|
Make the Confederacy's Defeat a National Holiday; 150 years ago this week, Robert E. Lee surrendered to the Union. Let's celebrate it—every year.
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 12 2016, 06:11 PM (1,886 Views)
|
|
Coast2coast
|
Apr 14 2016, 07:42 PM
Post #61
|
|
- Posts:
- 15,996
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:27 PM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:19 PM
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 05:34 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Buying and selling human beings? You don't have a case to make for that.
The horror of using the same Method the British used to end slavery. You don't like that answer because it doesn't result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and would spare many from seeing their farms and houses burnt to the ground. Here or there. In country, foreign territories, labor...
And the little details you are ignoring of England's actions.
You need to compensate for all these elements to see where your idea falls apart.
You don't purchase human beings.
And you don't leave the institution in place by law either. The slave trade act of 1807 did not make slavery illegal. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 allowed slavery to continue in selected areas.
And the Southern part of England did not fire on the Northern Part of England to preserve that culture.
Once more - you can not make a case for the purchasing of human beings.
|
|
|
| |
|
Harambe4Trump
|
Apr 14 2016, 07:48 PM
Post #62
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,318
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:42 PM
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:27 PM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:19 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The horror of using the same Method the British used to end slavery. You don't like that answer because it doesn't result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and would spare many from seeing their farms and houses burnt to the ground.
Here or there. In country, foreign territories, labor... And the little details you are ignoring of England's actions. You need to compensate for all these elements to see where your idea falls apart. You don't purchase human beings. And you don't leave the institution in place by law either. The slave trade act of 1807 did not make slavery illegal. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 allowed slavery to continue in selected areas. And the Southern part of England did not fire on the Northern Part of England to preserve that culture. Once more - you can not make a case for the purchasing of human beings. I see. Peaceful means of ending slavery wouldn't have satisfied progressive bloodlust.
|
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary. #MAGA #wallsnotwars
|
| |
|
Tsalagi
|
Apr 14 2016, 07:53 PM
Post #63
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:40 PM
- Tsalagi
- Apr 14 2016, 07:38 PM
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:27 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You're under the impression the south would give up their property, and do what, now pay white men to do the job they previously had slaves to do it?
It worked in the Bahamas. Forgetting about that "peculiar institution" that the South loudly proclaimed as a means even in 1776, in fact South Carolin's representative almost didn't sign the Declaration of Independence because of it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
Apr 15 2016, 06:44 AM
Post #64
|
|
- Posts:
- 15,996
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:48 PM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:42 PM
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:27 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Here or there. In country, foreign territories, labor... And the little details you are ignoring of England's actions. You need to compensate for all these elements to see where your idea falls apart. You don't purchase human beings. And you don't leave the institution in place by law either. The slave trade act of 1807 did not make slavery illegal. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 allowed slavery to continue in selected areas. And the Southern part of England did not fire on the Northern Part of England to preserve that culture. Once more - you can not make a case for the purchasing of human beings.
I see. Peaceful means of ending slavery wouldn't have satisfied progressive bloodlust. If you can't have an adult conversation then don't respond.
|
|
|
| |
|
Harambe4Trump
|
Apr 15 2016, 07:53 AM
Post #65
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,318
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Coast2coast
- Apr 15 2016, 06:44 AM
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:48 PM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:42 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepYou don't purchase human beings.
And you don't leave the institution in place by law either. The slave trade act of 1807 did not make slavery illegal. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 allowed slavery to continue in selected areas.
And the Southern part of England did not fire on the Northern Part of England to preserve that culture.
Once more - you can not make a case for the purchasing of human beings.
I see. Peaceful means of ending slavery wouldn't have satisfied progressive bloodlust.
If you can't have an adult conversation then don't respond. This must be a difficult subject for you.
|
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary. #MAGA #wallsnotwars
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 15 2016, 11:15 AM
Post #66
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Tsalagi
- Apr 14 2016, 07:14 PM
Your way esto would confirm in the South's eyes that their human slaves were in fact "property", it would cement for the South their peculiar institution, and there is no indication that every slave owner would sell his slaves.
Plus, how would we look at the black slaves and say "I bought you, I am going to free you, but you were always property to begin with, now you're just freed property". No, they were human beings held in bondage who needed to be liberated. That is a good point - but in the end the net result was more people stayed alive.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h249.html
As to the second part - my understanding is the slaves were not directly bought, rather the owners were compensated for the loss of productivity.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 15 2016, 11:19 AM
Post #67
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:27 PM
- estonianman
- Apr 14 2016, 06:25 PM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 05:10 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep "The north could have bought all of the slaves..."So please tell me, what's your interpretation?
I already gave you a clue - see what the UK did to end slavery. Please do not turn this into another thread where you portray your childlike nativity for 5 pages.
Your knowledge of history in this matter is selective with reality lacking. Then go ahead and make your first attempt to clue in what the feck you are talking about.
Or continue for the next 5 pages making vague statements about your "fee fees".
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
philly rabbit
|
Apr 15 2016, 11:38 AM
Post #68
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,092
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Mar 20, 2016
|
- Attaburnsinhell
- Apr 12 2016, 10:12 PM
- philly rabbit
- Apr 12 2016, 09:06 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 12 2016, 06:12 PM
We can say that it is to celebrate Northern "heritage".
Two million people either directly or indirectly killed and millions of dollars in private property damage. Progressive blood lust doesn't warrant celebration, only shame in what was the most shameful chapter in this country's history.
The blame for that tragedy is wholly on the south The root cause was slavery. The south knew that in order to preserve it they had to add territories, expanding out to Kansas, Missourri, make them slave states, thus increasing their numbers in Congress. It didn't work, so they said screw America, we're stealing a piece for ourselves, and they fired the first shot against the US government. They murdered thousands of American soldiers in their greed In the end they lost, but not being honorable people, they dishonored their terms of surrender, fighting a guerrila war, murdering their ex-slaves, until the US government had to slap them around again and make them fall in line. Had a less benevalent foe vanquished them, they could have been driven into exile, their leaders hung for treason, stripped them of everything. Instead Lincoln promised ''malice toward none'', his good will was rewarded by a rebel assassin Good men died to preserve this nation, they deserve the honor, not those who spit on it The root cause was money. Slavery was just a straw man excuse.
When the confederacy signed a provision by their president, Jefferson Davis that a tariff rate no greater than five percent would go into effect immediately, it was the confederacy's death warrant. Not long before that, the north put a fifty percent tariff rate, the highest in the world into effect on all imports. A five percent tariff rate would have made the business mecca of the country New Orleans where all foreign imports would have come into the country instead of New York. Northern business interests through the republican party they supported by those tariffs demanded war and Lincoln gave it to them.
|
|
Proud Deplorable.
|
| |
|
philly rabbit
|
Apr 15 2016, 11:54 AM
Post #69
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,092
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Mar 20, 2016
|
- Adolph Hipster
- Apr 13 2016, 12:42 AM
- philly rabbit
- Apr 12 2016, 09:06 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 12 2016, 06:12 PM
We can say that it is to celebrate Northern "heritage".
Two million people either directly or indirectly killed and millions of dollars in private property damage. Progressive blood lust doesn't warrant celebration, only shame in what was the most shameful chapter in this country's history. Do you have no shame, sir? Are you bereft of any grace or integrity? You have started thread after thread babbling on about how "noble' the confederacy was. You fly its flag and carry on like some debutante drag queen after too many mint juleps. You defend a society who's economy was based on the slavery and brutal subjugation of fellow human beings. Under the veneer of civility, with fopped out dandys and belles parading at cotillions yammering about honor and chivalry, lied a reeking cesspool of mendacity, greed and venality on the backs of people stolen from their homes and treated like chattel.
And after the war and the emancipation, instead of being like "hey, we were assholes..we now welcome our black brothers and sisters as fellow Americans", That same society created laws that put black folk under the boot heel of bigotry, subjecting to lynchings, oppression and terror for another century.
You celebrate this very culture..and you have the gall to wank off about people celebrating the north? :oyvey You pull out the fiddle and wax about how shameful the war was? Really? You have dropped some fetid deuces on these boards but this hypocritical pile of bovine excrement takes the cake. Nice lecture but after the war, the northern states put laws into effect to keep the freed slaves out. They also passed a homestead act to give free land in the west to veteran foreigners in Lincoln's army and republican party supporting corporations while they lied to the freed slaves about giving all of them forty acres and a mule if they voted republican. They didn't. they kept them concentrated in the devastated south instead where about everything of any worth had been destroyed because the republicans were trying to establish a political foothold there at their expense.
Don't try and play holier than thou with me funny man, i use historical facts to support my positions and not revisionist gunk.
|
|
Proud Deplorable.
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
Apr 15 2016, 01:23 PM
Post #70
|
|
- Posts:
- 15,996
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- American Identitarian
- Apr 15 2016, 07:53 AM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 15 2016, 06:44 AM
- American Identitarian
- Apr 14 2016, 07:48 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepYou don't purchase human beings
If you can't have an adult conversation then don't respond.
This must be a difficult subject for you. It can be when the person you are attempting to talk to as an adult is constantly going back to a pathetic and infantile fallback of "bloodlust".
I do understand when you can't compete you regress. But that doesn't mean I have to play down to your level.
|
|
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
Apr 15 2016, 01:31 PM
Post #71
|
|
- Posts:
- 15,996
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Apr 15 2016, 11:19 AM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:27 PM
- estonianman
- Apr 14 2016, 06:25 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep"The north could have bought all of the slaves..."
Your knowledge of history in this matter is selective with reality lacking.
Then go ahead and make your first attempt to clue in what the feck you are talking about. Or continue for the next 5 pages making vague statements about your "fee fees". You think leaving some in slavery is okay which is what the British did.
Don't bother responding if you can't do so without "fee, fee's" or one of the other infantile insults you enjoy when you fall behind.
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 15 2016, 01:39 PM
Post #72
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
The left does not have a problem with slavery. Every time some LGBT activists are able to force a person to work at their wedding against their will it is either involuntary servitude at best or slavery at worst.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 15 2016, 02:46 PM
Post #73
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Coast2coast
- Apr 15 2016, 01:31 PM
- estonianman
- Apr 15 2016, 11:19 AM
- Coast2coast
- Apr 14 2016, 07:27 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep"The north could have bought all of the slaves..."
Then go ahead and make your first attempt to clue in what the feck you are talking about. Or continue for the next 5 pages making vague statements about your "fee fees".
You think leaving some in slavery is okay which is what the British did. Don't bother responding if you can't do so without "fee, fee's" or one of the other infantile insults you enjoy when you fall behind. All governments have slaves - present day even.
I think the way the UK, France and other countries transitioned from slave economies was much better than the way the US handled it.
If you think hundreds of dead draftees was ideal - honestly I am a bit surprised.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
CautionaryTales
|
Apr 15 2016, 02:57 PM
Post #74
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,262
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 01:39 PM
The left does not have a problem with slavery. Every time some LGBT activists are able to force a person to work at their wedding against their will it is either involuntary servitude at best or slavery at worst. That's a ridiculous statement. Just sayin
|
Have you paid your internet taxes?
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 15 2016, 05:12 PM
Post #75
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- CautionaryTales
- Apr 15 2016, 02:57 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 01:39 PM
The left does not have a problem with slavery. Every time some LGBT activists are able to force a person to work at their wedding against their will it is either involuntary servitude at best or slavery at worst.
That's a ridiculous statement. Just sayin I understand that you would feel that way.
Let me ask you this, would it be OK to force an Orthodox Jew or Islamic person to consume pork? Would it be OK to force a Kosher Deli to start selling pork?
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 15 2016, 05:41 PM
Post #76
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 05:12 PM
- CautionaryTales
- Apr 15 2016, 02:57 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 01:39 PM
The left does not have a problem with slavery. Every time some LGBT activists are able to force a person to work at their wedding against their will it is either involuntary servitude at best or slavery at worst.
That's a ridiculous statement. Just sayin
I understand that you would feel that way. Let me ask you this, would it be OK to force an Orthodox Jew or Islamic person to consume pork? Would it be OK to force a Kosher Deli to start selling pork? If an Orthodox Jew or an Islamic person made their living eating pork or a Kosher Deli sold pork, but they suddenly refused when it was a gay person trying to pay them to eat pork or sell pork, then yes that would be a problem.
It is not against the Christian religion to make wedding cakes, some just don't want to do it for gays. Fair enough, then stop making wedding cakes.
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 15 2016, 05:51 PM
Post #77
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 15 2016, 05:41 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 05:12 PM
- CautionaryTales
- Apr 15 2016, 02:57 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I understand that you would feel that way. Let me ask you this, would it be OK to force an Orthodox Jew or Islamic person to consume pork? Would it be OK to force a Kosher Deli to start selling pork?
If an Orthodox Jew or an Islamic person made their living eating pork or a Kosher Deli sold pork, but they suddenly refused when it was a gay person trying to pay them to eat pork or sell pork, then yes that would be a problem. It is not against the Christian religion to make wedding cakes, some just don't want to do it for gays. Fair enough, then stop making wedding cakes. No, it is more like you are forcing a Kosher deli to cater your wedding but you want them to serve pork. Since they have no problem catering other weddings you don't understand why they would refuse to cater your wedding because you refuse to understand that the reason they don't want to cater the wedding is because of your requirement that they serve pork at the wedding.
Then, because they turned you down by refusing to serve pork at your wedding you will now sue them over their refusal to cater your wedding based on the grounds that they cater other weddings.
Instead, when they told you that they can't cater your wedding with pork wouldn't have been easier just to go to a non-Kosher deli? Of course it would have but because you wish to force them to understand how stupid and backwards they are for their refusal to serve pork you choose to sue and try to put them out of business.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 15 2016, 05:57 PM
Post #78
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 05:51 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 15 2016, 05:41 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 05:12 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If an Orthodox Jew or an Islamic person made their living eating pork or a Kosher Deli sold pork, but they suddenly refused when it was a gay person trying to pay them to eat pork or sell pork, then yes that would be a problem. It is not against the Christian religion to make wedding cakes, some just don't want to do it for gays. Fair enough, then stop making wedding cakes.
No, it is more like you are forcing a Kosher deli to cater your wedding but you want them to serve pork. Since they have no problem catering other weddings you don't understand why they would refuse to cater your wedding because you refuse to understand that the reason they don't want to cater the wedding is because of your requirement that they serve pork at the wedding. Then, because they turned you down by refusing to serve pork at your wedding you will now sue them over their refusal to cater your wedding based on the grounds that they cater other weddings. Instead, when they told you that they can't cater your wedding with pork wouldn't have been easier just to go to a non-Kosher deli? Of course it would have but because you wish to force them to understand how stupid and backwards they are for their refusal to serve pork you choose to sue and try to put them out of business. No, it's not at all like trying to force a Kosher deli to cater your wedding with pork. It is like a Kosher deli catering heterosexual weddings with pork, but suddenly deciding they can't do it for a homosexual couple.
If you don't want to serve pork when you cater homosexual weddings, then don't serve pork when you cater heterosexual weddings. Having a policy that says, "We do not serve pork," is a perfectly acceptable policy. Having a policy that says, "We do not serve pork, to gay people," is not.
|
|
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Apr 15 2016, 06:08 PM
Post #79
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,160
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 05:51 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 15 2016, 05:41 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 15 2016, 05:12 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If an Orthodox Jew or an Islamic person made their living eating pork or a Kosher Deli sold pork, but they suddenly refused when it was a gay person trying to pay them to eat pork or sell pork, then yes that would be a problem. It is not against the Christian religion to make wedding cakes, some just don't want to do it for gays. Fair enough, then stop making wedding cakes.
No, it is more like you are forcing a Kosher deli to cater your wedding but you want them to serve pork. Since they have no problem catering other weddings you don't understand why they would refuse to cater your wedding because you refuse to understand that the reason they don't want to cater the wedding is because of your requirement that they serve pork at the wedding. Then, because they turned you down by refusing to serve pork at your wedding you will now sue them over their refusal to cater your wedding based on the grounds that they cater other weddings. Instead, when they told you that they can't cater your wedding with pork wouldn't have been easier just to go to a non-Kosher deli? Of course it would have but because you wish to force them to understand how stupid and backwards they are for their refusal to serve pork you choose to sue and try to put them out of business. Perhaps the bakery should sue if they are prohibited from putting Two grooms (having anal sex) on top of the Gay cake..............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 16 2016, 12:11 AM
Post #80
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
I'm amazed how so many people can shit on the Confederacy for upholding slavery and completely choose to overlook the long documented history of the U.S government repeatedly upholding slavery as a Constitutional right.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|