Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[-S-]

Huh? Dude, if you have nothing to add to the conversation, just say so.

But you don't actually get to dictate to anyone what they post. You know that, right?

What ever, go away child.

...Who are you?

I'm more than a single letter.

I didn't want anybody to have a biased attitude against me based on my username, so I just chose a neutral letter.

For instance, with you, having Texas in your username, I automatically associate you with ten-gallon hats and idiot of the decade Rick Perry.

So you admit you are so ignorant that you make assumptions based on user names. Good to know.

No, I don't assume anything about you. Like my post said, my mind just automatically associates you with those things. Sort of a subconscious deal.

Don't get ahead of yourself, tiger.

 

[Syriusly]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really *$#*$ insane. I should stop here and delete that.

You mean most brainwashed liberals would say that. For one thing, intelligent, objective people would recognize your posturing as sheer and ignorant demagoguery, especially after they read the entire paragraph and the surrounding paragraphs.

When someone, let's say, is wrongfully imprisoned but they go to a prison where they learn a new skill and where they eat more and better food than they would have in their previous situation, it would be perfectly factual to say that their wrongful imprisonment had some good aspects, even though it was wrong and inexcusable.

As I make clear in the article from which you dishonestly snipped my statement, slavery was morally wrong on several levels. Even if, as the evidence seems to indicate, only a small percentage of slaves were treated with cruelty, even if only 5% were treated that way, 5% of 3.5 million is still a lot of people (165,000). Any institution that is causing 165,000 people to suffer brutality is morally unacceptable and unjustifiable, no matter how humanely other slaves were treated.

But you guys always take the exception and portray it as the rule, when in fact according to the slave narratives themselves, most slaves were not abused and most said their masters treated them humanely. No, of course this does not mean that slavery was "ok." But it does mean that the Hollywood portrayals of slavery are misleading.

Many slaves, as I document in the article, learned valuable job skills that they were able to use as freemen. In fact, Southern slaves had more opportunities to learn trade skills than did Northern free blacks. Slaves had a longer life expectancy and a lower suicide rate than many European whites. Slaves on average worked less hours than some/many/a majority of Northern factory workers. Many slaves had better housing than many Northern factory workers. Many if not most slaves were converted to Christianity and found personal peace and salvation in their lives. I would certainly call that a good aspect, just as I would if a man framed and jailed for a crime he didn't commit found God while in prison. Etc., etc., etc.

But, of course, you can have none of this because your programming tells you that you must smear anyone who factually discusses the conditions of slavery, that you must accuse them of defending or approving of slavery. To abandon that lie would force you to deal with facts and evidence, not talking points.

most slaves were not abused and most said their masters treated them humanely

According to Confederate sympathizers. I have seen these claims before- and every time the 'sources' of these claims are rather dubious.

I frankly don't know why you feel compelled to make this argument. There was a range of slave experiences- from the best- treated relatively well, illegally educated, well fed, allowed to keep intact families- to the worst of the worst- whippings and brandings, maiming, rapes, and murders- children torn from their mothers and sold off. But all slaves lived with the risk and fear that any 'Master' could go from good to bad, could die and their whole family sold off, that the kindly Master's son would decide to rape all the girls.

It was a horrible institution- and the best that can be said about it was that some owners were not as bad the rest.

 

[OKTexas]

What ever, go away child.

...Who are you?

I'm more than a single letter.

I didn't want anybody to have a biased attitude against me based on my username, so I just chose a neutral letter.

For instance, with you, having Texas in your username, I automatically associate you with ten-gallon hats and idiot of the decade Rick Perry.

So you admit you are so ignorant that you make assumptions based on user names. Good to know.

No, I don't assume anything about you. Like my post said, my mind just automatically associates you with those things. Sort of a subconscious deal.

Don't get ahead of yourself, tiger.

Keep talking, it's very telling on how you've been indoctrinated, definitely not educated.

 

[-S-]

...Who are you?

I'm more than a single letter.

I didn't want anybody to have a biased attitude against me based on my username, so I just chose a neutral letter.

For instance, with you, having Texas in your username, I automatically associate you with ten-gallon hats and idiot of the decade Rick Perry.

So you admit you are so ignorant that you make assumptions based on user names. Good to know.

No, I don't assume anything about you. Like my post said, my mind just automatically associates you with those things. Sort of a subconscious deal.

Don't get ahead of yourself, tiger.

Keep talking, it's very telling on how you've been indoctrinated, definitely not educated.

You're an interesting cat.
A man of many posts with very little to say..

 

[bripat9643]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonest snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

It doesn't.

You're too stupid to comprehend simple English

Of course it doesn't,

Of course it does. Only a lying brainwashed Lincoln cult member would claim otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

It gave him permission to raise the militia, not to invade Virginia, Stalinist bootlicker.

Your screed about New York turned out to be total bullshit, didn't it?

No, it didn't you lying scumbucket.

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

I already did, numskull. The text has been quote several times already.

 

[bripat9643]

dammit. -S- beat me by a second.

lol

Yeah, you're both a couple of comic geniuses. I'll bet you're a big hit on the short bus tour.

I honestly just thought you needed help understanding the word 'verbatim'.

I'm actually still not convinced that wasn't the case

I'm totally convinced that you're a lying numskull.

If only you had some sort of evidence..

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If Brit ever had evidence, he wouldn't know what to do with that unexpected and unlooked for discovery.

For a guy who has failed to post a single byte of evidence, you sure whine a lot about other who have posted page after page of evidence.

 

[AntiParty]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really *$#*$ insane. I should stop here and delete that.

You mean most brainwashed liberals would say that. For one thing, intelligent, objective people would recognize your posturing as sheer and ignorant demagoguery, especially after they read the entire paragraph and the surrounding paragraphs.

When someone, let's say, is wrongfully imprisoned but they go to a prison where they learn a new skill and where they eat more and better food than they would have in their previous situation, it would be perfectly factual to say that their wrongful imprisonment had some good aspects, even though it was wrong and inexcusable.

As I make clear in the article from which you dishonestly snipped my statement, slavery was morally wrong on several levels. Even if, as the evidence seems to indicate, only a small percentage of slaves were treated with cruelty, even if only 5% were treated that way, 5% of 3.5 million is still a lot of people (165,000). Any institution that is causing 165,000 people to suffer brutality is morally unacceptable and unjustifiable, no matter how humanely other slaves were treated.

But you guys always take the exception and portray it as the rule, when in fact according to the slave narratives themselves, most slaves were not abused and most said their masters treated them humanely. No, of course this does not mean that slavery was "ok." But it does mean that the Hollywood portrayals of slavery are misleading.

Many slaves, as I document in the article, learned valuable job skills that they were able to use as freemen. In fact, Southern slaves had more opportunities to learn trade skills than did Northern free blacks. Slaves had a longer life expectancy and a lower suicide rate than many European whites. Slaves on average worked less hours than some/many/a majority of Northern factory workers. Many slaves had better housing than many Northern factory workers. Many if not most slaves were converted to Christianity and found personal peace and salvation in their lives. I would certainly call that a good aspect, just as I would if a man framed and jailed for a crime he didn't commit found God while in prison. Etc., etc., etc.

But, of course, you can have none of this because your programming tells you that you must smear anyone who factually discusses the conditions of slavery, that you must accuse them of defending or approving of slavery. To abandon that lie would force you to deal with facts and evidence, not talking points.

most slaves were not abused and most said their masters treated them humanely

According to Confederate sympathizers. I have seen these claims before- and every time the 'sources' of these claims are rather dubious.

I frankly don't know why you feel compelled to make this argument. There was a range of slave experiences- from the best- treated relatively well, illegally educated, well fed, allowed to keep intact families- to the worst of the worst- whippings and brandings, maiming, rapes, and murders- children torn from their mothers and sold off. But all slaves lived with the risk and fear that any 'Master' could go from good to bad, could die and their whole family sold off, that the kindly Master's son would decide to rape all the girls.

It was a horrible institution- and the best that can be said about it was that some owners were not as bad the rest.

"most slaves were not abused and most said their masters treated them humanely" ~ Thank goodness. I was beginning to think lazy idiots kidnapped people, took them away from their families and FORCED them to work so the lazy idiot wouldn't have to. I'm happy "most slaves were not abused".

Sounds to me like the slaves had it good (R)ight?

 

[there4eyeM]

"...(the Confederates) fought defending their God-given right to be free..."

So, where did the 'right' to have slaves come from?

 

[there4eyeM]

Has it been asked by what right people had slaves?

No one is endorsing slavery, dumbass.

As a sample of responses, this clearly demonstrates how discussion is made difficult by certain posters. There is no relevance to the question and there is the reflex recourse to gratuitous personal insult.

 

[gipper]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Good lord...how can you be so slanted?

1. no union is perpetual...if that were true, ancient empires would still exist.
2. whether secession is legal or not, matters not. When a group of people no longer wish to part of a unified state, in a democratic state, they should be allowed to peacefully secede.
3.keeping a nation together by use of force, is no different than what tyrants like Stalin, Mao, and others have done.
4.Your thinking is akin to the husband murdering his wife, to save his marriage.

This is yet another lengthy thread on Lincoln's war...and proof once again that statist brainwashing Americans endured in government schools cannot be undone, for some.

 

[Geaux4it]

Earlier, one of our really despicable racists went so far as to say Booth was a hero for assassinating Lincoln. Odious or whatever his name is. He's an ignorant jackass.

Some of these dummies still hold on to confederate money rather than invest in the US or their own future.

All in all, not a very smart lot.

Future as defined by you? Or some other opinionated asshole?

I offer no apologies for my ancestors.

Again, I'm confident that if they knew things were going to turn out this bad, they would of picked the cotton themselves

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Rights are a creation of human beings, as are governments.

Then you disagree with the poster who said "They simply cannot justify slavery though for it is morally, ethically, and legally wrong and always has been?"

Rights are a creation of human beings, as are governments.

Then you disagree with the poster who said "They simply cannot justify slavery though for it is morally, ethically, and legally wrong and always has been?"

Liberal logic. Lol

A perpetual Union was what was established. It is therefore clear that leaving the Union was not part of the deal

Where does the Constitution say either of those?

So can a man force a woman to have sex with him because she once married him even though she wants a divorce? I know you wont' get this point, it's butt obvious, but you are a liberal and liberals never get points. The will of the rest of the States continues to be imposed on the people of a State without consent of the governed.

Your reply will not show you don't agree with what I just said, it will show you didn't grasp what I just said

After reading through all of this, it seems that the people most likely to defend the Confederacy are:

*Conservative
*Southern

I get that no one actually wants to support slavery, they just want to support the act of rebellion, because they feel that it's an American principle or something.

I guess myself, and the other moderates/liberals/anti-Confederate conservatives, don't look at it the same way.


I am VERY pro-equality, regardless of what's in or isn't in the Constitution. I don't look at the Confederacy as a rag tag group of rebels fighting for American values, I see a group of people that couldn't socially progress at the same rate as the other regions in the nation, and paid the price for their ignorance. I don't see anything to celebrate. If I want to celebrate American rebellion, I'll read about the Revolutionary War

Social progress? Good lord.....

-Geaux

 

[mikegriffith1]

The liberals here are making two big errors: They're saying (1) that the South seceded over slavery and (2) that therefore the Civil War was fought over slavery.

But secession and the war were two very different events. The Confederacy tried to establish peaceful, normal relations with the federal government. The Confederacy offered to pay the South's share of the national debt, offered to pay compensation for federal installations in the South, and sought to make the U.S. a most-favored-nation trading partner. But the Radical Republicans and certain Northern business interests refused peaceful coexistence and pressured Lincoln into opting for coercion and war.

Seven of the 11 CSA states--the seven Deep South states--seceded mainly over slavery, but the tariff and long-standing differences over the role and scope of the federal government were also major reasons for their secession, and they said so in no uncertain terms.

Moreover, four of the 11 Confederate states did not think slavery concerns or the tariff justified secession. Those four states--the Upper South states of AR, NC, TN, and VA--seceded over federal coercion, i.e., Lincoln's use of force to maintain the Union. The Upper South states believed the Deep South states had valid complaints about slavery and the tariff, but they did not view those complaints as justifying secession. Go read the Upper South states' secession ordinances and declarations--the only reason they cited was coercion/force (slavery complaints were only mentioned in ancillary documents and were not even mentioned in these states' ordinances and declarations). These four states initially voted against secession, and they only changed the minds after Lincoln made it clear that he was going to use the bloodless attack that he provoked at Fort Sumter as his pretext to launch an invasion of the South.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

 

[Correll]

The liberals here are making two big errors: They're saying (1) that the South seceded over slavery and (2) that therefore the Civil War was fought over slavery.

But secession and the war were two very different events. The Confederacy tried to establish peaceful, normal relations with the federal government. The Confederacy offered to pay the South's share of the national debt, offered to pay compensation for federal installations in the South, and sought to make the U.S. a most-favored-nation trading partner. But the Radical Republicans and certain Northern business interests refused peaceful coexistence and pressured Lincoln into opting for coercion and war.

Seven of the 11 CSA states--the seven Deep South states--seceded mainly over slavery, but the tariff and long-standing differences over the role and scope of the federal government were also major reasons for their secession, and they said so in no uncertain terms.

Moreover, four of the 11 Confederate states did not think slavery concerns or the tariff justified secession. Those four states--the Upper South states of AR, NC, TN, and VA--seceded over federal coercion, i.e., Lincoln's use of force to maintain the Union. The Upper South states believed the Deep South states had valid complaints about slavery and the tariff, but they did not view those complaints as justifying secession. Go read the Upper South states' secession ordinances and declarations--the only reason they cited was coercion/force (slavery complaints were only mentioned in ancillary documents and were not even mentioned in these states' ordinances and declarations). These four states initially voted against secession, and they only changed the minds after Lincoln made it clear that he was going to use the bloodless attack that he provoked at Fort Sumter as his pretext to launch an invasion of the South.

THey seem to have a need to simply SOME aspects of History to the point of absurdity.

If it is a foreign culture that is engaged in a terrible practice, such as Terrorism, we have to "understand" their motivations and culture, but if it is part of our US history, then...

not so much.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

 

[Geaux4it]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.