Jim DeMint on slavery

[fskimospy]

Actually, the Civil War is framed as a war over state's rights, at least from a Southern conservative perspective.

The Southerners were first demanding the federal gov't keep its hands out of state's rights and also railing against the economic sanctions the North was putting on the South for pursuing the "rights" the southern states deemed proper, namely slavery.

Remember, the Republicans of the era were considered the fairly progressive, or liberal, political party while the Democrats were the fairly conservative political party and heavily concentrated in the South.

Of course, the "state's rights" argument the Southerners used was just a cover for keeping slavery as an institution, but that's irrelevant.

Secession was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

Th thing is that they weren't covering for slavery at all back then. They were very explicit about how much they liked slavery and how intent they were on keeping it.

It has only been in more modern times that historical revisionists have attempted to whitewash the confederacy.

 

[Brainonska511]

There are genuine states rights issues, but they never had anything to do with the rhetoric of southern conservatives.

Yep. The other place southern conservatives were big proponents and defenders of states rights was the enforcement of the fugitive slave act... Oh wait, nevermind.

 

[Incorruptible]

It doesn't matter because he is making a comparison of how not calling someone out explicit equates to vehemently defending them which is incorruptible's modus operandi.

What are you talking about?

 

[thraashman]

It doesn't matter because he is making a comparison of how not calling someone out explicit equates to vehemently defending them which is incorruptible's modus operandi.

It doesn't really work to explain stuff to michal1980. You have to be capable of learning for explaining to have a purpose.

After the Civil War, much litigation and assassination was used in order to litigate us all into slavery. If they could not subjugate one race, then they would just subjugate all of us through debt.

I do find it rather hilarious all the talking heads in here who always come down on the same side of history as our thought control approved textbooks, though. I bet you all still believe womens' rights was about giving women equal rights, huh? Naïve little system dependent suckers.

I mean, for the love of humanity, please read some dissenting views at some point in your lives. You all sounds like an echo chamber, just having a big circle jerk about how smart you are and how correct your party is. It's a fucking joke.

Since the Civil War was lost, we have had 4 President assassinated, several more have had close calls, they established the Federal Reserve after having the Titanic sunk to murder the people who opposed the Fed and could stop it. Yeah, seriously, did you know that JP Morgan was a no show at the last minute for his trip on the Titanic? Just like Larry "Pull it" Silverstein was a no show for his breakfast at the WTC the morning of 9/11? Yeah, this is a common theme in all these tragedies.

And no, it isn't coincidence.

You know I've never paid attention to Pr0d1gy's posts. I was not aware until now that he's fucking crazy.

What are you talking about?

So you've literally never read a single one of your own posts is what you're saying?

 

[tynopik]

This is disgusting. Why are so many conservatives basically slavery apologists?

It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people.

apology for slavery not found

 

[Jhhnn]

apology for slavery not found

Oh, please.

DeMint tries to make it sound like all those plantation owners freed the slaves out of the goodness of their hearts rather than fighting to keep them in the bloodiest conflict in our history.

Slavery ended in this country at the point of the bayonets of the Union Army. Contentions to the contrary are lies, regardless of how they're presented.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Former SC Senator, now head of Heritage, says that the federal govt didn't end slavery-



http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...eral-government-played-no-role-freeing-slaves

Nevermind that the Constitution of the time sanctified slavery, or that Lincoln's implement to end slavery was the Union Army.

It's what Conservatives call "leadership", I suppose.

This idiot has the Constitution and Declaration mixed up. The Constitution established the slave class(toady to the Southern States. 4/5's counted for Representation) and it took an Amendment to abolish it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The Civil War was mainly about Northern States refusal to follow the Fugitive Slave Act. The Southern States got pissy over the fact they no longer had the votes (large immigrant homesteading in Northern states)to run Washington.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't really work to explain stuff to michal1980. You have to be capable of learning for explaining to have a purpose.

What he's already been taught, what he now believes, cripples his intellect as it does millions of others. The mind of a right wing fringe whack is like a pot full of shit- it's a perfectly good pot, it just needs to be cleaned out really well before you can cook with it.

Which won't happen other than through some great & highly unlikely epiphany. They cherish that shit beyond reason, because it feels good to Believe!, wouldn't know what to do if their minds weren't full of it.

It's amazing what can be accomplished with 35 years of relentless & emotionally appealing agitprop.

Isn't it time for more Benghazi? more birtherism? more fast & furious? more voter fraud? more maudlin pity for America's wealthiest citizens? More blaming the economic victims rather than the perps? More pinings about the lost cause of slavery & states rights to have it?

 

[Jhhnn]

The Civil War was mainly about Northern States refusal to follow the Fugitive Slave Act. The Southern States got pissy over the fact they no longer had the votes (large immigrant homesteading in Northern states)to run Washington.

Meh. Slave states saw their proportion of representation in Washington as diminishing due to anti-slavery sentiment in the West, in the territories destined to become states. They believed that slavery would be abolished because of that, their way of life destroyed by democratic processes. They gambled that they could preserve it by starting a war of secession, delusional fools that they were.

They ended up crushed, annihilated, devastated in ways that never would have happened otherwise. It would have happened much more quickly if Lincoln had better generals early on. Neither Grant nor Sherman were great generals, at all, but they knew what they had & how to use it. What they had was much, much greater industrial capacity to produce war goods, secure rear areas, better transport infrastructure, more men to use them, no need to regroup between battles. They engaged the confederate forces & simply wouldn't let go, beat them to pieces through attrition.

It was the first modern war where firepower had improved much faster than tactics & mobility, presaging the horrendous slaughter of WW1.

 

[tynopik]

DeMint tries to make it sound like all those plantation owners freed the slaves out of the goodness of their hearts rather than fighting to keep them in the bloodiest conflict in our history.

No, that's not what he's saying at all.

If you bothered to actually pay attention instead of knee-jerking you would know that

 

[Jhhnn]

No, that's not what he's saying at all.

If you bothered to actually pay attention instead of knee-jerking you would know that

I know what he said- it's right there in black & white.

no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves.

Obviously, his definition of big government doesn't include the Union Army, huh? The 13th & 14th amendments to the Constitution, either.

He pointedly ignores the rise of Jim Crow & the Klan when Union troops were withdrawn in 1877, as well. It wasn't quite a return to slavery, but it was as close as white southerners of the era could get w/o tempting the return of the Army. If it was all about a love of God & goodness in the hearts of men, why did that persist until equal rights & integration were forced upon them in the 50's & 60's?

 

[Incorruptible]

No, that's not what he's saying at all.

If you bothered to actually pay attention instead of knee-jerking you would know that

The problem is doesn't do that and knee-jerks all the time. He's a nutjob who can't be taken seriously.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is doesn't do that and knee-jerks all the time. He's a nutjob who can't be taken seriously.

So you agree with DeMint when he says that big govt didn't end slavery? That it wasn't the Union Army at all?

 

[Incorruptible]

So you agree with DeMint when he says that big govt didn't end slavery? That it wasn't the Union Army at all?

When did I ever say that? You really love to put words into other peoples mouth but it's typical of you and your ilk.

I never agreed with him, The government did end slavery you moron.

 

[Jhhnn]

When did I ever say that? You really love to put words into other peoples mouth but it's typical of you and your ilk.

I never agreed with him, The government did end slavery you moron.

So, if we're in agreement as to the subject of this thread, why are you attacking me?

Knee-jerk, indeed.

 

[Incorruptible]

So, if we're in agreement as to the subject of this thread, why are you attacking me?

Knee-jerk, indeed.

You attack me all the time, I'm not going to just take it and I will respond back.

 

[trenchfoot]

Who exactly do you believe lost the Civil War?

Haven't you heard? It's still being fought....only without most of the killing and maiming and uniforms.....well, except for the kind that feature pointed hoods with eye holes.

 

[Jhhnn]

You attack me all the time, I'm not going to just take it and I will respond back.

Gawd. If I attack you, it's because we disagree on a particular subject, certainly not on the rare occasions when we do agree.

Past experience clutters our perception at times. In your case, I'll grant that even a blind squirrel finds a few acorns, as you have on this particular topic. We have nothing to argue about here.

 

[tynopik]

So you agree with DeMint when he says that big govt didn't end slavery? That it wasn't the Union Army at all?

If you would stop knee-jerking and pay attention to the context, he's talking about the origin of the anti-slavery movement. He's saying it started with the people and it was the conviction of individuals that eventually led to the federal government, personified in Lincoln, changing.

He's saying the government was late to the party.

On some issues the government is a frontrunner and tries to enact laws that end up influencing beliefs. In this case the government was forced to enact laws to keep up with the growing belief of the populace in the evils of slavery.

You can agree or disagree with what he was trying to say, but he was NOT saying plantation owners voluntarily gave up their slaves.

The fact that he was crediting Lincoln should have been a clue

Only knee-jerks like you can make that interpretation.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What are you talking about?

Too many big words?

 

[Fern]

If you would stop knee-jerking and pay attention to the context, he's talking about the origin of the anti-slavery movement. He's saying it started with the people and it was the conviction of individuals that eventually led to the federal government, personified in Lincoln, changing.

He's saying the government was late to the party.

On some issues the government is a frontrunner and tries to enact laws that end up influencing beliefs. In this case the government was forced to enact laws to keep up with the growing belief of the populace in the evils of slavery.

You can agree or disagree with what he was trying to say, but he was NOT saying plantation owners voluntarily gave up their slaves.

The fact that he was crediting Lincoln should have been a clue

Only knee-jerks like you can make that interpretation.

^This^

DeMint said nothing wrong.

Fern

 

[norseamd]

blah

 

[sunzt]

If you would stop knee-jerking and pay attention to the context, he's talking about the origin of the anti-slavery movement. He's saying it started with the people and it was the conviction of individuals that eventually led to the federal government, personified in Lincoln, changing.

He's saying the government was late to the party.

On some issues the government is a frontrunner and tries to enact laws that end up influencing beliefs. In this case the government was forced to enact laws to keep up with the growing belief of the populace in the evils of slavery.

Um isn't that how it usually works? If the gov front runs issues with new laws people take it as excessive government intervention and overreach. If the gov steps back and waits a little then they are blamed for being slow and inefficient....

 

[Jhhnn]

If you would stop knee-jerking and pay attention to the context, he's talking about the origin of the anti-slavery movement. He's saying it started with the people and it was the conviction of individuals that eventually led to the federal government, personified in Lincoln, changing.

He's saying the government was late to the party.

On some issues the government is a frontrunner and tries to enact laws that end up influencing beliefs. In this case the government was forced to enact laws to keep up with the growing belief of the populace in the evils of slavery.

You can agree or disagree with what he was trying to say, but he was NOT saying plantation owners voluntarily gave up their slaves.

The fact that he was crediting Lincoln should have been a clue

Only knee-jerks like you can make that interpretation.

Puh-leeze.

DeMint's words are fundamentally & profoundly dishonest, an attempt at revisionist history & an attempt to discredit the role of govt in ending slavery.

Your own words are little different, serving as apologisms for that dishonesty.

Crediting Lincoln? For what, exactly? For sending the Union Army to crush the secessionists whose goals were the preservation of slavery entirely? For using big govt to do exactly what DeMint claims big govt didn't accomplish?

It's a soft pander to the lingering delusions of the lost cause of the Confederacy, to the supposed nobility of that cause. It's bullshit.