married, had children and lived to ripe old ages...many were still alive during the depression years in the thirties and writers hired by the wpa went down South to record their stories. (The Slave Narratives)
> 
> The second and most favored class of slaves on the antebellum plantation were the domestic servants, comprising those slaves who worked in and around the "Big House," i.e., nurses, cooks, body servants, butlers, chambermaids, coachmen, and those artisans who lived in close contact with the white owner and family. Domestic servants were "more sprightly, better clad, more intelligent,used better language,... and in a dozen ways show their superiority to the field hands.  Henry Bibb, who spent years as a slave, revealed that "the distinction among slaves is as marked as the classes of society are in any aristocratic community; some refusing to associate with others whom they deem beneath them in point of character, color, condition, or the superior importance of their respective masters."Joseph H. Ingraham, The Sunny South: or The Southerner at Home (Philadelphia: C.G. Evans, 1860), p. 35; Alex MacKay, The Western World: or Travels in the United States in 1846-1847
> 
> Picture of a black mammy nursing in the big house.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are slaves not servants.
> 
> 
> And you actually used for your argument a slave who wrote about how bad slavery was and how much better life as a free man was.  That's what I mean when I say you'd rather burn history than read the whole thing.
> 
> I mean seriously, that's why I say you KKK twats make flat earthers look like geniuses.   You literally quoted a person who talked about how much better life was being free than being a slave.
> 
> I don't think you realize how backwards and dumb that is.  It would be like me arguing that treating your wife with respect is important.. by quoting OJ Simpson.  It would be like me talking about how how the US has never had a father and son both be president by quoting George W Bush.
> 
> YOU LITERALLY USED A FORMER SLAVE WHO WROTE ABOUT HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS BEING A FREE MAN IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SLAVERY WAS GOOD.
> 
> Maybe you just aren't intelligent enough to see how backwards that is.  Maybe your mind just doesn't work.  Maybe you've been so brainwashed you know you are dead wrong but just keep talking and hoping people will forget it.
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that, that is what it is, where do you think all the excuses for illegal immigration comes from?  They work hard, they are human beings...please, like that's an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what's the definition of slavery?
> 
> Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a form of property.
> 
> None of that follows with illegal immigrants.  They aren't the legal property of someone.   They can't be bought and sold.  It's not the same word, it's not even close to the same thing
> 
> Just because it's a bad thing done to people, doesn't mean you just re-write an entire definition and force it to fit something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, slavery was going to end one day,  machines would supplant most slaves in the early 20 century. And that would have left the south high and dry. But we still have neoslaves, illegal aliens .It's a pretty big issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe.   I mean we have a very very bad trade deficit.  And what's the #1 reason for that trade deficit?   Cheaper labor from other countries. We don't buy tons of crap from China and Vietnam because they have better machines.  We buy crap from there because they have really really inexpensive labor.
> 
> So maybe it would have ended in 5-6 lifetimes.  Maybe not.  No one can say for sure either way.
> 
> 
> 
> And neo-slave.
> 
> So a slave was bound for life in perpetuity to his master.
> A slave's children belonged to his master
> States put laws in place that mandated owners physically attack or mutilate slaves for running away
> A slave could have his entire family sold away and never see them again
> Slaves never had a choice to be slaves.
> Slaves were paid $0
> Slaves were not considered human beings
> Slaves could be disposed of for insurance benefits on them (ie kill them to collect the insurance on them)
> Slaves had their names taken away and their master would name them
> Slaves had their religion taken away and forced to follow their masters religion
> Slaves sent $0 back home to help their families.
> Slaves were prevented an education.  Some states made it illegal to educate them.
> A slave who decided to leave his farm could be beaten or killed
> Slave women were forced to comply with sexual advances by their masters legally.
> A slave who worked to slow could be whipped and beaten until he worked harder
> slaves could be branded by their owner like cattle to identify them if they got away
> Slaves were only treated as persons if they committed a crime
> Pregnant slaves could be beaten
> After being whipped a slaves master could rub red pepper in their wounds
> Castration and ear amputation could commonly be used to punish slaves
> Cutting out the tongue, burning with scalding water were common punishments
> Slaves knew thier parents were slaves, they were slaves, their children would be slaves in perpetuity.  No retirement or going home
> All this was legal and protected.
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many of those things do these "neo-slaves" have to put up with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted a slave.  Who talked about how great his life was once he was freed.   To prove slavery was better.
> 
> I've heard a lot of dumb stuff from people but this has to take the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.....you really lap up the propaganda.....failing to understand how Negroes told these tall tales to curry favor with yankees after the war was over.  Try and use some logic.
> 
> Let me ax you a question......If you were a plantation owner back in those days and of course you would have black servants .....would you mistreat such valuable property?...understanding very well that your wealth and the prosperity of the plantation depended on your servants?   Only some insane psychotic idiot would mistreat his servants.  The plantation owners knew very well that happy servants would produce more than unhappy ones....the truth is a Plantation owner would do his best to keep his servants happy.   Not even to mention the great majority of Plantation Owners were Christians and they took their religion seriously in those days.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Sundance508 said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Domestic Servants on the Antebellum Plantation  Most Plantation Servants in the antebellum South labored in the fields.  Throughout the agricultural year they were busy, planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crops of the South. Winter labor was less intensive and much time was spent around their fireplaces roasting peanuts and telling stories...... In the winter time they killed hogs and prepared the meat, cut firewood etc. Life was good...they married, had children and lived to ripe old ages...many were still alive during the depression years in the thirties and writers hired by the wpa went down South to record their stories. (The Slave Narratives)
> 
> The second and most favored class of slaves on the antebellum plantation were the domestic servants, comprising those slaves who worked in and around the "Big House," i.e., nurses, cooks, body servants, butlers, chambermaids, coachmen, and those artisans who lived in close contact with the white owner and family. Domestic servants were "more sprightly, better clad, more intelligent,used better language,... and in a dozen ways show their superiority to the field hands.  Henry Bibb, who spent years as a slave, revealed that "the distinction among slaves is as marked as the classes of society are in any aristocratic community; some refusing to associate with others whom they deem beneath them in point of character, color, condition, or the superior importance of their respective masters."Joseph H. Ingraham, The Sunny South: or The Southerner at Home (Philadelphia: C.G. Evans, 1860), p. 35; Alex MacKay, The Western World: or Travels in the United States in 1846-1847
> 
> Picture of a black mammy nursing in the big house.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are slaves not servants.
> 
> 
> And you actually used for your argument a slave who wrote about how bad slavery was and how much better life as a free man was.  That's what I mean when I say you'd rather burn history than read the whole thing.
> 
> I mean seriously, that's why I say you KKK twats make flat earthers look like geniuses.   You literally quoted a person who talked about how much better life was being free than being a slave.
> 
> I don't think you realize how backwards and dumb that is.  It would be like me arguing that treating your wife with respect is important.. by quoting OJ Simpson.  It would be like me talking about how how the US has never had a father and son both be president by quoting George W Bush.
> 
> YOU LITERALLY USED A FORMER SLAVE WHO WROTE ABOUT HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS BEING A FREE MAN IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SLAVERY WAS GOOD.
> 
> Maybe you just aren't intelligent enough to see how backwards that is.  Maybe your mind just doesn't work.  Maybe you've been so brainwashed you know you are dead wrong but just keep talking and hoping people will forget it.
> 
> You quoted a slave.  Who talked about how great his life was once he was freed.   To prove slavery was better.
> 
> I've heard a lot of dumb stuff from people but this has to take the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.....you really lap up the propaganda.....failing to understand how Negroes told these tall tales to curry favor with yankees after the war was over.  Try and use some logic.
> 
> Let me ax you a question......If you were a plantation owner back in those days and of course you would have black servants .....would you mistreat such valuable property?...understanding very well that your wealth and the prosperity of the plantation depended on your servants?   Only some insane psychotic idiot would mistreat his servants.  The plantation owners knew very well that happy servants would produce more than unhappy ones....the truth is a Plantation owner would do his best to keep his servants happy.   Not even to mention the great majority of Plantation Owners were Christians and they took their religion seriously in those days.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. Yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.Because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?



Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.  

But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.  

Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.


----------



## MaryL

Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
Click to expand...

You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.


----------



## Sundance508

Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
Click to expand...


Black Servants down South had a much better life than illegal mexicans in America do today....everything they needed was provided....including medical care.  A poor illegal mexican working for peanuts is lucky to have a roof over his head...usually stays with relative or friends under very crowded conditions. 
Look at these black servants....well dressed and obviously well fed...and they lived to ripe old ages.  Many of them still alive in the thirties.  But due to political correctness and censorship....it is getting very difficult to find the truth....google at one time provided a lot of information but now just about the only think they will provide is pc propaganda....this nation is saturated with pc propaganda about Southern Slavery as well as the current racial situation with Negroes in America....the media protects them and always attempts to make them the victims....there is a search going on for a black serial killer here in Tampa as we speak...but the media for days would not even admit he was black.  People need to wake up...Americans are being propagandized by the media at at level even surpassing that of Communist propaganda in Russia under stalin...people need to start thinking for theselves...use some logic and read between the lines.....above all take your children out of public schools if possible...nothing but propaganda machines.


----------



## MaryL

Sundance508 said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Black Servants down South had a much better life than illegal mexicans in America do today....everything they needed was provided....including medical care.  A poor illegal mexican working for peanuts is lucky to have a roof over his head...usually stays with relative or friends under very crowded conditions.
> Look at these black servants....well dressed and obviously well fed...and they lived to ripe old ages.  Many of them still alive in the thirties.  But due to political correctness and censorship....it is getting very difficult to find the truth....google at one time provided a lot of information but now just about the only think they will provide is pc propaganda....this nation is saturated with pc propaganda about Southern Slavery as well as the current racial situation with Negroes in America....the media protects them and always attempts to make them the victims....there is a search going on for a black serial killer here in Tampa as we speak...but the media for days would not even admit he was black.  People need to wake up...Americans are being propagandized by the media at at level even surpassing that of Communist propaganda in Russia under stalin...people need to start thinking for theselves...use some logic and read between the lines.....above all take your children out of public schools if possible...nothing but propaganda machines.
Click to expand...

True, Illegal aliens choose to be made servants, and that some how makes them better?  If I was a Hispanic, I would reject that. And that's my problem, I don't identify with  subservient  people that allow themselves to be used for fleeting causes. I won't over look that kind of thing.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature.n
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
Click to expand...




Slash said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
Click to expand...




MaryL said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
Click to expand...


Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.  

Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"

Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens

"The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx

Here is what you statists are so proud of...

*Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*

Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.


----------



## Slash

MaryL said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Black Servants down South had a much better life than illegal mexicans in America do today....everything they needed was provided....including medical care.  A poor illegal mexican working for peanuts is lucky to have a roof over his head...usually stays with relative or friends under very crowded conditions.
> Look at these black servants....well dressed and obviously well fed...and they lived to ripe old ages.  Many of them still alive in the thirties.  But due to political correctness and censorship....it is getting very difficult to find the truth....google at one time provided a lot of information but now just about the only think they will provide is pc propaganda....this nation is saturated with pc propaganda about Southern Slavery as well as the current racial situation with Negroes in America....the media protects them and always attempts to make them the victims....there is a search going on for a black serial killer here in Tampa as we speak...but the media for days would not even admit he was black.  People need to wake up...Americans are being propagandized by the media at at level even surpassing that of Communist propaganda in Russia under stalin...people need to start thinking for theselves...use some logic and read between the lines.....above all take your children out of public schools if possible...nothing but propaganda machines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, Illegal aliens choose to be made servants, and that some how makes them better?  If I was a Hispanic, I would reject that. And that's my problem, I don't identify with  subservient  people that allow themselves to be used for fleeting causes. I won't over look that kind of thing.
Click to expand...


I think the fact that it is voluntarily making a better life for themselves absolutely makes a difference.  

If an American went up to Canada to work as an illegal alien because he could make $250k a year would you be saying the same thing?

I think we see this through rose colored glasses here in the us.  The average person in this world makes less than $3000 a year.  Average person in Mexico makes about $2700 per year.  PEW studies figure the average illegal immigrant makes over 30,000 a year.  They are in the top 10% of earners worldwide.

So no, they aren't as bad off as slaves.or anywhere close. They are among the richest people in the world.  But in America we are so jaded by our wealth we think that's absolutely awful


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature.n
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
Click to expand...



Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.

And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.

And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...

 The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative. 

That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, edit our government, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.

In 150 years we will probably have idiots out there saying Bill Clinton didn't want universal healthcare since he never created it. And Trump loved it since he never repealed it.  We get that dumb with what happened 150 years ago.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature.n
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
Click to expand...


The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.

You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.  

Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.

No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.  

You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
Click to expand...


So.... burn the Constitution to suit your story.  Got it.


----------



## Marion Morrison

MaryL said:


> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?



Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.

The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So.... burn the Constitution to suit your story.  Got it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what Dishonest Abe did...he burned the Constitution.


----------



## gipper

Marion Morrison said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
Click to expand...

Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.  

Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.


----------



## Marion Morrison

gipper said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
Click to expand...


What kind of president goes against the 1st amendment? Lincoln.

He jailed so many Yankee publishers, it's not even funny.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
Click to expand...


You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.

See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.


----------



## gipper

Marion Morrison said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of president goes against the 1st amendment? Lincoln.
> 
> He jailed so many Yankee publishers, it's not even funny.
Click to expand...

As you well know, he did much worse than that...though that alone is most terrible and ignored by the Lincoln Cult.  

He was by far the most unconstitutional POTUS of all time....yet Statists adore him.

How fucked up is that?


----------



## Slash

Marion Morrison said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
Click to expand...


Ahh yes.. price fixing.  So important to why the south seceded... that they forgot to include it in their articles of secession. It was mentioned the same number of times as them not getting free WiFi in their starbucks.  Another equally valid reason.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of president goes against the 1st amendment? Lincoln.
> 
> He jailed so many Yankee publishers, it's not even funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you well know, he did much worse than that...though that alone is most terrible and ignored by the Lincoln Cult.
> 
> He was by far the most unconstitutional POTUS of all time....yet Statists adore him.
> 
> How fucked up is that?
Click to expand...


No.. Americans adore him. Overwhelming majority.  The Nazis.... the kkk... the white supremacists... the neo confederates they love to rewrite history and hate on him though.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
Click to expand...

You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.  

You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point, illegal aliens  LET themselves be exploited  by exploiters, they aren't worthy of being compared to blacks that were forcibly enslaved. Nope. yet here we are, illegal aliens are victims of exploitation . Exploitation they willing allowed.because it serves their purpose. And they serve their master well, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
Click to expand...


If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.

Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)

Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!

Illegal search and seizure? Check!


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
Click to expand...




Marion Morrison said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
Click to expand...



Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
Click to expand...

Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.
Click to expand...


Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.

^Teh weaksauce.

Your best bet is to slither back under the rock you crawled out from under.

Your cow chips aren't going to fly around here.


----------



## Slash

And yes. Lincoln was tough on treason.  I guess in our society today we need to give them their safe space and all.


----------



## Slash

Marion Morrison said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.
> 
> ^Teh weaksauce.
Click to expand...


Then dont quote their beliefs. Lol.  If it talks like a neo nazi... its probably a neo nazi.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Slash said:


> And yes. Lincoln was tough on treason.  I guess in our society today we need to give them their safe space and all.



Oh? So all the Confederate soldiers were hung for treason after the war, right?


Please, do keep going, though. Your abundant ignorance is exposed with every post you make.

Oh, I am nowhere near supporting the OP's crazy stuff, but I do support reality.

And you sir, are just as nutty as he is.


----------



## Slash

Marion Morrison said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.
> 
> Just like you applaud slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well he isn't their master because they aren't his property, they can return home whenever they want and he can't sell them or legally own them.
> 
> But yes we exploit them by offering them a better life than they could otherwise have at home that they voluntarily choose to do as long as they want.
> 
> Like I said, it's not good.  But in no way is it slavery or anything close.  You saw the list there.  Feel free to make up a list of the legal exploitation of illegal immigrants that matches that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me, kiddo. Make a list?  You make a list of who illegals don't affect, Besides, this is way off topic, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
Click to expand...


You see the only way these were breaking amendments is if it was not treason but rather a legal secession. Which of course it wasn't.  Unless you want to rip up the 3rd article of the US Constitution.  

You see how that works.  The ONLY way for his acts to be unconstitutional is by destroying the Constitution


----------



## Slash

Marion Morrison said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes. Lincoln was tough on treason.  I guess in our society today we need to give them their safe space and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? So all the Confederate soldiers were hung for treason after the war, right?
> 
> 
> Please, do keep going, though.
Click to expand...


No. I believe they were pardoned.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Slash said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes. Lincoln was tough on treason.  I guess in our society today we need to give them their safe space and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? So all the Confederate soldiers were hung for treason after the war, right?
> 
> 
> Please, do keep going, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I believe they were pardoned.
Click to expand...


But you said Lincoln was tough on treason, so which is it, hmm?


----------



## gipper

Marion Morrison said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.
> 
> ^Teh weaksauce.
> 
> Your best bet is to slither back under the rock you crawled out from under.
> 
> Your cow chips aren't going to fly around here.
Click to expand...

If only all Statists would go away.


----------



## Slash

Marion Morrison said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes. Lincoln was tough on treason.  I guess in our society today we need to give them their safe space and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? So all the Confederate soldiers were hung for treason after the war, right?
> 
> 
> Please, do keep going, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I believe they were pardoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said Lincoln was tough on treason, so which is it, hmm?
Click to expand...


And this is why it sucks talking to morons. Lincoln was dead when President Johnson pardoned them for their crimes


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.
> 
> ^Teh weaksauce.
> 
> Your best bet is to slither back under the rock you crawled out from under.
> 
> Your cow chips aren't going to fly around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only all Statists would go away.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Then we could just burn all the parts of the Constitution we didn't like right?


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was terminated in the West peacefully, EVERYWHERE but the USA.  Why have you failed to recognize this fact and understand why?  Thanks to your beloved savior Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Remember the _Crittenden Compromise?  _Yeah thought so.... Senator Crittenden tried his best to avoid war, but Lincoln told him to fuck off too.  Crittenden said, "History is to record us...Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?"
> 
> Many saw the true meaning of Lincoln's War...
> "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States." -Charles Dickens
> 
> "The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power." -Karl Marx
> 
> Here is what you statists are so proud of...
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln's Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes*
> 
> Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army -- 75,000 men initially.
> He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
> Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
> In an escalation of Lincoln's starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed "Burning Sherman", because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America's first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed _significantly_ more people in the Civil War than combat.
> Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
> Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the "New World" was under British control.
> Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
> There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
> President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
> Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
> The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
> Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
Click to expand...

Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, you prove yourself an idiot.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.
> 
> ^Teh weaksauce.
> 
> Your best bet is to slither back under the rock you crawled out from under.
> 
> Your cow chips aren't going to fly around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only all Statists would go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Then we could just burn all the parts of the Constitution we didn't like right?
Click to expand...


Like Lincoln did when he locked up journalists that published articles contrary to his war effort?


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course almost all of those things are only unconstitutional...If you destroy article 3 of the constitution.  Because since it was an illegal rebellion and not a secession, it was Lincoln's DUTY as president to quell it.  Which is why Americans who believe we shouldn't rip up the constitution. See him as one of the best presidents in us history.  And you are right.  The Confederate Rebellion is the only time that many lives were lost by a group of people defending the existence and spread of slavery.
> 
> And the Crittendon Compromise was founded on guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery in the US forever.  Yes. Lincoln was against that. Also that slavery would be allowed to expand west.
> 
> And why do we keep giving Lincoln the title of Emporer.  Yes i know of the Crittendon Compromise.  It came up in the last session of congress. You know. The one BEFORE Abraham Lincoln was to take office...
> 
> The compromise was an amendment. It failed in both a Republican house, and a Democratic Senate.  And let me remind you. A president has 1 action in the amendment process.  After is has passed they enforce it.  The EXECUTIVE branch, not the Legislative.
> 
> That's what upsets me.  When we try and re-write history, change dates, and burn things like the US Constitution to suit our needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
Click to expand...


Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion. 

You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing


----------



## Slash

Marion Morrison said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.
> 
> ^Teh weaksauce.
> 
> Your best bet is to slither back under the rock you crawled out from under.
> 
> Your cow chips aren't going to fly around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only all Statists would go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Then we could just burn all the parts of the Constitution we didn't like right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Lincoln did when he locked up journalists that published articles contrary to his war effort?
Click to expand...

It was journalists supporting a treasonous rebellion against the US according to the constitution. You also are in a catch 22.  The only way his acts were unconstitutional... is if you rip up the constitution.  Unfortunately we have idiots today that like to re-write history for whatever reason and shit on the US Constitution


----------



## Slash

We do the same thi ng today. If someone is telling people how to make bombs and calling for an Isis led attack onn the US, we lock them up for those treasonous words and silence them to protect Americans

If a news media is reporting classified troop locations we stop them.

I'd much rather we didn't take that path that some liberals and you guys want which is to give them their safe space and let them continue supporting a known enemy.


----------



## Slash

You see there are two types of Americans when it comes to the Constitution.  1 set that believes in it.  That's it. What it says is law.

Then the other group that picks and chooses which sections they believe in a which sections they throw out. Some of them wish to throw out the parts that protect our right to bear arms.  Others like you two wish to throw out the parts that said the secession preceding the civil war was a rebellion.

And it just strikes me as odd that people use their belief that it's ok to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are ok and which ones can be ignored, which is what allows them to. Believe Lincoln went against the Constitution and then they can be upset about it.

You two are like listening to a guy telling me all about how he boycotts mcdonalds... as he eats a Big Mac.  The irony is unbelievable.

Now do I always agree with the Constitution... not always. But when I swore to support and defend the Constitution, I meant that. So even the parts I don't like, I will fight for.

So call me whatever names you want. It's really simple. I defend and believe in the ENTIRE Constitution. Not just the parts I really like.  I guess you can call that a Constitutionalist. But most would call that an American.


----------



## Slash

Because that's your belief.

IF we throw out the words and powers in article 3 of the US Constitution

THEN the secession becomes legal.

THEN what Lincoln did goes from being his sworn duty to unconstitutional

So if we bash the Constitution then we can get all upset at Lincoln... for bashing the Constitution


You see why I call that an assault on common sense and human intelligence?


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
Click to expand...

Okay then the US government is perpetual, no matter what it does.  That means if anyone rebels from the US, they are traitors and deserving of immediate death. 

Do you fail to see how foolish that is?

Have you learned nothing from history?

Have you failed to learned the historic nature of government, even though we have several millennia proving it's tyrannical and murderous nature?

If so, you once again prove yourself a fool.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
Click to expand...

The Constitution is a dead letter.  Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that.  You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it.  Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay then the US government is perpetual, no matter what it does.  That means if anyone rebels from the US, they are traitors and deserving of immediate death.
> 
> Do you fail to see how foolish that is?
> 
> Have you learned nothing from history?
> 
> Have you failed to learned the historic nature of government, even though we have several millennia proving it's tyrannical and murderous nature?
> 
> If so, you once again prove yourself a fool.
Click to expand...


Not really. I mean if you hate it so much there's plenty of other countries where you don't have to be an American.  Yes. If you rebel against the US and attack American soldiers, I am against you. 

Maybe youh want to honor the fort hood shooter. I dont


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is a dead letter.  Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that.  You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it.  Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.
Click to expand...


Wait.. the Constitution is a dead letter.

Then why are you upset in your wrong belief Lincoln avid things against it?

You see how stuck you are?

You have to bash the Constitution in order to give yourself the opportunity to say someone else bashed the constitution.  You have yourself in a catch 22.

Either the Constitution is good. In which case Lincoln defended it. Or we can rip parts out, which once you remove parts, then you can say Lincoln attacked it.


----------



## gipper

Slash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is a dead letter.  Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that.  You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it.  Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait.. the Constitution is a dead letter.
> 
> Then why are you upset in your wrong belief Lincoln avid things against it?
> 
> You see how stuck you are?
> 
> You have to bash the Constitution in order to give yourself the opportunity to say someone else bashed the constitution.  You have yourself in a catch 22.
Click to expand...

It is dead thanks in part to your beloved Dishonest Abe, but many statists like you have followed Lincoln’s plan of subverting the Constitution to promote the all powerful state.  It has progressed slowly so dummies like you fail to see it.


----------



## Sundance508

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is a dead letter.  Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that.  You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it.  Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.
Click to expand...


Yes...............

Yes....Mr. Lincoln in a nutshell was a traitor and thus the motivation for his assasination.......most now do not realize Lincoln was the most hated President in history at that time.
The Presidential oath of office that Lincoln swore to was "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the US.

Secession of states was not prohibited by the US Constitution at that time. Therefore it was completely legal...

1.) Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports. This an act of war only Congress can do that. At that time Lincoln certainly violated the US Constitution.

2.) Lincoln ordered hundreds of Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down. And their owners and editors were arrested for disloyalty. This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that Lincoln swore to uphold.

3.) Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him. Can you imagine that?

4.) Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.

5.) US Constitution Article lll Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them. Lincoln committed treason.

Lincoln waged war upon his own country. Unless one considers secession legal and the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.

6.) Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons. This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Constitutional violations against Maryland

'Maryland my Maryland' was published calling Lincoln a tyrant and a despot and a vandal.

Lincoln as already mentioned, trashed the Constitution by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and sending troops door to door confiscating weapons in areas of Maryland.

Maryland was a Union state. Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylanders for the crime of 'suspected Southern sympathies'.

7.) Lincoln ordered the arrest of US Congressman Henry May representing Maryland.

8.) Lincoln also had arrested the Maryland State Legislature

9.) Most of the Baltimore city council

10.) The police commissioner of Baltimore

11.) The mayor of Baltimore

12.) Thousands of prominent Maryland citizens. These people were arrested and held in Military prisons, without trial, some of them for years.

This trashing of the Constitution upset many Marylanders. One of them was named Booth.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland's Cities.

This war criminal Lincoln couldn't wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that terrorism these days.

13.) Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation. This is a direct violation of the US Constitution and the US Supreme Courts decision on the matter.

14.) The Lincoln administration allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

A prime example is the Union army stealing Robert E. Lees home, Arlington House, which they used as Headquarters. Since dead Union soldiers were stacking up like cordwood, they started burying them in Lee's yard. There were so many Union soldiers graves here, this was to become Arlington National Cemetery.

15.) The Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture against the thousands of Union prisoners arrested and jailed without trail. This violates the 8th Amendment, "Cruel and unusual punishment".

16.) Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians.


----------



## Slash

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is a dead letter.  Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that.  You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it.  Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait.. the Constitution is a dead letter.
> 
> Then why are you upset in your wrong belief Lincoln avid things against it?
> 
> You see how stuck you are?
> 
> You have to bash the Constitution in order to give yourself the opportunity to say someone else bashed the constitution.  You have yourself in a catch 22.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is dead thanks in part to your beloved Dishonest Abe, but many statists like you have followed Lincoln’s plan of subverting the Constitution to promote the all powerful state.  It has progressed slowly so dummies like you fail to see it.
Click to expand...



Haha. So let's recap what you and your buddy believe.

The constitution should be ripped up, it's an awful dead document.

The worst thing about Abraham Lincoln is he didn't follow that constitution that needs ripped up.

The president of the US fits in the legislative branch of the government.

Lincoln was president months before his inauguration.

Lincoln returned from the dead as some zombie-Lincoln to pardon confederates.

A president fighting treason is the worst thing in the world.  

Treason against the US is good.



Got it.  So, please go find your history teacher. And your civics teacher. And let them know they failed you. Because the things you believe belong in a fairy tale book.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is a dead letter.  Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that.  You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it.  Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...............
> 
> Yes....Mr. Lincoln in a nutshell was a traitor and thus the motivation for his assasination.......most now do not realize Lincoln was the most hated President in history at that time.
> The Presidential oath of office that Lincoln swore to was "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the US.
> 
> Secession of states was not prohibited by the US Constitution at that time. Therefore it was completely legal...
> 
> 1.) Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports. This an act of war only Congress can do that. At that time Lincoln certainly violated the US Constitution.
> 
> 2.) Lincoln ordered hundreds of Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down. And their owners and editors were arrested for disloyalty. This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that Lincoln swore to uphold.
> 
> 3.) Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him. Can you imagine that?
> 
> 4.) Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
> 
> After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.
> 
> 5.) US Constitution Article lll Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them. Lincoln committed treason.
> 
> Lincoln waged war upon his own country. Unless one considers secession legal and the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.
> 
> 6.) Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons. This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
> 
> Constitutional violations against Maryland
> 
> 'Maryland my Maryland' was published calling Lincoln a tyrant and a despot and a vandal.
> 
> Lincoln as already mentioned, trashed the Constitution by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and sending troops door to door confiscating weapons in areas of Maryland.
> 
> Maryland was a Union state. Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylanders for the crime of 'suspected Southern sympathies'.
> 
> 7.) Lincoln ordered the arrest of US Congressman Henry May representing Maryland.
> 
> 8.) Lincoln also had arrested the Maryland State Legislature
> 
> 9.) Most of the Baltimore city council
> 
> 10.) The police commissioner of Baltimore
> 
> 11.) The mayor of Baltimore
> 
> 12.) Thousands of prominent Maryland citizens. These people were arrested and held in Military prisons, without trial, some of them for years.
> 
> This trashing of the Constitution upset many Marylanders. One of them was named Booth.
> 
> SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
> 
> April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland's Cities.
> 
> This war criminal Lincoln couldn't wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that terrorism these days.
> 
> 13.) Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation. This is a direct violation of the US Constitution and the US Supreme Courts decision on the matter.
> 
> 14.) The Lincoln administration allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.
> 
> A prime example is the Union army stealing Robert E. Lees home, Arlington House, which they used as Headquarters. Since dead Union soldiers were stacking up like cordwood, they started burying them in Lee's yard. There were so many Union soldiers graves here, this was to become Arlington National Cemetery.
> 
> 15.) The Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture against the thousands of Union prisoners arrested and jailed without trail. This violates the 8th Amendment, "Cruel and unusual punishment".
> 
> 16.) Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians.
Click to expand...


And Sundance is back!!!

So.. once you burn article three of the U.S. Constitution what you say is true.

That's what you are down to buttercup..  IF you ignore the Constitution,  then you can say it was unconstitutuonal.  

That's what I love about white Supremacy.  They never get smart americans. They always just find the brain dead ones.


----------



## Sundance508

*Much like President Trump.....Abraham Lincoln Was Actually Hated When President...the most hated President in history at that time.  People back then obviously understood much more than the p.c. masses of today who are so easily duped by the media.*








*In A Nutshell*
 while in office, most of the American people not only thought he was doing a horrible job but also considered him to be a complete fool

When Lincoln took office in March 1861, he was entering a presidency he had won with only 39.8 percent of the popular vote. Reactions from the public were so negative that on the eve of his inauguration he had to be smuggled into the capital during the dead of night in a disguise. He was looked down upon for everything from his humble beginnings and lack of education to his awkward appearance and high voice. Even the commanding general of his armies, George McClellan, called him the “original gorilla.” 

With the United States on the brink of civil war, the American public was on edge and blamed Lincoln for being part of the problem and certainly not part of the solution.  

 Of course, Southerners also  hated him for trying to change the way of life they’d known for years....... aka 'ethnic cleansing'  They had a fundamental hatred for  him and his hostility and declared their secession from the Union on February 4, 1861. But Northerners weren’t fond of him either, unimpressed with his slow start at the presidency. They expected him to being doing more and to be doing it sooner.

People even hated his speeches. The Gettysburg Address—was panned by many. One _Chicago Times_ writer said: “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly flat dishwatery utterances of a man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.” Ouch.

Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, said the constant deluge of insults wore on the president’s feelings, and Lincoln himself reportedly said, “I would rather be dead than, as President, thus abused in the house of my friends.”  Lincoln was, of course, was unsuprisingly  shot by John Wilkes Booth just six days later......if it had happened earlier the great American holocaust could have been prevented....there was no one....absolutely no one more responsible for the War Between the States than Mr. Lincoln himself.  This is his true legacy of shame and guilt....now the truth about Mr. Lincoln is gradually coming out....the mass media will not be able to protect him much longer.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> *Much like President Trump.....Abraham Lincoln Was Actually Hated When President...the most hated President in history at that time.  People back then obviously understood much more than the p.c. masses of today who are so easily duped by the media.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In A Nutshell*
> while in office, most of the American people not only thought he was doing a horrible job but also considered him to be a complete fool
> 
> When Lincoln took office in March 1861, he was entering a presidency he had won with only 39.8 percent of the popular vote. Reactions from the public were so negative that on the eve of his inauguration he had to be smuggled into the capital during the dead of night in a disguise. He was looked down upon for everything from his humble beginnings and lack of education to his awkward appearance and high voice. Even the commanding general of his armies, George McClellan, called him the “original gorilla.”
> 
> With the United States on the brink of civil war, the American public was on edge and blamed Lincoln for being part of the problem and certainly not part of the solution.
> 
> Of course, Southerners also  hated him for trying to change the way of life they’d known for years....... aka 'ethnic cleansing'  They had a fundamental hatred for  him and his hostility and declared their secession from the Union on February 4, 1861. But Northerners weren’t fond of him either, unimpressed with his slow start at the presidency. They expected him to being doing more and to be doing it sooner.
> 
> People even hated his speeches. The Gettysburg Address—was panned by many. One _Chicago Times_ writer said: “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly flat dishwatery utterances of a man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.” Ouch.
> 
> Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, said the constant deluge of insults wore on the president’s feelings, and Lincoln himself reportedly said, “I would rather be dead than, as President, thus abused in the house of my friends.”  Lincoln was, of course, was unsuprisingly  shot by John Wilkes Booth just six days later......if it had happened earlier the great American holocaust could have been prevented....there was no one....absolutely no one more responsible for the War Between the States than Mr. Lincoln himself.  This is his true legacy of shame and guilt....now the truth about Mr. Lincoln is gradually coming out....the mass media will not be able to protect him much longer.



Your opinion lost all belief when you tried slipping a quote in from a slave who's book was about how much better his life was being free..

Nice try Mr sneaky man.  But you got caught red handed in that lie too...  I mean do you take pride in That? Lying to try and make the world fit your pathetic view?  Or are you so lost you don't even realize it anymore?


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DID the south secede? It might  lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it.  Because of the rising  tide of abolition? Or that states rights?  States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money.  He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.
> 
> Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statist speaks.  What a bunch of horse shit.  I find you APPALLING.
> 
> You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
> 
> Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
> 
> No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
> 
> You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
> 
> Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
> 
> Illegal search and seizure? Check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Want to find a Nazi in a haystack..  yell "Lincoln was a great President".   They'll come running from miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.
> 
> ^Teh weaksauce.
> 
> Your best bet is to slither back under the rock you crawled out from under.
> 
> Your cow chips aren't going to fly around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HehHeh.....he has illusions of grandeur and not to mention he thinks he is an authority on Negroes....thinks they are just like white folk but with a nice tan bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.  You see his attitude often amongst white liberals who grow up with little or no contact with Negroes.....all they know about them is what they see in hollywood movies or on t.v.  ...notice how  so many commericials now have negroes in them...all out of proportion to their percentage of the population....just another propaganda effort by the media ...trying to force negroes on everyone....I did a count the other other day on the percentage of negroes in commericials over an hours time....65% of the actors in the commercials were negroes...portrayed in a very favorable light---- far from their true nature....we are saturated with such propaganda now.  The public schools and the media lead the way....dividing America whilst they attempt to dumb it down even farther than it already has been.
Click to expand...



No sneaky man.. you are forgetting. Don't you remember That?  When you knowingly were using lies to back up your claims? It was only like 12 hours ago... you were lying again and I called you out on it. Then you started some rant on another topic again rather than address it. Don't you remember that?


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> by  George Fitzhugh
> 
> “The Blessings of Slavery” (1857)
> 
> 
> The descendent of an old southern family that had suffered hard times, Fitzhugh became a lawyer and planter. He became famous for his books Sociology for the South and Cannibals All.
> 
> In this document, Fitzhugh explores the idea that slaves are happier than competing “free” laborers and that a society that has embraced slavery is a stable and happyone. He, the Negro, is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child, not as a lunatic or criminal. The master occupies toward him the place of parent or guardian. We shall not dwell on this view, for no one will differ with us who thinks as we do of the negro's capacity, and we might argue till dooms-day in vain, with those who have a high opinion of the negro's moral and intellectual capacity. Secondly. The negro is improvident; will not lay up in summer for the wants of winter; will not accumulate in youth for the exigencies of age. He would become an insufferable burden to society. Society has the right to prevent this, and can only do so by subjecting him to domestic slavery. In the last place, the negro race is inferior to the white race, and living in their midst, they would be far outstripped or outwitted in the chaos of free competition. Gradual but certain extermination would be their fate. We presume the maddest abolitionist does not think the negro's providence of habits and money-making capacity at all to compare to those of the whites. This defect of character would alone justify enslaving him, if he is to remain here. In Africa or the West Indies, he would become idolatrous, savage and cannibal, or be devoured by savages and cannibals. At the North he would freeze or starve. We would remind those who deprecate and sympathize with negro slavery, that his slavery here relieves him from a far more cruel slavery in Africa, or from idolatry and cannibalism, and every brutal vice and crime that can disgrace humanity; and that it christianizes, protects, supports and civilizes him; that it governs him far better than free laborers at the North are governed. There, wife-murder has become a mere holiday pastime; and where so many wives are murdered, almost all must be brutally treated. Nay, more; men who kill their wives or treat them brutally, must be ready for all kinds of crime, and the calendar of crime at the North proves the inference to be correct. Negroes never kill their wives. If it be objected that legally they have no wives, then we reply, that in an experience of more than forty years, we never yet heard of a negro man killing a negro woman. Our negroes are not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but their moral condition is better. The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged and infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessaries of life provided for them. They enjoy liberty, because they are oppressed neither by care or labor. The women do little hard work, and are protected from the despotism of their husbands by their masters. The negro men and stout boys work, on the average, in good weather, no more than nine hours a day. The balance of their time is spent in perfect abandon. Besides, they have their Sabbaths and holidays. White men, with som muh of license and abandon, would die of ennui; but negroes luxuriate in corporeal and mental repose. With their faces upturned to the sun, they can sleep at any hour; and quiet sleep is the gretest of human enjoyments. “Blessed be the man who invented sleep.” ‘Tis happiness in itself-and results from contentment in the present, and confident assur- ance of the future. We do not know whether free laborers ever sleep. They are fools to do so; for, whilst they sleep, the wily and watchful capitalist is devising means to ensnare and exploit them. The free laborer must work or starve. He is more of a slave than the negro, because he works longer and harder for less allowance than the slave, and has no holiday, because the cares of life with him begin when its labors end. He has no liberty and not a single right. . . . Until the lands of America are appropriated by a few, population becomes dense, competition among laborers active, employment uncertain, and wages low, the personal liberty of all the whites will continue to be a blessing. We have vast unsettled territories; population may cease to increase slowly, as in most countries, and many centuries may elapse before the question will be practically suggested, whether slavery to capital be preferable to slavery to human masters. But the negro has neither energy nor enterprise, and, even in our sparser populations, finds with his improvident habits, that his liberty is a curse to himself, and a greater curse to the society around him. These considerations, and others equally obvious, have induced the South to attempt to defend negro slavery as an exceptional institution, admitting, nay asserting, that slavery, in the general or in the abstract, is morally wrong, and against common right. With singular inconsistency, after making this admission, which admits away the authority of the Bible, of profane history, and of the almost universal practice of mankind-they turn around and attempt to bolster up the cause of negro slavery by these very exploded authorities. If we mean not to repudiate all divine, and almost all human authority in favor of slavery, we must vindicate that institution in the abstract. To insist that a status of society, which has been almost universal, and which is expressly and continually justified by Holy Writ, is its natural, normal, and necessary status, under the ordinary circumstances, is on its face a plausible and probable proposition. To insist on less, is to yield our cause, and to give up our religion; for if white slavery be morally wrong, be a violation of natural rights, the Bible cannot be true. Human and divine authority do seem in the general to concur, in establishing the expediency of having masters and slaves of different races. In very many nations of antiquity, and in some of modern times, the law has permitted the native citizens to become slaves to each other. But few take advantage of such laws; and the infrequency of the practice establishes the general truth that master and slave should be of different national descent. In some respects the wider the difference the better, as the slave will feel less mortified by his position. In other respects, it may be that too wide a difference hardens the hearts and brutalizes the feeling of both master and slave. The civilized man hates the savage, and the savage returns the hatred with interest. Hence West India slavery of newly caught negroes is not a very humane, affectionate, or civilizing institution. Virginia negroes have become moral and intelligent. They love their master and his family, and the attachment is reciprocated. Still, we like the idle, but intelligent house-servants, better than the hard-used, but stupid outhands; and we like the mulatto better than the negro; yet the negro is generally more affectionate, contented, and faithful. The world at large looks on negro slavery as much the worst form of slavery; because it is only acquainted with West India slavery. But our Southern slavery has become a benign and protective institution, and our negroes are confessedly better off than any free laboring population in the world. How can we contend that white slavery is wrong, whilst all the great body of free laborers are starving; and slaves, white or black, throughout the world, are enjoying comfort? . . . The aversion to negroes, the antipathy of race, is much greater at the North than at the South; and it is very probable that this antipathy to the person of the negro, is confounded with or generates hatred of the institution with which he is usually connected. Hatred to slavery is very generally little more than hatred of negroes.
> 
> ,



No sneaky man...  I'm starting to feel worried for You,  did you hit your head last night? They say head trauma can cause memory loss.

Do you remember the book you were quoting to show how good slave life was?  DEM DAYS WAS HELL, where dem days was their time as a slave.

Don't you remember that sneaky man? You getting caught again in your web of lies?


----------



## Sundance508

Late nineteenth and early twentieth century plantation memoirs and reminiscences, authored by former slave-owners, bring a nostalgic sensibility and aesthetic to bear in the making and remaking of the Old South plantation. Bring back the truth of those times and fine memories of life and lifestyle on the plantation with discourses on the compassionate paternalism that was the signatory element of life on the plantation and the love the darkies had for their mastah....no wonder so many former slaves longed for those good ole times on the plantation under the care and protection of their beloved mastahs.  There were no problems with  race relations on the plantation in most cases...it was like just one big happy family...everyone had their place.......these autobiographical accounts present a true narrative of those times those good ole days remembered with much nostalgia by all concerned...those who were there and know the truth.

One such approach focused on recollections of food, its preparation and presentation, and memories of good eating, as my recent research on childhood and adolescent memories of the Old South plantation community has shown. Food, for example, was often assigned a symbolic role in plantation relationships, and was significant to the system of plantation governance that the planter class espoused. Their memories of the  paternalism and its  ideal way of life regarding how to deal with Negroes for their own good as well as society---the true nature of the  master-slave relationships, not only codified nostalgic forms of the Old South on the page, but also allowed former planters to recount  the virtues of paternal authority, seen in retrospect, against the horrible racial realities of the post bellum era.

 Within this individual and collective memory about the past, food, I argue, focused attention on the bonds of affection between white and black southerners and gave meaning to memories once rooted in everyday experiences on the plantation. Indeed, food memories, and the profusion of plenty, frequently cited to demonstrate a planter’s wealth, gentility and class, also connected powerfully with place: the plantation. Running through plantation memoirs and reminiscences are memories of great feasts and repasts, often concocted by talented and accomplished Negro cooks. “The Virginia cook and the Virginia cooking of that time were the full realization of the dreams of epicures for centuries,” rhapsodized one planter’s son, while a memoirist from Georgia, recalling a “sumptuous” family wedding, insisted that “Everything good to eat was bountifully furnished...all sorts of home collections and concoctions,” with loaf sugar and other luxuries brought in “by the wagonload”. These nostalgic representations of life on the plantation from the perspective of the planter’s table have attracted little scholarly interest, despite alertness to the pervasiveness of nostalgia in southern food studies . By critically examining these self-representational accounts of the Old South, we can begin to open up new ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries about the region’s past, exposing the emotional and political uses of nostalgia by recourse to enduring memories of food and eating and the bounty of the plantation....plenty for all...no need for government hand outs on the Plantation...a ideal life ...only possible without government intrusion.  We could learn much today from those days.

 REFERENCE:    childhood down South on the plantation


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> Late nineteenth and early twentieth century plantation memoirs and reminiscences, authored by former slave-owners, bring a nostalgic sensibility and aesthetic to bear in the making and remaking of the Old South plantation. Bring back the truth of those times and fine memories of life and lifestyle on the plantation with discourses on the compassionate paternalism that was the signatory element of life on the plantation and the love the darkies had for their mastah....no wonder so many former slaves longed for those good ole times on the plantation under the care and protection of their beloved mastahs.  There were no problems with  race relations on the plantation in most cases...it was like just one big happy family...everyone had their place.......these autobiographical accounts present a true narrative of those times those good ole days remembered with much nostalgia by all concerned...those who were there and know the truth.
> 
> One such approach focused on recollections of food, its preparation and presentation, and memories of good eating, as my recent research on childhood and adolescent memories of the Old South plantation community has shown. Food, for example, was often assigned a symbolic role in plantation relationships, and was significant to the system of plantation governance that the planter class espoused. Their memories of the  paternalism and its  ideal way of life regarding how to deal with Negroes for their own good as well as society---the true nature of the  master-slave relationships, not only codified nostalgic forms of the Old South on the page, but also allowed former planters to recount  the virtues of paternal authority, seen in retrospect, against the horrible racial realities of the post bellum era.
> 
> Within this individual and collective memory about the past, food, I argue, focused attention on the bonds of affection between white and black southerners and gave meaning to memories once rooted in everyday experiences on the plantation. Indeed, food memories, and the profusion of plenty, frequently cited to demonstrate a planter’s wealth, gentility and class, also connected powerfully with place: the plantation. Running through plantation memoirs and reminiscences are memories of great feasts and repasts, often concocted by talented and accomplished Negro cooks. “The Virginia cook and the Virginia cooking of that time were the full realization of the dreams of epicures for centuries,” rhapsodized one planter’s son, while a memoirist from Georgia, recalling a “sumptuous” family wedding, insisted that “Everything good to eat was bountifully furnished...all sorts of home collections and concoctions,” with loaf sugar and other luxuries brought in “by the wagonload”. These nostalgic representations of life on the plantation from the perspective of the planter’s table have attracted little scholarly interest, despite alertness to the pervasiveness of nostalgia in southern food studies . By critically examining these self-representational accounts of the Old South, we can begin to open up new ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries about the region’s past, exposing the emotional and political uses of nostalgia by recourse to enduring memories of food and eating and the bounty of the plantation....plenty for all...no need for government hand outs on the Plantation...a ideal life ...only possible without government intrusion.  We could learn much today from those days.
> 
> REFERENCE:    childhood down South on the plantation memoirs and reminiscences.



No.. hold up sneaky man.  You weren't in an accident. You don't remember those lies last night?  I'm worried for you. 

They say that another cause of memory loss can be being developmentally disabled.  Do youh need help? Do those things come out often? I'm so sorry you can't remember from one day to the next here.


----------



## BlindBoo

Baseless racist justification for keeping an entire race enslaved in perpetuity was systematically taught to most educated Whites back then.  How else could it, our peculiar institution,  be justified in the land of the free, where all men were created equal?

The effects of the systemic nature of that still linger, obviously.


----------



## Sundance508

All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term.  Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage


----------



## Sundance508

The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.

The Yankee Problem In American History


----------



## BlindBoo

Sundance508 said:


> All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term.  Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage



Well allow me to retort.

Martin Luther King Jr. on The Declaration of Independence - America Comes Alive

_This is a dream. It’s a great dream._

_“The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say, ‘some men’; it says ‘all men.’ It doesn’t say ‘all white men’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes black men. It does not say ‘all Gentiles’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Jews. It doesn’t say ‘all Protestants’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say ‘all theists and believers’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes humanists and agnostics.”

“Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us—and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day—that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”_


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage




No you are forgetting atill. I'm trying to help you Mr sneaky man.  Take a moment from your deluded manifesto. We get it. Your a crazy ass white supremacist on the internet. Take a number and get in line, you guys are like cockroaches.


I'm making sure you remember last night. Getting caught in all those lies.  Until you were so desperate to seem to be telling the truth, you were quoting a guy who called slavery hell, trying to show it wasn't too bad.  You remember that right sneaky man?


----------



## Sundance508

BlindBoo said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term.  Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well allow me to retort.
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. on The Declaration of Independence - America Comes Alive
> 
> _This is a dream. It’s a great dream._
> 
> _“The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say, ‘some men’; it says ‘all men.’ It doesn’t say ‘all white men’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes black men. It does not say ‘all Gentiles’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Jews. It doesn’t say ‘all Protestants’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say ‘all theists and believers’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes humanists and agnostics.”
> 
> “Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us—and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day—that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”_
Click to expand...


Martin Luther King was a pervert, fraud, plagairist and even Jackie Kennedy concurred.

FBI Reveals How Martin Luther King Allegedly Had All-night Church Minister S*x Orgy         -          247 Nigeria News Update


Martin Luther King Jr. - A Historical Examination: The REAL truth about Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## BlindBoo

Sundance508 said:


> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The Yankee Problem In American History



Which came first slavery or racial justification for enslaving an entire race in perpetuity?

Slavery of course.  Keeping an entire race enslaved?  They had to give the people a reason for it to be, so racism was taught.  That teaching still lingers.


----------



## BlindBoo

Sundance508 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term.  Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well allow me to retort.
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. on The Declaration of Independence - America Comes Alive
> 
> _This is a dream. It’s a great dream._
> 
> _“The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say, ‘some men’; it says ‘all men.’ It doesn’t say ‘all white men’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes black men. It does not say ‘all Gentiles’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Jews. It doesn’t say ‘all Protestants’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say ‘all theists and believers’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes humanists and agnostics.”
> 
> “Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us—and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day—that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin Luther King was a pervert, fraud, plagairist and even Jackie Kennedy concurred.
> 
> FBI Reveals How Martin Luther King Allegedly Had All-night Church Minister S*x Orgy         -          247 Nigeria News Update
> 
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. - A Historical Examination: The REAL truth about Martin Luther King Jr.
Click to expand...


So what?  Thomas Jefferson was a slaver who has sex with his slaves.  I still think he was a great American for penning the DOI.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term.  Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well allow me to retort.
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. on The Declaration of Independence - America Comes Alive
> 
> _This is a dream. It’s a great dream._
> 
> _“The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say, ‘some men’; it says ‘all men.’ It doesn’t say ‘all white men’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes black men. It does not say ‘all Gentiles’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Jews. It doesn’t say ‘all Protestants’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say ‘all theists and believers’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes humanists and agnostics.”
> 
> “Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us—and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day—that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin Luther King was a pervert, fraud, plagairist and even Jackie Kennedy concurred.
> 
> FBI Reveals How Martin Luther King Allegedly Had All-night Church Minister S*x Orgy         -          247 Nigeria News Update
> 
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. - A Historical Examination: The REAL truth about Martin Luther King Jr.
Click to expand...



No we get it. You are acting like what you are saying is something new. It's not. It's what confederate leaders said. Then Hitler regurgitated it, then south African apartheid spit it out.  

And every once in a while those that make these claims aren't total pussies and step up in public and push.  And the world joins in and culls the retards from the face of the planet and yall shut up for 30 or so years.  We vet it. You are one of the pussy ones rehashing the same bs and thinking its something new.

But you don't seem to be remembering here.. don't you remember last night. Walking into lie after lie after lie... again and again, until it was so bad you were trying to pull little quotes from slaves saying it was hell?


----------



## Sundance508

Life on the plantation was a bountiful life for the darkies..............Plantation Life


----------



## Sundance508

BlindBoo said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The Yankee Problem In American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first slavery or racial justification for enslaving an entire race in perpetuity?
> 
> Slavery of course.  Keeping an entire race enslaved?  They had to give the people a reason for it to be, so racism was taught.  That teaching still lingers.
Click to expand...


Slavery has existed for thosands of years and still exists...not all negroes were enslaved.  There were free negroes and there were even negroes who owned slaves.  More whites were enslaved on the barbary coast than negroes down south.  Slavery is much more complex than you could possibly imagine.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
> 
> See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay then the US government is perpetual, no matter what it does.  That means if anyone rebels from the US, they are traitors and deserving of immediate death..
Click to expand...


Hmmmm yes- persons who 'rebel' against the United States are traitors.

You know- like Benedict Arnold.

Now if someone wants to advocate the legal- and peaceful separation of their state from the United States- they need to go through the Constitutional process to accomplish that- including the agreement of the other states.


----------



## Slash

Sundance508 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The Yankee Problem In American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first slavery or racial justification for enslaving an entire race in perpetuity?
> 
> Slavery of course.  Keeping an entire race enslaved?  They had to give the people a reason for it to be, so racism was taught.  That teaching still lingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed for thosands of years and still exists...not all negroes were enslaved.  There were free negroes and there were even negroes who owned slaves.  More whites were enslaved on the barbary coast than negroes down south.
Click to expand...


No.. sweetheart. It's ok. We've heard it before.  Like I said every once in a while those people like you that does excrement from their mouths instead of their asses like normal people stand up and the world takes notice and you all get in a group and the world bends you over their collective knee.

What you are saying isn't new or surprising. We have all heard it before.

What I am asking is don't you remember last night?  When you were spewing that crap thinking I wouldn't fact check you and I did. And you were cherry picking quotes by a former slave who called slavery hell?

Remember that? When you knowingly were lying to try and support your claim?


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Life on the plantation was a bountiful life for the darkies..............Plantation Life



Life on the Plantation was a bountiful life for rapists and pedophiles


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The Yankee Problem In American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first slavery or racial justification for enslaving an entire race in perpetuity?
> 
> Slavery of course.  Keeping an entire race enslaved?  They had to give the people a reason for it to be, so racism was taught.  That teaching still lingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed for thosands of years and still exists...not all negroes were enslaved.  There were free negroes and there were even negroes who owned slaves.  More whites were enslaved on the barbary coast than negroes down south.  Slavery is much more complex than you could possibly imagine.
Click to expand...


And yet you endorse slavery of the 'negroes' and applaud the states that tried to flee the United States in order to protect their ownership of humans.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> by  George Fitzhugh
> 
> “The Blessings of Slavery” (1857)
> 
> ,



And that is what Sunny boy is here to do- to promote his propaganda- "The blessings of Slavery".


----------



## Sundance508

BBC - History -  				British History in depth: British Slaves on the Barbary Coast


----------



## Faun

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.


Lincoln didn’t fight the Civil War to end slavery — he fought it to keep the union whole. He freed the slaves because it helped achieve that goal.


----------



## BlindBoo

Sundance508 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The Yankee Problem In American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first slavery or racial justification for enslaving an entire race in perpetuity?
> 
> Slavery of course.  Keeping an entire race enslaved?  They had to give the people a reason for it to be, so racism was taught.  That teaching still lingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed for thosands of years and still exists...not all negroes were enslaved.  There were free negroes and there were even negroes who owned slaves.  More whites were enslaved on the barbary coast than negroes down south.  Slavery is much more complex than you could possibly imagine.
Click to expand...


According to many of the writers whom you've cited the entire race was by nature deserving of extinction or slavery.

Science has of course debunked all that nonsense but yet the effects of the teaching of that time, linger.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The Yankee Problem In American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first slavery or racial justification for enslaving an entire race in perpetuity?
> 
> Slavery of course.  Keeping an entire race enslaved?  They had to give the people a reason for it to be, so racism was taught.  That teaching still lingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed for thosands of years and still exists...not all negroes were enslaved.  There were free negroes and there were even negroes who owned slaves.  More whites were enslaved on the barbary coast than negroes down south.  Slavery is much more complex than you could possibly imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you endorse slavery of the 'negroes' and applaud the states that tried to flee the United States in order to protect their ownership of humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negroes were created to be servants.
Click to expand...


Yeah- you are just an asshole racist and Confederate fanboy.

I bet you still have your Trump sign up in front of your trailer.


----------



## BlindBoo

Sundance508 said:


> Life on the plantation was a bountiful life for the darkies..............Plantation Life



LIke a scene out of that old documnetary "Gone With The Wind"??

Or not.


----------



## Sundance508

Faun said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln didn’t fight the Civil War to end slavery — he fought it to keep the union whole. He freed the slaves because it helped achieve that goal.
Click to expand...


Yes...and that has been proven time and again.


----------



## Syriusly

Sundance508 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
> 
> The Yankee Problem In American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first slavery or racial justification for enslaving an entire race in perpetuity?
> 
> Slavery of course.  Keeping an entire race enslaved?  They had to give the people a reason for it to be, so racism was taught.  That teaching still lingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed for thosands of years and still exists...not all negroes were enslaved.  There were free negroes and there were even negroes who owned slaves.  More whites were enslaved on the barbary coast than negroes down south.  Slavery is much more complex than you could possibly imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to many of the writers whom you've cited the entire race was by nature deserving of extinction or slavery.
> 
> Science has of course debunked all that nonsense but yet the effects of the teaching of that time, linger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense....you know nothing of genetics. t.
Click to expand...


LOL- coming from the assole racist who applauds slavery- that is richly ironic.


----------



## Faun

Sundance508 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln didn’t fight the Civil War to end slavery — he fought it to keep the union whole. He freed the slaves because it helped achieve that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...and that has been proven time and again.
Click to expand...

Who said otherwise?


----------



## Faun

Sundance508 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln didn’t fight the Civil War to end slavery — he fought it to keep the union whole. He freed the slaves because it helped achieve that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...and that has been proven time and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ignorant morons on this thread.
Click to expand...

I didn’t see that, though admittedly, I didn’t read this entire thread. I did, however, see you post the idiocy that Lincoln initiated the war. That’s revisionist bullshit. The war started when confederates opened fire on a U.S. fort.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sundance tries his very best to sound learned and erudite about the Civil War, slavery, etc.

He does not succeed in the slightest.


----------



## flacaltenn

*The is NOT a "Race" thread. Don't need to race bait within a discussion of Lincoln and the Constitution. Keep it on topic. 

*


----------



## Syriusly

flacaltenn said:


> *The is NOT a "Race" thread. Don't need to race bait within a discussion of Lincoln and the Constitution. Keep it on topic.
> *


Thin line to thread. 

The OP is a quote from the vice president of the Confederacy who not only on was a slave owner- but was on record about how he believed that slavery was the natural state of blacks. 

Meanwhile- Sunny Boy is on record about how he believes that servitude is the natural state of blacks. 

This entire thread is nothing but a propaganda rant supporting a racist regime, with citations of racist pro-slavery tracts. There is a racial bias inherent to the thread.  

That being said- Lincoln certainly understood the Constitution better than most of the Confederate slave state rebels, but in order to preserve our nation- he took certain steps that might have been unconstitutional- in reaction to the unconstitutional attempt at rebellion by the Confederate slave states.


----------



## Slash

Faun said:


> Lincoln didn’t fight the Civil War to end slavery — he fought it to keep the union whole. He freed the slaves because it helped achieve that goal.



To a point yes.  Remember context is key in history.  Without it we have next to nothing. 

Lincoln kept slavery out of the spotlight early in the war when the lines had yet to be drawn for a fairly obvious reason. 

Washington DC was situated between Maryland and Virginia.  Two slave states that had yet to secede with the South.  So to say the war was a war on slavery would run a very strong chance that these two states would join the rebellion and Lincoln would be waking up the next morning in the heart of the Confederacy, waving a white flag out of the White House window.

Which is why he waited for military wins, hardened battle lines, and then issued his Emancipation Proclamation.  Once people had dug in on sides, that wasn't going to cost him the war.  

But it wasn't a secret that he was going to fight slavery.  Heck the states listed him being an abolitionist as reasons for secession.  Lincoln himself spent his entire campaign trying to play moderate to win votes as opponents just kept calling him a "Black Republican"  and wanting to go to war to end slavery. I mean his party was the anti-slavery party.  It's like watching Bernie Sanders saying he's not really a socialist when Hillary would call him out on that in campaign mode.   Trying to look more moderate wins the maybe votes a lot of the time.  

So with his words early on in the war and Lincolns campaign, yeah, not so much about slavery, at least from the North.  But listen to that change after the war. 

Grant pre war also said it was just about saving the Union.

Post-war he didn't hide his words anymore though...

"There had to be an end of slavery. Then we were fighting an enemy with whom we could not make a peace. We had to destroy him. No convention, no treaty was possible – only destruction."

"but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

"It had to be done... Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery,"


The South called it out from the start, and the leaders in the North called it out once it wouldn't cost them the war.  The war was about slavery's existence.  

So it's a complicated situation.  The war was about bringing the Union back together, but the Union split over slavery.  So preserving the union and fighting slavery aren't mutually exclusive reasons to fight a war.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
> 
> You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay then the US government is perpetual, no matter what it does.  That means if anyone rebels from the US, they are traitors and deserving of immediate death..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm yes- persons who 'rebel' against the United States are traitors.
> 
> You know- like Benedict Arnold.
> 
> Now if someone wants to advocate the legal- and peaceful separation of their state from the United States- they need to go through the Constitutional process to accomplish that- including the agreement of the other states.
Click to expand...

Blow me dick head.  

You would gladly murder for a criminal state.  Fuck you!


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution.  Sorry..  enjoy your sad lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution?  if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
> 
> You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay then the US government is perpetual, no matter what it does.  That means if anyone rebels from the US, they are traitors and deserving of immediate death..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm yes- persons who 'rebel' against the United States are traitors.
> 
> You know- like Benedict Arnold.
> 
> Now if someone wants to advocate the legal- and peaceful separation of their state from the United States- they need to go through the Constitutional process to accomplish that- including the agreement of the other states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blow me dick head.
> 
> You would gladly murder for a criminal state.  Fuck you!
Click to expand...


Don't involve me in your twisted sexual fantasies.

But yes- I would gladly defend our Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. 

Unlike your sorry ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The alt right and white nationalists are domestic enemies of America.


----------



## Sundance508

JakeStarkey said:


> The alt right and white nationalists are domestic enemies of America.


 


JakeStarkey said:


> The alt right and white nationalists are domestic enemies of America.



Every commie is entitled to an opinion.  How is it going down in Venezuela,cuba, russia or any other leftist hellhole?  hehheh


----------



## Sundance508

Oh the pc morons always need to feel morally superior be they democrits or republicans...actually I detest pc republicans more than democrats....anyhow It is my duty to inform all you blowhards that have been duped into believing that slavery is the greatest evil in the world that the Negroes are worse off today than at any time since they were (unfortunately for America brought here).  

There are more Negroes in prison today than were brought here as slaves....let me ax you morons a question...what do you think some Negro on rikers island, or in some hellhole like San Quentin would say  if they were axed would they  prefer to live on a plantation as a slave or stay where they are?  

No matter how they answer and we all know what most would say...the reality is that Plantation Life was ideal for the Savages brought over here from Africa...gave them a chance to become civilized...and live to ripe old ages, to marry, to have many children...compare that to the very short life they would have had in disease ridden africa...and most of them would have been executed it the tribal chief that had captured them was unable to sell them off to some dutch slave trader.

So as explained earlier Slavery was not perfect and though Southern Slavery was humane for the most part and though it did no always live up to the Biblical requirements for the treatment of slaves...the Negroes were far better off here in America than they were or would have been in Africa.


----------



## Dr Grump

Sundance508 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alt right and white nationalists are domestic enemies of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alt right and white nationalists are domestic enemies of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every commie is entitled to an opinion.  How is it going down in Venezuela,cuba, russia or any other leftist hellhole?  hehheh
Click to expand...


You forgot the rightie hell holes like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala <insert Central or South American tinpot dictator that the CIA backed>...


----------



## Dr Grump

Sundance508 said:


> for the most part and though it did no always live up to the Biblical requirements for the treatment of slaves...the Negroes were far better off here in America than they were or would have been in Africa.



And they're even better off now that they aren't slaves. Go figure....


----------



## BlindBoo

Sundance508 said:


> the reality is that Plantation Life was ideal for the Savages brought over here from Africa...gave them a chance to become civilized...and live to ripe old ages, to marry, to have many children.



The importing of new slaves ended in the early 1800's.  Most all the increase in slave population after the slave trade was banned was because they were born into servitude. You don't seem to get what in perpetuity means.  Families torn apart at the masters whims.  Children taken from their mothers arms and all.  It was inhumane treatment of our brothers and sisters, all because racism was taught, a learned thing.


----------



## TheGreenHornet

BlindBoo said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reality is that Plantation Life was ideal for the Savages brought over here from Africa...gave them a chance to become civilized...and live to ripe old ages, to marry, to have many children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The importing of new slaves ended in the early 1800's.  Most all the increase in slave population after the slave trade was banned was because they were born into servitude. You don't seem to get what in perpetuity means.  Families torn apart at the masters whims.  Children taken from their mothers arms and all.  It was inhumane treatment of our brothers and sisters, all because racism was taught, a learned thing.
Click to expand...


A rather incoherent statement and not true.
The Federal government made it illegal to import slaves  in 1807.but that did not stop it.  More than 3 million slaves were introduced into the Americas even after it was made illegal.  Even the Confederate Constitution banned the further importation of Slaves into The Great South-Land.

However, this was not out of any concern for slaves or effort to really end the slave trade by southerners. While there was sentiment against slave trading in the nation following the Revolutionary War, many proponents of ending the slave trade were slave-keepers who had no intent of manumitting the human beings they held in bondage. Again, I wouldn’t discount the sentiment against the slavery and the slave trade that existed in the nation, and in Great Britain.

However, many individuals were against the slave trade out of a racist disdain for black folk in their nations rather than out of real humanitarian concern. Thomas Jefferson certainly disdained slavery, but favored maintaining a white yeoman farmer as the citizenry of America. He favored ending the slave trade, and shipping blacks back to Africa.

For others, the real goal was to make money. Slaves were a strange “property”. Unlike the largest investment in the nation, real estate in 1800, slaves could reproduce. That allowed a slave keeper to invest by keeping and raising slaves and then selling them.  Another logical reason to take good care of them.  A healthy, well fed and cared for slave brought a higher price. However, a steady stream of new slaves into the nation would increase supply and decrease demand.

Simple economics convinced these slave-keepers to ban the importation of new slaves, aligning themselves with anti-slavery sentiment; all the while, making them fantastic profits. The tobacco trade was not quite as profitable at this point in history, but cotton trade was increasing dramatically due to the invention of the cotton gin. The plantation masters of the upper south began selling their slaves “down the river” as they said, to the cotton belt. The cost of slaves nearly tripled after 1808.

Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade by Steven Deyle indicates that demand for slaves in the cotton regions increased by 27.5% every decade with costs rising from $500 dollars in 1800 to $1,800 by 1860 in Louisiana. That’s roughly $35,000 dollars today.

Keep in mind, this is how Joseph and Jefferson Davis both made their fortunes, establishing themselves by 1860 as two of the wealthiest men in the entire nation.

Regarding how slave families could be split apart....though this did happen on occasion it was not commonplace.  Plantation owners being wise and good Christians and excellent businessmen understood a happy servant is a productive servant  and thus he would do his best to keep his servants happy and keeping the servant  families together was a big part of that.  Yet due to unfortunate circumstances it did happen on rare occasions.

  As has been shown in previous posts on here, Slavery down South was mostly very humane.  A lot of Northerner's actually believed the book 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' was a true story but it was a complete work of fiction(yet, had a big influence on the cry for abolition of slavery  and some say even the Yankee desire for war)  the misrepresentations of Life down south in that book and from other sources still keep many deluded in regards to the true nature of Slavery in the Great Southland.

Interview with a former Slave from the Federal Writers Project of the l930's.
Barbara Darsey
SLAVE INTERVIEW
With
CINDY KINSEY, FORMER SLAVE
About 86 Years of Age


"Yes maam, chile, I aint suah ezackly, but I think I bout 85 mebby 86
yeah old. Yes maam, I wus suah bahn in de slavery times, an I bahn right
neah de Little Rock in Arkansas, an dere I stay twell I comed right from
dere to heah in Floridy bout foah yeah gone.

"Yes maam, my people de liv on a big plantation neah de Little Rock an
we all hoe cotton. My Ma? Lawzy me, chile, she name Zola Young an my
pappy he name Nelson Young. I had broddehs Danel, Freeman, George, Will,
and Henry. Yes maam, Freeman he de younges an bahn after we done got
free. An I had sistehs by de name ob Isabella, Mary, Nora,--dat aint all
yet, you want I should name em all? Well then they was too Celie, Sally,
and me Cindy but I aint my own sisteh is I, hee, hee, hee.

"My Ole Massa, he name Marse Louis Stuart, an my Ole Missy, dat de real
ole one you know, she name,--now--let-me-see, does--I--ricollek, lawzy
me, chile, I suah fin it hard to member some things. O! yes,--her name
hit war Missy Nancy, an her chilluns dey name Little Marse Sammie an
Little Missy Fanny. I don know huccum my pappy he go by de name Young
when Ole Massa he name Marse Stuart lessen my pappy he be raised by
nother Massa fore Marse Louis got him, but I disrememba does I eber
heerd him say.

"Yes maam, chile I suah like dem days. We had lot ob fun an nothin to
worrify about, suah wish dem days wus now, chile, us niggahs heaps
better off den as now. Us always had plenty eat and plenty wearin close
too, which us aint nevah got no more. We had plenty cahn pone, baked in
de ashes too, hee, hee, hee, it shore wus good, an we had side meat, an
we had other eatin too, what ever de Ole Marse had, but I like de side
meat bes. I had a good dress for Sunday too but aint got none dese days,
jes looky, chile, dese ole rags de bes I got. My Sunday dress? Lawzy me,
chile, hit were alway a bright red cotton. I suah member dat color, us
dye de cotton right on de plantation mostly. Other close I dont ezackly
ricollek, but de mostly dark, no colahs.

"My ma, she boss all de funerls ob de niggahs on de plantation an she
got a long white veil for wearin, lawzy me, chile, she suah look
bootiful, jes lak a bride she did when she boss dem funerls in dat veil.
She not much skeered nether fo dat veil hit suah keep de hants away.
Wisht I had me dat veil right now, mout hep cure dis remutizics in ma
knee what ailin me so bad. I disrememba, but I sposen she got buried in
dat veil, chile. She hoe de cotton so Ole Marse Louis he always let her
off fo de buryings cause she know how to manage de other niggahs and
keep dem quiet at de funerls.

"No maam, chile, we didn't hab no Preacher-mans much, hit too fah away
to git one when de niggah die. We sung songs and my ma she say a Bible
vurs what Ole Missy don lernt her. Be vurs, lawsy me, chile, suah wish I
could member hit for you. Dem songs? I don jes recollek, but hit seem
lak de called 'Gimme Dem Golden Slippahs', an a nother one hit wah 'Ise
Goin To Heben In De Charot Ob Fiah', suah do wish I could recollek de
words an sing em foh you, chile, but I caint no more, my min, hit aint
no good lak what it uster be.

"Yes maam, chile, I suah heerd ob Mr. Lincoln but not so much. What
dat mans wanter free us niggahs when we so happy an not nothin to
worrify us. No, maam, I didn't see none dem Yankee sojers but I heerd
od[TR: of?] dem an we alwy skeerd dey come. Us all cotch us rabbits an
weah de lef hine foots roun our nek wif a bag ob akkerfedity, yessum I
guess dat what I mean, an hit shore smell bad an hit keep off de fevah
too, an if a Yankee cotch you wif dat rabbit foots an dat akkerfedity
bag roun youh nek, he suah turn you loose right now.

"Yes maam, chile, Ise a Baptis and sho proud ob it. Praise de Lord and
go to Church, dat de onliest way to keep de debbil offen youh trail and
den sometime he almos kotch up wif you. Lawsy me, chile, when de
Preacher-mans baptiz me he had duck me under de wateh twell I mos dron,
de debbil he got such a holt on me an jes wont let go, but de
Preacher-mans he kep a duckin me an he finaly shuck de debbil loose an
he aint bother me much sence, dat is not very much, an dat am a long
time ago.

"Yes maam, chile, some ob de niggahs dey run off from Ole Marse Louis,
but de alway come back bout stahved, hee, hee, hee, an do dey eat, an
Ole Marse, he alway take em back an give em plenty eatins. Yes maam, he
alway good to us and he suah give us niggahs plenty eatins all de time.
When Crismus come, you know chile, hit be so cole, and Old Marse, he let
us make a big fiah, a big big fiah in de yahd roun which us live, an us
all dance rounde fiah, and Ole Missy she brang us Crismus Giff. What war
de giff? Lawzy me, chile, de mostly red woolen stockings and some times
a pair of shoeses, an my wus we proud. An Ole Marse Louis, he giv de
real old niggahs, both de mens an de owmans, a hot toddy, hee, hee, hee.
Lawzy me, chile, dem wus de good days, who give an ole niggah like me a
hot toddy dese days? an talkin you bout dem days, chile, sho mek me wish
dey was now."




FEDERAL WRITERS' PROJECT
American Guide, (Negro Writers' Unit)


----------



## TheGreenHornet

Dr Grump said:


> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the most part and though it did no always live up to the Biblical requirements for the treatment of slaves...the Negroes were far better off here in America than they were or would have been in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they're even better off now that they aren't slaves. Go figure....
Click to expand...


Better for some but not for all.  A good case can be made that most Africans were better off on the plantations.  Supporting that contention is the fact that our prisons are overwhelmingly full of young African men.  The huge unemployment rate.  The Drug problem in the inner cities.  The gang warfare in the inner-cities.  The huge numbers of Africans killed by other Africans.  The fact that so many are un-employable and dependent on welfare. etc.etc. and so on and so forth.  Their quality of life in the inner cities is quite tragic and it is true that many former slaves stated in interviews conducted by writers sent down south during the great depression to record their experiences under slavery said quite openly they longed for those days on the Plantation that it was a much better way of life for them.


----------



## JoeMoma

I have not read the entire thread up to this point, and I do not endorse the OP.   That being said, I do believe that history is written by the victors.  That is one reason Lincoln is deemed historically as one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest.  Also, Lincoln was assassinated shortly after the civil war ended, thus becoming a martyr.  Because of this I am of the opinion that the greatness of Lincoln has been exaggerated.  That being said, the road not taken will always be a road not known, so we will never know what would have happen if the civil war had somehow been avoided.


----------



## TheGreenHornet

JoeMoma said:


> I have not read the entire thread up to this point, and I do not endorse the OP.   That being said, I do believe that history is written by the victors.  That is one reason Lincoln is deemed historically as one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest.  Also, Lincoln was assassinated shortly after the civil war ended, thus becoming a martyr.  Because of this I am of the opinion that the greatness of Lincoln has been exaggerated.  That being said, the road not taken will always be a road not known, so we will never know what would have happen if the civil war had somehow been avoided.



The prevention of at least 650,000 deaths (probably  more) would have been a good thing.  Avoiding the huge material costs would have been a good thing.  Avoiding the destitution of so many thousands would have been a good thing.  Not allowing so much power to be accrued in Washington--understanding and recognizing the idea of the Constitutional Cofederancy would have been a good thing for the greater freedom of all   A  great ideal and hope for preserving humankind from the domineering rule of liberals,socialists, Marxists,communists,dictators, kings, tyrants, monarchists, autocrats,czars, potentates and despots.


----------



## paperview

TheGreenHornet said:


> A rather incoherent statement and not true.
> The Federal government made it illegal to import slaves  in 1807.but that did not stop it.  More than 3 million slaves were introduced into the Americas even after it was made illegal.  Even the Confederate Constitution banned the further importation of Slaves into The Great South-Land.
> 
> However, this was not out of any concern for slaves or effort to really end the slave trade by southerners. While there was sentiment against slave trading in the nation following the Revolutionary War, many proponents of ending the slave trade were slave-keepers who had no intent of manumitting the human beings they held in bondage. Again, I wouldn’t discount the sentiment against the slavery and the slave trade that existed in the nation, and in Great Britain.
> 
> However, many individuals were against the slave trade out of a racist disdain for black folk in their nations rather than out of real humanitarian concern. Thomas Jefferson certainly disdained slavery, but favored maintaining a white yeoman farmer as the citizenry of America. He favored ending the slave trade, and shipping blacks back to Africa.
> 
> For others, the real goal was to make money. Slaves were a strange “property”. Unlike the largest investment in the nation, real estate in 1800, slaves could reproduce. That allowed a slave keeper to invest by keeping and raising slaves and then selling them.  Another logical reason to take good care of them.  A healthy, well fed and cared for slave brought a higher price. However, a steady stream of new slaves into the nation would increase supply and decrease demand.



Boo's post was not incoherent, but yours is.

Let's start with this:

"The Federal government made it illegal to import slaves  in 1807.but that did not stop it.  *More than 3 million slaves were introduced into the Americas even after it was made illegal*."

Right off the bat, you make a humongous error in imagining the "the America's" are the United States.  derp on a stick.

_The America's _include Central America and South America - neither of which "made it illegal" after 1807.

Talk about getting off to a bad start. 

"Even the Confederate Constitution banned the further importation of Slaves into The Great South-Land."

And again.  There was a very strong incentive to keep the international slave trade banned in the CSA.  We were breeding them here at an astounding rate - with some states populated with more slaves than free. 
No need to import.  The money stays here.  Double derp.

I stopped reading there.  No need when one makes such huge errors up front. 

All told, the slaves that came directly from Africa to the U.S. accounted for less than 1% of the total slave population.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TheGreenHornet said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the most part and though it did no always live up to the Biblical requirements for the treatment of slaves...the Negroes were far better off here in America than they were or would have been in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they're even better off now that they aren't slaves. Go figure....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better for some but not for all.  A good case can be made that most Africans were better off on the plantations.  Supporting that contention is the fact that our prisons are overwhelmingly full of young African men.  The huge unemployment rate.  The Drug problem in the inner cities.  The gang warfare in the inner-cities.  The huge numbers of Africans killed by other Africans.  The fact that so many are un-employable and dependent on welfare. etc.etc. and so on and so forth.  Their quality of life in the inner cities is quite tragic and it is true that many former slaves stated in interviews conducted by writers sent down south during the great depression to record their experiences under slavery said quite openly they longed for those days on the Plantation that it was a much better way of life for them.
Click to expand...

^^^ Proof positive of race insanity by TheGreenHornet.


----------



## Dr Grump

TheGreenHornet said:


> A good case can be made that most Africans were better off on the plantations.



No. It couldn't.


----------



## P@triot

Sundance508 said:


> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that *Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves*; that they were *part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity*...


What...the....fuck? 

“We hold these *truths* to be self-evident...that *all* men were created equal. That they were endowed by their creator (God) with certain unalienable *rights*”.


----------



## paperview

Yes.  Read this again===


Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."

koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."

These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days. 

Never forget.


----------



## Syriusly

TheGreenHornet said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the most part and though it did no always live up to the Biblical requirements for the treatment of slaves...the Negroes were far better off here in America than they were or would have been in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they're even better off now that they aren't slaves. Go figure....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better for some but not for all.  A good case can be made that most Africans were better off on the plantations..
Click to expand...


Yeah- I hear racists trying to make that 'good case'- somehow you think that African Americans were better off on the plantations where their children could be raped by master, or their wives- and their girls sold off to brothels.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syriusly, the slavery defenders like TheGreenHornet are loopy, srsly.


----------



## Faun

paperview said:


> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.


Conservatism is a diseased cult.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Some conservatives are very diseased, yes.


----------



## anotherlife

Faun said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
Click to expand...


Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No black was still alive who had been starvation wages after emancipation to tell you any such thing.

By 1900, more than 2/3ds of blacks and almost 50% of whites were surviving on share cropping, a terrible system that plagued white and black.


----------



## Faun

anotherlife said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
Click to expand...

You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.


----------



## anotherlife

Faun said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
Click to expand...


Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.


----------



## anotherlife

JakeStarkey said:


> No black was still alive who had been starvation wages after emancipation to tell you any such thing.
> 
> By 1900, more than 2/3ds of blacks and almost 50% of whites were surviving on share cropping, a terrible system that plagued white and black.



Okay, I got it.  They starved, so they died, so there is no history, so they have never existed.  The soviets couldn't do a better logic than yours.


----------



## Faun

anotherlife said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
Click to expand...

Great... quote it saying blacks were cursed....


----------



## JakeStarkey

anotherlife said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No black was still alive who had been starvation wages after emancipation to tell you any such thing.
> 
> By 1900, more than 2/3ds of blacks and almost 50% of whites were surviving on share cropping, a terrible system that plagued white and black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I got it.  They starved, so they died, so there is no history, so they have never existed.  The soviets couldn't do a better logic than yours.
Click to expand...

You must drink during the day, because that makes no sense.  The way your sentence is constructed --  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation -- that the reader thinks you were talking to a person who worked in those days.

You are painfully stupid, so stupid that your genes are self-destructive.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Faun said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great... quote it saying blacks were cursed....
Click to expand...

Anotherlife may be a FLDS member.  They talk that type of stupidity.


----------



## regent

Likkmee said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
Click to expand...

So if FDR dumped the war on Stalin instead of America was that good or bad strategy for America?


----------



## reconmark

anotherlife said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
Click to expand...




> *Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it. An African told me this.
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.*


*You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.

Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.

For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*


*THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
*The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’

It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.

The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.

DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*


----------



## JakeStarkey

regent said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundance508 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
> They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if FDR dumped the war on Stalin instead of America was that good or bad strategy for America?
Click to expand...

FDR did dump the war in Europe on Stalin until invading Sicily in July 1943.

It was super strategy, letting Russians dies not Americans.


----------



## anotherlife

JakeStarkey said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great... quote it saying blacks were cursed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anotherlife may be a FLDS member.  They talk that type of stupidity.
Click to expand...


What is an FLDS you English speaking failed AI course project?


----------



## anotherlife

reconmark said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it. An African told me this.
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
> You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.
> 
> Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.
> 
> For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*
> 
> 
> *THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
> *The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’
> 
> It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.
> 
> The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.
> 
> DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*
Click to expand...


Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.


----------



## anotherlife

Being a slave is better than being a prisoner.  As a slave, only the the supervisor beats you, per production target.  As a prisoner, everybody beats you, at their pleasure.


----------



## Faun

anotherlife said:


> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it. An African told me this.
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
> You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.
> 
> Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.
> 
> For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*
> 
> 
> *THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
> *The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’
> 
> It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.
> 
> The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.
> 
> DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.
Click to expand...

Your anecdotal claims are meaningless.

Now then, where’s that Biblical quote you were going to post to prove you’re not just another raving nut case?


----------



## anotherlife

Faun said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it. An African told me this.
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
> You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.
> 
> Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.
> 
> For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*
> 
> 
> *THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
> *The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’
> 
> It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.
> 
> The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.
> 
> DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your anecdotal claims are meaningless.
> 
> Now then, where’s that Biblical quote you were going to post to prove you’re not just another raving nut case?
Click to expand...


Post #352.


----------



## Faun

anotherlife said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it. An African told me this.
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
> You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.
> 
> Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.
> 
> For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*
> 
> 
> *THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
> *The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’
> 
> It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.
> 
> The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.
> 
> DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your anecdotal claims are meaningless.
> 
> Now then, where’s that Biblical quote you were going to post to prove you’re not just another raving nut case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #352.
Click to expand...

Post #352 is not even your post and post #352 proves you’re an imbecile.

At any rate, the Biblical verse in post #352 is about Noah cursing Canaan. Suffice it to say, Noah did not have the power to turn anyone black nor does the Bible say the curse involved turning anyone black, only that Canaan would be the servants of his brethren.

But even worse for your senility... *Canaan*, the target of the curse, *was not even in Africa.*  It was in what is Israel today.






Now don’t you feel like a mental midget?


----------



## anotherlife

Faun said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it. An African told me this.
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
> You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.
> 
> Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.
> 
> For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*
> 
> 
> *THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
> *The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’
> 
> It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.
> 
> The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.
> 
> DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your anecdotal claims are meaningless.
> 
> Now then, where’s that Biblical quote you were going to post to prove you’re not just another raving nut case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #352.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post #352 is not even your post and post #352 proves you’re an imbecile.
> 
> At any rate, the Biblical verse in post #352 is about Noah cursing Canaan. Suffice it to say, Noah did not have the power to turn anyone black nor does the Bible say the curse involved turning anyone black, only that Canaan would be the servants of his brethren.
> 
> But even worse for your senility... *Canaan*, the target of the curse, *was not even in Africa.*  It was in what is Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now don’t you feel like a mental midget?
Click to expand...


Okay.  How about this.  We know that black people existed for a long time.  This means that the first black people had to be born a long time ago.  Very long time ago.  Even before digital camera technology was invented.  Like in the days of analog photography.  Like when you develop a film and if you put too much light on it, then it goes all black.  This is the problem.  When white people have sex during daylight, they suffer too much light, and their children get born black.


----------



## JakeStarkey

anotherlife said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, and he and all his descendants were punished with blackness for it.  An African told me this.  Another African told me also, the the living conditions of black slaves were better during slavery, compared to the starvation wages that they got paid as laborers free after emancipation.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re demented, the Bible says no such thing. You sound like one of those diseased cult members I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you illiterate heap of panty liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great... quote it saying blacks were cursed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anotherlife may be a FLDS member.  They talk that type of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is an FLDS you English speaking failed AI course project?
Click to expand...

You are not American, so you can run along.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Post 352 clearly reveals that anotherlife is lost in this thread.


----------



## Syriusly

anotherlife said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read this again===
> 
> 
> Sundance: "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery."
> 
> koshergirl gave this post a "Winner."
> 
> These are the Trump Klansmen we are dealing with these days.
> 
> Never forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a diseased cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible does say, that blacks are blacks because one of their forefathers did something wrong, .
Click to expand...


Now you are lying about what the Bible says?

Have you no shame?


----------



## Syriusly

anotherlife said:


> Being a slave is better than being a prisoner.  As a slave, only the the supervisor beats you, per production target.  As a prisoner, everybody beats you, at their pleasure.



Not being a slave is better than being a slave.

As a slave- your master can rape you- or your child- anytime he wants. As a slave- your master can impregnate you- and then sell that child off before it is even weaned. Or beat you to death for running away to be with your child.

As you keep demonstrating over and over- you are quite the idiot.


----------



## Syriusly

anotherlife said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
> You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.
> 
> Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.
> 
> For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*
> 
> 
> *THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
> *The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’
> 
> It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.
> 
> The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.
> 
> DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your anecdotal claims are meaningless.
> 
> Now then, where’s that Biblical quote you were going to post to prove you’re not just another raving nut case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #352.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post #352 is not even your post and post #352 proves you’re an imbecile.
> 
> At any rate, the Biblical verse in post #352 is about Noah cursing Canaan. Suffice it to say, Noah did not have the power to turn anyone black nor does the Bible say the curse involved turning anyone black, only that Canaan would be the servants of his brethren.
> 
> But even worse for your senility... *Canaan*, the target of the curse, *was not even in Africa.*  It was in what is Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now don’t you feel like a mental midget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  How about this.  We know that black people existed for a long time.  This means that the first black people had to be born a long time ago.  Very long time ago.  Even before digital camera technology was invented.  Like in the days of analog photography.  Like when you develop a film and if you put too much light on it, then it goes all black.  This is the problem.  When white people have sex during daylight, they suffer too much light, and their children get born black.
Click to expand...


Anotherlife: Troll or just a fucking retard?

You be the judge.


----------



## JakeStarkey

a retardo troll?


----------



## paperview

Syriusly said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a slave is better than being a prisoner.  As a slave, only the the supervisor beats you, per production target.  As a prisoner, everybody beats you, at their pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being a slave is better than being a slave.
> 
> As a slave- your master can rape you- or your child- anytime he wants. As a slave- your master can impregnate you- and then sell that child off before it is even weaned. Or beat you to death for running away to be with your child.
> 
> As you keep demonstrating over and over- you are quite the idiot.
Click to expand...

I'd rather die than be a slave. Any day of the week.

I hold my state's motto very seriously:  Live Free or Die.

As the author of that quote, Rev War hero General John Stark said: *"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."*


----------



## anotherlife

Syriusly said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a slave is better than being a prisoner.  As a slave, only the the supervisor beats you, per production target.  As a prisoner, everybody beats you, at their pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being a slave is better than being a slave.
> 
> As a slave- your master can rape you- or your child- anytime he wants. As a slave- your master can impregnate you- and then sell that child off before it is even weaned. Or beat you to death for running away to be with your child.
> 
> As you keep demonstrating over and over- you are quite the idiot.
Click to expand...


Those were not the choices.  Sorry to see that the bong has gone into your head so much.


----------



## anotherlife

JakeStarkey said:


> a retardo troll?



Sock puppets are against forum regulations.


----------



## JakeStarkey

anotherlife said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> a retardo troll?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sock puppets are against forum regulations.
Click to expand...

Are you a sock puppet?


----------



## Faun

Syriusly said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal claims are meaningless.
> 
> Now then, where’s that Biblical quote you were going to post to prove you’re not just another raving nut case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #352.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post #352 is not even your post and post #352 proves you’re an imbecile.
> 
> At any rate, the Biblical verse in post #352 is about Noah cursing Canaan. Suffice it to say, Noah did not have the power to turn anyone black nor does the Bible say the curse involved turning anyone black, only that Canaan would be the servants of his brethren.
> 
> But even worse for your senility... *Canaan*, the target of the curse, *was not even in Africa.*  It was in what is Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now don’t you feel like a mental midget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  How about this.  We know that black people existed for a long time.  This means that the first black people had to be born a long time ago.  Very long time ago.  Even before digital camera technology was invented.  Like in the days of analog photography.  Like when you develop a film and if you put too much light on it, then it goes all black.  This is the problem.  When white people have sex during daylight, they suffer too much light, and their children get born black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anotherlife: Troll or just a fucking retard?
> 
> You be the judge.
Click to expand...

Why choose?


----------



## regent

Surely on these boards by now someone should have put up a post on how slavery was not evil but actually a pretty good life. Hasn't Trump made any comments, as yet, about the good life? Maybe its what Trump meant in his make America great again slogan.


----------



## Faun

anotherlife said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You should probably not call others illiterate while spouting the stupidest shit probably shoveled by ignorant racist...
> You are ignorantly trying to point to the biblically disproved "Curse of Ham" taht was used for centuries to justify racism and slavery.
> 
> Perhaps the worst form of mental slavery Blacks were subjected to was the pseudo-theological kind. That is, the kind that was supposedly based on the Bible, the kind that said God had cursed Blacks and ordained them to forever be on the bottom of mankind’s ladder of progress and productivity. There were two major lies told to Blacks to promote this idea: the so-called “Hamitic Theory’’ or “Curse of Ham’’ and the “Mark of Cain.’’ Neither of them was ever in the Bible, but the slave masters told Blacks they were.
> 
> For people of African descent to truly reach their God-given potential, the strongholds created by these myths must be demolished. They must be demolished in the minds of Whites as well because, while they would never admit it publicly, many Whites, including some professing Christians, undoubtedly harbor foolish notions of White superiority and Black inferiority. This is evident in the inequities that are still tolerated and/or justified within American society today.*
> 
> 
> *THE HAMITIC THEORY (CURSE OF HAM)*
> *The “Hamitic Theory’’ was not a mere twisting of the Scripture but an absolute abuse of it, a complete fabrication. Various Bible dictionaries define “Ham’’ as meaning “hot, swarthy (dark-skinned), brown, black.” That, plus the lands that Ham and his descendants are said to have populated in Genesis 10, tells us that Ham is the progenitor of the Black race. Aware that Ham and his descendants were Black, White preachers taught Blacks during slavery that their skin color and other racial features, as well as their status as slaves of White people, were a result of a “Curse of Ham.’’
> 
> It was supposedly based on Genesis 9:18-27, where Noah got drunk and then his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father’’ (v 22). When Noah awoke from his drunken state, he issued what White racists referred to as the “Curse of Ham.’’ This theory became so established and widespread that it was still being taught in some American seminaries in the latter part of the 20th century.
> 
> The noted African-American pastor Dr. Tony Evans, head of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, once wrote about being taught the Curse of Ham by a White minister as a teenager. The minister told the young Evans the curse was the reason Blacks must suffer humiliation and oppression at the hands of Whites. That was as recently as the 1960s, so there are certainly Blacks and Whites who are still influenced by this lie today.
> 
> DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE WHITE MAN’S RELIGION: PART III*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then I can say that this is still taught in Africa today or recently.  Because it was an African black person that taught this to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your anecdotal claims are meaningless.
> 
> Now then, where’s that Biblical quote you were going to post to prove you’re not just another raving nut case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #352.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post #352 is not even your post and post #352 proves you’re an imbecile.
> 
> At any rate, the Biblical verse in post #352 is about Noah cursing Canaan. Suffice it to say, Noah did not have the power to turn anyone black nor does the Bible say the curse involved turning anyone black, only that Canaan would be the servants of his brethren.
> 
> But even worse for your senility... *Canaan*, the target of the curse, *was not even in Africa.*  It was in what is Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now don’t you feel like a mental midget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  How about this.  We know that black people existed for a long time.  This means that the first black people had to be born a long time ago.  Very long time ago.  Even before digital camera technology was invented.  Like in the days of analog photography.  Like when you develop a film and if you put too much light on it, then it goes all black.  This is the problem.  When white people have sex during daylight, they suffer too much light, and their children get born black.
Click to expand...

How about this.... you’re a retard who was caught posting bullshit.


----------



## reconmark

anotherlife said:


> Being a slave is better than being a prisoner.  As a slave, only the the supervisor beats you, per production target.  As a prisoner, everybody beats you, at their pleasure.


Another stupid and ignorant statement on your part...
African slaves in the South could be beaten, raped, harassed or mistreated in any way by any white person.


----------



## anotherlife

reconmark said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a slave is better than being a prisoner.  As a slave, only the the supervisor beats you, per production target.  As a prisoner, everybody beats you, at their pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> Another stupid and ignorant statement on your part...
> African slaves in the South could be beaten, raped, harassed or mistreated in any way by any white person.
Click to expand...


So, are you saying that it is similar to a modern day prison sentence?  Okay, that may be.  But not much worse.  Also, by the way, today, there are more blacks in prisons than slaves were at plantations.


----------



## anotherlife

....


----------



## paperview

anotherlife said:


> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a slave is better than being a prisoner.  As a slave, only the the supervisor beats you, per production target.  As a prisoner, everybody beats you, at their pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> Another stupid and ignorant statement on your part...
> African slaves in the South could be beaten, raped, harassed or mistreated in any way by any white person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you saying that it is similar to a modern day prison sentence?  Okay, that may be.  But not much worse.  Also, by the way, today, there are more blacks in prisons than slaves were at plantations.
Click to expand...

You probably have no idea how insanely stupid this ^ post is.


----------



## regent

Natural Citizen said:


> I recommend "The Real Abe Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.


There were two phases to the Civil War: the first was secession, and then Lincoln, with his emancipation, turned it into slavery.


----------



## WinterBorn

Sundance508 said:


> "There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
> Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
> 
> I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what  that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "*If I could save the Union* without *freeing* any *slave I would* do it, and *if I could save* it by *freeing* all the *slaves I would* do it; and *if I could save* it by *freeing* some and leaving others alone I *would* also do that."
> 
> The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants  being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation'  as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.
> 
> Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.
> 
> Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'.  Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'.  Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs:  he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.
> 
> Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
> by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
> The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the _Index_, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
> :
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
> 
> What If There Was No Civil War?
> 
> "The *past* is *never* dead. It's not even *past*." ... *Faulkner*.



Your statement "The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)...." tells me all I need to know about you.


----------

