KKK Like Rally in Charlottesville

[calamity]

Was it like a BLM rally ? How many were injured ? How many stores were looted ? :shock:

Maybe you should grab a torch. :roll:

 

[apdst]

Oh, that's definitely not true. I've seen plenty of examples of victim culture in right wing posters on here.

You should be, seeing as it's a monument to an especially evil cause. But I'm not surprised you care more about whining about how "leftists" are "persecuting" you.

That's a lie and you know it.

You feel safer now that statues are coming down, a thousand miles away from you?

 

[Napoleon]

To be honest, this kind of Lost Cause nonsense is EXACTLY why a lot of folks believe monuments to people who fought for the CSA ought to be removed from places of honor in public spaces. Slavery was a big issue in the POTUS campaign, and "the north" elected Lincoln whose views on the subject were so abhorrent to the South they seceded before he took office. So to say the North "didn't give a fig" about the issue is just alternative history, fake news, historical revisionism.

The fact is that Lincoln's position on slavery was not much different than Lee's. This is the same Lincoln who, although personally opposed to the institution, regarded it as the cost of preserving the Union and said as much many times. This is the same Lincoln who petitioned Congress to allow slavery to remain a legal institution until 1900, to then compensate the slave owners, and then dump the newly freed blacks in a colony in the territories. This is the same Lincoln who supported the Corwin Amendment and ordered Union generals not to free slaves in Union occupied territory and who did not push for emancipation in the border States. As for the North in general, yeah there were plenty of self-righteous abolitionists but the reality is that slaves were still held in the north even in places where it was not legal to do so and those laws were somewhat selectively enforced. Those are the historical facts.

 

[katzgar]

The fact is that Lincoln's position on slavery was not much different than Lee's. This is the same Lincoln who, although personally opposed to the institution, regarded it as the cost of preserving the Union and said as much many times. This is the same Lincoln who supported the Corwin Amendment and ordered Union generals not to free slaves in Union occupied territory and who did not push for emancipation in the border States. As for the North in general, yeah there were plenty of self-righteous abolitionists but the reality is that slaves were still held in the north even in places where it was not legal to do so and those laws were somewhat selectively enforced. Those are the historical facts.

perhaps but they are irrelevant and selective. your review of our history will find that Lincoln did indeed sign the EP.

 

[Napoleon]

perhaps but they are irrelevant and selective. your review of our history will find that Lincoln did indeed sign the EP.

They're very relevant. Lincoln did sign the EP, after which time he tried boot free black men and women from the country and deposit them in Honduras which was as close as he could come to his vision of exiling them all to Liberia. You seem to think that he was some sort of abolitionist saint. The fact is he was a racist who argued for the extension if not the retention of the institution to preserve the Union and directed resettlement programs with the ultimate goal of expelling blacks from the country.

 

[faithful_servant]

In their effort to protect the memory of Robert E Lee, the white nationalists found their rallying cry.
Well, at least they didn't wear the hooded sheets

How is it "KKK-like"??

 

[faithful_servant]

that would not surprise me in the least...the right will resort to brutal violence

I predicted this when Trump won

it's coming

So far, it's only been the Left using brutal violence, but this one peaceful march will be used as an example of how the right is just as violent as the left (which is a lie).

 

[Deuce]

There's no victim culture on the Right. We're not the ones that see a racist/sexist/homophobe under every rock and around every corner. We sure as hell aren't the ones offended by a century old statue that we've never seen in person.

Now let me tell you how the left is trying to destroy my freedoms.

 

[JasperL]

The fact is that Lincoln's position on slavery was not much different than Lee's. This is the same Lincoln who, although personally opposed to the institution, regarded it as the cost of preserving the Union and said as much many times. This is the same Lincoln who petitioned Congress to allow slavery to remain a legal institution until 1900, to then compensate the slave owners, and then dump the newly freed blacks in a colony in the territories. This is the same Lincoln who supported the Corwin Amendment and ordered Union generals not to free slaves in Union occupied territory and who did not push for emancipation in the border States. As for the North in general, yeah there were plenty of self-righteous abolitionists but the reality is that slaves were still held in the north even in places where it was not legal to do so and those laws were somewhat selectively enforced. Those are the historical facts.

You're moving the goal posts. First you say the north didn't give a fig about slavery, but you can't cite any authority for that because it's not true. As I said, slavery was a huge issue in the 1860 election, big enough to cause the South to secede when Lincoln was elected but BEFORE he took office.

And the problem with Lincoln freeing slaves in the Union is it was illegal - he didn't have the authority to free slaves except in states that seceded, and freeing them in union controlled CSA territory was stupid militarily. More importantly, Lost Cause types want it both ways. They want to claim, as you're doing here, that Lincoln was hardly even opposed to slavery and point out various inconsistencies between what he said and what he supported politically, including as President. It's true he didn't propose abolishing slavery in the slave states when running for POTUS, etc. But for some reason, the South had an entirely different perspective about Lincoln's stance on slavery and believed his election was the death knell for slavery and prompted them to secede even before he took office! So who is wrong - Lost Cause revisionist historians, or the slaveowners in the Southern states at that time? I'm going with Lost Cause revisionist historians, and expect the South knew exactly the kind of threat Lincoln and the Republican party, and quickly shifting attitudes in the North, was to their peculiar institution, and the only question was HOW FAST slavery would be killed off and how.

It's also bizarre you describe anti-slavery individuals as "self righteous." I assume you oppose slavery - are your views merely self righteous, and if your views cannot accurately be called "self righteous, on what basis do you describe abolitionists in 1860 and their beliefs with that slur? And sure, there were a relative HANDFUL of slaves in the North in 1860, but you can't judge a region based on outliers - it's intellectual hackery.

Bottom line is like a true Lost Causer, you're going out of your way to trivialize anti-slavery sentiment of Lincoln and in the North and to point out their hypocrisy, but then turn around and excuse the open embrace of slavery throughout the South and their intent to found a nation on the principle of slavery now and forever, and to spread slavery throughout the territories and to places further south.

 

[JasperL]

They're very relevant. Lincoln did sign the EP, after which time he tried boot free black men and women from the country and deposit them in Honduras which was as close as he could come to his vision of exiling them all to Liberia. You seem to think that he was some sort of abolitionist saint. The fact is he was a racist who argued for the extension if not the retention of the institution to preserve the Union and directed resettlement programs with the ultimate goal of expelling blacks from the country.

Sure, he was a racist just like the slaveowners in the South, but for some reason the ACTUAL slaveowners in the South looked at Lincoln and knew his election was a dire threat to the institution of slavery and they seceded rather than try to work with the slavery loving racist who, we now know unlike the Southerners believed at that time, Lincoln posed no threat at all to slavery!

Makes total sense. :doh

 

[katzgar]

They're very relevant. Lincoln did sign the EP, after which time he tried boot free black men and women from the country and deposit them in Honduras which was as close as he could come to his vision of exiling them all to Liberia. You seem to think that he was some sort of abolitionist saint. The fact is he was a racist who argued for the extension if not the retention of the institution to preserve the Union and directed resettlement programs with the ultimate goal of expelling blacks from the country.

again you just tell a revisionist story. your post is dishonest

 

[Napoleon]

You're moving the goal posts. First you say the north didn't give a fig about slavery, but you can't cite any authority for that because it's not true. As I said, slavery was a huge issue in the 1860 election, big enough to cause the South to secede when Lincoln was elected but BEFORE he took office.

And the problem with Lincoln freeing slaves in the Union is it was illegal - he didn't have the authority to free slaves except in states that seceded, and freeing them in union controlled CSA territory was stupid militarily. More importantly, Lost Cause types want it both ways. They want to claim, as you're doing here, that Lincoln was hardly even opposed to slavery and point out various inconsistencies between what he said and what he supported politically, including as President. It's true he didn't propose abolishing slavery in the slave states when running for POTUS, etc. But for some reason, the South had an entirely different perspective about Lincoln's stance on slavery and believed his election was the death knell for slavery and prompted them to secede even before he took office! So who is wrong - Lost Cause revisionist historians, or the slaveowners in the Southern states at that time? I'm going with Lost Cause revisionist historians, and expect the South knew exactly the kind of threat Lincoln and the Republican party, and quickly shifting attitudes in the North, was to their peculiar institution, and the only question was HOW FAST slavery would be killed off and how.

It's also bizarre you describe anti-slavery individuals as "self righteous." I assume you oppose slavery - are your views merely self righteous, and if your views cannot accurately be called "self righteous, on what basis do you describe abolitionists in 1860 and their beliefs with that slur? And sure, there were a relative HANDFUL of slaves in the North in 1860, but you can't judge a region based on outliers - it's intellectual hackery.

Bottom line is like a true Lost Causer, you're going out of your way to trivialize anti-slavery sentiment of Lincoln and in the North and to point out their hypocrisy, but then turn around and excuse the open embrace of slavery throughout the South and their intent to found a nation on the principle of slavery now and forever, and to spread slavery throughout the territories and to places further south.

That is total bunk. Succession was the end result of years of Federal provocation and the fact is that Lincoln was small potatoes. He was not a threat as he demonstrated in advocating for the retention of slavery to be revisited in the year 1900. He actively supported and advocated for the institution as a means of preserving the Union. That isn't revisionism - it is recorded historical fact. And yes, boo-hooing in letters about how slavery "torments" you is being a self-righteous hypocrite particularly while advocating for its retention and when don't believe that free blacks and whites can co-exist in the same society so plot to expel blacks from the country and transport them elsewhere.

 

[Napoleon]

again you just tell a revisionist story. your post is dishonest

Bull. Do you even know what the Bureau of Emigration was?

 

[Tigerace117]

That's a lie and you know it.

You feel safer now that statues are coming down, a thousand miles away from you?

I know you'd feel better if it was a lie, but unfortunately for you it's not.

Yes, I've never thought that we should have monuments to a slaveocracy no matter how far away they seemed.

 

[JasperL]

That is total bunk. Succession was the end result of years of Federal provocation

Not sure what part of that response you're calling "total bunk," and asserting it's "bunk" without pointing out how or why isn't persuasive, but I agree with that second sentence - years of Federal provocation on the issue of SLAVERY! Right. Absolutely.

and the fact is that Lincoln was small potatoes. He was not a threat as he demonstrated in advocating for the retention of slavery to be revisited in the year 1900. He actively supported and advocated for the institution as a means of preserving the Union. That isn't revisionism - it is recorded historical fact. And yes, boo-hooing in letters about how slavery "torments" you is being a self-righteous hypocrite particularly while advocating for its retention and when don't believe that free blacks and whites can co-exist in the same society so plot to expel blacks from the country and transport them elsewhere.

Again, who to believe? 21st century Lost Cause historical revisionists who insist "[Lincoln] was not a threat" to slavery, OR the beliefs of the leaders of the soon to be CSA in 1860 who presumably had a better grasp on what the election of Lincoln meant to their peculiar institution, and promptly seceded before Lincoln even took office? I'll go with the slaveowners of the South at that time!

 

[Napoleon]

Not sure what part of that response you're calling "total bunk," and asserting it's "bunk" without pointing out how or why isn't persuasive, but I agree with that second sentence - years of Federal provocation on the issue of SLAVERY! Right. Absolutely.



Again, who to believe? 21st century Lost Cause historical revisionists who insist "[Lincoln] was not a threat" to slavery, OR the beliefs of the leaders of the soon to be CSA in 1860 who presumably had a better grasp on what the election of Lincoln meant to their peculiar institution, and promptly seceded before Lincoln even took office? I'll go with the slaveowners of the South at that time!

I'm going to go with what Lincoln actually said and did rather 21st century historical revisionists who think they can read the minds of long dead slave owners.

 

[JasperL]

I'm going to go with what Lincoln actually said and did rather 21st century historical revisionists who think they can read the minds of long dead slave owners.

He said a lot of things in private and in public. And what he said and did was enough to cause the South to secede. If you believe Lincoln was no threat to slavery, you have to also simultaneously believe the South were led by morons who seceded and fought a civil war to oppose a President's agenda that didn't threaten slavery in the slightest. But of course Lincoln and the Republican party and the shifting attitudes in the North absolutely threatened slavery. First in the territories where slaveowners saw the future of an expansion of slavery, then in the southern states. The threat was real and the South understood this perfectly well.

And we don't have to read their minds - the South left a rich written history of what they believed and their motivations. They DID secede before Lincoln took office. The states TOLD us in their own words why - secession was about slavery. Stephens couldn't have been clearer in his speech - it WAS all about slavery! Around the time of secession, there are many quotes from leaders of the South and at that time they were open about

 

[katzgar]

That is total bunk. Succession was the end result of years of Federal provocation and the fact is that Lincoln was small potatoes. He was not a threat as he demonstrated in advocating for the retention of slavery to be revisited in the year 1900. He actively supported and advocated for the institution as a means of preserving the Union. That isn't revisionism - it is recorded historical fact. And yes, boo-hooing in letters about how slavery "torments" you is being a self-righteous hypocrite particularly while advocating for its retention and when don't believe that free blacks and whites can co-exist in the same society so plot to expel blacks from the country and transport them elsewhere.

you just trying to rewrite history. secession was one of the stupidest things any group of states has ever done. trying to blame southern stupidity on the north is ridiculous.

 

[katzgar]

I'm going to go with what Lincoln actually said and did rather 21st century historical revisionists who think they can read the minds of long dead slave owners.

lincoln evolved, he said a lot of things, your post is dishonest in that it just tells the part of the story you like..

 

[Napoleon]

lincoln evolved, he said a lot of things, your post is dishonest in that it just tells the part of the story you like..

That is a lie. You're just lashing out because the truth about Lincoln pains you.

 

[katzgar]

That is a lie. You're just lashing out because the truth about Lincoln pains you.

nope your constant attempts at revising history is the lie. in the end lincoln signed the EP its really that simple.

 

[Napoleon]

He said a lot of things in private and in public. And what he said and did was enough to cause the South to secede. If you believe Lincoln was no threat to slavery, you have to also simultaneously believe the South were led by morons who seceded and fought a civil war to oppose a President's agenda that didn't threaten slavery in the slightest. But of course Lincoln and the Republican party and the shifting attitudes in the North absolutely threatened slavery. First in the territories where slaveowners saw the future of an expansion of slavery, then in the southern states. The threat was real and the South understood this perfectly well.

And we don't have to read their minds - the South left a rich written history of what they believed and their motivations. They DID secede before Lincoln took office. The states TOLD us in their own words why - secession was about slavery. Stephens couldn't have been clearer in his speech - it WAS all about slavery! Around the time of secession, there are many quotes from leaders of the South and at that time they were open about

Pure sophistry. First of all, Lincoln had no agenda to end the institution of slavery. His agenda was to do precisely the opposite to preserve the Union and he did everything he could to save the institution to that end. He was no threat and the truth doesn't jive with the motives YOU assign to southerners. Also, slavery was already an established institution in the territories and the South's objection was that the Federal government attempted to require abolition where slavery already existed as a condition of Statehood as in the case of Missouri. Why? "It was about slavery" is a simple minded answer. It was really about the right of States and the people to make that choice rather that unconstitutional dictates from Congress not merely what their choice was.

 

[Napoleon]

nope your constant attempts at revising history is the lie. in the end lincoln signed the EP its really that simple.

You're a fool if you believe that and your denial of Lincoln's attempts to preserve slavery and his plans for resettling blacks doesn't change the truth of it.

 

[katzgar]

You're a fool if you believe that and your denial of Lincoln's attempts to preserve slavery and his plans for resettling blacks doesn't change the truth of it.

there is no belief about it. lincoln signed the EP. it was in all the papers.

 

[Napoleon]

there is no belief about it. lincoln signed the EP. it was in all the papers.

Your ignorance of this issue is astounding. Do you know what the Corwin Amendment was? Do you still not know what the Department of Emigration was?