Doc Holliday Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I f the shoe fits, wear it. You brought it up. 1399883[/snapback] You don't like my shoes because they are black. racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 OK, I will say it again. If things were SO bad for blacks in the south, do you think so many would have stayed in the south like they have? 1399788[/snapback] actually, immediately after the civil war, blacks had it pretty well in the south (at least relative to being slaves). things got progressively worse for them as the century came to a close and the reconstruction era turned into jim crow. and shortly after the turn of the century, there WAS a HUGH migration of blacks to the north, away from the conditions they faced in the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 (edited) You don't like my shoes because they are black. racist. 1399886[/snapback] Like I said , I'd like to have some of what you are smoking. Edited April 3, 2006 by NSab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Even Rosa Parks moved to Detrioit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 (edited) I read them all. Tell me your not going to argue that Ms wasnt the most obvious in their intentions after you yourself used it as your example. 1399540[/snapback] south carolina... The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. ... Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. from the first sentence of alabama's... WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union, for more than a third of a century, marked at every stage of its progress by contempt for the obligations of law and the sanctity of compacts, evincing a deadly hostility to the rights and institutions of the Southern people... the first 3 setences of georgia's... The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. here's another section from texas'... In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States. By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights. They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition. They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved. They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose. They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance. They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State. And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed. We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. for all of them, it was all about slavery. for south carolina and texas as surely as it was for mississippi. they all make that abundantly clear. Edited April 3, 2006 by Azazello1313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 Why would you dog the Confederate flag and then pretend to be impartial. there is nothing wrong with any flag, mexican, confederate or any other...the end. 1399854[/snapback] Doc??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law That's good stuff right there. Yeah - they fought because of tariffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 south carolina...from the first sentence of alabama's... the first 3 setences of georgia's... here's another section from texas'... for all of them, it was all about slavery. for south carolina and texas as surely as it was for mississippi. they all make that abundantly clear. 1399908[/snapback] I agree that the war from the southern way of thinking had a lot to do with slavery, but from the northern perspective, it had more to do with teaching the south a lesson and getting the union back together than freeing the black man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I agree that the war from the southern way of thinking had a lot to do with slavery, but from the northern perspective, it had more to do with teaching the south a lesson and getting the union back together than freeing the black man. 1399920[/snapback] No one has ever said otherwise. The North fought because the Southern states seceded. The Southern states seceded because they were afraid they'd lose their slaves. Therefore, the was was fought over slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 No one has ever said otherwise. The North fought because the Southern states seceded. The Southern states seceded because they were afraid they'd lose their slaves. Therefore, the was was fought over slavery. 1399925[/snapback] yep, but the north could care less about slavery, they just didn't want to lose their right arm, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 yep, but the north could care less about slavery, they just didn't want to lose their right arm, so to speak. 1399932[/snapback] You're right - they could have cared less. And if they had, they probably wouldn't have bothered to abolish it. They cared about slavery, but that's not why they fought the war. Well, maybe some of the men foought for that reason, but that wasn't the government's reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 You're right - they could have cared less. And if they had, they probably wouldn't have bothered to abolish it. They cared about slavery, but that's not why they fought the war. Well, maybe some of the men foought for that reason, but that wasn't the government's reason. 1399942[/snapback] I think we're basically in agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 south carolina...from the first sentence of alabama's... the first 3 setences of georgia's... here's another section from texas'... for all of them, it was all about slavery. for south carolina and texas as surely as it was for mississippi. they all make that abundantly clear. 1399908[/snapback] I should have known better. Let me guess now i'm supposed to argue with you which of the Southern states most wanted to keep their slaves based upon there secesion letters. Yup i'm sticking with Ms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 not a chance in reading all of this but one thing im sure of is azzmonkey is wrong... whatever side he is fighting on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 not a chance in reading all of this but one thing im sure of is azzmonkey is wrong... whatever side he is fighting on..... 1399976[/snapback] Actually, he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 not a chance in reading all of this but one thing im sure of is azzmonkey is wrong... whatever side he is fighting on..... 1399976[/snapback] You'd think so... but if you actually read the thread, Doc Holliday is making such a bizarre argument so poorly that people from all sides of the political spectrum have united to refute him... except for NSab, who's contemplating whipping him with a bike chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 (edited) I'm not necessarily opposed to a display of regional pride or condoning Nazis, I just think that some Southerners who view the Confederate battle flag as a benign symbol seem to utterly have their head into the ground as to the reprehensible meanings some other groups have projected onto it. 1399389[/snapback] So, I read all of these posts, and looked at the pic again. I still can't get past the caped Super Rebel. 1399413[/snapback] I guess their definition of "history" down south is kind of like their definition of "science." 1399445[/snapback] Hyena ...or "dentistry" 1399447[/snapback] Jagged teeth are easier to pick at da squirrel ribs. You can reach in there and chit. Interesting stuff here. Edited April 3, 2006 by SuperBalla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 You'd think so... but if you actually read the thread, Doc Holliday is making such a bizarre argument so poorly that people from all sides of the political spectrum have united to refute him... except for NSab, who's contemplating whipping him with a bike chain. 1400003[/snapback] That would work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 That would work for me. 1400028[/snapback] Racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 (edited) I know Philly can't be that hard. 1399817[/snapback] Yeah whatever bisch Did you call us toothless hillbillies down here in Louisiana? Edited April 3, 2006 by SuperBalla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Racist. 1400031[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I should have known better. Let me guess now i'm supposed to argue with you which of the Southern states most wanted to keep their slaves based upon there secesion letters. Yup i'm sticking with Ms. 1399950[/snapback] they all seceded from the union over the right to own slaves. they were all willing to fight a war to the death in order to keep their slaves. it would be pretty goddam silly to argue that one state wanted to keep them more than another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 (edited) If things were SO bad for blacks in the south, do you think so many would have stayed in the south like they have? Not to jump in at the middle (or end) of this thing, but this is true. Sort of. It's not like every white was out there holding the threat of lynching over their head, but there was also a notion that there was nowhere for blacks to go. The North certainly didn't want them (blacks in the urban North was more a product of the Depression). The landowners still needed labor to work the land. It was logical that they stayed in the familiar territory. Especially after Reconstruction gave blacks political power in the South for a short period. My main point and the 1 you refuse to understand is that the north made a bigger deal out of stopping slavery than they really actually cared to do , they did it for a number of reasons. 1 was because slavery was immorral (this was not their main reason though, and I am not even sure it was a reason the way Lincoln actually felt), another was it helped build their military, another is they hoped to start the blacks fighting the confederates from the inside out. and I am sure there is many other reasons. The North didn't like slavery because the 3/5s clause in the Constitution concentrated too much political power in the South. Everything else anyone ever adds as a reason for going to war was a by-product of this. Edited April 3, 2006 by godtomsatan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts