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

giphy.gif

tumblr_lpo2i1XiwR1r185hao1_500.gif
 
Correct! And thank you sir!

It would be difficult to support owning slaves. I don't agree with how Lincoln handled it all either. However, regardless of who won, I believe slavery would have died out. Frankly, because it just wasn't efficient. The North just figured it out sooner.

I've had some intense debates with a IRL close friend of mine who served in Afghanistan for 4 years pre and post 9/11, and he grew up in the mountains of NC so hes a good ole boy and not a big fan of Lincoln.

He'd always say that "it would have happened eventually", meaning slavery ending. But you can wiki the nations and states who abolished it entirely, and to say that United States as a nation was extremely late to the party would be an understatement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

England abolished it in 1706. Russia in 1723. Ofcourse you know that the state of Massachusetts, with John Adam's help, abolishes it in 1783.

Countries like Haiti, Chile, Greece, etc. abolished it's practice before America did nationally. Hell, it wasn't until the Missouri compromise in 1820 that banned slavery in the north.

And you're telling me slavery would have ended eventually? It took a civil war in *1860* to viciously and bloodily end the institution.

If the Civil War never happened, then when does it end? 1870? 1880? We know better than that. It wouldn't have been, optimistically speaking, until the 1900s that the south would have actually caved into anti-slavery laws, and that would only be due to technological advancements and international pressure.

That being said, we would more than likely be much farther behind socially if the South would have won. So, from that perspective, it was better that the North won.

That doesn't mean that someone can't be proud of things that the Confederacy stood for. Slavery always takes center stage, but I have to admire the fact that they stood up for what they believed in and how valiant they fought in battle. The guys who did the fighting on both sides believed in their causes and they were willing to die for them.

I can always respect someone for fighting for what they believe in, but that's where the respect ends if I so grievously disagree with what they believe in.

Hard work, self respect, family values? That's not what I mean, obviously. But I always respected John Adams the most in these situations. He was never known as the liberal one - TJ took that mantle from him - but he was the only forefather who actively refused to own slaves. Not because he was anti-slavery (which he was, he publicly abhorred it, and actually believe we could mingle with eachother without problems) but because he believed any man who had the means, will and resources to own a farm, should be out there with his own two hands, sowing the earth himself. He paid every single individual to help him, to the point of almost near financial collapse. But he refused slavery, and he should be respected more in these modern days for that.

That is to ignore that he originally thought the President should be more kingly, to which Washington opened his eyes to see otherwise.

If you read memoirs and diaries, rarely do you hear anything about slavery. The Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union and the Confederate soldiers perceived it as a second revolution. They wanted freedom from an oppressive government. The vast majority of the soldiers didn't and never did own slaves, so they really didn't care about it.

The oppressive government, indeed. The soldiers, and most individuals really, weren't slave owners. I think it's SC (at 50% ownership) and afew other southern states that break 25% ownership statewide. To own a slave meant you were rich, and there were less of them than there are today.


I have more respect for the true abolitionists of the day, though. The ones who truly believed in equal rights, waaaaay before it was politically or otherwise popular to say so. To Jefferson's credit, he really did try to sneak that into the constitution - he felt he was a total hypocrite to write "All men are created equal" with a pen in one hand and a whip in the other, but alas, South Carolina refused to become American if he did.
 
I get that. Historical context aside, I smell an apologist. I like Capt. but he is trying to hard to justify slavery.

History my bunghole. Right is right.
He hasnt justified slavery a single instance in this, or other threads. He's trying to justify the southern man's way of life back then, which I disagree with, but not the actual slavery aspect. He recognizes that southerners, as proud as they were, were probably behind the times in 1860.
 
It was about the economy which involved slavery capt.
What's this got to do with my previous post?

Slavery wasn't just a Confederate thing.

Slavery was still legal in 5 states after the war.

So if you hate the Confederacy strictly due to slavery, you must hate a lot about America at that time and before.
 
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.

Except when it comes to equating a muzzle loaded musket to your AR-15.
 
Who are "they" now? They are now the central block of U.S. military and make up the most well armed states. It's a different world now. There is no North vs South. There are just cucks vs patriots.

0e9a6742d8415f48b68f91155ba0e9ff--african-american-history-african-americans.jpg
 
Everyone knows the political parties started gradually switching ideologies in the 20s-40s, and the Civil Rights act of 1964 did it in.

From a historical standpoint, this is true. But MODERN, today's parties? Both are shit just shilling for the next vote. Like always mind you, but they're closer in line today than ever believe it or not.
 
What's this got to do with my previous post?

Slavery wasn't just a Confederate thing.

Slavery was still legal in 5 states after the war.

So if you hate the Confederacy strictly due to slavery, you must hate a lot about America at that time and before.

You said slave owners treated them decent because they were property.

I am from the south and I hate things the north did during the war. My favorite General was Robert E. Lee. Sherman's march was atrocious.

Can we not just agree that slavery was awful?
 
What kind of loser gets rattled by a statue or a flag?

I can't tell who you're referring to as a loser. The whiny liberals that are afraid of history, or the conservatives that think the south has a rich history.
 
You said slave owners treated them decent because they were property.

I am from the south and I hate things the north did during the war. My favorite General was Robert E. Lee. Sherman's march was atrocious.

Can we not just agree that slavery was awful?
Oh sure. I've never defended slavery. It was wrong, but the people of that time were raised with it and even justified it biblically.

I try to keep it all in context with the time period.

Btw, Lee freed his slaves before the war and was against slavery. Grant didn't free his family slave until after the war. Sherman also believed blacks were inferior and seemed disgusted by them from what I've read.
 
Oh sure. I've never defended slavery. It was wrong, but the people of that time were raised with it and even justified it biblically.

I try to keep it all in context with the time period.

Btw, Lee freed his slaves before the war and was against slavery. Grant didn't free his family slave until after the war. Sherman also believed blacks were inferior and seemed disgusted by them from what I've read.


Lee also pledged allegiance to Virginia. He could have easily fought for the north. It was his state's choice. Let's chill to a song.

 
No one talks about heritage with respect to Germany outlawing holocaust denial and Nazi groups. Germany buried that garbage and moved on.

Also, any argument about heritage becomes porous when many of those symbols and flags were used for intimidation.
 
Oh sure. I've never defended slavery. It was wrong, but the people of that time were raised with it and even justified it biblically.

I try to keep it all in context with the time period.

Btw, Lee freed his slaves before the war and was against slavery. Grant didn't free his family slave until after the war. Sherman also believed blacks were inferior and seemed disgusted by them from what I've read.
I liked reading about Lee. After years of teaching, he said that if he could have gone back and done it again, he would have been a teacher his whole life instead of doing war.
 
I'm thinking that's a compliment to Little Fingers character and not the Confederacy.
It's actually a backhanded compliment to both. He would have betrayed the North just like he did to Nedd, and just like the South did to the North.

Also, the words just work. North, etc.
 
No one talks about heritage with respect to Germany outlawing holocaust denial and Nazi groups. Germany buried that garbage and moved on.

Also, any argument about heritage becomes porous when many of those symbols and flags were used for intimidation.
Difference is, that the rest of the world at some point was doing what the South was - the North did it too. And historically it wasn't so much about race as it was about class.

Not everyone was systemically eradicating certain peoples and actively trying to take over continents like Nazi Germany. They are still apologizing for that.
 
Lee also pledged allegiance to Virginia. He could have easily fought for the north. It was his state's choice. Let's chill to a song.


People don't realize what a powerful state Virginia was at that time either. Virginia probably produced more great minds than any state at that time. That was Lee's home, where he met and courted his wife, where he started his military career. Lee simply could not bear arms against his home state. He was truly an amazing figure. You could not have found a better example of a military officer and respectable man anywhere.
 
Back
Top