HBO to Whitewash Democrat 'Confederate' Slavery

Black & Blonde Media ^ | 7/21/17 | Black & Blonde Media

[impetrio1]

Only certain people get to make the potential big money productions in Hollywood and they have ways to get around anything potentially uncomfortable. HBO-Game of Thrones' David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are going to make a TV movie surrounding the Confederacy and slavery.

These things have to be handled delicately and in this case, all it took was a cheap meal to get the ball rolling.

[DiogenesLamp]

More spew from the mouth.

[rockrr]

Pot=kettle

[OIFVeteran]

Your wrong about the founders. Here’s the text that proves your wrong;
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The founders believed that when a government becomes destructive to the people they have the right to abolish it. The U.S. government had done nothing destructive to the south. It also states that governments should not be abolished for light or transient reasons. I cannot think of anything more light or transient than losing an election in a constitutional republic.

[sargon]

Presumably you can inform us as to what it was you think the South did that was wrong.

Yeah, man, except for that whole "Blacks are ingherently inferior and therefore it's morally righteous to enslave them", the South did absolutely nothing wrong.

You're just gone...

[Ohioan]

I believe that—to his credit—Nixon did dissent along with Ohio’s Mr. Republican, Robert A. Taft—to a 1951 (I believe) Senate Committee Report recommending Truman’s proposed FEPC law—the later basis for the LBJ EEOC. You mistake, also, the Goldwater position, which certainly did not agree with the Federal Government dictating employment choices across America. There was nothing remotely “Conservative” about it.

[DiogenesLamp]

The founders believed that when a government becomes destructive to the people they have the right to abolish it.

First of all, "destructive" is in the eye of the beholder. The South believed the Federal Government had become destructive to their interests.

Second of all, you are quite wrong in saying that the government had done nothing "destructive" to the South. The list of things the Federal Government did to hurt the South and favor the North is long, and some of those things are mentioned in this address. Among the things that most people don't know, the 4 million citizens in the South were producing 75% of the revenue to run the Federal Government, while the 20 million citizens in the North were only producing 25% of the revenue necessary to run the Federal Government. Meaning the tax burden was very lopsided in favor of the North.

Third of all, the principle asserted in the Declaration of Independence is "consent of the governed." When you no longer have their consent, you no longer have legitimate authority to govern a people.

It also states that governments should not be abolished for light or transient reasons.

The word "should" does not mean "cannot." It is advice, not a command. The Southerners did not believe they were leaving the Union for "light or transient reasons", they believed they were leaving for serious and irreconcilable differences.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah, man, except for that whole "Blacks are ingherently inferior and therefore it's morally righteous to enslave them", the South did absolutely nothing wrong.

Nope. Not going to accept this bit of nonsense as a serious claim. The South were just as racist when they were part of the Union, so you don't get to claim their behavior was acceptable so long as they remained a part of the Union, but completely intolerable when they left the Union.

You must put forth an argument that hinges on Union, and nothing else. The only difference in the South before secession and after secession was Washington Control.

Being part of the Union does not make their slavery any more moral, and since the Union had no intentions of eliminating it, you are going to have to find a better argument for why secession was wrong.

You were still going to get a slave holding South if they had remained in the Union. Therefore your argument as to why secession was wrong cannot hinge on a condition which would not have changed without secession.

[Hugin]

Lincoln only was able to free slaves in territory in rebeillion. If the south had not started the war he coudln’t have done so.

Second, where is your evidence that the relief squadron sent by Lincoln to resupply Ft. Sumter had orders to attack? The south didn’t clam that at the time. Jefferson Davis claimed that merely resupplying the fort was a “hostile act” and the justified beginning hostilities. Of course attepting to starve the fort into submission was also a hostile act. But no twisting of facts can change the fact that the south fired the first shots.

[PeaRidge]

The African slave trade on the eve of the war......

On April 10, 1861,the Charleston newspaper, The Courier, quoted an article that had appeared in the New York Evening Post. The following is an excerpt of the article:

The African Slave Trade
“More Seizures — The Traffic Going On — The African slave trade still flourishes, and the headquarters of the infamous traffic continues to be fixed in this vicinity.

“On Wednesday last, the Custom House officers seized the schooner Wells, at Greenport, Long Island, and yesterday afternoon a clipper bark was taken possession of by Marshal Rynders, at a point on the East River. The Wells, captured at Greenport, is a schooner of 149 tons burthen, owned by C. Wells & Co., of Greenport. The captain of the schooner Wells was named Wells, as well.

“Suspicions had been excited some days previous to her seizure, by the secrecy with which her cargo was shipped, and on Wednesday the evidence that she was fitting out for a slave voyage was deemed sufficient to justify the officers of the Custom House in attaching her.

“On examination it was found that she had on board the usual cargo of slavers. A large quantity of water casks, lumber, rice, and other articles which commonly make a slave cargo, were found on board, and the vessel was accordingly held until an investigation can take place.

“... The inference deducible from these latest developments of the slave traffic at this port is that the trade not only still flourishes here, but that nothing less than a clean sweep of all suspected vessels, and a strict examination of the parties interested, will put an end to the infamy of this inhuman commerce. ...”

[sargon]

Nope. Not going to accept this bit of nonsense as a serious claim. The South were just as racist when they were part of the Union, so you don't get to claim their behavior was acceptable so long as they remained a part of the Union, but completely intolerable when they left the Union.

I don't really give a crap what you accept or not, or what you think I must do or not.

Your whole equivocation thing between the North and the South is utterly pathetic, and history has made its judgement, and found your argument wanting.

You can go on believing the earth is flat, man never went to the moon—or that the South was as morally upstanding as the North. In none of those cases will you be saying anything that carries any credence based on merit.

The fact is there was massive slavery in the South, and hardly any in the North, and that's true regardless of laws or economies. It's true because—when contrasted with the North—Southern attitudes toward the Negro were every bit as inferior as they claimed the Negroes to be themselves.

The fact is the Founders of the United States knew that slavery was wrong, even if they practiced it. They admitted that fact, when they were being honest.

In contrast, the Founders of the Confederacy argues that it was morally right. It is to laugh.

You're never going to be able to conflate the "Union" with the despicable racism which not only permeated the Southern slaveholding culture, but which went out of its way to brand Blacks as inferior, and thereby slavery was morally justified—not just in their speeches, but in their Confederate Constitution.

Sweeping slavery under the rug—as was done during the writing of the Constitution—to appease the South will never be the same as glorifying in it and basing an entire agrarian economy on the notion that Blacks "deserved" to be slaves.

Your ilk stands repudiated by history, and, fortunately, your "reasoning" is simply too patently asinine to ever represent a viable historical paradigm.

You're an apologist for the most dehumanizing, immoral interpretation of slavery—a cultural reality which only the South took to the despicable levels which it did. Slavery in the earlier historical eras of America bore little resemblance to the industrialized institution which it became in the South.

So the only thing I must do is categorically reject your absurd attempts to conflate Northern attitudes towards slavery to Southern ones—just as the overwhelming majority of thinking people—historians and otherwise—have known for over a century and a half.

Your ridiculously shallow arguments lost this debate long ago, and they continue to do so right up through the present day.

You represent a species of dinosaur which is rightly becoming extinct. If you want to be the "dodo bird" of Confederate apologism, knock yourself out, but I can assure you that you're alienating far more sentient humans than you're "converting"...

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln only was able to free slaves in territory in rebeillion. If the south had not started the war he coudln’t have done so.

In what part of the constitution did he acquire this power to free slaves? Does it not explicitly require that all slaves must be returned to the people to whom their labor is due under the laws of that state?

My point here is that this was not legal under the constitution, and whether the South and started the war or not, (they didn't.) Lincoln did not have legitimate constitutional authority to do this.

It would be like a President declaring "gay marriage" to be legal. Lincoln himself even said he did not have the power to do this.

Second, where is your evidence that the relief squadron sent by Lincoln to resupply Ft. Sumter had orders to attack?

A "relief" ship would have been the "Star of the West." Not a fleet of Warships loaded with cannons and with hundreds of riflemen on board.

This isn't the one I was looking for, but it will do till I can find the other orders.

Bear in mind the Confederates knew exactly what those ship orders were before the ships arrived.

[Hugin]

That’s not an order to attack as you claimed. More distortion, as usual.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't really give a crap what you accept or not, or what you think I must do or not.

You mistake me. I do not presume to order you to do anything. I merely point out that you are objectively making an error in logic by offering slavery as an excuse for the Union to invade the South, when the South would have still had slavery by remaining in the Union.

It is a logical paradox.

The fact is there was massive slavery in the South, and hardly any in the North, and that's true regardless of laws or economies.

But this fact does not change by secession. It would have still been a fact without secession. Your claim is that "because slavery is evil, the South had no right to independence." Slavery was still evil while it existed under the Union flag, but you refuse to incorporate this fact into your argument.

I'm going to skip the rest of your message. I want to see you explain why 750,000 people needed to be killed because of slavery when the South left the Union, but it didn't seem necessary to kill anyone over slavery before the South left the Union.

It seems as if there must be something going on here that goes beyond slavery. Can you tell me what it is?

[jmacusa]

It never was taught. To the government schools JFK was the only president America ever had.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s not an order to attack as you claimed. More distortion, as usual.

"Who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage..." is not an "attack" order?

What are they going to do? Wave signal flags at the Confederates?

No. You are being deliberately dishonest. That order cannot be taken to mean anything other than to use the cannons on the naval ships to bombard the confederate ranks surrounding Ft. Sumter.

And that is not the only order to the ships telling them to use force. I'll find the others directly.

[Hugin]

“Who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage...” is not an “attack” order?

No, it’s not. It’s an order to fight back if attacked. If the south hadn’t fired they would have delivered supplies and troops and left. The south fired the first shots, no twisting of reality can change that.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it’s not. It’s an order to fight back if attacked.

It didn't say "if attacked". It said "if you are opposed in this." Presumably a rope across the entrance to the Harbor, or Boats blocking the entrance would constitute "opposition."

You are trying to move the goal posts for what is clearly an order to attack if the Confederates didn't cooperate.

They weren't going to cooperate, and EVERY PERSON INVOLVED KNEW IT. Therefore it was nothing but an attack order. It was understood before the ships even arrived that the Confederates would oppose the landing of supplies. They wouldn't have spent four months siegeing the fort if they had any intention of cooperating with the landing of supplies, so it was a given that the order was going to cause an attack.

Major Anderson (commander of Ft. Sumter) himself wrote that if the Gustav Fox plan was put into action, it would cause the war.

And it did.

[Hugin]

It didn’t say “if attacked”. It said “if you are opposed in this.” Presumably a rope across the entrance to the Harbor, or Boats blocking the entrance would constitute “opposition.”

You are trying to move the goal posts for what is clearly an order to attack if the Confederates didn’t cooperate.
******************************************************

That’s just ludicrous. The fort was under seige and surrounded by confederate artillery. Being opposed didn’t mean a rope accross the harbor. It’s cleary NOT and order to attack, unless attacked. There’s really no point arguing with someone who just makes stuff up like that. I’m done.

[sargon]

You're absolutely incorrigible. I get it. You're a lost soul.

No amount of rationalization will every make your twisted "logic" viable. The overwhelming majority of Americans know precisely what the South stood for during the Civil War era.

They know that the Southern leaders attempted to justify slavery by arguing for the inferiority of Blacks, claiming that it was morally justifiable, and enshrining the evil practice into their Constitution. The North was deemed to be fighting on the side of righteousness and justice&—not just by historians, or the common People, but apparently also by Providence.

God smiled on the Union, and God punished the South. You clearly remain under the yoke of that punishment, with your objectively delusional apologetics.

Anyone reading your drivel sees it for precisely what it is. It's obvious you're not interested in facing the core Truths of the South's transgressions—which exceeded those of the North by several orders of magnitude.

Unfortunately, it is strident attitudes like your own—attitudes which are detached from objective reality—which trigger the kind of rage which leads to the destruction of Southern monuments and heritage.

How ironic it is that you—as a prime example of Confederate delusion—are actually contributing more to the destruction of Southern heritage than an PC Leftist could ever hope to. Their hysteria is amply contrasted by your own derangement. I'm not sure which is worse, but that's for God to judge—just like he judges the hypocritical South, and found it wanting.

The grapes of wrath were justly meted out, and they were meted out precisely to repudiate the mentality which you display, and which your ideological Southern ilk displayed a century and a half ago.

I thank God I can carry my own Southern without having to wrap it in the putrid rationalizations which are fomented by unreconstructed Confederate propagandists such as yourself.

Fortunately, the South lost, and they will stay lost. Your pathetic rationalizations serve only as a warning to others as to how corrupted one can become when one tries to feebly engage in moral relativism which, objectively, will always remain as illegitimate as the "Confederacy" itself was.

It pains me to savage the Confederacy so, but in cases such as yours, it's not only justified, but necessary to point out the falsity of your uniformly shameful, extremist version of Confederate apologetics.

Of course, most here are quite familiar with your illness, and your consequent inability to see the historical South clearly, but—even though your whimsical, historically repudiated notions are generally not worthy of a response—occasionally one accidentally gets dragged into the "debate", only to be reminded of the fact that you're totally divorced from historical reality regarding the US Civil War.

So you can return to your fantasy world until the next time someone tires of your demented ideas regarding Southern victimhood, and Northern predation.

Like the Left, your naive victimology is pretty much all you have. In your whimsical bubble, the South was merely the victim of Northern aggression, and bears no responsibility for the evils which it practiced, nurtured, and ultimately tried to spread to the rest of the nation.

Talk to you later, bubble boy...

[DiogenesLamp]

You're absolutely incorrigible. I get it. You're a lost soul.

No. Either address the point I raised, or bugger off. I'm not going to sit here and listen to you rant. Either explain why Slavery was bad with Southern Independence, but Not bad with Union, or don't waste my time.

Slavery was a given either way the question went. You have to explain why leaving the Union was bad, not why having slavery was bad, because that was the same result for either path.

If you don't understand facts and logic, just say so. If you can only put forth an emotional argument based on how much you hate non Union slavery, just say so.

I'm beginning to think you simply cannot comprehend the point to which I would like a response.