Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
Now this is a great ad from American Crossroads! Let’s hope we see a 30-second or 1-minute version of this playing in 2012 during the General Election Campaign.
It uses Obama’s own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! There’s nothing like the ego of “The One.”
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
I assume you think the noble purpose was to end slavery
No, to keep the union together.
The idea the the WBTS was a war to end slavery was a post hoc justification
It was a war to save the union. The true historical revisionism is when the neo-Confederates bust out their absurd mental gymnastics and claim the formation of the CSA was about something other than the preservation and expansion of slavery, that's all it was about it. It was a "country" formed for a selfish purpose not for the "preservation of Jeffersonian ideals" or some such. They lie to themselves so they can admire the CSA without supporting slavery.
as was the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions.
Haha. How about you and your loved ones try being slaves for a week and you tell me what you think of it. I don't have any cotton but if you want to come over and clean my bathroom I'll be happy to oblige. I promise I won't violate your wife, we wouldn't want the experience to be too realistic would we? ;)
In fact there wasn't slavery only in the Southern Colonies, but pretty much all over the Western World in the 18th century. We were the only ones who ended it by killing the slave owners.
We were the only ones where the slave owners were politically powerful enough to when the future of slavery was threatened they could go ahead and try to form their own country. And like I said, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment which would have let the Southern states keep slaves for as long as they wanted. That still wasn't good enough for them. The vague wording of that amendment was a disaster and had it been ratified it would be used today to prop up gay marriage (and polygamy in Utah) but it was a last desperate attempt to avoid war. Avoid war was something the Southern states weren't interested in. Imagine California leaving the union in a snit because Obama loses reelection (I know maybe not such a bad idea ;d).
Well gee, isn't that what the Northern States agreed to do?
WELL GEE the Slave states insisted on that provision. They sure didn't care 1 iota about free state's "state rights" not to be complicit in slavery.
Actually I think they wanted the people in new States to be able to decide for themselves.
Unless they decided to be a free state. Which is why slave-supporters rushed across the border into Kansas solely to effect the elections there. They didn't want their power in Congress reduced by the addition of new free states.
I stand by my assertion that Lincoln is the one who dismantled the Government of Jefferson and Madison
By maintaining the unity of the nation they founded. Your argument makes a lot of sense ;D. The Constitution doesn't grant states the right to just leave. You can argue it's implicit but you have a tough case to prove.
I know you think it is ridiculous. But that is because you suffer from a government education.
Nah I didn't pay attention in government school. What I "suffer from" is the lack of a psychological need to believe the Confederacy was the side in the right. Why you, being a Northerner, have that need is a mystery to me.
Happy Christmas!
Sort of the same as King George then?
the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions. Haha. How about you and your loved ones try being slaves for a week and you tell me what you think of it.
People like you just don't ever think, I guess. I would much rather have been Thomas Jefferson's slave than a coal miner in Pennsylvania. And southern slavery was nirvana compared to what my great-grandmother had to go through 70 years ago or so. You see she was deprived of all of her possessions, taken from her home, branded, shipped off somewhere in a cattle car to a camp someplace in a foreign land where she subsisted on meager rations until even that was too inconvenient for her keepers so they killed her. Some of her children suffered the same fate, but it was probably okay with you because she never got to see them after the start of all of this. Don't you ever give me that slavery cr@p!
WELL GEE the Slave states insisted on that provision.
And the northern States AGREED to it.
Why you, being a Northerner, have that need is a mystery to me.
Because, as I have said before, I read. One of things I cited earlier in this thread actually I learned reading James McPhearson who is the most mainstream of Civil War academicians.
ML/NJ
In the spirit of Christmas peace, have some inhalable caffeine:
My 2 cents on the Civil War: If the assassination of Lincoln and the rule of the Radical Reconstructionists. If both of those things hadn’t happened, perhaps the divide that still exists wouldn’t be there.
Great video!
Ironically the crown viewed the colonies as independent states, a true (little r) republican view of governance than the Federalists and certainly more than Lincoln's empire.
If Booth had missed there would be no blacks in the USA. Lanky's plan was to ship them to Haiti and Liberia. It was a plan he endorsed and help construct.
There is no nobility here. the unreconstructed truth was Lincoln was a racist, as were most Republicans at the time. The early Republicans were using the abolitionists (sort of like the way conservatives are used now ironically) to gain power. The real reason what early Republican did not want slavery in the western territories was to keep it pure for the white race. Fact.
The unreconstructed truth is hard to take for most brainwashed Yankees. You need to be trained like a little puppy, removing one scale at a time from your eyes as to not let reality scare you.
At gunpoint. Does that not bother you?
Silly comment. First of all most slaves were not Thomas Jefferson's slaves. Second of all, coal miners could QUIT. Slaves could not. If they tried and ran away to the North they'd be sent back to be whipped because the slave states DIDN'T CARE ABOUT "STATE'S RIGHTS" when it came to Northern states rights not to be complicit in their evil institution.
And southern slavery was nirvana compared to what my great-grandmother had to go through 70 years ago or so. You see she was deprived of all of her possessions, taken from her home, branded, shipped off somewhere in a cattle car to a camp someplace in a foreign land where she subsisted on meager rations until even that was too inconvenient for her keepers so they killed her. Some of her children suffered the same fate, but it was probably okay with you because she never got to see them after the start of all of this.
It's "probably okay with me" that your family died in a Nazi concentration camp? Is that what you just said to me? What in the hell is your problem?
Now since you think slavery is not so bad when can I expect you to come over and clean my bathroom? Do I have to pick you up from the airport? That might be a problem for me.
If you wan to look at it very coldly, an 18th century slave was $100,000 in 2000 dollars. Plus food, housing and insurance(most slave insurance companies were in NE by the way). A modern pice of farm equipment probably costs the same. How many people whip, beat and fail to change the oil in there combines? No owner in there right mind would purposely abuse their slaves, it just doesn't make sense. Why would insurance companies insure a slave? Heck all the owner would do is make the slave "have an accident" and collect the money.
You think you’re winning converts by throwing out insults? You aren’t, you’re just embarrassing yourself.
The illegally seceding rebels probably shouldn’t have started the shooting by attacking that Federal fort. If Governor Jerry Brown ordered the Cali state police to start shooting up that naval base in San Diego would you be down with that?
I’m much more disgusted with states leaving to form their own country on the basis of preserving and expanding slavery than I am with Lincoln fighting a war to keep them in the Union.
What I said is nothing compared to the crap I've received over the years from the noble Northern "Historians" on Free Republic.
Let's remove another scale shall we?
a number of insurance companies wrote policies insuring slave owners against the loss, damage, or death of their slaves.
Reference: Slave insurance in the United States
Attorney Deadria Farmer-Pallmann discovered an 1852 circular that named insurers that serviced some of these policies. National Loan Fund Life Assurance Company distributed a circular entitled. "A Method by Which Slave Owners May Be Protected From Loss" which named The Merchants Bank and The Leather Manufactures Bank as institutions able to pay and adjust claims. Under a typical policy a slave could be insured for $500.00 with an annual premium of about $11.25.
I can get testy and my memory isn’t perfect but I don’t recall calling you or anyone else on this thread anything like “an ignorant puppy with scales on your eyes”. If I did I apologize. I am not responsible for what other people may have said to you “over the years”.
You are not cut out for WBTS threads. These threads require really thick skin and asbestos underwear. Being called a puppy is nothing to being called a racist that wants to return to slavery and your ancestors died fighting to keep their slaves because they were rapists and child molesters. Try that on for size.
This isn’t a WBTS thread - why are you going out of your way to insult someone merely for having an opinion?
2) I'm sure there is an exception, but my personal experience has been that every neo-confederate I've ever met who cites abuse of power and constitutionality---if you press him hard enough---will reveal himself a racist.
The only right that the Southerners fought over was the states' right to own another person. Period. More important, John C. Calhoun made it clear that the REAL essence of that right was to be able to own another person WITHOUT CRITICISM. Yes, folks, that freedom loving Calhoun insisted that there had to be speech codes to prevent anyone from criticizing the institution of slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.