Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
 Quote:
Not ’significant’: Virginia governor downplays slavery
By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010 -- 1:45 pm

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is being accused of historical revisionism after reinstating the state's controversial Confederate History Month and declaring that the event won't focus on slavery because the issue is not "significant" enough in Virginia.

"There were any number of aspects" to the Civil War, McDonnell said, explaining why he left slavery out of the proclamation announcing Confederate History Month. "Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."
...

RAW


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
You just want to be made fun of, don't you?


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is being accused of historical revisionism after reinstating the state's controversial Confederate History Month and declaring that the event won't focus on slavery because the issue is not "significant" enough in Virginia.


McDonnell should invite Vice President Biden to the event:
  • Biden attended a rotary luncheon where he bragged about his state's pro-slavery history:

    Delaware, he noted, was a “slave state that fought beside the North. That’s only because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Maybe Biden could bring along Bill Clinton, who said in exasperation when Obama was handed the nomination over Hilary:
"A few years ago, he would have been getting us coffee"

Yeah, there's so much room for RAW and other liberals to label conservatives as racist. After all, there's absolutely nothing racist in the words and actions of liberal Democrats...

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
You'll notice that what I posted didn't try to label the action as racist but just what happened WB.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
You'll notice that what I posted didn't try to label the action as racist but just what happened WB.



Right. You didn't come out and say it.
You just strongly implied it.


There is deep irony in any liberal accusing a conservative of revisionism. Whether Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or the 60s revolution, that is what liberalism is all about. Painting our nation's history through revisionism as an evil and racist place, undermining nationalism to make the new generation of Americans open to moving our nation in a socialist/globalist direction.

Again, best explained by Pat Buchanan in either his DEATH OF THE WEST book, or his more recent DAY OF RECKONING.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
You'll notice that what I posted didn't try to label the action as racist but just what happened


Then, presumably, you don't think the action was racist and, therefore, don't object to it.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
You'll notice that what I posted didn't try to label the action as racist but just what happened WB.



Right. You didn't come out and say it.
You just strongly implied it.


How so? It appears that you came to that conclusion with no implications.


 Quote:
There is deep irony in any liberal accusing a conservative of revisionism. Whether Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or the 60s revolution, that is what liberalism is all about. Painting our nations history through revisionism as an evil and racist place, undermining nationalism to make the new generation of Americans open to moving our nation in a socialist/globalist direction.

Again, best explained by Pat Buchanan in either his DEATH OF THE WEST book, or his more recent DAY OF RECKONING.


So because you have these feelings towards liberalism that somehow makes this ok?


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
You'll notice that what I posted didn't try to label the action as racist but just what happened


 Originally Posted By: the G-man
Then, presumably, you don't think the action was racist and, therefore, don't object to it.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Guess we're reposting.
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
You'll notice that what I posted didn't try to label the action as racist but just what happened WB.



Right. You didn't come out and say it.
You just strongly implied it.


How so? It appears that you came to that conclusion with no implications.


 Quote:
There is deep irony in any liberal accusing a conservative of revisionism. Whether Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or the 60s revolution, that is what liberalism is all about. Painting our nations history through revisionism as an evil and racist place, undermining nationalism to make the new generation of Americans open to moving our nation in a socialist/globalist direction.

Again, best explained by Pat Buchanan in either his DEATH OF THE WEST book, or his more recent DAY OF RECKONING.


So because you have these feelings towards liberalism that somehow makes this ok?


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
I have these feelings toward liberalism because that's absolutely what the Left's intention is. And I sourced where the argument is made point by point with examples.

Several other books:

WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA by Dinesh D'Souza

SLANDER by Ann Coulter

See in particular the chapter "Four Who Made A Revolution" in DEATH OF THE WEST. The 60's revolution is deeply rooted in Marxism, and after the failed attempts in the U.S. and European nations to spark a worldwide communist revolution, several Marxist leaders came up with the idea to undermine confidence in Western governemts, Christianity and other institutions, by taking over news media, taking over teaching in schools and universities, and revisionist history, to crumble the soccial structure and make a newly indoctrinated generation open to replacing it with a marxist/socialist system.
Which began to occur in the 40's and 50's, and reached full blossom in the 60's and forward.

This is evident in the public statements of Barack Obama, Wade Rathke, Ron Bloom, Joseph Biden, Hilary Clinton, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, and many others who are getting bold and arrogant in their power grab.
All of whose marxist comments have been youtubed here.

Liberals' intention was to take over the system and collapse it from within. And to create such a distrust of government, and such an apologetic self-loathing for our nation and its history that no one would defend the old system, and either passively or eagerly accept the new order.

Saul Alinsky.
William Ayers.
Cloward and Piven.

Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and the others are marinated in their ideology, and in Alinsky's vile and deceitful Rules For Radicals tactics.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
I think telling radical liberals to read books written by radical conservatives to be a perfectly valid thing to do.


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: rex
I think telling radical liberals to read books written by radical conservatives to be a perfectly valid thing to do.


Flippant dismissiveness of books you haven't even read is not a factual argument.

And as I said, videotaped comments of Obama and members of his administration prove what I said about their Marxist tendencies and ideological leanings, without a word by alleged "radical conservatives".

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
But this wasn't a case of liberals trying to revise history WB.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Guess we're reposting.


MEM, it's not a hard question. Do you or don't you think it's racist to celebrate the confederacy?

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
But this wasn't a case of liberals trying to revise history WB.


I suppose it depends on what he means. The Democrat party was, for many years, the party of the south, segregation and slavery. You still have ex-Klansman Robert "White Nigger" Byrd as one of the party's leaders. And, of course, you have Joe Biden and his comments I cited earlier.

Despite that, the liberals want to pretend that the Democrat Party is always the party of "civil rights."

Arguably, that's an attempt at rewriting history.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
You didn't ask a question previously. I don't know if I would automatically call it racist but it is an attempt to revise history. I also think WB read what happened and thought it was racist from his previous post. What do you think? Was it racist to try to take slavery out of confederate history month?


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
I don't see it as racist in this case. But I do believe it is a bit revisionist (or naïve) to downplay the fact that the confederacy was in large part an effort to preserve a clearly racist institution. I realize that many non-racist people want to cling to the romsntic or benign aspects of that era but they need to undertand that the romance of that time can't be looked at or celebrated without bringing to mind the bad.

Agree?

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: rex
I think telling radical liberals to read books written by radical conservatives to be a perfectly valid thing to do.


Flippant dismissiveness of books you haven't even read is not a factual argument.

And as I said, videotaped comments of Obama and members of his administration prove what I said about their Marxist tendencies and ideological leanings, without a word by alleged "radical conservatives".


How do you know I never read any of their books?


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
I don't see it as racist in this case. But I do believe it is a bit revisionist (or naïve) to downplay the fact that the confederacy was in large part an effort to preserve a clearly racist institution. I realize that many non-racist people want to cling to the romsntic or benign aspects of that era but they need to undertand that the romance of that time can't be looked at or celebrated without bringing to mind the bad.

Agree?


I certainly agree.

What the governor is doing is not "racist", any more than creating the novel and movie Gone With the Wind were "racist".
It's simply an attempt to emphasize other aspects of the Southern U.S. in that era, proud and noble aspects, beyond a sole focus on slavery.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: rex
I think telling radical liberals to read books written by radical conservatives to be a perfectly valid thing to do.


Flippant dismissiveness of books you haven't even read is not a factual argument.

And as I said, videotaped comments of Obama and members of his administration prove what I said about their Marxist tendencies and ideological leanings, without a word by alleged "radical conservatives".


How do you know I never read any of their books?


Then cite examples to back up your arguments.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
pat buchanan wants all mexicans in mexico.
ann coulter hates liberals and think they are all sub-human.
glen beck wanks and cries and wants to "refound" America.


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Nice stereotypes. But again, you present no facts.

 Originally Posted By: rex
pat buchanan wants all mexicans in mexico.


Not accurate. And a factless rant by you.

 Originally Posted By: rex
ann coulter hates liberals and think they are all sub-human.


Ann Coulter believes that liberals are good intentioned and intelligent, but are blinded by indoctrination into wrong-headed liberal ideology.
Whatever her biases, she presents documentation and statistical facts to back up what she says. You, Rex, do not.


 Originally Posted By: rex
glen beck wanks and cries and wants to "refound" America.


That's you talking out your ass, not anything Glenn Beck actually said.
And too vague and meaningless to warrant a response.

But again, you have no facts to back up what you say.
Or that you've read the books you imply you have an informed opinion of.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
It got you to respond so I win again!


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: rex
It got you to respond so I win again!


I mistook you for someone attempting to have a serious discussion.

It won't happen again.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
You expected a serious discussion with me? Do you have some kind of retardation that blocks my previous posts? Or did you just get a big stiffy when I said I read your little racist books?


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: rex
You expected a serious discussion with me? Do you have some kind of retardation that blocks my previous posts? Or did you just get a big stiffy when I said I read your little racist books?




And you clearly haven't read them.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
I don't see it as racist in this case. But I do believe it is a bit revisionist (or naïve) to downplay the fact that the confederacy was in large part an effort to preserve a clearly racist institution. I realize that many non-racist people want to cling to the romsntic or benign aspects of that era but they need to undertand that the romance of that time can't be looked at or celebrated without bringing to mind the bad.

Agree?


It's more than a bit revisionist because it wasn't even an attempt to downplay but completey not have slavery as part of confederate history month. I do recognize there are those that want to celebrate the romanticized stuff but really there isn't that much real to celebrate.


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: rex
You expected a serious discussion with me? Do you have some kind of retardation that blocks my previous posts? Or did you just get a big stiffy when I said I read your little racist books?




And you clearly haven't read them.


No wanky boy, I've read every one of my posts.


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
I don't see it as racist in this case. But I do believe it is a bit revisionist (or naïve) to downplay the fact that the confederacy was in large part an effort to preserve a clearly racist institution. I realize that many non-racist people want to cling to the romsntic or benign aspects of that era but they need to undertand that the romance of that time can't be looked at or celebrated without bringing to mind the bad.

Agree?


I certainly agree.

What the governor is doing is not "racist", any more than creating the novel and movie Gone With the Wind were "racist".
It's simply an attempt to emphasize other aspects of the Southern U.S. in that era, proud and noble aspects, beyond a sole focus on slavery.


So what did you initially think racism was being implied at the beginning? I also think Gone With the Wind isn't really a comparable example. Slavery was included as part of the historical backdrop nor did I see where the confederacy was glorified.

Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2010-04-10 4:39 PM.

Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
I don't see it as racist in this case. But I do believe it is a bit revisionist (or naïve) to downplay the fact that the confederacy was in large part an effort to preserve a clearly racist institution. I realize that many non-racist people want to cling to the romsntic or benign aspects of that era but they need to undertand that the romance of that time can't be looked at or celebrated without bringing to mind the bad.

Agree?


It's more than a bit revisionist because it wasn't even an attempt to downplay but completey not have slavery as part of confederate history month. I do recognize there are those that want to celebrate the romanticized stuff but really there isn't that much real to celebrate.


Fair enough but that doesn't really address whether you think this motivated by naivete, racism or something else.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
I doubt he was intending to be racist but just made a political miscalculation. I could be totally wrong but it seems like one of those things that was meant to appeal to the voter farther to the right than moderate. Some type of pride event done right would have probably rattled some liberal voters but that would have probably played well in his favor.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
That sounds reasonable to me. I essentially agree.

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: rex
You expected a serious discussion with me? Do you have some kind of retardation that blocks my previous posts? Or did you just get a big stiffy when I said I read your little racist books?




And you clearly haven't read them.


No wanky boy, I've read every one of my posts.


yes, but where the fuck are the pictures?


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


5 MYTHS ABOUT CONFEDERATE SLAVERY

 Quote:
In 1619, the Dutch introduced the first captured Africans to America, planting the seeds of a slavery system that evolved into a nightmare of abuse and cruelty that would ultimately divide the nation.


Myth #1: There were Irish slaves in the American colonies.

As historian and public librarian Liam Hogan has written: “There is unanimous agreement, based on overwhelming evidence, that the Irish were never subjected to perpetual, hereditary slavery in the colonies, based on notions of ‘race’.” The enduring myth of Irish slavery, which most often surfaces today in service of Irish nationalist and white supremacist causes, has roots in the 17th and 18th centuries, when Irish laborers were derogatorily called “white slaves.” The phrase would later be employed as propaganda by the slave-owning South about the industrialized North, along with (false) claims that life was far harder for immigrant factory workers than for slaves.

What’s the truth? Large numbers of indentured servants did indeed emigrate from Ireland to the British colonies of North America, where they provided a cheap labor force for planters and merchants eager to exploit it. Though most crossed the Atlantic willingly, some Irish men and women—including criminals as well as simply the poor and vulnerable—were sentenced to indentured servitude in Ireland, and forcibly shipped to the colonies to carry out their sentences. But indentured servitude, by definition, came nowhere close to chattel slavery. For one thing, it was temporary; all but the most serious felons were freed at the end of their contracts. The colonial system also offered more lenient punishment for disobedient servants than slaves, and allowed servants to petition for early release if their masters mistreated them. Most importantly, servitude wasn’t hereditary. Children of indentured servants were born free; slaves’ children were the property of their owners.



Myth #2: The South seceded from the Union over the issue of states’ rights, not slavery.

This myth, that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally a conflict over slavery, would have been a surprise to the original founders of the Confederacy. In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” According to them, the Northern interference with the return of fugitive slaves was violating their constitutional obligations; they also complained that some states in New England tolerated abolitionist societies and allowed black men to vote.

As James W. Loewen, author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader,” wrote in the Washington Post: “In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.” The idea that the war was somehow not about slavery but about the issue of states’ rights was perpetuated by later generations anxious to redefine their ancestors’ sacrifices as a noble protection of the Southern way of life. At the time, however, Southerners had no problem claiming the protection of slavery as the cause of their break with the Union—and the Civil War that followed.



Myth #3: Only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Closely related to Myth #2, the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas).

But as Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion point out in Slate, the percentages don’t fully express the extent to which the antebellum South was a slave society, built on a foundation of slavery. Many of those white families who couldn’t afford slaves aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity. In addition, the essential ideology of white supremacy that served as a rationale for slavery, made it extremely difficult—and terrifying—for white Southerners to imagine life alongside a black majority population that was not in bondage. In this way, many non-slave-owning Confederates went to war to protect not only slavery, but to preserve the foundation of the only way of life they knew.



Myth #4: The Union went to war to end slavery.

On the Northern side, the rose-colored myth of the Civil War is that the blue-clad Union soldiers and their brave, doomed leader, Abraham Lincoln, were fighting to free the slaves. They weren’t, at least not initially; they were fighting to hold the nation together. Lincoln was known to personally oppose slavery (which is why the South seceded after his election in 1860), but his chief goal was preserving the Union. In August 1862, he famously wrote to the New York Tribune: “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 slaves themselves helped make the case for emancipation as a military aim, fleeing in droves beyond the lines of approaching Union armies. Early in the conflict, some of Lincoln’s generals helped the president understand that sending these men and women back to bondage could only help the Confederate cause. By the fall of 1862, Lincoln had become convinced that acting to end slavery was a necessary step. A month after his letter to Greeley, Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, which would take effect in January 1863. More a practical wartime measure than a true liberation, it proclaimed free all slaves in the rebel states, but not those in the border slavery states, which Lincoln needed to remain loyal to the Union.




Myth #5: Black soldiers—slave and free—fought for the Confederacy.

This argument, a staple among those seeking to redefine the conflict as an abstract battle over states’ rights rather than a fight to preserve slavery, does not hold up. White officers in the Confederacy did indeed bring slaves to the front during the Civil War, where they cooked, cleaned and performed other labors for the officers and their regiments. But there’s no evidence to suggest that significant numbers of black soldiers fought under the Confederate banner against Union soldiers.

In fact, until March 1865, Confederate Army policy specifically prohibited blacks from serving as soldiers. Some Confederate officers wanted to enlist slaves earlier: Gen. Patrick Cleburne proposed enlisting African-American soldiers early in 1864, but Jefferson Davis rejected the suggestion and ordered it never to be discussed again. Finally, in the last weeks of the conflict, the Confederate government gave in to Gen. Robert E. Lee’s desperate plea for more men, allowing slaves to enlist in exchange for some kind of post-war freedom. A small number signed up for training, but there’s no evidence they saw action before the war’s end.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


On the ratio of slave-owning families in the Confederate South, this goes into a bit more detail, with slightly different numbers:

VIRAL POST GETS IT WRONG ABOUT EXTENT OF SLAVERY (Politifact)

But its numbers are slightly different. Whereas the above says about 33% of Confederate households owned slaves, this one said most states were about 20-25%, and a median across the Confederacy of about 27%.

The part about blacks who owned slaves was also very interesting.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Armed protesters square off outside Houston City Hall over SB4

 Quote:
Dueling groups of armed protesters chanted and gave speeches Saturday outside Houston City Hall, sparring over immigration and police brutality even as the nation reeled from violence at a white nationalist rally in Virginia hours earlier.

Around 50 protesters from a left-leaning coalition read poems near Hermann Square and sang to voice their opposition to Senate Bill 4, while across the street about 15 counter-protesters from the Texas Patriot Network and Proud Boys chanted and waved a Texas flag.

"This is a protest against SB4, against police brutality and against the threat of fascism," said Houston Socialist Movement organizer David Michael Smith, who showed up armed and wearing a red hammer-and-sickle shirt emblazoned with an outline of Texas.

"Both of these things today are growing in significance and take on additional weight because of the threat from the far right, something that you see with open Nazis in the streets in Charlottesville, Virginia today," he said.

Across the street, conservative counter-protesters, some wearing camouflage, and others wearing Make America Great Again hats, offered a smattering of dissenting opinions, affirming their support for police and for SB4, the so-called "sanctuary cities" legislation. The law, signed by the governor in May, gives police officers new authority to question a detained person's immigration status and blocks local governments from passing laws that would prohibit such question.

"We're here to show our congressmen, our Senate and all of our police that we stand behind them enforcing the laws," said Jeremy Brooks of the Texas Patriot Network.

When asked if he'd still support Houston police Chief Art Acevedo in light of his opposition to SB4, Brooks said he supported the chief's right to his own opinion.

"It's his job to enforce the law. Whether or not he agrees with them, guess what, he has to enforce the law," he added.

"How would you feel if he said, 'You know what? I drink, I like alcohol so I'm going to allow people to take to the streets drinking and driving because I choose not to enforce that law."
Fellow counter-protester Laura Lee echoed Brooks' concerns.

"We don't support racism or inequality, but we want our laws followed," she said. "Illegals are not immigrants. They're breaking the law to be here."
For much of the protest, left-leaning groups ignored their opponents across the street.

"We always come here peacefully and they always come hard," Leobardo Santillan said in Spanish. "We are tired of that intimidation. We are tired of the border watch and the rednecks and now some of ours had to come armed because we are responding in the same form. So they can see we are not afraid."

At times, the protesters converged at a police barrier along Walker, briefly trading barbs before police calmed the crowd.

As the afternoon wore on, the situation degenerated to juvenile taunts, with one anti-immigration activist hurling fat-shaming insults while those on the left stared back in stony silence.

https://www.chron.com/houston/article/Armed-protesters-expected-outside-Houston-City-11778076.php





Who do you think is more dangerous? The redneck guys in Charlottesville, in confederate and Nazi regalia?
Or these guys brandishing machine guns at a Texas protest?

The redneck guys in Charlottesville merely marched.
Judging from their T-shirts, these Leftist Texans would like to make over Texas into Soviet territory.

"NATIONALISTS NOT WELCOME", the sign says.
With a banana-clip rifle emphasizing the message.



"Power is often administered at the barrel of a gun."
--Mao Tse Tung



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Two videos: A West Point teacher for Prager U., and Tom Richey doing a correction on the facts that were misleading or incorrect. Several of them made me laugh.

Was the Civil War About Slavery? - Prager U.

Was the Civil War About Slavery? (Richey Reacts to PragerU)


You can just feel the love for Prager U. in the comments on both!

The latter video makes the point that things were not as black-and-white as a lot of the oversimplifications of the Civil War make it. The Northern states had enormous power over the South, far more dominance than the South had in industry, population, and legislative influence. I read recently that Lincoln won the election (among 4 candidates) with only 39.8% of the vote in 1860. Without even winning all the Northern states! While slavery was central, the larger issue is the dominance and economic exclusion the North was gaining over the South, that the slavery issue was a manifestation of.





Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5