CNN Guest Refuses To Take The ‘Bait,’ Contradicts Don Lemon On Slavery

I'm not saying that Northerners liked Blacks either, but please, read some history about what was going on in Dixie after the Civil War.

I think both the Northern and Southern whites hated blacks, but there were a lot more blacks in the South, and they were supporting the people who killed sons, fathers and brothers, so the hatred became a lot more intense than it would have otherwise been.

To get an small idea of how they probably felt, it would be like the Democrats opening the borders and allowing in several millions of migrants so that they can vote in American elections to support the Oppressive liberal tax and spend policies of our immoral government.

How do you feel about foreign migrants voting for Democrats in American elections?

“Rhetorical knots” is in the eye of the beholder.

Lemon is correct because regardless of whether slaves were counted as a whole person or only three-fifths it still gave slave states a disproportionately high representation in the House.

Only if you believe in the one person one vote principle. In those days, women couldn't vote either, but they still counted as a part of the population which had to be fed clothed and sheltered, which was regarded as the responsibility of the white men of that era.

The past is a foreign country. It's motivations and behaviors are difficult to understand unless you've studied up on it.

In those days, women couldn't vote either, but they still counted as a part of the population which had to be fed clothed and sheltered, which was regarded as the responsibility of the white men of that era.

They were not considered property to be bought and sold and they enjoyed rights and protections that slaves did not.

The past is a foreign country. It's motivations and behaviors are difficult to understand unless you've studied up on it.

We don't all share your odd-ball view of history.

I, for one, don’t understand why this Queer Lemon makes the news every week.

He's a specialist at making lemons out of lemonade.

And he's yella to boot.

I think both the Northern and Southern whites hated blacks, but there were a lot more blacks in the South, and they were supporting the people who killed sons, fathers and brothers, so the hatred became a lot more intense than it would have otherwise been.

I wouldn't say "hated," but Northern and Southern Whites both didn't care much for Blacks. Because there were more Blacks in the South, White Southerners were more oppressive. It certainly wasn't the case that Southerners "liked" African-Americans, as was claimed in the post I responded to.

Some people like to point out the hypocrisy of Northerners for speaking up for the rights of African-Americans, while not wanting them around. Southerners who claimed to like Blacks but denied them basic rights were at least as hypocritical.

Repression, often violent continued long after the occupation had ended. It had more to do with Whites wanting to hold on to power than with resentments over the war. But consider: first, ex-slaves probably had at least as much reason to resent their ex-masters as ex-secessionists had to hate Yankees or freedmen, and second, if the reason for oppression of the former slaves was a way of getting back at the Northerners, does that really make the Southerners of that day look better? I'd say it makes them look worse.

To get an small idea of how they probably felt, it would be like the Democrats opening the borders and allowing in several millions of migrants so that they can vote in American elections to support the Oppressive liberal tax and spend policies of our immoral government.

That has to be the stupidest analogy of the week. The ex-slaves were Americans who had been living here and contributing for generations. Your stupid analogy says more about how your mind works than about anything in history.

If you are going to hold states to this agreement, the rights to have slaves in one state translates to the rights to have slaves in another state.

Nonsense, because if you move to another state, you become a resident of that state and subject to its laws. Otherwise, "state's rights" -- a state's right to ban slavery -- are meaningless.

Our laws do not recognize the idea that one must ask for permission to leave the collective, it says it is the right of the people to do so if they wish.

If you enter a contract, you pay a penalty for breaking it. If you don't support your children, you pay a penalty and can go to prison. If you don't pay your taxes, you pay a penalty and can go to prison. If you take up arms against the country there will probably be a penalty, and by historical standards, a loss of voting rights for a short period after a bloody four year war is pretty mild for those who take up arms against their countrymen and against a constitutional and elected government.

Even Salmon P Chase said "secession is not rebellion."

Salmon P. Chase, who changed parties several times and was even looking forward to getting the Democratic nomination for President in his last years? Not somebody I'd go to for an unbiased opinion.

Show me in the constitution where it is written that people accused of "rebelling" are not allowed to vote. It says the legislatures control elections, not Washington DC.

See what I said a few paragraphs up. You don't seriously think that people who had been fighting tooth and nail against the constitutionally elected government would be immediately allowed a vote in how things were to be done. Also, I suspect that the state governments that were set up approved the exclusion of ex-rebels from voting until they were pardoned. Indeed, those who asked for pardons, so far as I know, received them after pledging allegiance to the United States -- and eventually I believe there was a blanket pardon.

Only slaves can rebel. Equals cannot rebel.

That's not very well thought out. Many who are not slaves rebel. Maybe you meant to say "subordinates." But consider that we are all subordinate to the Constitution and the laws. Reject them and you have rebelled.

And they left not because people were trying to change the laws, because no one of any power was trying to do that.

I repeat once more: Lincoln could use patronage to build a Republican Party in the Border States and the Upper South that could eventually lead to abolition in those states. Congress could also support repeal laws that favored slavery and pass laws that supported liberty. Allowing abolitionist materials to be delivered through the mails was in itself a serious matter for the slaveowners of the South.

They left because they realized they were never going to have their interests represented in Washington DC, sorta like modern Americans now.

The South dominated the federal government from 1800 to 1860. They also played a very large role when Democrats ran the country from FDR through LBJ and Carter. A Democrat-run "solid South" would find ways to exploit divisions in the North, but fears that the Republicans would weaken slavery prevented slaveowners from following that strategy.

Spontaneous my @$$.

When the news from Sumter came, Northerners spontaneously reacted against it. It wasn't like they were all glued to screens that told them what to think. They saw that the flag had been fired on and reacted as one would have expected them to.

Had it stayed in port, there would have been no belligerent acts occurring in Charleston.

In other words, do nothing, let the fort be starved out and let the country fall apart. That was precisely what a US president couldn't do (well maybe Carter or Biden could).

Repression, often violent continued long after the occupation had ended.

Because after the occupation had ended, nobody was mad at the people who helped the occupiers? H3ll, the "Orangemen" are still marching through Irish Neighborhoods 300 years later.

People tend to let their resentments linger a long time. Plus, i'm sure there was some racism involved as well.

But consider: first, ex-slaves probably had at least as much reason to resent their ex-masters as ex-secessionists had to hate Yankees or freedmen, and second, if the reason for oppression of the former slaves was a way of getting back at the Northerners, does that really make the Southerners of that day look better? I'd say it makes them look worse.

I'm sure there was little love lost between those held in bondage and those who were doing the holding, but the later had the superior numbers, armament and experience and challenging them directly would have been suicide. And it wasn't so much getting back at the Northerners because it's very likely the vast majority of Northerners absolutely did not give a sh*t about blacks, but saw them as a useful tool to justify what they had done, and to help them remain in power.

No, I think they were less motivated about "getting back at Northerners" and more about punishing those people they saw as collaborators or tools of the enemy.

That has to be the stupidest analogy of the week. The ex-slaves were Americans who had been living here and contributing for generations.

I am not even slightly surprised that you don't like the analogy, but I think you do not like it because it hits too close to home. It makes you feel as those Southerns actually felt, and you don't like to think they may have had a valid resentment about this.

So the North kept these people in bondage all through the war, and then they suddenly declared them "Americans" with voting rights and all, knowing full well these newly minted previously illegal voters would vote consistently and massively Republican, and everyone is just supposed to accept that this was kosher and no problem at all?

And how is that different from Democrats allowing illegals to vote knowing full well they are going to elect Democrats? How is that different? Would it help if Democrats simply declared that these are "Americans"?

These former slaves were not "Americans" either by the definitions of the North or the South until Lincoln's armies created a fake vote to declare them free, and another fake vote to declare them enfranchised.

I would suggest these moves forced at the ends of bayonets were more about punishing the South and about rigging the game to remain in power, and the motivation had very little to do with caring about the rights or well being of black people. If that was their motivation, they would have done it first in the Northern states, all throughout the war.

Nonsense, because if you move to another state, you become a resident of that state and subject to its laws.

A state has a right to ban the creation of slaves under it's own laws. It has no right at all to seize the "property" of people from other states, and which "property" is held under the laws of that other state.

The states agreed to these conditions when they accepted the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution. At the time they accepted this clause, almost all were still slave states.

Otherwise, "state's rights" -- a state's right to ban slavery -- are meaningless.

Not "meaningless", but not absolute either. Banning the creation of slaves is a significant advancement, but they went too far when they tried to force their laws and morality on other states which did not agree.

If you enter a contract, you pay a penalty for breaking it.

The Northern states paid no penalty for breaking the contract. None. They passed laws violating the "privileges and immunities" by disallowing transit or residency with slaves. They seized slaves, which is a fourth amendment violation. (Taking property without just compensation.) They taxed the South at three times the amount they taxed themselves, and this with a population 1/4th their own size, and they spent the vast majority of the money thus acquired in the North.

So where did they get punished for breaking the contract? They didn't.

If you take up arms against the country there will probably be a penalty, and by historical standards, a loss of voting rights for a short period after a bloody four year war is pretty mild for those who take up arms against their countrymen and against a constitutional and elected government.

They did not take up arms against their countrymen any more than Hungarians fighting the Russian invaders took up arms against their countrymen. The Southern states had voted to leave the Union, and since it was the will of the majority, they had a right to leave and form their own country.

Nothing in the Constitution forbids it, and the Declaration specifically and explicitly allows it. The vast majority of the evidence shows that secession was legal with the exception of two letters written by James Madison arguing otherwise.

They tried to throw off an evil central dictatorial power, and they failed. The power then did everything it could to destroy and impoverish them while using a mock democracy in occupied states to increase and consolidate it's own power where it has become increasingly despotic over the years.

Washington DC today represents the gravest threat to this nation. It's hoovering up money and resources all throughout the country to feed it's insatiable lust for money and power.

Salmon P. Chase, who changed parties several times and was even looking forward to getting the Democratic nomination for President in his last years? Not somebody I'd go to for an unbiased opinion.

I'm thinking you don't trust any opinion with which you disagree. I think your methodology is "if it doesn't agree with me, it's wrong."

But in this case, the known evidence supports the conclusion that secession is not rebellion. Again, all your side has for evidence is two letters by Madison, one of which was written 40 years after the fact.

See what I said a few paragraphs up.

You simply waived it off a few paragraphs up, and your reasoning was "Well, they deserved it." I disagree that the "they deserved it clause" is in the constitution when it comes to stripping the rights of citizens. "Deserve it" is in the eye of the beholder.

The reality is that the occupying army simply did what Washington DC told it to do, and it did not worry itself or concern itself with the possibility that it's actions were constitutionally illegal.

For example. Declaring everyone in a geographic area to be a "rebel" stripped of their constitutional rights, is denial of due process. There should have been a court hearing for every single person denied their constitutional rights. We know there were people in the Confederate states who opposed secession because not everyone voted for it. We also have the example of the "Free State of Jones" to show that not everyone supported the confederacy, yet these people lost their rights too.

You don't seriously think that people who had been fighting tooth and nail against the constitutionally elected government would be immediately allowed a vote in how things were to be done.

What does the constitution say? Does it have a "tooth and nail" clause? Lincoln insisted these people remained American citizens for the purpose of justifying his invasion. Once he had successfully beaten them, he treated them as foreign citizens who had no rights rather than American citizens who did.

Here's the deal. You want to deny them their rights, strip them of their US citizenship. You want to use the claim that they are still American citizens to justify invading them, you have to preserve their rights as American citizens.

Having it both ways is what liberals do, because there are no fundamental principles that they will recognize as fundamental.

Also, I suspect that the state governments that were set up approved the exclusion of ex-rebels from voting until they were pardoned.

No doubt the Vichy style traitors did exactly what the invading dictatorship wanted. This is what Vichy traitors do.

When the news from Sumter came, Northerners spontaneously reacted against it.

When the manipulated News came which didn't make it at all clear what had actually happened, people reacted predictably. The news should have been "Lincoln War Fleet sent to attack the South but was beaten to the punch!"

Lincoln started the war with his war fleet. The "news" was clearly not going to allow any blame to be assigned to him. Passions were deliberately being stirred and events were being deliberately manipulated so as to stir passions, and all of this was Lincoln.

In other words, do nothing, let the fort be starved out and let the country fall apart.

They seized the fort by prevarication, stealth and assault. They weren't supposed to be in there at all. Also, removing them from the fort would not have caused the country to fall apart.

The Northern states could have kept their Union together and went about their merry way, albeit having to pay four times the taxes they were accustomed to paying. (Which they ended up doing anyway after the South could no longer produce.)

What the power barons of the North absolutely could not allow was European products displacing their own manufactured goods throughout the Mississippi Watershed and the Border states, as well as the loss of that 200 million per year in European trade value.

They were not considered property to be bought and sold and they enjoyed rights and protections that slaves did not.

This may be so, but they still could not vote. They also did not pay taxes. They also had a lot fewer legal rights then men did. If I recall properly, they could not enter into contracts.

We don't all share your odd-ball view of history.

The notion that "the past is a foreign country" is pretty mainstream. I'd like to take credit for thinking that up, but it was a known adage long before I came along.

No, I think they were less motivated about "getting back at Northerners" and more about punishing those people they saw as collaborators or tools of the enemy.

Only you would say that seriously (if you are being serious). It was about keeping the Blacks down and under White control. And in fact, if you look at the rhetoric of the time, it wasn't about "collaboration" since most of those who were repressed, really hadn't participated much in government and hadn't really cooperated with the occupation, unless running away from plantations and using the right to vote when they had it constituted collaboration.

And how is that different from Democrats allowing illegals to vote knowing full well they are going to elect Democrats? How is that different? Would it help if Democrats simply declared that these are "Americans"?

These former slaves were not "Americans" either by the definitions of the North or the South until Lincoln's armies created a fake vote to declare them free, and another fake vote to declare them enfranchised.

Once again, I don't think you realize just how extreme and perverse your views are. When Jeffersonians and Jacksonians expanded the franchise, they knew that this would benefit them politically, but nobody compared this to letting illegal aliens in. So it was with the freed slaves. And with women and those under 21 later. And Republicans supported the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s knowing that they probably wouldn't benefit from it. They were smart enough and decent enough not to compare extending the vote to Americans who had been denied it to importing foreigners in hopes of getting their votes.

It has no right at all to seize the "property" of people from other states, and which "property" is held under the laws of that other state.

In most cases they didn't. They just said, in effect, "If you want to keep your slaves, go back to your own state," and until Judge Taney's disastrous decision, everyone realized that the free states had the right to make such stipulations.

They taxed the South at three times the amount they taxed themselves, and this with a population 1/4th their own size, and they spent the vast majority of the money thus acquired in the North.

The lie that never dies.

The Southern states had voted to leave the Union, and since it was the will of the majority, they had a right to leave and form their own country.

There was much uncertainty about whether that truly was the will of the majority. In any case, the Southern state authorities certainly had the right to raise the question in Congress or take it to the courts, but they did not have the right to declare themselves independent from the rest of the country.

Nothing in the Constitution forbids it, and the Declaration specifically and explicitly allows it.

The Supremacy clause declares that federal law is the law of the land and supersedes state laws. The Declaration of Independence asserts that under certain circumstances polities have the right to independence, but it doesn't provide a legal framework for how independence is to be achieved.

They tried to throw off an evil central dictatorial power, and they failed.

The United States they rebelled against was possibly, except for slavery, the freest country in the world, and the regime they were going to establish would of necessity be more repressive than the one they were leaving.

Declaring everyone in a geographic area to be a "rebel" stripped of their constitutional rights, is denial of due process. There should have been a court hearing for every single person denied their constitutional rights. We know there were people in the Confederate states who opposed secession because not everyone voted for it. We also have the example of the "Free State of Jones" to show that not everyone supported the confederacy, yet these people lost their rights too.

Where are you getting your "facts" from anyway? There were Union supporters in the South who were not denied the right to vote. How could governments have been set up if all citizens in the rebel states were disenfranchised? The Reconstruction governments needed the votes of the Southern unionists. Southerners who could swear that they hadn't supported the rebellion were not denied the vote. Others could regain the vote after petitioning for a pardon and taking the oath of allegiance.

Different states had different laws. The federal government forbade former Confederate and secessionist state leaders from holding offices. Some states forbade Confederate officers, those who had committed atrocities, and guerrillas from voting. I don't see how a policy of allowing all rebel leaders to vote and hold office could possibly have been justified after four years of bloody war.

Here's the deal. You want to deny them their rights, strip them of their US citizenship. You want to use the claim that they are still American citizens to justify invading them, you have to preserve their rights as American citizens.

Even convicts, traitors, and seditionists are American citizens and have human rights. We don't allow them to vote though.

No doubt the Vichy style traitors did exactly what the invading dictatorship wanted. This is what Vichy traitors do.

Once again, that is an extreme view. Very few Americans would think that remaining loyal to the country and the flag is on par with supporting Hitler. That is your own intense identification with the slaveowners in evidence.

When the manipulated News came which didn't make it at all clear what had actually happened, people reacted predictably. The news should have been "Lincoln War Fleet sent to attack the South but was beaten to the punch!"

That is your view. It was not the view of people at the time. And stop to think: how is that less propagandistic and manipulative than what the actual headlines were? Your headline sounds like something a CNN anchor would have said during the Trump years.

The Northern states could have kept their Union together and went about their merry way, albeit having to pay four times the taxes they were accustomed to paying. (Which they ended up doing anyway after the South could no longer produce.)

Again, with the stupid tax lie. Please, take an economics course.