Will Blacks Abandon the Democrat Party?

[Sarah G]

Will Blacks abandon the Democrats and go where? To the Republican Party? The Teaparty? Don't think so...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are indeed nitpicking. I clarified what I meant by the term "South" and you refuse to accept my clarification and want it to be about each individual citizen and not as a collective state.

If the South fought for slavery then the north fought against slavery. So explain why there was slavery in the north at a time they were fighting against slavery in the south. Oh that's right, you want us to believe that the two sides fought for reasons not related to one another, one for slavery the other for preservation of the union.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

You clarified because you were tripped up by your own logic and wanted to back pedal. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.....again.

My analysis was of your statement. I wouldnt describe your statements as facts. More like the musings of a 4 year old.

Never been tripped up in my life.

Never made any such admission.

You on the other hand have and I appreciate it.

Analyzing a statement I made instead of focusing on the subject at hand? More pettifogging.

I'd say when you went to prison you were tripped up. Or do you consider that a well planned move?

I'm sure you were tripped up plenty of times before and afterwards as well. You cant help it. You are too dumb to get out of your own way.

Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your wrong statement. Seems like you are learning.

No I didn't trip up even then. I knew exactly what I was doing and the consequences of my actions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Because we are refuting the claims that it was NOT about slavery.

You and these other people's problem is, you've never argued that it was not 100% about slavery; you're claiming it was ZERO percent about slavery.

Which makes you 100% wrong.

When Lonestar gets shown he is wrong he is not man enough to simply admit it. He has to back pedal until he can find a spot and point to a technicality then claim he was right all along. Typical convict.

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

But it wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights, slavery may have been one of the issues but not the primary one. It was more to do about taxes, tariffs etc....than slavery. Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves? Do you honestly think the Northerners who owned slaves would go to war to end slavery? You people have a one track mind and all you can focus on is one aspect of the broader picture.

You can jabber on all you want but you will never be right about it.

Sure I'm right and there are many that agree. However there are many like yourself that refuses to acknowledge how illogical it is for 90 percent of the people who didn't own slaves to risk life and limb for the ten percent who did. Of course I'm pertaining to those that believe the war between the states was purely about slavery.

 

[kaz]

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are indeed nitpicking. I clarified what I meant by the term "South" and you refuse to accept my clarification and want it to be about each individual citizen and not as a collective state.

If the South fought for slavery then the north fought against slavery. So explain why there was slavery in the north at a time they were fighting against slavery in the south. Oh that's right, you want us to believe that the two sides fought for reasons not related to one another, one for slavery the other for preservation of the union.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

You clarified because you were tripped up by your own logic and wanted to back pedal. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.....again.

My analysis was of your statement. I wouldnt describe your statements as facts. More like the musings of a 4 year old.

Never been tripped up in my life.

Never made any such admission.

You on the other hand have and I appreciate it.

Analyzing a statement I made instead of focusing on the subject at hand? More pettifogging.

Your statement doesn't need much 'analysis'. It's quite clear and unequivocal.

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

The furthest thing from the truth in the above context means that the Civil War had absolutely nothing to about slavery.

That is idiocy. Nothing could be more idiotic on this subject than that claim.

I'm sorry you feel the need to tell me what I meant. I think I should know better what I meant by that statement than you, but hey, your going to interpret it the way you want. No skin off my nose.

Fact is the Civil war was about states right's. Slavery didn't really become an issue until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1962 when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

Most southerners didn't own slaves nor did they own plantations for slavery to be a main issue. Most of them were farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their independent lifestyle without government dictating how they should behave and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where they wanted to rather than where they were forced to and at under inflated prices.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Did you not read it? Their estimates didn't match your 250,000 total estimate. But then again, they didn't mention blacks at all and no where near the quarter million you allege others have estimated.

Explain why any of this is even relevant.

The debate was whether of not the war was all about slavery as you have suggested but have since changed your mind, ergo I win.

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well then why did you need an explanation as to why it was relevant? Were you confused or something?

The way you two jump around different issues does make it confusing. But I understand that neither of you can help it.

When you try to change the narrative you tend to only confuse yourself. People that have superior intellect dont get confused by your deflections and diversions. You started talking about states when no one mentioned it. I saw it for the diversion it was and made you pay for it. Next time dont confuse yourself by attempting to outsmart someone smarter than yourself. Is that clear convict?

I haven't tried changing anything. I kicked you in the teeth and you're unhappy about it. Pretty simple really.

 

[Asclepias]

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well then why did you need an explanation as to why it was relevant? Were you confused or something?

The way you two jump around different issues does make it confusing. But I understand that neither of you can help it.

When you try to change the narrative you tend to only confuse yourself. People that have superior intellect dont get confused by your deflections and diversions. You started talking about states when no one mentioned it. I saw it for the diversion it was and made you pay for it. Next time dont confuse yourself by attempting to outsmart someone smarter than yourself. Is that clear convict?

I haven't tried changing anything. I kicked you in the teeth and you're unhappy about it. Pretty simple really.

You admitted you tried to change the narrative. Why did you clarify anything if you were right in the first place then claim you confused your self by doing so?

 

[kaz]

Fact is the Civil war was about states right's. Slavery didn't really become an issue until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1962 when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well then why did you need an explanation as to why it was relevant? Were you confused or something?

The way you two jump around different issues does make it confusing. But I understand that neither of you can help it.

When you try to change the narrative you tend to only confuse yourself. People that have superior intellect dont get confused by your deflections and diversions. You started talking about states when no one mentioned it. I saw it for the diversion it was and made you pay for it. Next time dont confuse yourself by attempting to outsmart someone smarter than yourself. Is that clear convict?

I haven't tried changing anything. I kicked you in the teeth and you're unhappy about it. Pretty simple really.

You admitted you tried to change the narrative. Why did you clarify anything if you were right in the first place then claim you confused your self by doing so?

Dude, get a grip. You're not making any sense.

 

[kaz]

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

 

[Asclepias]

Well then why did you need an explanation as to why it was relevant? Were you confused or something?

The way you two jump around different issues does make it confusing. But I understand that neither of you can help it.

When you try to change the narrative you tend to only confuse yourself. People that have superior intellect dont get confused by your deflections and diversions. You started talking about states when no one mentioned it. I saw it for the diversion it was and made you pay for it. Next time dont confuse yourself by attempting to outsmart someone smarter than yourself. Is that clear convict?

I haven't tried changing anything. I kicked you in the teeth and you're unhappy about it. Pretty simple really.

You admitted you tried to change the narrative. Why did you clarify anything if you were right in the first place then claim you confused your self by doing so?

Dude, get a grip. You're not making any sense.

You have admittedly confused yourself so I wouldn't ever expect you to be able to grasp what I am saying.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fact is the Civil war was about states right's. Slavery didn't really become an issue until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1962 when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

It depends on who's history you believe. Revisionist history or the actual history. You can go back through the speeches and documents of that time and find where they discussed slavery, cut and paste and highlight those portions forsaking the other issues of the day and make it appear that slavery was for more important than taxation, tariffs and states rights. But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

 

[Asclepias]

Fact is the Civil war was about states right's. Slavery didn't really become an issue until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1962 when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

It depends on who's history you believe. Revisionist history or the actual history. You can go back through the speeches and documents of that time and find where they discussed slavery, cut and paste and highlight those portions forsaking the other issues of the day and make it appear that slavery was for more important than taxation, tariffs and states rights. But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

You can also go back and review those southern documents and see slavery is the first thing mentioned when it comes to reasons for leaving the Union. Most dont make it past the first paragraph without mentioning slavery. The losers in the south that fought for the confederates followed the slave owners much like the republican white trash follow the GOP. Lemmings and sheep mentality prevail in both cases..

 

[paperview]

Fact is the Civil war was about states right's. Slavery didn't really become an issue until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1962 when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

It depends on who's history you believe. Revisionist history or the actual history. You can go back through the speeches and documents of that time and find where they discussed slavery, cut and paste and highlight those portions forsaking the other issues of the day and make it appear that slavery was for more important than taxation, tariffs and states rights. But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

You can also go back and review those southern documents and see slavery is the first thing mentioned when it comes to reasons for leaving the Union. Most dont make it past the first paragraph without mentioning slavery. The losers in the south that fought for the confederates followed the slave owners much like the republican white trash follow the GOP. Lemmings and sheep mentality prevail in both cases..

Never underestimate the power of the wealthy and powerful to get the poor and the powerless to do their bidding.

It's a story as old as time in the history of war and wealth.

And the LL's Lost Causer bullshit about "But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense" - fails to note that nearly one third of Southern families owned slaves.

Everything, their whole world was wrapped up in their three billion dollars (three billion in 1860 dollars) worth of HUMAN property.

Everything.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

I have read your post carefully. My questions still stands. I'd like to know why you think "they may not have been the smartest counties".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The way you two jump around different issues does make it confusing. But I understand that neither of you can help it.

When you try to change the narrative you tend to only confuse yourself. People that have superior intellect dont get confused by your deflections and diversions. You started talking about states when no one mentioned it. I saw it for the diversion it was and made you pay for it. Next time dont confuse yourself by attempting to outsmart someone smarter than yourself. Is that clear convict?

I haven't tried changing anything. I kicked you in the teeth and you're unhappy about it. Pretty simple really.

You admitted you tried to change the narrative. Why did you clarify anything if you were right in the first place then claim you confused your self by doing so?

Dude, get a grip. You're not making any sense.

You have admittedly confused yourself so I wouldn't ever expect you to be able to grasp what I am saying.

No dumbass I didn't confuse myself. You two morons attempting to nitpick every word in attempt to cover up your concessions is what I said was confusing. Now that you have succeeded in pettifogging the discussion. What is your gripe?

Do you want to engage in a debate or would you rather continue your pissing and moaning fest?

 

[Asclepias]

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

You miss a lot of things a lot of the time. Because of that you are frequently wrong.......yet again.

 

[Asclepias]

When you try to change the narrative you tend to only confuse yourself. People that have superior intellect dont get confused by your deflections and diversions. You started talking about states when no one mentioned it. I saw it for the diversion it was and made you pay for it. Next time dont confuse yourself by attempting to outsmart someone smarter than yourself. Is that clear convict?

I haven't tried changing anything. I kicked you in the teeth and you're unhappy about it. Pretty simple really.

You admitted you tried to change the narrative. Why did you clarify anything if you were right in the first place then claim you confused your self by doing so?

Dude, get a grip. You're not making any sense.

You have admittedly confused yourself so I wouldn't ever expect you to be able to grasp what I am saying.

No dumbass I didn't confuse myself. You two morons attempting to nitpick every word in attempt to cover up your concessions is what I said was confusing. Now that you have succeeded in pettifogging the discussion. What is your gripe?

Do you want to engage in a debate or would you rather continue your pissing and moaning fest?

Yes you did confuse yourself moron. You brought up the states when no one said anything about it as a diversion. You culminated in asking what it had to do with anything forgetting you were the one to bring it up in the first place. Did you think I would forget?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fact is the Civil war was about states right's. Slavery didn't really become an issue until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1962 when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

It depends on who's history you believe. Revisionist history or the actual history. You can go back through the speeches and documents of that time and find where they discussed slavery, cut and paste and highlight those portions forsaking the other issues of the day and make it appear that slavery was for more important than taxation, tariffs and states rights. But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

You can also go back and review those southern documents and see slavery is the first thing mentioned when it comes to reasons for leaving the Union. Most dont make it past the first paragraph without mentioning slavery. The losers in the south that fought for the confederates followed the slave owners much like the republican white trash follow the GOP. Lemmings and sheep mentality prevail in both cases..

Never underestimate the power of the wealthy and powerful to get the poor and the powerless to do their bidding.

It's a story as old as time in the history of war and wealth.

And the LL's Lost Causer bullshit about "But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense" - fails to note that nearly one third of Southern families owned slaves.

Everything, their whole world was wrapped up in their three billion dollars (three billion in 1860 dollars) worth of HUMAN property.

Everything.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

No source?

I wonder why?

Simply providing stats on what percentage of person's owned slaves in the south in 1860 is irrelevant. 10 year old Anna Richards did not own slaves. 5 year old Jeb Thompson did not own slaves. Yet these people are counted in the census as potential slave owners if you interpret the data that way. Their father, however, likely did own slaves. This is why slave owning families and not individuals is the key to understanding 1860's census data.

Not to mention, there were over 5 million free people living in the South in 1860. There were just under 4 million slaves in the South. Some states like South Carolina actually had more slaves than free citizens. Those most have been some Mega plantations the south was running!