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.

[jeffersondem]

“No. One. Ever. Claimed. That. The. Union. Fought. The. Civil. War. To. Free. The. Slaves. Except. Lost. Causers.”

Are. You. Absolutely. Certain?

The reason I ask is because it sounds like another one of those things you made up. And that it would be easily refutable.

[DiogenesLamp]

A line in a speech is not a “deal”. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated most of the confederate states had already succeeded. That was a last ditch plea to get them to return and maintain the union.

So you are going to split hairs that a "plea to get them to return" is somehow different from offering them a deal?

It isn't my choice of verbiage to which you object, it is the fact that I have pointed out that Lincoln's principles, and therefore the cause for which he killed 750,000 people and destroyed huge swaths of land and impoverished millions of people, were "malleable."

Yes, Lincoln's principles were malleable. They would change to suit his current political needs. In his speech to Congress in 1848 he clearly said that all people had a right to leave a larger government and become independent. He called it a "sacred right" to do so.

But that principle also ended up on the chopping block when it came to what he saw as his political best interests. By 1860, he had thoroughly reversed his position on this "sacred right."

Lincoln was going to keep slavery so long as the South remained under Washington's economic control. It was their independence from Washington that was the real cause of war, not whether or not they and the five Union states had slavery.

Lincoln could compromise on keeping slavery permanently. He adamantly refused to cooperate with the idea that states could escape his economic control.

Of course once the south started the war, it was moot.

The South did not start the War. Lincoln started the war. He attacked first. He sent a war fleet to Charleston with Orders to attack the Confederate forces there. When the warships showed up in Charleston, the Confederates saw this as a deliberate attack, and so they started firing at the fort.

Lincoln swung first, but the Confederates connected first.

[DiogenesLamp]

No. One. Ever. Claimed. That. The. Union. Fought. The. Civil. War. To. Free. The. Slaves. Except. Lost. Causers.

Virtually every freakin person in the United States believes the war was fought to free the slaves. That you want to believe that this view is rare is just an example of you lying to yourself.

Perhaps if someone used a ballpeen hammer it would drive the point home for you.

Now I regard this as a violent threat. It is the sort of thing that ought to be taken to the moderators, but i'm going to ignore it.

I urge you to exercise more caution in the future. You are going to let your emotions get you into trouble if you don't exercise more control.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "White Supremacy = Abraham Lincoln"

Lincoln was our first openly anti-slavery President.
He was the first to sit down with black leaders and ask them what they wanted -- return to Africa or the Caribbean?
Turns out they wanted to stay here and be treated like real citizens, so Lincoln did his best to accommodate that.

Remember, Lincoln was born in the South, and so was by far the least "white supremacist" of any Southern born president before... who... Harry Truman?

So your accusation here is false and malicious, especially since in the same breath you wish us to believe that Confederates were all just sweetness and light.

[DiogenesLamp]

You know very well Jefferson Davis "launched the war", just as he promised in his February Inaugural Address.

I know no such thing. I know that Lincoln sent a fleet of warships to Charleston with orders to attack. Even Major Anderson said this would trigger the war, and he also he said he was ashamed of the Union starting the war in this manner.

Lincoln sent the fleet with orders to attack the Confederates. *THAT* is what started the war.

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "The biggest problem is that the Republicans wanted to free the slaves by fiat, which meant financial ruin for many in the South..."

No, in 1861 there was no proposal by Republicans to free slaves by fiat, or by any other method.
What Republicans wanted in the 1860 election was to prevent the expansion of slavery into Western territories and Northern states -- a modest agenda certainly.

But that was plenty enough to drive Fire Eaters to declare secession, Confederacy and, after Fort Sumter, war on the United States.
Proposals to emancipate slaves came out of the Civil War itself, first in response to African-Americans as "contraband of war", and then at the end with the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

But since the time of Thomas Jefferson there were proposals advanced for a Federal buy-out of slaves and voluntary (or involuntary) repatriation to Africa or the Caribbean.
Congress even supported re-colonization of freed-blacks with funds in 1819, but the project proved more expensive than expected.

Proposals for government buy-outs of slaves were never accepted by slave-holding politicians.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln sent the fleet with orders to attack the Confederates. *THAT* is what started the war."

But you well know the real truth, yet continue to lie about it, why?
You know perfectly well Lincoln's final orders were: no use of force unless resupply of Fort Sumter was resisted by force.
His mission to Fort Sumter was strictly equivalent to our missions today to resupply or reinforce Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
And you know that perfectly well, but continue lying about it.
Why?

[rockrr]

Take it however you like (you’re going to anyway). If I intended violence toward you, you would be lying in a puddle of your own goo.

[DiogenesLamp]

So Corwin did not offer a "deal", only reassurances to Border States that Washington, DC, would not attack their "peculiar institution."

But Lincoln did in fact attack their "peculiar institution." He weedled and bribed and threatened the various Northern states into going along with his new 13th amendment, and he simply ordered all the legislatures of the Southern states to vote for it or else.

So you see, either way you look at it, Lincoln was lying to someone.

But Corwin's amendment did help reassure Border States like Kentucky & Maryland, and for that I'd guess Lincoln would plead, "guilty as charged".

That, and locking up all the Maryland legislatures that would vote for Independence. The Union army also played a heavy role in suppressing further efforts for states to become independent.

But you are deliberately glossing over the central point, and the Central point is that Lincoln is on record as saying he would support an amendment that would further protect slavery. You attempt to mollify your discontent with this truth by claiming it was a clever tactic to keep the border states, and you do this because you don't want to believe that Lincoln could actually be so unprincipled as to really support such an amendment.

To you, this "tactic" is insincere, which if you think about it is also evidence of Lincoln being unprincipled.

I don't envy you the logical contortions you must go through to square all of the existing facts with what you wish to believe.

I, fortunately have a much easier task. I simply look at the facts, and I make objective conclusions from them.

Lincoln was lying to someone, either before the war or after the war, it doesn't really matter.

[jeffersondem]

“The story can go in many different directions and I think it's a bit premature to get all worked up about the historical aspects of the program.”

Good counsel.

I can see the story developing like this: The South wins but Lincoln survives the war. Lincoln commences with his promise to ship all northern free blacks back to Africa. Kind southern whites set up a reverse underground railroad to repatriate northern blacks - before its too late - back with their extended families across the North's heavily defended, and walled, DMZ. Trouble ensues as defeated and embittered northerners turn on each other and impeach Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus. An eventual, but slow, reconciliation occurs as sports teams begin to visit across the DMZ - but not before northern bigots riot and attack integrated major league southern baseball team members with cries of “Remember the New York City Draft Riots!

[DiogenesLamp]

"...Pearl Harbor..."

I am not going to entertain that nonsense.

[rockrr]

Lincoln never proposed to ship all northern free blacks back to Africa.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't think so. Sentiment in both North and South was moving against it.

Yes, I think Slavery would have eventually been conquored by the social forces against it which were growing stronger each passing year, but the economics of it would have kept it lingering for awhile longer.

The plantation economy was doomed by economics, and I seriously doubt it would have survived much past 1880-90.

I am not following you here. I think you are saying that because history happened a certain way, that meant it was always going to happen a certain way. Yes, the Europeans found other sources of cotton, but isn't this because the Union blockaded the Southern cotton shipments and forced a demand problem on Europe?

In the absence of a war, it is quite possible that the alternative sources may never have materialized, and therefore the Cotton produced by the South would have continued to be economically viable.

My answer is "I don't know." If you have some information that could show the future economics of Cotton was not going to be capable of sustaining plantation farming, I would like to see it, but without a war, slavery may have very well been economically profitable into the 20th century.

The biggest problem is that the Republicans wanted to free the slaves by fiat, which meant financial ruin for many in the South, pro-slavery or not.

This is exactly right. In an effort to get people to understand the economic dynamics at work in this era, I suggest they consider that modern liberal eco-nuts want to eliminate carbon based fuel such as oil and coal, which means also diesel and gasoline.

Today we wouldn't even consider an idea to eliminate oil usage in our lives, and we rightly regard these people who are talking about destroying the backbone of our economic system, as "nuts."

So too did the slave owning states of that era regard the abolitionists. So too did most of the Northern people regard them.

If the Republicans had proposed an approach that would reimburse the slave-owners for their monetary value, the Civil War likely would not have happened.

I don't think that would have stopped it. From what I have learned over the last two years, the Civil war was at it's foundation, an economic war and territorial war. Had the South been permitted to establish itself as an independent Nation, it would have siphoned off much of the North East's economic activity, and it would have competed with the Union for the western territories and potentially other states joining it.

An independent South was an economic and territorial threat to the existing Union. Increased capitalization from greater trade with Europe would have created industries in the South that would have eventually competed with industries in the North, and given the potential for free labor from slaves, they would have likely destroyed their northern competition.

After much thinking about it, I have so far concluded that the Confederacy was a dire threat to the future of the Union, and Lincoln more or less had no choice but to stop it from happening.

And it would probably have been cheaper overall.

The lives of Irish immigrants and Northern poor white trash were pretty cheap so far as their North-Eastern elite rulers were concerned, and they certainly didn't care about the lives of the people in the South who might have been a potential economic and territorial threat to them.

I think the powers that emerged in the aftermath of the Civil War were quite pleased with the cost and the results.

[jeffersondem]

“Of course your FRiend jeffersondem claims . . .”

I have been summoned.

And I must ask you to document your claim about Union casualties during the Fort Sumter incident. I was under the impression the Union suffered two deaths during an ill-advised ceremonial cannonading by troops of the United States.

I am unaware of any Union deaths caused by Confederate action during the Fort Sumter incident.

Your turn.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not all of us. Two parts alternate history mixed with one part vivid imagination doesn't lend your posts a whole lot of credibility.

So you are telling me that I just imagined Lincoln offered to support the Corwin Amendment?

Funny, I thought I read that very thing in his first inaugural address.

[Wonder Warthog]

"No, in 1861 there was no proposal by Republicans to free slaves by fiat, or by any other method. What Republicans wanted in the 1860 election was to prevent the expansion of slavery into Western territories and Northern states -- a modest agenda certainly."

The Republican party EXISTED to free the slaves. Don't confuse a legislative proposal with a party platform.

It can be compared to "gun control". Everyone knows that the ultimate aim of the gun controllers is to ban civilian possession of firearms (only the police and the military should be allowed firearms). Any legislation passed in the interim is "a good step forward".

[DiogenesLamp]

But you well know the real truth, yet continue to lie about it, why?

What lie? What are you talking about? Lincoln did in fact send a fleet of Warships to Charleston with orders to attack the Confederates there.

The Confederates knew of this fleet and it's orders and it expected to be attacked by those ships as soon as they had all assembled at the rendezvous point.

You know perfectly well Lincoln's final orders were: no use of force unless resupply of Fort Sumter was resisted by force.

It was a forgone conclusion that both sides knew there was not going to be any supplies permitted to be landed at the fort without resistance. That was a throw away line, and both sides knew it.

The War fleet would have sent someone to ask, the Confederates would have said "no", and then the Warships would have moved in to start firing on the Confederate ranks. Fort Sumter's guns would have joined the attacking warships and the Confederates would have been caught in the crossfire between the two forces. Asking to land without resistance was just a pointless formality. The ships were going to end up attacking, and so was Ft. Sumter, and everyone knew it.

His mission to Fort Sumter was strictly equivalent to our missions today to resupply or reinforce Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

No it wasn't. The Federal Troops at Fort Sumter weren't stationed there. They took that fort by force at night before anyone knew they were going to be there commanding guns overlooking the primary trading harbor of South Carolina.

Perhaps if our Troops stationed at Guantanamo, snuck out in the middle of the night and captured Morro Castle overlooking Havana harbor, then it might be some what comparable.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have been summoned.

And I must ask you to document your claim about Union casualties during the Fort Sumter incident. I was under the impression the Union suffered two deaths during an ill-advised ceremonial cannonading by troops of the United States.

I didn't respond to this particular post of his. He said "Pearl Harbor", so I didn't bother reading any more of it.

[DoodleDawg]

So you are telling me that I just imagined Lincoln offered to support the Corwin Amendment?

No, but you did imagine this part: "Nor is it taught that Lincoln was going to make a deal to keep slavery permanently, but the South wouldn't go along with it."

The South had already announced secession before Corwin submitted his amendment.

[jeffersondem]

“Lincoln never proposed to ship all northern free blacks back to Africa.”

Remind me. What did Mr. Lincoln propose?