So Mississippi is celebrating Confederate History Month

[AUDub 11,784]

I don't know. Are books the requisite medium needed to prove knowledge these days?

Certainly not, but they are a good indicator of a given individual's eminence within their field. Think of it like peer-reviewed research papers on the hard science side.

[Mims44 1,969]

"yeah but he really meant!"

That's exactly what he was referring to in the context of this conversation, no matter how much y'all want to dither around with definitions.

Im just messing with you Ben. You can call me a neo confederate or whatever you want but you failed to see my point which is my fault because I couldn't articulate it better. I will advocate for the satanists, neo-nazis, meat heads, weirdos, etc if I feel those groups had rights infringed upon in America. We all know slavery is bad but the commerce (3 billion dollar commerce at that) that slavery brought was infriged upon after hundreds of years of use. If the United States was morally against slavery like William Lloyd Garrison, they would have cut off the money line a long time ago. Garrison burned the constitution in 1854 in disgust because he was the only one of a few to have the balls to call slavery what it really was. Lincoln was nothing more than politically opportunistic when he called for the ban of the slaves almong the rebel states. He, himself, said things far worst about the slaves in his speeches than the states in their declarations of secession. I feel the south got a bad rep and they were taken through the grinder after the war. Long ago I asked on here, " why did the United States struggle with departing from slavery when compared to Britain's easy transition." The response, because slavery carried much more weight in the economy than it did in Britain. If that's the case, how were yall expecting the south to survive if they were willing to depart of the slaves on their own free will? It's not like the south had machinery or the cities that carried could pick the economy right off the bat.

No one has claimed the Southern position of slavery was illogical from a practical standpoint, at least from the perspectives of the oligarchs who benefited from it.

Figured I'd make it bigger again

And Lincolns original plan, at least from what he had said prior to winning the presidency was that he had no intentions of eliminating slavery in 1 day.

Going off memory here, but I believe it might have been the Alton Lincoln/Douglas debate where he basically said his intentions were to put in motion plans to lessen the souths need of slavery, he gave around a 100 year time line for it to be gone completely. So the Union did not intend originally to cripple the southern economy (pre-war of course).

Maybe those powerful southern politicians didn't want to ever change from slavery, maybe they had no faith in proposed plans, or hell... maybe they just assumed he was outright lying.

[AURaptor 1,137]

it's almost a slap in the face to Mississippi, and , well, anyone else.

WASHINGTON — Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, sparing the surprisingly popular Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew confirmed that Hamilton would remain on the $10 bill after an unexpected public show of support fueled, in part, by the popularity of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play based on Hamilton's life by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

[AUDub 11,784]

it's almost a slap in the face to Mississippi, and , well, anyone else.

WASHINGTON — Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, sparing the surprisingly popular Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew confirmed that Hamilton would remain on the $10 bill after an unexpected public show of support fueled, in part, by the popularity of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play based on Hamilton's life by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Saw this on another forum:

We're honoring a human trafficker who smuggled illegals across the border.

Thanks Obama

[telling tiger 156]

it's almost a slap in the face to Mississippi, and , well, anyone else.

WASHINGTON — Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, sparing the surprisingly popular Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew confirmed that Hamilton would remain on the $10 bill after an unexpected public show of support fueled, in part, by the popularity of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play based on Hamilton's life by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Saw this on another forum:

We're honoring a human trafficker who smuggled illegals across the border.

Thanks Obama

Wish they could've worked in a Muslim to the article somehow. Along with an AF/AM female and a Hispanic male...

TRIFECTA!!!!!!!!!!

[AUDub 11,784]

Another post is up.

Hamburg and Reconstruction's End

"We intend to beat the negro in the battle of life, and defeat means one thing: EXTERMINATION."

-- editorial on the 'Vicksburg riots,' Birmingham News, 1875

By 1874, the defeated Confederates had a strategy for retaking political control of the South. They called it "the Mississippi Plan":

[augolf1716 21,939]

Damn Yankees still piss me off

[TitanTiger 21,065]

it's almost a slap in the face to Mississippi, and , well, anyone else.

WASHINGTON — Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, sparing the surprisingly popular Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew confirmed that Hamilton would remain on the $10 bill after an unexpected public show of support fueled, in part, by the popularity of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play based on Hamilton's life by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

A slap in the face to "anyone"? How so?

[channonc 466]

it's almost a slap in the face to Mississippi, and , well, anyone else.

WASHINGTON — Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, sparing the surprisingly popular Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew confirmed that Hamilton would remain on the $10 bill after an unexpected public show of support fueled, in part, by the popularity of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play based on Hamilton's life by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

A slap in the face to "anyone"? How so?

Because Obama.

[AUDub 11,784]

it's almost a slap in the face to Mississippi, and , well, anyone else.

WASHINGTON — Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, sparing the surprisingly popular Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew confirmed that Hamilton would remain on the $10 bill after an unexpected public show of support fueled, in part, by the popularity of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play based on Hamilton's life by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

A slap in the face to "anyone"? How so?

Because Obama.

No it's because we're all such huge Andrew Jackson fans.

[homersapien 12,172]

"yeah but he really meant!"

That's exactly what he was referring to in the context of this conversation, no matter how much y'all want to dither around with definitions.

Im just messing with you Ben. You can call me a neo confederate or whatever you want but you failed to see my point which is my fault because I couldn't articulate it better. I will advocate for the satanists, neo-nazis, meat heads, weirdos, etc if I feel those groups had rights infringed upon in America. We all know slavery is bad but the commerce (3 billion dollar commerce at that) that slavery brought was infriged upon after hundreds of years of use. If the United States was morally against slavery like William Lloyd Garrison, they would have cut off the money line a long time ago. Garrison burned the constitution in 1854 in disgust because he was the only one of a few to have the balls to call slavery what it really was. Lincoln was nothing more than politically opportunistic when he called for the ban of the slaves almong the rebel states. He, himself, said things far worst about the slaves in his speeches than the states in their declarations of secession. I feel the south got a bad rep and they were taken through the grinder after the war. Long ago I asked on here, " why did the United States struggle with departing from slavery when compared to Britain's easy transition." The response, because slavery carried much more weight in the economy than it did in Britain. If that's the case, how were yall expecting the south to survive if they were willing to depart of the slaves on their own free will? It's not like the south had machinery or the cities that carried could pick the economy right off the bat.

No one has claimed the Southern position of slavery was illogical from a practical standpoint, at least from the perspectives of the oligarchs who benefited from it.

Figured I'd make it bigger again

And Lincolns original plan, at least from what he had said prior to winning the presidency was that he had no intentions of eliminating slavery in 1 day.

Going off memory here, but I believe it might have been the Alton Lincoln/Douglas debate where he basically said his intentions were to put in motion plans to lessen the souths need of slavery, he gave around a 100 year time line for it to be gone completely. So the Union did not intend originally to cripple the southern economy (pre-war of course).

Maybe those powerful southern politicians didn't want to ever change from slavery, maybe they had no faith in proposed plans, or hell... maybe they just assumed he was outright lying.

What I recall is that at sometime in the campaign he made a statement regarding slavery in the new territories. At any rate his election was consider a takeover of government by the Republicans, who were certainly not considered supportive of slavery, but I don't think abolition was part of the party's plank.

The slave-owning oligarchy certainly weren't considering the end of slavery. Their biggest concern was having it restricted from further growth into new territories.

[homersapien 12,172]

it's almost a slap in the face to Mississippi, and , well, anyone else.

What are you talking about?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Yes, the emperors new clothes ARE spectacular !

[Mims44 1,969]

"yeah but he really meant!"

That's exactly what he was referring to in the context of this conversation, no matter how much y'all want to dither around with definitions.

Im just messing with you Ben. You can call me a neo confederate or whatever you want but you failed to see my point which is my fault because I couldn't articulate it better. I will advocate for the satanists, neo-nazis, meat heads, weirdos, etc if I feel those groups had rights infringed upon in America. We all know slavery is bad but the commerce (3 billion dollar commerce at that) that slavery brought was infriged upon after hundreds of years of use. If the United States was morally against slavery like William Lloyd Garrison, they would have cut off the money line a long time ago. Garrison burned the constitution in 1854 in disgust because he was the only one of a few to have the balls to call slavery what it really was. Lincoln was nothing more than politically opportunistic when he called for the ban of the slaves almong the rebel states. He, himself, said things far worst about the slaves in his speeches than the states in their declarations of secession. I feel the south got a bad rep and they were taken through the grinder after the war. Long ago I asked on here, " why did the United States struggle with departing from slavery when compared to Britain's easy transition." The response, because slavery carried much more weight in the economy than it did in Britain. If that's the case, how were yall expecting the south to survive if they were willing to depart of the slaves on their own free will? It's not like the south had machinery or the cities that carried could pick the economy right off the bat.

No one has claimed the Southern position of slavery was illogical from a practical standpoint, at least from the perspectives of the oligarchs who benefited from it.

Figured I'd make it bigger again

And Lincolns original plan, at least from what he had said prior to winning the presidency was that he had no intentions of eliminating slavery in 1 day.

Going off memory here, but I believe it might have been the Alton Lincoln/Douglas debate where he basically said his intentions were to put in motion plans to lessen the souths need of slavery, he gave around a 100 year time line for it to be gone completely. So the Union did not intend originally to cripple the southern economy (pre-war of course).

Maybe those powerful southern politicians didn't want to ever change from slavery, maybe they had no faith in proposed plans, or hell... maybe they just assumed he was outright lying.

What I recall is that at sometime in the campaign he made a statement regarding slavery in the new territories. At any rate his election was consider a takeover of government by the Republicans, who were certainly not considered supportive of slavery, but I don't think abolition was part of the party's plank.

The slave-owning oligarchy certainly weren't considering the end of slavery. Their biggest concern was having it restricted from further growth into new territories.

That goes into part of it. The democrats had won every area they expected to... and still lost to the repubs (lincoln). Lincoln, who was an abolitionist had already forsaken that cause for a middle ground. IE: The plans he was wanting to put into place to lessen the need for slavery for the southern economy.

Although what you first said could easily fit into my orig. statement. The fact that a republican president would increase the likelihood of new states entering the union as free states would be a good reason for them to secede as well.

[Mims44 1,969]

Damn Yankees still piss me off

I instantly expected many replies from this post... somewhat sad people didn't.

Damn yankees were not a great group.... but this song was awesome.

[AUDub 11,784]

Another post is up.

Red Shirts and Whitewashes

The 94 white men who were indicted by the coroner's jury in the Hamburg Massacre were never prosecuted, and not merely because those indicted included some of the most prominent figures in South Carolina politics. It was also because the indictment occurred in the court of an African American Judge named Prince Rivers.

As always, the Confederates were determined to manifest the judgment of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scot 20 years previously that black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Ben Tillman, one of the leaders of the Hamburg Massacre, saw to that. Stephen Budiansky, in The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox, describes what happened after the indictments were issued...

[maxwere 82]

8 pages and amazingly, Godwin's law still hangs in the balance.

[AUDub 11,784]

8 pages and amazingly, Godwin's law still hangs in the balance.

Raptor and Blue have steered clear of this one. They're the serial violators of the board.

[maxwere 82]

Raptor and Blue have steered clear of this one. They're the serial violators of the board.

You mean they don't want to debate political sentiment c1860?

[AURaptor 1,137]

8 pages and amazingly, Godwin's law still hangs in the balance.

Raptor and Blue have steered clear of this one. They're the serial violators of the board. :laugh:/>

Not as much as y'all accuse others of being klan members or some such nonsense.

[AUDub 11,784]

8 pages and amazingly, Godwin's law still hangs in the balance.

Raptor and Blue have steered clear of this one. They're the serial violators of the board. :laugh:/>

Not as much as y'all accuse others of being klan members or some such nonsense.

I'd ask you to find a link to me calling anyone a Klansman, but I know you'll just ignore the request.

[AURaptor 1,137]

It's implied.

[AUDub 11,784]

It's implied.

Hah. Knew it.

[homersapien 12,172]

It's implied.

For someone with your psyche, that excuse might apply to anything.

[AURaptor 1,137]

It's implied.

For someone with your psyche, that excuse might apply to anything.

I've unjustly been called racist several times on here. I don't need to bother with your twisted views of what you think MY psyche is.