21 Jan 2020, 4:28 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
General Lee was a hero against the North's war of aggression. Only fantasist liberals just see race everywhere cause they are the real racists.
Historical fact 1 - The primary catalyst for secession was slavery, most immediately the political battle over the right of Southerners to bring slavery into western territory that had hitherto been free under the terms of the Missouri Compromise or while part of Mexico. Another factor for secession and the formation of the Confederacy, was white Southern nationalism which was seperate to the union "American nationalism". Almost all historians agree on this
Historical Fact 2 -The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861.
Every recognised historian in the US agrees race was the primary factor in the south wanting secession and that the confederates were the instigators who started the war. General Lee was therefore both a white nationalist and a traitor
It isn't politically correct to mention actual facts about the War of Southern Treachery. You're supposed to peddle the politically correct Lost Cause BS.
Ironically calling people traitors cause they refused to be bullied by the more powerful force via economic sanctions sure seems a bit Nazish
You can trot out whatever twisted logic you'd like to defend the south's war to defend the institution of slavery, it won't change what you're defending.
Where did I defend slavery?
I see you're still struggling to comprehend what you read. I never accused you of defending slavery.
Let's try reading it slowly:
You can trot out whatever twisted logic you'd like to defend the south's war to defend the institution of slavery, it won't change what you're defending.
What you've been accused of defending is the War of Southern Treachery, which was fought for the sole purpose of defending the institution of slavery upon which the south's economy was dependent.
You can lie about the south's motives all you like, but it won't alter their own words in their letters of secession.
Everything you have said is based on the lie that the war was about slavery and the South were traitors.
21 Jan 2020, 4:28 pm
21 Jan 2020, 4:32 pm
cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
'There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas"
They were so racist they didn't want black people to even exist in the new states. Lincoln tried to re settle freed slaves outside of the United states.
They were so racist they didn't want black people to even exist in the new states. Lincoln tried to re settle freed slaves outside of the United states.
And of course southerners loved blacks
There is an irony in your invoking Lincoln's speeches because it gets to the heart of what I have said for a long time that unconcious bias in most of the population against black Americans has developed over centuries which is why even liberals like Lyndon B Johnson revealed serious bias himself when using language to describe black voters. There is nothing surprising here in what Lincoln thought, he was a product of his time.
It does not absolve the south or general Lee and the fundemental reasons they had for wanting to continue indenture and servitude. The economic reliance of southern land owners on slavery has always been the root of their secession ,movement. You are going against historical consensus.
More strawman. Everyone pretty much was racist then. The only problem is people like you have shown that same kind of racism towards Arabs now days. You've not learned much.
Yeah like there's a consensus that the war in Afghanistan was for women's rights, Iraq to save Kurds, Kosovo cause of 'genocide', Libya cause of viagra, Syria cause of gas attacks.. blah blah. There's always a sugar coated, mindless slogan tripe reasons given for war cause the real reasons don't paint the "right" picture. Just debunked all of your tripe.
21 Jan 2020, 4:42 pm
21 Jan 2020, 4:52 pm
cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yeah like there's a consensus that the war in Afghanistan was for women's rights, Iraq to save Kurds, Kosovo cause of 'genocide', Libya cause of viagra, Syria cause of gas attacks.. blah blah. There's always a sugar coated, mindless slogan tripe reasons given for war cause the real reasons don't paint the "right" picture. Just debunked all of your tripe.
When you go against academic consensus the burden of proof is on you not me. As per occams razor you therefore can't can't debunk what is commonly agreed upon. Debunking works the other way around where I can debunk your argument based on agreed evidence whereas you are drawing upon largely fringe/anecdotal information to struggle to make a case that is seen as "alternative":.
I say the sky is brown, it's your job to prove me wrong, CD
21 Jan 2020, 4:57 pm
Bravo5150 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yeah like there's a consensus that the war in Afghanistan was for women's rights, Iraq to save Kurds, Kosovo cause of 'genocide', Libya cause of viagra, Syria cause of gas attacks.. blah blah. There's always a sugar coated, mindless slogan tripe reasons given for war cause the real reasons don't paint the "right" picture. Just debunked all of your tripe.
When you go against academic consensus the burden of proof is on you not me. As per occams razor you therefore can't can't debunk what is commonly agreed upon. Debunking works the other way around where I can debunk your argument based on agreed evidence whereas you are drawing upon largely fringe/anecdotal information to struggle to make a case that is seen as "alternative":.
I say the sky is brown, it's your job to prove me wrong, CD
That's not how scientific proof works
21 Jan 2020, 4:59 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Bravo5150 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yeah like there's a consensus that the war in Afghanistan was for women's rights, Iraq to save Kurds, Kosovo cause of 'genocide', Libya cause of viagra, Syria cause of gas attacks.. blah blah. There's always a sugar coated, mindless slogan tripe reasons given for war cause the real reasons don't paint the "right" picture. Just debunked all of your tripe.
When you go against academic consensus the burden of proof is on you not me. As per occams razor you therefore can't can't debunk what is commonly agreed upon. Debunking works the other way around where I can debunk your argument based on agreed evidence whereas you are drawing upon largely fringe/anecdotal information to struggle to make a case that is seen as "alternative":.
I say the sky is brown, it's your job to prove me wrong, CD
That's not how scientific proof works
Didn't you get the
at the end of my comment? I was making a joke out of your buddy's comments to you.
21 Jan 2020, 5:33 pm
Ok
21 Jan 2020, 10:11 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The Dukes of Hazzard was comedy so the boys get a free pass calling their classic car the "General Lee"
There is also a cucumber variety called General Lee.
https://www.johnnyseeds.com/vegetables/ ... -2417.html
Can a cuke be racist?
Not if it's thoroughly BBQd
What kind of effect would pickling have?
21 Jan 2020, 10:24 pm
22 Jan 2020, 1:43 am
24 Jan 2020, 8:53 pm
27 Jan 2020, 12:39 am
27 Jan 2020, 1:41 am
27 Jan 2020, 1:50 am
27 Jan 2020, 2:14 am
