Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Tigerace117]

Dance around the flaws of your heroes as much as you like; it won't change anything. The North was the party that wanted control of the Federal government, and they got it for a time. It was a pyrrhic victory, since they still needed educated whites to serve as representatives for the Southern states.

Modern Southern claims are being tyrannized are based not on actions taken during the Civil War, but by the irrational actions of modern Mad Libs.

The South threw a massive temper tantrum the minute they realized they couldn’t use the federal government to protect slavery anymore. The fact you see this as a good thing is pathetic.

Those who celebrate the South’s war to protect slavery routinely makes the idiotic claim that it was “tyrannized”, mainly because Confederate Conservatives don’t understand the meaning of the term.

 

[Jezcoe]

The next generation growing up in a society without slavery and thus being more hostile to it.

Not having slaves around made the North not really care about the issue that much for a few decades. They would publicly say that they didn't like it... but it is like using Third World labor for Nikes shoes... we all know it is bad but it isn't in our face every day.

When in the 1840's and 1850's the various compromises made so the North had to have an active instead of a passive role into slavery, it was that that fueled the abolitionists.

At the beginning of the war abolition wasn't really a thing, but the Northern soldiers being exposed to the reality of chattel slavery became fired up enough to reelect Lincoln over McClellan which was basically a vote to finish the war and end Slavery in the South.

 

[Jezcoe]

The South threw a massive temper tantrum the minute they realized they couldn’t use the federal government to protect slavery anymore. The fact you see this as a good thing is pathetic.

Those who celebrate the South’s war to protect slavery routinely makes the idiotic claim that it was “tyrannized”, mainly because Confederate Conservatives don’t understand the meaning of the term.

Even if the Confederacy did not go to war with the Union right off the bat... they would have gone to war eventually. There were just too many loose ends in the territories and there is no way, as belligerent as they were, they would have liked that they lost the power that came with the Fugitive Slave Act.

 

[Tigerace117]

For power, and for Lincoln's concept of realpolitik; those were the only motivations of most Northern politicians.

I wonder how many Northern soldiers were really hot to lay down their lives for the sake of the slaves. Few to none I'd surmise; they too acted for the security of their own lands, just as the South did.

The South fought to defend slavery, and no amount of squirming can change that.

 

[Carl Young]

You misrepresent my point.

What I point is that riots duinggg nation-wide events CANNOT invalidate the legitimateb message of the protesters. I presented an EXAMPLE of such case and I it seems you cannot refuteb the point. So. I say the same aproach should be observed with the BLM movement's mesaage. The BM is very diverse and using gross generalizations to equate it with looters is the sign of the rotten logic that obstructionis conservatives were usingg in the 60's to stall civil right reforms.

I argued why he is a hack and I presented the evidence. I do not need to compete with him at any level to make my point clear.


The BLM movement is very diverse and some of its message is radical such as complete defunding of police. But (and again I use as an example the civil rights), just as the presence of people with very radical messages such as Malcolm X did not invalidate the broader message for civil rights reform, the same thing happens with those within the BLM movement who push the more radical reforms. It is VERY clear, that most BLM supporters (including Biden) do not support such message. I am also one of them. I do believe though that police funds should be tied to outcomes. Ineffective cops in ineffective police departments should be defunded. Conservatives and Libertarians have no problem doing the same thing with schools when they tie funds to educational outcomes and push for different arranements (such as charter schools) to replace ineffective public schools.

Calling Thomas Sowell a 'hack' is typical of leftists hoping to level the playing field against those with far greater intelligence, but it never succeeds. BLM followers are dangerously ignorant and this is common knowledge among those financing them. That you seem to think this is all about 'civil rights' or 'police reform' only underlines that fact.

 

[Carl Young]

The next generation growing up in a society without slavery and thus being more hostile to it.

I know of no one in any democracy who is not hostile to slavery. Are there really pro-slavery people in your area?

 

[Carl Young]

The South fought to defend slavery, and no amount of squirming can change that.

Exactly, and the Democrats are always trying to conceal that fact.

 

[Carl Young]

I'd like to support for each of your assertions in that post.

Here's one story reporting Biden's response.

"President Biden has contributed to the confusion by describing Georgia’s vote suppression as akin to, or even worse than, Jim Crow. Contrary to the president’s hyperbole, it is more like Jim Crow Lite than “Jim Crow on steroids.”

But Jim Crow Lite is still very bad."

Georgia’s Jim Crow Lite Vote Suppression Continues Trump’s War on Democracy

“Voter suppression is when you don’t get to vote,” says Ben Shapiro.

nymag.com

Doesn't sound like Biden is crazy at all.

Do you really believe that there is 'voter suppression' in Georgia and that it is 'Jim Crow on steroids'?

Do you know what went on during the Jim Crow years or are you taking Joe Biden's word for it?

 

[Tigerace117]

Exactly, and the Democrats are always trying to conceal that fact.

Uh......actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true. It’s the Republicans who desperately pretend that the South was fighting for something— anything— other than to protect slavery.

 

[Carl Young]

Uh......actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true. It’s the Republicans who desperately pretend that the South was fighting for something— anything— other than to protect slavery.

The Republicans were fighting for slavery?

 

[Tigerace117]

The Republicans were fighting for slavery?

The Republicans want to pretend the Confederacy wasn’t fighting to protect slavery.

 

[Jezcoe]

Exactly, and the Democrats are always trying to conceal that fact.

I have no problem saying it was the Southern Democrats that fought to preserve slavery.

The Copperhead Democrats of the North were also pretty terrible.

Not a problem typing that out.

 

[Carl Young]

I have no problem saying it was the Southern Democrats that fought to preserve slavery.

The Copperhead Democrats of the North were also pretty terrible.

Not a problem typing that out.

Good for you. Not many Democrats are willing to admit that.

 

[Jezcoe]

Good for you. Not many Democrats are willing to admit that.

Really?
Who?
Name them.

 

[Carl Young]

The Republicans want to pretend the Confederacy wasn’t fighting to protect slavery.

Really? Why would that be? The Republican Party was formed to fight against slavery and Abraham Lincoln became their first President.

 

[Carl Young]

Really?
Who?
Name them.

Ask Tigerace117.

 

[Tigerace117]

Really? Why would that be? The Republican Party was formed to fight against slavery and Abraham Lincoln became their first President.

Because they realized that embracing the Confederacy and “white power” would win them the control of the South, and they cared for more about that then they cared about Lincoln

 

[Jezcoe]

Really? Why would that be? The Republican Party was formed to fight against slavery and Abraham Lincoln became their first President.

There is a difference between parties now and parties from 1860.

The Republican Party platform at the convention of 1860 included the right of free immigration for all (white people) and full rights for immigrants.

 

[Carl Young]

There is a difference between parties now and parties from 1860.

The Republican Party platform at the convention of 1860 included the right of free immigration for all (white people) and full rights for immigrants.

And how does that differ today?

 

[pamak]

The salient point I made about BLM's crusade was not the precise case that tipped it off so much as the founders' lack of morality in prosecuting a protest before they had adequate facts. I will concede that with Garner's case, the facts were very much in evidence, and so there was no opportunity to falsify the narrative. In the case of Brown, there was more disagreement about what happened, and that gave BLM more opportunity for falsification and the generation of massive property destruction, two things that have been their enduring hallmarks ever since. Some of the narratives, such as the one Michael Brown's buddy circulated about Brown being shot while fleeing, proved demonstrably false, but BLM kept going as if Brown had been proven a victim of a vile white police plot. You will still find addle-headed L:efties who claim that Brown was murdered, even though Obama's people did not support that popular delusion.

Yes, "I can't breathe" was based on a real assault that led to a probably needless death. But you might also remember another slogan, "Hands up, don't shoot"-- and that was a slogan that arose from the lies about the cop who tried to arrest the petty thief Michael Brown.

So, we can agree that In Garner's case (just like in Floyd's case) the existence of police abuse was obvious. Brown's case is a result of deep distrust and a result of coming shortly after Garner's case which had already ignited public anger. I do not deny the claim that the reaction over Brown's case was not justified . I am just saying that those who usually criticize the BLM have a selective memory and try to use Brown's case as the starting point of the BLM movement which is obviously wrong.

 

[pamak]

Calling Thomas Sowell a 'hack' is typical of leftists hoping to level the playing field against those with far greater intelligence, but it never succeeds. BLM followers are dangerously ignorant and this is common knowledge among those financing them. That you seem to think this is all about 'civil rights' or 'police reform' only underlines that fact.

Well, calling me a leftist who hopes to level the playing field against those with far greater intelligence does not refute my point. It seems your line of defense is that you cannot defend Sowell from my accusations but he can do it because he is far superior to me. I am not into debating by using claims of the variety "my intellectual dad can kick your ass." Hacks can often be quite intelligent and accomplished in their field people. So, pointing at someone's intelligence is not evidence that he is impartial or that he is not a hack who is fanatically dedicated to his ideology or party. Even if you are correct about my and Sowell's intelligence, it is meaningless. Sowell will debate my "intellectual dad" who is at his level and is far superior to you and I am still debating you.

And I am still puzzled by the trust you show to a person who is part of the economic establishment who objects to policies like tariffs that target China. if you are a Trump supporter, you should believe that Sowell uses his superior intelligence in order to benefit the economic elite at the expense of the middle-class in the US.

 

[Master Debator]

The point is whether you now understand what a Republic is and why that's important.

Do you know what a Republic is? What about about a popular vote doesn't make us a Republic when every single election other than the Presidential one is decided by popular vote? No the only thing you displayed by that post is that you don't know the difference between a pure democracy and representative one.

 

[Jezcoe]

And how does that differ today?

Is this for real are you pulling my leg?

 

[Ouroboros]

Having State join as Free States was to limit the already outsized power of the Slave States.

The South dominated most of the time in politics after the Era of Good Feelings.

The second that it looked like they lost power in 1860 they wanted to split from the country.

What does that say about their motivations?

When you claim that the North wanted to limit the South’s power, you haven’t contradicted anything I’ve posted on the subject. Where we differ is that you seem to ascribe to the North meritorious motivations that I consider unfounded. I get that you agree with the posters here in the belief that the South was bad. But do you have any particular reason to believe the North’s motives to be good IN THEMSELVES, and not just because their designs opposed those of the South?

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't think you could.

Georgia has previously closed voting stations causing longer lines in black communities. This results in people going to the wrong, new place to vote. Before, when they got to the front of the line and learned they were in the wrong place, they could cast a privional ballot. The new lawforbids this and forces them to go to the correct place and get in line again. Lots of Jim Crow lite in here.

So I quote my sources and you sneer because I don’t have an Online link instead? Truly you must be a child of the Internet Age, where ideas don’t exist unless you can link to them. If you ever get into books in a big way, I predict you’ll find a lot of stuff that doesn’t appear in cyberspace.

Are you asserting that the Georgia voting bill contains specific injunctions to close down voting stations in black neighborhoods? I didn’t see that in the linked essay, whose author was perfectly okay with volunteers stumping for votes to give refreshments to voters.