What's new
By:
Filters

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

BabyPeterzz said:
You’re correct, I was not directly quoting you, I summarized your argument more clearly to illustrate my point.
Click to expand...
You substituted my argument for the argument you wanted me to have been making. I never, not once, mentioned the southern state's economies.

BabyPeterzz said:
Sovereignty and independence to do what?
Click to expand...
To rule as a nation. To be the big swinging dick. To be in a position to take kickbacks. To show up to international diplomatic gatherings with equal standing to the leaders of France, Germany, or the UK. The leaders of these states weren't all motivated by a vision of what they perceived as better for their greater society. They were the same rotten narcissistic egomaniac politicians out for themselves that we've always had.

They already had slavery. Abraham Lincoln told them at every opportunity that he wasn't going to take slavery away from them. What they wanted, what they REALLY wanted, was power. All the rest of it is stories we've made up afterwards to paint the winners as the good guys. The best we can do is be glad the result was to see the end of chattel slavery in the United States and not scratch too deep beyond the pretty veneer plastered atop the events to find the real motivations for why things were really done.
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
You substituted my argument for the argument you wanted me to have been making. I never, not once, mentioned the southern state's economies.
Click to expand...

No, I outlined the end result of your argument you clearly haven’t thought through to conclusion. I know your argument, again Nazi rhetoric, so I skipped ahead to economic justification, the next illogical step in your argument. Sorry, trying not to waste time on this garbage.

To rule as a nation. To be the big swinging dick. To be in a position to take kickbacks. To show up to international diplomatic gatherings with equal standing to the leaders of France, Germany, or the UK. The leaders of these states weren't all motivated by a vision of what they perceived as better for their greater society. They were the same rotten narcissistic egomaniac politicians out for themselves that we've always had.

They already had slavery. Abraham Lincoln told them at every opportunity that he wasn't going to take slavery away from them. What they wanted, what they REALLY wanted, was power. All the rest of it is stories we've made up afterwards to point the winners as the good guys. The best we can do is be glad the result was to see the end of chattel slavery in the United States and not scratch too deep beyond the pretty veneer plastered atop the events to find the real motivations for why things were really done.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a power struggle. Where did the south’s power derive from? Your argument eventually points to economic power and independence (sound familiar) which in the south was built by slavery. But don’t ignore that their “moral independence” was at stake as well (sound familiar). They wanted the freedom to own humans they saw as cattle. This overshadows every argument you’re trying to make. You’re focused on trees, instead of the forest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’ll just use a simple, more contemporary example of what I’m trying to explain. This is what racist, white southerns said about the abolition of segregation and voting rights and those that fought for them:

“It’s racist against white people. They’re the real racists”

“I wish they would stay in their own communities, stop pushing it in our faces”

“The Civil War was about states rights, not slavery”

“They’re communist pedophiles”

“They got violent first, we’re just fighting back”

Conservatives have moved the target from Black people, the cops have them under control, to LGBTQ+ people. Saying the same **** to justify and excuse their fear.

These arguments are tired. We know where they end up. Hopefully we remember the lessons learned or the fascists win. These apologist arguments are veiled in nuance designed to obfuscate and blur the truth to support unsupportable justifications for genocide. Shades of authoritarianism.

Listen to what the awful people screamed at Black children when they went to school. You use their words. You’re singing along with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
BabyPeterzz said:
They wanted the freedom to own humans they saw as cattle. This overshadows every argument you’re trying to make.
Click to expand...
They already had the freedom to own humans they saw as cattle and assurances from Federal government that wasn't going to change. They didn't need to fight for it because they already had it. That overshadows every argument you're trying to make.

Ownership of slaves wasn't in any more danger in 1860 than it was in 1856, or 1852, or 1848, etc., etc. The slave owning states didn't secede in any of those earlier years. They seceded in 1860. The answer to 'why in 1860?' is the answer to why the Civil War.

Here is a hint for you:

In the 1856 US Presidential Election, John C Fremont was the Republican while James Buchanan was the Democrat.
In the 1860 US Presidential Election, Abraham Lincoln was the Republican while John C Brechinridge was the Democrat and Stephen A Douglas was the Democrat.

There were two Democrat Presidential candidates in the general election of 1860. One chunk of the Democrat party seceded from the other chunk of the Democrat party, and it wasn't because the other part threatened to take slavery away. The secession of the states in 1860 was an escalation of a widening schism already present before Lincoln was even nominated.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
They already had the freedom to own humans they saw as cattle and assurances from Federal government that wasn't going to change. They didn't need to fight for it because they already had it. That overshadows every argument you're trying to make.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. They wanted other states to comply more thoroughly with the fugitive slave laws.

Al-O-Meter said:
First, I never said the quote you are attributing to me. You and others have repeatedly asked for a common denominator among the secessionist states. You found slavery mentioned in four. It is mentioned in a few more but you missed them. That said, here is what is in all of them:

Mississippi: “a free, sovereign, and independent State”
Florida: “a sovereign and independent nation”
Alabama: “a Sovereign and Independent State”
Georgia: “a free and independent State”
Louisiana: “a free and independent State”
Texas: “a separate sovereign State”
Virginia: “a free and independent State”
Arkansas: “a free and independent State”
North Carolina: “a free and independent State.”
Tennessee: “a free, sovereign, and independent State.”
Missouri: “a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth”
Kentucky: “a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties”
Click to expand...
I gave up looking for links to the other states, besides South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. Could you provide them?
 
Al-O-Meter said:
They already had the freedom to own humans they saw as cattle and assurances from Federal government that wasn't going to change. They didn't need to fight for it because they already had it. That overshadows every argument you're trying to make.

Ownership of slaves wasn't in any more danger in 1860 than it was in 1856, or 1852, or 1848, etc., etc. The slave owning states didn't secede in any of those earlier years. They seceded in 1860. The answer to 'why in 1860?' is the answer to why the Civil War.

Here is a hint for you:

In the 1856 US Presidential Election, John C Fremont was the Republican while James Buchanan was the Democrat.
In the 1860 US Presidential Election, Abraham Lincoln was the Republican while John C Brechinridge was the Democrat and Stephen A Douglas was the Democrat.

There were two Democrat Presidential candidates in the general election of 1860. One chunk of the Democrat party seceded from the other chunk of the Democrat party, and it wasn't because the other part threatened to take slavery away. The secession of the states in 1860 was an escalation of a widening schism already present before Lincoln was even nominated.
Click to expand...

Dude. You can cut and paste from Google all day and still miss the point. Democrats split due to disagreements over slavery. It’s widely documented and can be cut and pasted from Google easily as well. I would suggest you come up with your own ideas before continuing this conversation.

www.nps.gov

The 1860 Presidential Election - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov www.nps.gov

We’re watching confirmation bias control your argument in real time. Fascinating stuff. Like two magnets pressed together at the same poles. Reality just maneuvers around you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you really want to blow your mind, read about Black Codes and how the Civil War didn’t actually end slavery. Laws were put in place to keep Black people in servitude. The myth is not that the Civil War was fought over slavery, it’s that the Civil War ended slavery. There’s the real white wash.

www.history.com

Black Codes - Definition, Dates & Jim Crow Laws | HISTORY

Black codes were restrictive laws designed to limit the freedom of African Americans and ensure their availability as a cheap labor force after slavery was abolished during the Civil War.
www.history.com www.history.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Incorrect. They wanted other states to comply more thoroughly with the fugitive slave laws.
Click to expand...
You’re saying the southern states wanted the northern states to comply more thoroughly with the fugitive slave laws so they seceded from the union because secession would make the northern states more likely to comply with fugitive slave laws? That makes absolutely zero sense.

BabyPeterzz’s new line of the southern states wanted slavery to expand westward and seceding from the union would make the union’s western states more likely to allow slavery is just as nonsensical.

Before you, BabyPeterzz, or anyone else in the comments tells me once again that “Brawndo’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes”, I know I’m not going to change your mind. You’ve surrendered on the Civil War being caused by secession and disagreement over the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution giving states the power to leave the Union.

You’ve taken the fallback position of arguing the cause of secession. I can show universal support for what I’m saying in the secession documents from all seceding states, the clear intentions Abraham Lincoln claimed early in the war in the letter to Horace Greeley, and Lincoln’s endorsement of the Corwin Amendment to enshrine slavery in his inaugural address along with letters to each of the governors in the seceding states to communicate his assurances of his protecting their ability to own slaves, while you can’t find the same level of evidence for your claims because you say the southern states were too chicken to write it down or communicated in dog whistles and Brawndo’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes.

BabyPeterzz said:
If you really want to blow your mind, read about Black Codes and how the Civil War didn’t actually end slavery. Laws were put in place to keep Black people in servitude. The myth is not that the Civil War was fought over slavery, it’s that the Civil War ended slavery. There’s the real white wash.

www.history.com

Black Codes - Definition, Dates & Jim Crow Laws | HISTORY

Black codes were restrictive laws designed to limit the freedom of African Americans and ensure their availability as a cheap labor force after slavery was abolished during the Civil War.
www.history.com www.history.com
Click to expand...
None of this is new information to me. The part I can’t wrap my head around is that you think “the Civil War ended slavery” is a white washing of history but “the Civil War was fought to end slavery” is not. Both statements are white washes. They are the same white wash. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union intact, and the Union won. The Union was kept intact. The ending of chattel slavery in the United States was advanced as a collateral consequence of the war and didn’t just happen on April 9, 1865 when Robert E. Lee surrendered because the war wasn’t about that. It is only the story we tell.

If you want to tell me one more time that Brawndo’s got what plants crave, I’ll let you have the last word.
 
Last edited:
Trump has an angle to everything he says. He's a brilliant con man and we should know by now you'd be a fool to underestimate him. Of course he's telling them to caucus even though they may die. It's all part of the grooming for sacrificing their lives for him. Trump wants his people to die for him just as he did on Jan. 6. Only now instead of stopping a transfer of power he wants a full on civil war. He uses the phrase, "the final battle" a lot these days doesn't he? You think his recent comments on the Civil War are a coincidence? You know, the one where he says, "I love studying the uuuhh if you take a look at the wars...I don't know what it is...the civil war it was so fascinating, so horrible. It was so horrible but so fascinating...it was aahh... I don't know...it was just different. I just find it..I'm so attracted to....seeing it..."
 
Trump is a stupid scummy piece of ****

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
so how long does it take until the other candidates drop out and you find out whether the second choice has a serious challenge to trump ?
 
Douchebag K said:
so how long does it take until the other candidates drop out and you find out whether the second choice has a serious challenge to trump ?
Click to expand...
February 24. That is the night of the South Carolina primary. That date will mark the end of either Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis if both of them make it that far.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
March 3. That is Republican "Super Tuesday" where 13 states all have their primaries on the same day, including delegate monster California. If no competitors have made a serious dent by that date, it is over.
Click to expand...
gotcha thanks. I take it with todays result so far it's probably already over ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top