--------------------------------------------------
Go play with your Ken Doll, little girl
The subject is Lincoln and yankee Hypocrisy
Posted on 04/19/2010 8:18:35 AM PDT by erod
Hi FRiends,
I have two brothers who I love very much, they’re young and libertarian Ron Paul supporters, sigh. We get along and I’m hoping that one day they’ll come back to conservatism, but they have bought into a theory that I don’t think makes much sense:
Abe Lincoln was a dictator.
There are many websites dedicated to this nonsense you can Google "Abe Lincoln dictator" and get some weird stuff, if you want to check it out.
I need your help in busting this myth are there any books I can read on this subject to dispel this stuff? Do you know any of the arguments to combat this nonsense? Ie. Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.
Thanks for taking time out of your day to help me out, -Erod
WHere did you dig that up?
--------------------------------------------------
Typical yankee
Would this be one of those Southern areas of hatred?
http://www.mainememory.net/bin/Detail?ln=1264
How about this?
http://monongahela.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/kkk-marching-up-7th-street-monongahela-pa-1908/
Wow, stereo type much. You paint with a very broad brush. I can just feel the hate from you that you always accuse the FR Lost Causer’s of spewing. Nice.
Ya think?
I'm going to play lentulusgracchus here and call misdirection on your sorry ass. The subject is black confederates and how grateful the South allegedly is for their faithful service. So if you were so grateful and if you valued their service, and if there were all that many black confederates to begin with, then why did the South treat them so abysmally after the rebellion ended? Surely someone as well-versed in confederate lore as you are can answer that?
Then certainly you can set me straight by answering the questions, right? If confederate gratitude was so strong then why the black codes, why the Klan, why the poor treatment of those you claim fought for you? That's history, not stereotype. Any hatred came from those who passed the laws and took a dump on those you claim served them so well. So point the finger at your own heritage, not at me for reminding you of it.
--------------------------------------------------
Go play with your Ken Doll, little girl
The subject is Lincoln and yankee Hypocrisy
From a source on the official "Lincoln Worshiper Website". I'd give you the URL, but then I'd have to kill you.
Lost Cause hypocrisy is still a taboo subject I see. Pity. Y'all have raised it to such a high art.
----------------------------------------------------
Yankee scum - telling lies??
Again, Hypocrisy:
Professing, But Not Practicing Philanthropy
(Column 6)
Summary: The article points out the apparent hypocrisy in the fact that interracial marriages are outlawed in Massachusetts, yet politicians from that state have led the drive to "force such marriages upon the Southern people."
Origin of Article: Constitutional Union
Full Text of Article:
The profession of Yankee philanthropy and freedom from prejudice is a miserable pretext-one specially invented for the occasion. Yankee ingenuity is proverbial, but Yankee hypocrisy is not a whit inferior. By reference to section 5, chapter75, Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, Edition of 1836, we find the following; "No white person shall intermarry with a negro, Indian, or mulatto." By reference to section 1, chapter 76, same edition, we find the following: "All marriages between a white person and a negro, Indian, or mulatto shall, if solemnized within this State, be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process," and section 21, same edition, says "the issue of said marriage shall be deemed illegitimate."
Now we think the spirit of this statute eminently proper. We commend Massachusetts very highly for enacting it. But what we inveigh against it is this-this statute remains to the present day unchanged and unrepealed, and yet the tendency of Massachusetts is to force such marriages upon the Southern people-such marriages as, by its laws, are declared absolutely null and void, without legal process-in other words, that they are merely a state of concubinage. By the laws of Massachusetts, concubinage or adultery is punished by fine or imprisonment. And here we have, indeed, a fit illustration of Yankee morality and Yankee hypocrisy. Urging the commission of adultery for the purpose of receiving fines for its commission!
For, if Radicalism succeeds, the law of Massachusetts urges the marriage of negroes and whites. But Massachusetts declares such marriages to be nothing but adultery, and punishes that offense by fine! Here we have indeed the crowning point of Yankee ingenuity! But is it any more than we could expect from a people who preached religious freedom to all, and yet sold young girls and ladies, and old men and helpless boys into tropical slavery, because they dared to worship God according to their consciences?-Constitutional Union
Yes. Again hypocrisy
"Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years." - Section 20-59 of the Virginia Code. In effect 131 years after the Massachusetts law you quoted.
He/she/it is what is known on some other sites as a 'post whore'. However, on this site he/she/it is simply known as 'The Troll'.
My God, it takes obsession to a whole new level.
Are you suggesting insanity? If so, I think that you'll find that most of us agree.
Pssst! You wanna hear my theory? Ok, here goes: I believe that he/she/it is, and has been for some time now, residing in a mental hospital. I know, I know! It sounds a little far fetched but who else sits around posting on the internet, totally obsessing on one subject, unless they are incarcerated in a hospital for the mentally insane? Just think about it.........
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware would not have joined the Confederacy. Nor would western Virginia rejoined. And if they had it would not have changed the economic statistics to any great extent. It industrial power of the U.S. was North of them.
Why would far western agricultural states be interested in being controlled by an urban manufacturing society?
I'm surprised that you of all people, with your emphasis on Southern culture, would have to ask that. The majority of the people who migrated west came from the eastern part of the U.S. Culturally, they would be more closely aligned with them than with the South. Family ties, markets for their goods, finance, transportation, any cultural or historical or economic indicator you care to mention ties them to the United States. They would be cutting their own throats to go off on their own.
Finally, given the construct of Confederacy surviving, to whom would the US export their manufactured goods to since obviously the South would immediately ally themselves with Britain for naval protection and manufactured goods?
The North would consume most of their manufactured goods. And there is no reason why they could not or would not continue to provide them to the Confederacy. From a cost perspective they would compete well with British goods once the transportation is factored in. The U.S. tariff would not be a factor - since the goods were being exported the tariff would not apply and since their domestic market was protected the U.S. manufacturer could be flexible on their export prices. The Confederacy certainly couldn't manufactur them themselves. So in all likelyhood the Confederacy would continue to buy from the U.S. The only difference being that the prices they paid would be inflated by the Confederate tariff.
My guess is Canada would refuse to integrate economically with the US for British mercantilistic reasons and the Confederacy would exclude themselves from Northern imports to reinforce its alliance with Britain.
I don't think you can safely say that either would necessarily be true.
Finally, Northern textiles, pretty much the economy of New England, would have to find new suppliers of cotton or fail completely.
Would not the Confederacy still be in the cotton exporting business? Taking the cotton that they sold to the New England manufacturers before the war and dumping that on the market would only serve to deflate the prices they could charge. One can talk about national pride and long term resentment resulting from the war, but when one's own pocketbook is feeling the pain then it becomes easier to overlook that resentment. The governments may have been hostile to each other but I still believe that given the choice between paying more for their goods on less money earned or maintaining a business relationship with Northern manufacturers then the Confederacy would have chosen the later. Again, it wasn't like they had another alternative, was it?
My thesis is the South could always have existed without the North, but the reverse was never true.
But history itself proves you wrong. The North lived, and lived very well, without the South during the Civil War. Far from collapsing, the U.S. economy expanded during that period. Tariff revenue rose. Business thrived. And after the war, the South's economy was a fraction of what it was pre-war both in terms of imports and exports, and the North still expanded. Without the North, the Confederacy had an economy based entirely on a single item - cotton - and it was a basket case within two or three years. Post war, even with Confederate victory, that fatal dependency would have continued and the South would have risen and fallen with the price of cotton. With Egypt and India as alternate sources I believe they would have fallen more often than risen.
No more far fetched than the rest of the crap you post.
A permanant federal government is a world of difference from a 'perpetual union'. You do understand the difference, right?
A case can be made that the Great Depression hit the farmers earlier and harder than it hit the industrial areas, and lasted longer. If the Confederacy was still a primarily agrarian economy then they would have been hit as hard or harder than everyone else.
I'm basing my assessment on writings from the era where people that lived on farms and had the means to subsist hardly knew that there was a depression going on. The fact is that most farmers were already 'poor'. I'm sure that the South would have felt some of it, such as a lower demand for agricultural products but I don't think that there would have been the massive unemployment, soup lines, homelessness, etc.
I don't think that's true. Especially the 'then' part.
Please elaborate.
How would the Confederacy fund it? Since they were supposed to be so opposed to tariffs and all.
Aw, c'mon. That's just silly. They would have funded it the way they funded 4 years of attempts to repel the heathen invaders from the north.
And as far as that tariff argument, well, that's just plain silly, too.
I personally don't give two shits who you are, or what you claim to be. You sir, ma'am,bitch,transvestite, etc., are a parasite.
Furthermore; just so I'm not misunderstood. I, unlike you, have a pair. Another generalized name for people like yourself are, Sheep
Now go eat your corn chips, Fat ass
*snicker*
You just hate having your hypocrisy thrown in your face, don't you?
Furthermore; just so I'm not misunderstood. I, unlike you, have a pair.
So you say. But given the overall lack of accuracy in all your other posts I'm forced to doubt this claim as well.
Another generalized name for people like yourself are, Sheep
If true then I'd better steer clear of Idaho. Where the men are men and the sheep all know it.
Now go eat your corn chips, Fat ass
A rather weak ending. But then again you have a rather weak mind.
I’m beginning to think they don’t like me. I wonder why?
Well you are kind of a downer for Lost Causer wet dreams...
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.