The Confederacy was About Slavery

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
It was to preserve the USA as one continent, one nation.

Given that the U.S. was not / is not the only country on the continent, that makes on the other side of no sense.
What you are saying makes no sense. You think because it wasnt entirely sucessful it was never attempted ?

hey bucko - you can't preserve something you don't have

trying to change your position isn't working

the big boys have kicked your ass on this

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

hey bucko - you can't preserve something you don't have

Hey yourself - you can preserve an idea and continue to aim for it.

Quote:

trying to change your position isn't working

So you are one of the crowd. Speed read without thinking - how have I changed my osition ? You should be able to present two conflicting statements in their original context.

Quote:

the big boys have kicked your ass on this

Hate to interfere with your sexual fantsies about big boys and arses - or in your case big arses and boys - but you are the only one getting kicked here.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Hey Set! Get off Beth's computer!

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
hey bucko - you can't preserve something you don't have
Hey yourself - you can preserve an idea and continue to aim for it.

Quote:
trying to change your position isn't working
So you are one of the crowd. Speed read without thinking - how have I changed my osition ? You should be able to present two conflicting statements in their original context.

Quote:
the big boys have kicked your ass on this
Hate to interfere with your sexual fantsies about big boys and arses - or in your case big arses and boys - but you are the only one getting kicked here.

God guys, I thought this thread was very interesting (thanks snood), but what do you all get from arguing like this?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

but what do you all get from arguing like this?

How do you want us to argue ?

0 Replies

Five Myths About Why The South Seceded

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

A good overview of this subject.

Quote:

Resounding documentary proof that the original reasoning behind secession and subsequently myth-making was in defense of slavery and white supremacy

2 Replies

@panzade,

Excellent piece Pan. I especially liked the summary sentence.

Quote:

As we commemorate the sesquicentennial of that war, let us take pride this time — as we did not during the centennial — that secession on slavery’s behalf failed

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Yes, I was struck by that phrase too.

0 Replies

@panzade,

The opinion of one Sociologist on History . We might as well take the opinion of a Geologist and Googleologist . So thats it then, whites can feel real good about themselves ?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Of course you liked it, it makes you seem smarter than you are.....if you believe that crap I've a bridge I'd like to sell you .

Dem white folks shure is nice...pass da fried chicken.....

0 Replies

Are any of you aware that the English outlawed slavery over 1,000 years ago ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

(2011-1809=201). Thats about 798 years short of 1000, so Im assuming that you made a typo . BEsides, even if you were right, what would that have to do with anything? England and US were two separate sovereign nations.

Crittenden Compromise

Peace Conference of FEb 1861.

You may look these up, or, better yet, go over to Sets recent thread called "Everything Civil War" (We are journaling the sesquicentennial of the US Civil War).
The Crittenden Compromise had 6 constitutional amendments (all had to do with slavery except one, which was merely a procedural amendment )

The Peace Conference Of 1861 was a rehash of Crittenden and the Missouri Compromise, (both of which were slave centered).

You have a habit of making a statement and , no matter how in error you are, you just stick to it. SOmetimes (and this is one) you have to modify your beliefs to agree with history

3 Replies

Slavery was only outlawed in the British Empire, and then only in certain portions of it, in 1837. Convicts were sent to Australia until 1868. Coolees in India were kept in virtual slavery until the end of the 19th century.

A thousand years ago, England was largely Anglo-Saxon, and was at that time ruled by Canute of Denmark. Not only was slavery not outlawed at that time, but as it had had for centuries, England had a thriving market in slaves, selling them all over Europe. As usual, this dick just makes it up as he goes along.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Until 1102 Brits were still being sold as slaves, "young men and maidens whose beauty and youth might move the pity of the savage, bound together with cords, and brought to market to be sold" (William of Malmesbury).
One man was about to change this. Born in Lombardy, Abbot of Bec, Anselm had been in England on business, when, in 1093, he was dragged before William Rufus, the King of England, and told he would be Archbishop of Canterbury. A pastoral staff was forced into his hand. William II regretted his decision almost immediately. Anselm had backbone. "Christ is truth and justice and he who dies for truth and justice dies for Christ" he wrote. He insists that the Church install him, not the King, and repeatedly challenges the King's injustice.
After Henry becomes King, and despite having to make several long, hard journeys to Rome since Henry is as argumentative as his brother about his royal prerogative, Anselm calls a national church council. In 1102 they meet in London on the small island of Thorney, where the abbey of Edward the Confessor stands. At the Council of Westminster the British clergy condemn slavery as contrary to Christ's teaching and declare, "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."
Unlike most councils this one has an effect. Slavery ends, probably because slavers in that century were afraid of one thing: Excommunication and the damnation of their immortal souls should they violate the ruling.

(the above is not my words but is in my notes from a site I have lost the info for)

The Normans moved steadily to outlaw slavery anyway, though it continued in Scotland and Ireland till much later , these were mainly one tribe attacking and enslaving the tribe next door .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

(2011-1809=201). Thats about 798 years short of 1000, so Im assuming that you made a typo .

If you use the date of its formal banning (2011-1102=909) . The normans from 1066 moved against slavery , so (2011-1066=945) . You assume too much . But I will amend it to say ALMOST 1,000 years ago .

1 Reply

So by your own evidence, slavery was not outlawed a thousand years ago. Of course, your bullshit ignores the slavery of the West Indies sugar trade, the existence of which lead the English to encourage slavery on the mainland of North America. It ignores the slavery of the coolees in the Indian subcontinent. It ignores that the assignment system of convicts in Australia after 1788 and until 1868 was the moral and practical equivalent of slavery. So, as i said, you just make **** up as you go along. William's Domesday Book of 1086 recognized the condition of slavery. Your claim about slavery being outlawed a thousand years ago is bullshit on the face of it, and ignores the pervasive slavery in the British Empire.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

England and US were two separate sovereign nations.

For 170 years they werent .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

But I will amend it to say ALMOST 1,000 years ago .

SInce your Archbishop seemed to have as much effect as running to avoid the raindrops, slavery WAS NOT banned in Britain until 1807, by act of Parliament. Even then, it continued for almost 100 years here and there in the colonies and the "EMPIRE".

SOmetimes facts get in the way of a good tale no?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That was very typical of your posts . I raise a point on England and you go off about the USA and declare yourself the winner .

Gomer the Turd must seek help .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Look at the stupidity of what you think is a retort.....convicts and coolies are slaves.....I guess if someone is as scared of hard work as you are, that might be true .....you could have said indentured labour were in effect slaves, that was virtually true . But how does any of this change what was done in England ?

Poor **** for brains...you put your big foot in your big mouth again !

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know