Mississippi Lawmaker: "Lynch those who take down confederate monuments"

[Voodoo_Child906]

Your problem is that you lack the knowledge of what slavery meant in 1861. You see for both the North and South it wasn't about slaves. It was about how slavery affected each regions economy and future business opportunities and political influence.

The South wanted to expand slavery because that's how they made their money. The North did not want to expand slavery because it interfered with their business future and they didn't want the competition of black workers with white workers moving westward.

You see, neither side have a damn about slaves, only how slavery affected their progress. It wasn't about good vs evil, it was actually evil vs evil.

If you think the Northern people supported free black people, you are extremely naive and ignorant about American history.

You can argue that slavery was evil, but Lincoln accepted it, the northern people didn't give a damn, slavery was still going on in Northern states after the Emancipation Proclamation. Both sides were evil.

So you can let go of this good vs evil bullshit, because that is exactly what it is.

Ya it's more like Shitty (North) vs Shittier (South).

 

[Captain Davis]

Please professor, couldn't you just write a couple of paragraphs and school us ignorant folk about why all of the declarations of secession specifically mentioned slavery and the preservation of white supremacy as the reason for the dissolution of the Union?

In fact, the Vice President of the Confederacy cited slavery and the inferiority of the negro as the explicit purpose for the new government.


https://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

But I'm sure that you've got a really credible explanation for why the reason that these guys said they left the Union and provoked the war wasn't actually the reason for the war. This is all propaganda that the Yankees made up after the fact, right?

The South certainly wanted to preserve slavery. It is how they made the majority of their money.

Lincoln was elected on the premise that he would stop the spread of slave states westward. Not because of any moral obligation, but because Northern business interests and additional political power in the newly gained territory from Mexico.

The northern interests including the addition of business along new railroad routes. Also, it would tip the political advantage their way as there were an equal number of slave and free states.

Let me remind you that the North was considered free, but blacks could not vote, were considered inferior to whites, and their opportunities were not much better than the slave conditions they lived in on plantations.

Lincoln didn't go to war to free any slaves. He went to preserve the union and was more than happy to keep slavery alive and well in the south as long as they didn't spread to the new territories.

However, it was actions caused by him the Norther politicians before him and his party beforehand that led to the South wanting out.

Lincoln believed in protectionism which meant that he put heavy tariffs on imported goods so that the South would be forced to buy from the north instead of getting goods cheaper from Europe. Those tariffs were reduced before he was elected, but he planned to reinstate them once elected and did so.

At times the south was responsible for 75-80% of the national economy. The Southern politicians were fed up with being forced into a corner by the Union leadership.

My point is, Lincoln and the North never went into the war to free a single slave. The Northern people were every bit as racist as the people from the South. There are many cases I could post about this, but I'm mobile and I've posted several before.

The only reason slavery disappeared from northern states is because of what happened during the Revolutionary War and because business owners realized that it was cheaper and more efficient to hire cheap labor than to maintain slaves.

There were abolitionists on both sides of the Mason Dixon, but they had very little influence on real change.

The war would never have happened without slavery and what slavery meant to the different econonies, but no one would have ever gone to war solely for slaves.

 

[Captain Davis]

Ya it's more like Shitty (North) vs Shittier (South).

Pretty much

 

[The Diplomat]

The north had already broken slave laws.

And there were reasons they fired on Fort Sumpter. You don't hear about the union navy fleet that Lincoln had dispatched to Fort Sumpter that the South took as a war move on Lincoln's part. Furthermore, Fort Sumpter was in Confederate territory on which Lincoln refused to abandon.

Lincoln didnt recognize the confederacy. He was president of the United States. The president sending a navy fleet down south isnt treasonous, he presides over those lands. They fired first, literally becoming traitors with the act. Lincoln didnt want war, he did NOTwant to be the first president to reside over a break in the union. Problem is, they didnt even give him a chance.

 

[The Diplomat]

I agree. I'm just tired of the good vs evil shit, because it just isn't true.

Yeah, i know my history enough to know it isnt a simple black and white, or good vs evil issue. But being a southerner, Im not gonna jump in with my racist peers who spout "the south will rise again!" ends justified the means, imo.

 

[Captain Davis]

Yeah, i know my history enough to know it isnt a simple black and white, or good vs evil issue. But being a southerner, Im not gonna jump in with my racist peers who spout "the south will rise again!" ends justified the means, imo.

That's fine and I have no problem with that attitude. Just don't paint the North as if they were on any moral high ground. It was all about greed on both sides.

 

[The Diplomat]

That's fine and I have no problem with that attitude. Just don't paint the North as if they were on any moral high ground. It was all about greed on both sides.

Oh, its always about greed. We were fine and willing to sit WW2 out until we were forced, and now we're seen as the heroes and good guy winners of that war.

 

[Captain Davis]

Lincoln didnt recognize the confederacy. He was president of the United States. The president sending a navy fleet down south isnt treasonous, he presides over those lands. They fired first, literally becoming traitors with the act. Lincoln didnt want war, he did NOTwant to be the first president to reside over a break in the union. Problem is, they didnt even give him a chance.

What about the fact that he endorsed breaking fugitive slave laws and anti-slave propaganda against the South? He also broke several laws before the war. One of them being jailing Maryland legislators before they could meet to vote for secession? He knew that the State of Maryland would likely vote to secede, so he had them arrested for no reason so that they couldn't vote. He was not going to allow Washington to be surrounded by Confederate states.

Regardless of how you feel about slavery, it was legal at the time and Lincoln broke the law. These are examples of why Southern leadership didn't trust him and wanted out.

 

[Captain Davis]

Oh, its always about greed. We were fine and willing to sit WW2 out until we were forced, and now we're seen as the heroes and good guy winners of that war.

Always follow the money.

 

[The Diplomat]

What about the fact that he endorsed breaking fugitive slave laws and anti-slave propaganda against the South? He also broke several laws before the war. One of them being jailing Maryland legislators before they could meet to vote for secession? He knew that the State of Maryland would likely vote to secede, so he had them arrested for no reason so that they couldn't vote. He was not going to allow Washington to be surrounded by Confederate states.

Regardless of how you feel about slavery, it was legal at the time and Lincoln broke the law. These are examples of why Southern leadership didn't trust him and wanted out.

Agreed, and i agree with his motives. Others can pretend slavery had nothing to do with it, or that Lincoln was pro slavery, but his actions and those of the south say otherwise.

Ends. Justified. Means.

 

[Captain Davis]

Agreed, and i agree with his motives. Others can pretend slavery had nothing to do with it, or that Lincoln was pro slavery, but his actions and those of the south say otherwise.

Ends. Justified. Means.

Lincoln wasn't pro slavery, I believe he disagreed with it. But he did very much believe in white supremacy and never intended for the races to mix.

He didn't want slavery to continue into new territory, but he would have never gone to war over slaves alone.

 

[Buck Swope]

Always follow the money.

And follow this shit also. The north wasn't altruistic but damn bro...

 

[Trotsky]

If you think the Northern people supported free black people, you are extremely naive and ignorant about American history.

While your entire post reeked of anti-abolitionist revisionism, this line is particularly fucking stupid. There had been raging political discourse on the immorality of slavery for decades.

Benjamin Lay was giving impassioned religious speeches and holding demonstrations against slavery in the 1730's, when he famously stabbed a Bible to denounce the immorality of slavery. Thomas Paine wrote about ending slavery in 1775.

The fact that you've deluded yourself into thinking you know more than "naive and ignorant" others is pitiful. Any historian worth anything will tell you slavery was not, ever, purely economic in Northern politics.

 

[The Diplomat]

Lincoln wasn't pro slavery, I believe he disagreed with it. But he did very much believe in white supremacy and never intended for the races to mix.

He didn't want slavery to continue into new territory, but he would have never gone to war over slaves alone.

Yeah, he kinda somewhat shared Jeffersons views on that. even the liberal gods at the time thought it was it was best to send all the blacks away to africa or central America.

 

[Captain Davis]

While your entire post reeked of anti-abolitionist revisionism, this line is particularly fucking stupid. There had been raging political discourse on the immorality of slavery for decades.

Benjamin Lay was giving impassioned religious speeches and holding demonstrations against slavery in the 1730's, when he famously stabbed a Bible to denounce the immorality of slavery. Thomas Paine wrote about ending slavery in 1775.

The fact that you've deluded yourself into thinking you know more than "naive and ignorant" others is pitiful. Any historian worth anything will tell you slavery was not, ever, purely economic in Northern politics.

Show me examples of any large scale anti-slave attitude from the North.

I'll leave a couple of examples of how racist the North was here,

New York contemplated secession
http://www.historynet.com/the-day-new-york-tried-to-secede.htm

Freed slaves found out that it didn't mean equality
https://faithandamericanhistory.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/racism-in-the-civil-war-north/

* "The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell Irvin Wiley, here are a couple of snippets from his book:

"Some fought to free slaves, but a polling of the rank and file through their letters and diaries indicated that those whose primary object was the liberation of (sic) slaves comprised only a small part of the fighting forces. It seems doubtful that one soldier in ten at any time during the conflict had any real interest in emancipation per se. A considerable number originally indifferent or favorable to slavery eventually accepted emancipation as a necessary war measure, but in most cases their support appeared lukewarm. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation zealous advocates of (sic) African American freedom were exceptional" (p.40)

"In marked contrast to those whose primary interest was in freeing the slaves stood a larger group who wanted no part in a war of emancipation. A soldier newspaper published at Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1862, which carried on its masthead the motto, "The Union Forever and Freedom to all", stated in its first issue: In construing this part of our outside heading let it be distinctly understood that 'white folks' are meant. We do not wish it even insinuated that we have any sympathy with abolitionism".

"Some Yanks opposed making slavery an issue of the war because they thought the effect would be to prolong the conflict at an unjustifiable cost in money and lives. Others objected on the score of the slaves ignorance and irresponsibility, while stills others shrank from the thought of hordes of freedmen settling in the North to compete with white laborers and to mix with them on terms of equality. The opposition of many seemed to have no other basis than an unreasoning hatred of people with black skins". (Pg. 42)


Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, (Chapter XIX)

Here's what leading abolitionist philosopher Lysander Spooner had to say about it all in 1870:

1. “Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices FOR A PURELY PECUNIARY CONSIDERATION, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slaveholders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slaveholders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future -- that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South -- that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These -- and not any love of liberty or justice -- were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.”

1. And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war.
   

1. This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war (Union General and then recently elected President Grant), and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "LET US HAVE PEACE.”
   

1. The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you.
   

1. The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, ALL OF THEM WHO ARE TO BE TAXED FOR ITS PAYMENT, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!"
   

1. The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
   
   
2. If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
   

1. Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
   

1. Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people.
   

1. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats -- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one -- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
   

1. The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called -- that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered -- so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
   

The Sin of Slavery: A Biography of William Lloyd Garrison
by Jim Powell



1.Garrison needed considerable courage, because most people in the North didn’t want to hear about the slavery issue. Anti-slavery talk threatened to disrupt business and split the Union. And besides, even people who opposed slavery didn’t generally like blacks.


2. Garrison still faced stubborn opposition throughout the North. Influential Unitarians thought slavery was no concern of Northerners. Presbyterians refused to preach against slavery. A majority of Baptist ministers refused. In 1836, the General Conference of the Methodist Church ordered members not to participate in anti-slavery agitation. Bills to restrict abolitionist literature were introduced in the legislatures of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Free blacks were banned in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana and Oregon. A Marblehead, Massachusetts mob wrecked the printing press and home of publisher Amos Dresser who had previously suffered a public lashing for abolitionist agitation in Nashville. In New Canaan, New Hampshire, local people used oxen to drag a school into a nearby swamp, because the teacher was educating black children. A pro-slavery mob burned down Pennsylvania Hall, an abolitionist gathering place on Philadelphia’s Sixth Street between Race and Arch Streets, and then the mob torched an orphanage for black children.


3. While Lincoln hated slavery, he wasn’t an abolitionist. He favored gradual emancipation and colonization. Everything was subordinate to his top priority which was forcing states to remain in the Union. All was forgiven by most abolitionists, though, when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Aimed at encouraging black rebellion in the South, it declared that slaves there were free. It didn’t apply to slaves in border slaves still part of the Union, but it made freeing the slaves was a war aim, and Garrison backed Lincoln.

Just a few. Show me your examples of how any abolitionists had anything to do with the war being over anything but money.

 

[Captain Davis]

Yeah, he kinda somewhat shared Jeffersons views on that. even the liberal gods at the time thought it was it was best to send all the blacks away to africa or central America.

Exactly. Lincoln researched ways to send the freed slaves to the Caribbean.

 

[Captain Davis]

And follow this shit also. The north wasn't altruistic but damn bro...

It happened, but you have to remember, slaves were considered property and that property made the planters money. They didn't mistreat their property often.

 

[Buck Swope]

It happened, but you have to remember, slaves were considered property and that property made the planters money. They didn't mistreat their property often.

Treating people like property is mistreatment. WTF?

 

[JadeOwl]

Another thing you don't get is that there was a lot of history leading up to this point and the platform that Lincoln ran on and his views were public before his election.

And the South decided to secede and start a war before giving him the chance to negotiate a compromise.

Nice meme and dodging the question.

I just couldn't believe you could ask something so self evident. Lee had no connection to New Orleans. the only reason that statue existed at all was to honor the confederacy and white supremacy.

It's funny, how the 20th Century spent it's time telling how bad Communism is yet retards support guys like Sanders, Clinton, Democratic proposals etc despite not understand the basic fucking concept that Socialism's end goal is communism and that's a quote by fucking Lenin, so tell me smart one if you're so fucking educated why are these principals being accepted if we've done such a great job discussing the issues for the 20th century??

Because contrary to what you believe, things aren't black and white, there's degrees.

And to anyone with an ounce of grey matter, the fact that Clinton and the Democratic party are not Communists in any way shape or size is pretty self evident.

Advocating for better social policies and some amount of redistribution doesn't make you a socialist, let alone a communist. Or are you saying now that FDR was a commie?

Nobody denied what the Nazi's did was horrendous, why are you stuck on this point? Is it because you can't have an original thought?

Because you seem insistent in defending the fucking Nazis.

 

[Captain Davis]

Treating people like property is mistreatment. WTF?

That was reality then. It was legal. It was life.

That's were so many people get twisted. They try to compare today's standards to the early to mid 1800's. Its not comparable.