• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Breaking things comes natural to a broken record. But who listens to it?

“Broken windows! Brroooooooken winnnnnodooooowws!” sobs the Confederate conservative miserably, still unable to comprehend why anyone would oppose a regime which fought to defend slavery.
 
Wow, what a graphic display of a mind reaching the end of its tether. Couldn’t even finish the sentence, eh?
You've shown us who you are.

And I'd rather it be this way.
 
Like I said, I don't mind pejoratives but I'm am going to clown on you if that's all you got. AT has certainly calmly explained that slavery in the South was begnin and anyone who doesn't understand that simply isn't smart enough to grasp the truth in her statement, but calmly reciting ridiculous claims and then asserting that they are true doesn't make you objective.

She’s as objective as anyone can be about making broad interpretations of culture. If she fails, then she fails, but the people who don’t try at all and then claim to rely on alleged facts have fallen further.
 
See? You’re *still* responding.

And you think this country has no history of white supremacy being the foundation for populism. This is why we need CRT.

I never said I wouldn’t respond; only that you said nothing, allowing me to attack your presumptions.
 
Are there any defenders here of slavery and forced servitude who'd be willing to be enslaved? After all some of you see it as no big deal.
 
This is what you said earlier:

"...But the North didn't destroy slavery. They just let it get transformed into Jim Crow, which was far worse, being directed against legal citizens. And the North didn't do it out of any tender mercies toward the South. They practiced neglect because they didn't care about Black people once their political aims were accomplished."

The 1861 tratiff was well before Jim Crow. It was passed due to the absence of Southern votes because they walked out. The North didn't do anything. But the southerners were back in Congress through the Jim Crow era. Thus, your post is confusing.

While I haven’t claimed that the South was some rosy paradise of virtue, I think the North had been spoiling for a fight long before the secession. Many people choose to believe the North had only altruistic motives. I think that unlikely.

In 1819 Missouri petitioned Congress to enter the Union as a slave state. Condemn them if you please, but it was entirely legal for Missouri to make that choice.

New York representative James Tallmadge introduced impediments to Missouri’s statehood; legal conditions that had no precedent and which Tallmadge pulled out of his posterior. Even then the North was more populous than the South, and the amendment passed in the House but was blocked by the Senate due to the equal distribution of slave and free states.

Was Tallmadge motivated purely by altruism, or did he want to weaken the South in order to pass tariffs against the slave states? You can do your own research and decide, but Henry Clay had to hammer together the Missouri Compromise to prevent disunion.

Over the ensuing years the North continued on the tariff trail, and maybe they thought they had good reasons for so doing. The Morrill Tariff just happened to be the one the North was pushing when the South seceded, be it in reaction to Lincoln or whatever, and so the North got its way for the time being.

And yes, Jim Crow comes later, after the North lost interest in Reconstruction. Maybe if the North had taken measures to improve the lot of ex slaves materially, Jim Crow could have been mitigated. But to make such improvements, the North would’ve had to go the extra mile— and not by taking the fatuous method suggested by Tigerace; that of killing White Southerners until they behave.
 
This conveniently ignores the fact that the primary political question under consideration in Congress prior to the civil war was the expansion of slavery.

And what end did the expansion of slavery have, if not to keep Damn Yankees from being able to tell the South when to jump and how high?
 
But those white historians tend to notice many world-civilizations that were not *white* civilizations that were advanced and significant. While it is true that there is a certain chauvinism and self-centricity among pre-21st century anthropologists and sociologists, it is also true that there is a good deal of *idealistic inflation* that also has elements of *politically correct historiography* which becomes necessary so to countermand the observation of African primitiveness.

This humbled me in that regard . . .



It would improved Black Panther 20% had someone, anyone, called Killmonger a colonizer— which, by any definition of the word, he was.
 
Unlike your heroes, BLM aren’t “terrorists”. Hell, it barely qualifies as an organization.

Go weep into your Klan robes elsewhere

BLM learned their terrorist tactics well from al Qaeda and even the Klan by remaining de-centralized.
 
You’ve outright desperately tried to handwave away the fact that your heroes were fighting to defend slavery because even today, a hundred and fifty years later, some folks’ “Southern Pride”(tm) is still so fragile and pathetic that you can’t face the truth.

Not your bad imitation of truth, for sure. Go tell it to Hannah Nicole-Jones— or did you get it from her?
 
“Broken windows! Brroooooooken winnnnnodooooowws!” sobs the Confederate conservative miserably, still unable to comprehend why anyone would oppose a regime which fought to defend slavery.
🥱🥱🥱
 
BLM learned their terrorist tactics well from al Qaeda and even the Klan by remaining de-centralized.

Trying to equate BLM to Al-Qaeda, much less the Klan, is so incredibly absurd it’s downright hilarious.
 
Not your bad imitation of truth, for sure. Go tell it to Hannah Nicole-Jones— or did you get it from her?

Just pointing out the reality bud. It’s not my fault you lack the spine to face the facts about what your heroes were fighting for
 
It is your job however, independently of my position, to seek out, understand, and speak the truth by gaining an understanding of real, not revised, history.

You will have to do your own research. I pointed to a title (Pro-Slavery Arguments) but there are many other sources that support a sense of ‘degrees of benignity’.

I do not go in for the ‘he raped her’ argument. It is retrofitting the application of modern morals and ethics to former times. But I can understand why you’d work that angle given your general predilections . . .
You telling people that they just need to consider the view points of rapists and slavers to understand how a 44 year old slaver raping his 14 year old slave could of in someways have "degrees of benginity" is not a winning argument. You chose the wrong side. Good luck convincing the majority of the bengin nature of kidnapping and then raping a 14 year old girl. We can certainly, by learning about history, understand how this was normal and prevalent in a particular society but no one is rocking with you that it was ever okay just cause it happened really long ago. No one is going to join you out on that lonely island except deplorables and mutants.
 
Last edited:
You telling people that they just need to consider the view points of rapists and slavers to understand how a 44 year old slaver raping his 14 year old slave could of in someways have "degrees of benignity" is not a winning argument.
But your argument, such as it is, involves as I have suggested the creation of *cartoon images* against which you can organize and rally your contempt and anger to stimulate a general hatred that extends beyond the moral failing of the man Jefferson to a poisonous hatred of the country, its founding, its institutions, and is part-and-parcel of your narrative of contempt and hatred.

What I have been suggesting is that you are definitely involved in these sorts of projects — it is all recorded here in your own words! — and that I recommend examining the structured narratives and ideological positions of people like those that comprise Antifa and also those that comprise BLM. I suggest that Critical Theory and especially race theory, postcolonial theory and also queer theory, be examined from a critical perspective — just as I am doing in respect to all you say — to better understand a virulent movement which, in my opinion, is not creative or productive, but largely destructive.

In this regard — though TigerAce predictably pushed it violently away with an imperious gesture of distain — I presented Ari Horowitz’ short video-essay on an aspect of BLM. This aspect is real. But just as you and Tiger rail against your *cartoons* you also become cartoons as you dig your heals into intractable positions. These dovetail into positions of militancy which are, through and through, destructive.

I can well see everything troubling and problematic in the relationship that Jefferson had with Sally Hemings, so the points are not lost on me. Yet it is within even that *power unbalanced* relationship, as we would see it today through application of that particular way of seeing power-dynamics, that also points up the ‘benignity’.

It is likely — I am certain of it in fact — that it is easier for me to see this situation (Jefferson and Hemings) through the context of my own cultural background: Venezuela. It is a highly stratified society in which people within very (starkly) different strata carry on human relationships. And though I am not supportive of it and see many negaite features in it, concubinage is ever-present throughout the culture, from bottom to top. But this is not the only area where very warm and human interchanges occur between persons in different social strata. So, what I notice is that people find a way to get along under what we would describe as *unfortunate circumstances*, or circumstances we find *unfair* and even *unjust*.

I have in mind the life-long relationships between well to do families and the women, and sometimes men, who associate themselves with those families as drivers, maids, nannies and such. These relationships extend completely beyond an employer-employee relationship such as you encounter in the States and involve many different levels of commitment. For example helping the servant’s children get through university, or providing other resources, health care, etc. I have one woman in mind who cared for her longtime servant when she was very sick and eventually died.

So, it is through these lenses that I can visualize aspects of benignity within the slave-master culture of the South.
You chose the wrong side. Good luck convincing the majority of the bengin nature of kidnapping and then raping a 14 year old girl. We can certainly, by learning about history, understand how this was normal and prevalent in a particular society but no one is rocking with you that it was ever okay just cause it happened really long ago. No one is going to join you out on that lonely island except deplorables and mutants.
Ah, but there you can see how your definition is what you are referring to — a definition that you have invested with life and spirit. Again this is the *cartoon* that I refer to.
 
Last edited:
But your argument, such as it is, involves as I have suggested the creation of *cartoon images* against which you can organize and rally your contempt and anger to stimulate a general hatred that extends beyond the moral failing of the man Jefferson to a poisonous hatred of the country, its founding, its institutions, and is part-and-parcel of your narrative of contempt and hatred.
That isn't a cartoon image that's a historical fact. You can try to talk around that fact all you like but at the end of the day there is no escaping it.
 
No one is going to join you out on that lonely island except deplorables and mutants.
I agree with you that it is possible to *paint pictures* through historical revisionism that are so ugly and invocative of feelings of hatred that what results is concentrations of anger and hatred that become militarized in our present social circumstances.

I mentioned that Henry James the novelist once noted that our histories had begun to be written like novels. The implication of this is not hard to see. A novel is a deliberately false creation that sets up — invents in this sense — a specific situation that the author then explores morally, ethically, emotionally, semiologically, et cetera.

But a history cannot be, or should not be, novelized in this way. When that happens, or if that happens, modern opinion, modern view, modern ideology, will be interjected into historical accounts.

What is happening in our present is precisely that historical account and historiography is being revised through novelized revisionism. This is why I referred both to Mississippi Burning and also to 12 Years a Slave. The novel and the movie-version has replaced the genuine histories.
 
That isn't a cartoon image that's a historical fact. You can try to talk around that fact all you like but at the end of the day there is no escaping it.
Oh it definitely involves *historical facts* of that I have no doubt at all. That is obvious. But you demonstrate, very clearly, what results from the novelization of historical accounts.

You are setting up an argument within and through your ‘novelized history’ in which power-imbalance and also rape are the operative concepts. You do this because you desire to militarize a historical view and as I say for your own purposes in our present.

But the actual facts of this specific matter might be quite different. I suggest it likely that they are different. For example it is likely that Sally had solid relationships with Jefferson’s other daughters. That would change the ‘rape-victim’ and ‘prisoner’ view that you are putting forward. He might have assumed responsibility for her education and the conversation that all might have had would be of a different nature than that of dragging the young women out of her cell to be raped. There are whole arrays of nuance that would change the dynamic of the relationship.

And in that difference is all the nuance which your radicalized and *cartoon* version eliminates from the picture through ideological assertion. You will not allow it into the picture because it inhibits the inculcation of hatred and rage that animate you, and which you wish to animate others.

Fight the Power — you are right on the verge of an amazing realization! It will change your life! Just push a bit further! I am here cheering you on . . .
 
Last edited:
I agree with you that it is possible to *paint pictures* through historical revisionism that are so ugly and invocative of feelings of hatred that what results is concentrations of anger and hatred that become militarized in our present social circumstances.
Revisionism implies distortion, omission or outright fabrication. If we honestly look back at through history we can see that revisionism was actually the tool of the rapists and slavers. It's only been until very recently that the Jefferson estate or the Monticello Estate have even acknowledged Sally Hemings and the children she had with Jefferson. This isn't revisionism this is a correction of distorted facts told through the eyes of the people doing the exploiting.
 
I agree with you that it is possible to *paint pictures* through historical revisionism that are so ugly and invocative of feelings of hatred that what results is concentrations of anger and hatred that become militarized in our present social circumstances.

I mentioned that Henry James the novelist once noted that our histories had begun to be written like novels. The implication of this is not hard to see. A novel is a deliberately false creation that sets up — invents in this sense — a specific situation that the author then explores morally, ethically, emotionally, semiologically, et cetera.

But a history cannot be, or should not be, novelized in this way. When that happens, or if that happens, modern opinion, modern view, modern ideology, will be interjected into historical accounts.

What is happening in our present is precisely that historical account and historiography is being revised through novelized revisionism. This is why I referred both to Mississippi Burning and also to 12 Years a Slave. The novel and the movie-version has replaced the genuine histories.
Sweet baby jesus..
And gone with the wind..and other movies and shows that painted slavery as paternalistic ..benevolent institutions didn't do the same?
Come now.
And movies do not replace history.
It seems to me..you wish to whine about movies that portray the true ugliness of slavery..and ignore the movies that gloss over or portray slavery as somehow beneficial to those that were enslaved
 
It seems to me..you wish to whine about movies that portray the true ugliness of slavery..and ignore the movies that gloss over or portray slavery as somehow beneficial to those that were enslaved
Well, it *seems to you* wrongly. I would not regard any movie necessarily as a ‘history’ since they are all novels by definition.

But there is one other detail: all histories are interpretations, there is no way around that fact. And histories are revised. And southern history has gone through numerous revisions. This is stuff that is gone over in those studies and essays on the problems of writing history, and even of knowing the past.
 
Oh it definitely involves *historical facts* of that I have no doubt at all. That is obvious. But you demonstrate, very clearly, what results from the novelization of historical accounts.
I have novelized history but the slavers who would omit Sally Hemings from historical record are what? Unbiased?
You are setting up an argument within and through your ‘novelized history’ in which power-imbalance and also rape are the operative concepts. You do this because you desire to militarize a historical view and as I say for your own purposes in our present.
I don't have to set up a story. This actually happened, that power balance existed and it existed because white Europeans like Jefferson kidnapped people from their homes and then exploited them. Sally Hemings was 3/4s white and still a slave. Her grandmother was taken from Africa and raped by her owner and gave birth to Sally's mother who was raped by her owner until she gave birth to Sally who was raped by Jefferson. This is the ugly reality of this country's history. When Boko Haram kidnaps school girls and marries them off and rapes them and then sells the children of those rapes to other people so they can rape them I doubt we'll find you here telling us about the begninity of these acts.
 
Well, it *seems to you* wrongly. I would not regard any movie necessarily as a ‘history’ since they are all novels by definition.

But there is one other detail: all histories are interpretations, there is no way around that fact. And histories are revised. And southern history has gone through numerous revisions. This is stuff that is gone over in those studies and essays on the problems of writing history, and even of knowing the past.
So now you admit that histories are interpretations, after you accuse me of just that and then admit all the revising we've had to do because coward Confederates couldn't own up to their past.
 
Back
Top Bottom