New Charlottesville 'white civil rights rally' in DC (Unite the Right 2)

[Brittain33]

My ancestors never had any economic benefits from slavery, hell, they lived rougher lives than most slaves did. They fought to defend their homeland against an invading army, and revisionist history will never change that fact.The South did not begin the war, and we will never be wrong for having wanted nothing more than self-determination and sovereignty.

I don't think any poverty that whites in the South experienced can be compared to being whipped, being raped by your owner, or having your wife or children sold, possibly thousands of miles away. In fact, it requires this soft dishonesty about how truly cruel life was for slaves to sustain the mythology of the Lost Cause.

[Cold War Liberal]

My ancestors fought to secure freedom and independence for their homeland, and to defend their homes and their families against hostile, pillaging invaders. They went through hell to do it.
They hardly had as much as two coins to rub together, asserting that they were fighting and sacrificing their lives "for money" or to defend some rich peoples' wealth is not so much laughable as it is a horrible distortion of the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your ancestors fought to keep millions of men, women and children in bondage, pain and suffering, for the economic benefit of the society in which they lived. I don't care what other excuses they had. Nothing justifies that. Their war, which they began, was unjust. And the biggest tragedy is that, for all the price in blood and death and pain that was paid, their descendents in blood or ideology did not learn that they were wrong.

My ancestors never had any economic benefits from slavery, hell, they lived rougher lives than most slaves did. They fought to defend their homeland against an invading army, and revisionist history will never change that fact.The South did not begin the war, and we will never be wrong for having wanted nothing more than self-determination and sovereignty.

Literally 0% of this comment is true.

- if they were white and existed in the south, or, hell, the north, or any country which bought goods such as cotton or tobacco from America, they benefited economically from slavery, even if indirectly
- as long as they were not enslaved, they did not live rougher lives than slaves. Period.
- the south threw a temper tantrum after Lincoln won and illegitimately seceded, then attacked the United States at Fort Sumter, which was a blatant act of war by P. G. T. Beauregard and the CSA
- y'all wanted self-determination and sovereignty because your major economic resource (black people's lives) was at risk of leaving your control
- y'all had no problem infringing on state's rights in 1857 when Dred Scott limited state's rights to provide refuge for slaves if they so choosed... Hmmm...

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

So yeah, the rally was a bust....



....Back to the debate at hand, I guess?

[Yellowhammer]

My ancestors fought to secure freedom and independence for their homeland, and to defend their homes and their families against hostile, pillaging invaders. They went through hell to do it.
They hardly had as much as two coins to rub together, asserting that they were fighting and sacrificing their lives "for money" or to defend some rich peoples' wealth is not so much laughable as it is a horrible distortion of the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your ancestors fought to keep millions of men, women and children in bondage, pain and suffering, for the economic benefit of the society in which they lived. I don't care what other excuses they had. Nothing justifies that. Their war, which they began, was unjust. And the biggest tragedy is that, for all the price in blood and death and pain that was paid, their descendents in blood or ideology did not learn that they were wrong.

My ancestors never had any economic benefits from slavery, hell, they lived rougher lives than most slaves did. They fought to defend their homeland against an invading army, and revisionist history will never change that fact.The South did not begin the war, and we will never be wrong for having wanted nothing more than self-determination and sovereignty.

Literally 0% of this comment is true.

- if they were white and existed in the south, or, hell, the north, or any country which bought goods such as cotton or tobacco from America, they benefited economically from slavery, even if indirectly
- as long as they were not enslaved, they did not live rougher lives than slaves. Period.
- the south threw a temper tantrum after Lincoln won and illegitimately seceded, then attacked the United States at Fort Sumter, which was a blatant act of war by P. G. T. Beauregard and the CSA
- y'all wanted self-determination and sovereignty because your major economic resource (black people's lives) was at risk of leaving your control
- y'all had no problem infringing on state's rights in 1857 when Dred Scott limited state's rights to provide refuge for slaves if they so choosed... Hmmm...

1) This is plainly false. Slavery was in no danger being outlawed at the time of secession, and was virtually guaranteed to continue for a long time to come. Abraham Lincoln was himself an ardent racist and a supporter of slavery. Slavery/abolition was never widely seen as a casus belli until Lincoln pulled it out of thin air in the form of the Emancipation Proclamation (which was nothing more than a tactic to frame a false narrative for the war in order to deter possible British intervention.)

The Civil War was always about the South seeking independence from a federal government that had little in common with its interests, was belligerent to its values including decentralized government and weak federal power, and that used the South’s commerce to extort funds to fill its coffers to the great detriment of the South.
While you can argue against the merits of the South’s secession (I believe that secession was a bad idea,) they had every right to leave a Union that they voluntarily joined. The South’s secession was no different than the secession of the 13 British colonies that came before them.

2) The Southern people did not decide Dred Scott, (which was a horrible decision,) the SCOTUS did, so don’t link the two when they are in fact unrelated.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

1) This is plainly false. Slavery was in no danger being outlawed at the time of secession, and was virtually guaranteed to continue for a long time to come. Abraham Lincoln was himself an ardent racist and a supporter of slavery. Slavery/abolition was never widely seen as a casus belli until Lincoln pulled it out of thin air in the form of the Emancipation Proclamation (which was nothing more than a tactic to frame a false narrative for the war in order to deter possible British intervention.)

Lmao what? Have you never read Lincoln's 'A House Divided' speech?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The slaveholding states seceded because more and more free states were being added to the union and they would soon be an outnumbered minority. The election of the Republican party was the election of a party determined to put slavery on the course of eventual abolition.

The Civil War was always about the South seeking independence from a federal government that had little in common with its interests, was belligerent to its values including decentralized government and weak federal power, and that used the South’s commerce to extort funds to fill its coffers to the great detriment of the South.

If the South believed in weak federal power, why did they support the passage of the most intrusive extension of federal power overriding state laws of the antebellum era, the Fugitive Slave Act?
If the South believed in states rights, why did Southerners invade Kansas from Missouri in an attempt to turn it into a slave state against the wishes of the majority of Kansans? Why did the southern Democratic party attempt to jam through a pro-slavery constitution against the wishes of the state?
If the South was against federal interference, why did the five southern justices on the SCOTUS give the Dred Scott decision, the worst instance of activist judiciary in US history?

Hmm, it's almost as if the slaveholding South was in favour of federal power when they controlled it, and made up 'states rights' when they lost control of the federal government.

[7,052,770]

Read the Secession Ordinances and try to say it wasn't about slavery.

[Mopsus]

Oh for God's sake just stop. Seriously, every one of your Confederate sucking up posts is proving the point of every other individual with Common Sense on this thread.

There is literally far too much inaccurate information, not to mention raw unadulterated stupidity, in your line of posts. I don't have time to take off of work tomorrow to answer them all, so please just go suck on a tide pod and stop posting your recycled moron fodder talking points.

But to summarize, the North won, slavery was abolished, and the UNITED S of A preserved. Score one for the good guys, no matter how many butt hurt Southerners want to rewrite history.

"But to summarize, the North won, slavery was abolished, and the UNITED S of A preserved. Score one for the good guys, no matter how many butt hurt Southerners want to rewrite history. America, love it or leave it!

"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to the ol' grind. The wife (and the wife's son) aren't going to support themselves!"

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

My ancestors fought to secure freedom and independence for their homeland, and to defend their homes and their families against hostile, pillaging invaders. They went through hell to do it.
They hardly had as much as two coins to rub together, asserting that they were fighting and sacrificing their lives "for money" or to defend some rich peoples' wealth is not so much laughable as it is a horrible distortion of the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your ancestors fought to keep millions of men, women and children in bondage, pain and suffering, for the economic benefit of the society in which they lived. I don't care what other excuses they had. Nothing justifies that. Their war, which they began, was unjust. And the biggest tragedy is that, for all the price in blood and death and pain that was paid, their descendents in blood or ideology did not learn that they were wrong.

My ancestors never had any economic benefits from slavery, hell, they lived rougher lives than most slaves did. They fought to defend their homeland against an invading army, and revisionist history will never change that fact.The South did not begin the war, and we will never be wrong for having wanted nothing more than self-determination and sovereignty.

The residents of Winston County, AL (aka "The Republic of Winston) may disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

The atlas deranged right has reached a new low: "my ancestors had it worse than slaves"

Sureeee Jan

[AtorBoltox]

The federal government needs to take over the education system in the south if this thread is any indication. What the hell are they teaching down there?

[Progressive Pessimist]

The federal government needs to take over the education system in the south if this thread is any indication. What the hell are they teaching down there?

They're teaching about "The War of Northern Aggression."

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

From Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The crushing defeat of the Confederacy was a Judgement of God against a Cruel People whose hearts had hardened against not only to their fellow countrymen (let alone the human beings they enslaved, or whose slavery they sanctioned), but against God, Himself; they would not be shown their sin, even as they prayed and even as they searched the Scriptures.

I go back and forth on the issue of Confederate monuments, but, honestly, their existence rises to the level of rebellion against the True and Righteous Judgement of the Lord, Himself.

[Badger]

Oh for God's sake just stop. Seriously, every one of your Confederate sucking up posts is proving the point of every other individual with Common Sense on this thread.

There is literally far too much inaccurate information, not to mention raw unadulterated stupidity, in your line of posts. I don't have time to take off of work tomorrow to answer them all, so please just go suck on a tide pod and stop posting your recycled moron fodder talking points.

But to summarize, the North won, slavery was abolished, and the UNITED S of A preserved. Score one for the good guys, no matter how many butt hurt Southerners want to rewrite history.

"But to summarize, the North won, slavery was abolished, and the UNITED S of A preserved. Score one for the good guys, no matter how many butt hurt Southerners want to rewrite history. America, love it or leave it!

"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to the ol' grind. The wife (and the wife's son) aren't going to support themselves!"

Worst. Comeback. Ever.

I accept your abject and humiliating surrender, here at this grand new Appomattox.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The atlas deranged right has reached a new low: "my ancestors had it worse than slaves"

Sureeee Jan

The life of non-slaveowning whites in the antebellum South was an extremely hard life.  Those people were dirt poor, ekeing out subsistance livings.

The question I would have for my friend, Yellowhammer is this:  Would you prefer to be in a minimum security prison (say, a work release center, where there were even occasional weekend furloughs) or would you prefer to be homeless?

I vote "homeless", where my life is still my own.  Inmates are slaves, no matter the comfort of their confinement; their lives are not their own.  What say you?

[Karpatsky]

The question I would have for my friend, Yellowhammer is this:  Would you prefer to be in a minimum security prison (say, a work release center, where there were even occasional weekend furloughs) or would you prefer to be homeless?

Right, minimum security and weekend furloughs. Don't mind the chains, whips, and rapes.

You all need to get it together. The suffering of poor Southern whites isn't special or deserving of the martyrdom you would like to give it to minimize the suffering of chattel slaves. It sucks to be a poor person in the 19th century. That's not up for debate. But it has no bearing on the incredible inhumanity perpetrated by the Southern aristocratic class and defended by force by the oh-so-oppressed poor Southern white.

[ProudModerate2]

The atlas deranged right has reached a new low: "my ancestors had it worse than slaves"
Sureeee Jan

Our pro-Confederate Atlas member from Alabama has lost his mind.

[fhtagn]

The atlas deranged right has reached a new low: "my ancestors had it worse than slaves"
Sureeee Jan

Our pro-Confederate Atlas member from Alabama has lost his mind.

Unlike you, at least he can say he has one.

[Fight for Trump]

I love ProudModerate2.

[IndustrialJustice]

The atlas deranged right has reached a new low: "my ancestors had it worse than slaves"

Sureeee Jan

Interesting position for a guy rocking a Don't Tread On Me flag in his signature line to take. Muh freedom?

[Mopsus]

Worst. Comeback. Ever.

I accept your abject and humiliating surrender, here at this grand new Appomattox.

It’s a meme, old man. I didn’t expect you to understand.

[DavidB.]

Oh for God's sake just stop. Seriously, every one of your Confederate sucking up posts is proving the point of every other individual with Common Sense on this thread.

There is literally far too much inaccurate information, not to mention raw unadulterated stupidity, in your line of posts. I don't have time to take off of work tomorrow to answer them all, so please just go suck on a tide pod and stop posting your recycled moron fodder talking points.

But to summarize, the North won, slavery was abolished, and the UNITED S of A preserved. Score one for the good guys, no matter how many butt hurt Southerners want to rewrite history.

"But to summarize, the North won, slavery was abolished, and the UNITED S of A preserved. Score one for the good guys, no matter how many butt hurt Southerners want to rewrite history. America, love it or leave it!

"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to the ol' grind. The wife (and the wife's son) aren't going to support themselves!"

LOL

[GoTfan]

My ancestors fought to secure freedom and independence for their homeland, and to defend their homes and their families against hostile, pillaging invaders. They went through hell to do it.
They hardly had as much as two coins to rub together, asserting that they were fighting and sacrificing their lives "for money" or to defend some rich peoples' wealth is not so much laughable as it is a horrible distortion of the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your ancestors fought to keep millions of men, women and children in bondage, pain and suffering, for the economic benefit of the society in which they lived. I don't care what other excuses they had. Nothing justifies that. Their war, which they began, was unjust. And the biggest tragedy is that, for all the price in blood and death and pain that was paid, their descendents in blood or ideology did not learn that they were wrong.

My ancestors never had any economic benefits from slavery, hell, they lived rougher lives than most slaves did. They fought to defend their homeland against an invading army, and revisionist history will never change that fact.The South did not begin the war, and we will never be wrong for having wanted nothing more than self-determination and sovereignty.

THis ignores the basic realities of the situation in the South in the run-up to the Civil War.

Most Southerners beleived they would be one day rich enough to own slaves, particularly if they won. Not to mention that the Southern elite kept playing up the fear of an African-American uprising and the idea that all slaves were savages who needed to be civilised.

And yes, the South very clearly started the whole thing.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The question I would have for my friend, Yellowhammer is this:  Would you prefer to be in a minimum security prison (say, a work release center, where there were even occasional weekend furloughs) or would you prefer to be homeless?

Right, minimum security and weekend furloughs. Don't mind the chains, whips, and rapes.

You all need to get it together. The suffering of poor Southern whites isn't special or deserving of the martyrdom you would like to give it to minimize the suffering of chattel slaves. It sucks to be a poor person in the 19th century. That's not up for debate. But it has no bearing on the incredible inhumanity perpetrated by the Southern aristocratic class and defended by force by the oh-so-oppressed poor Southern white.

I will agree to that, but the poverty of Southern whites who didn't own land was pretty harsh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Southern Politics, V. O. Key, in the chapter on Louisiana, discussed the issue of "Why a Huey Long?".  He referenced Long's Evangeline Oak speech and noted that the harshness and cruelty of the poverty of poor Louisianans was, indeed, harsher than most.  This is not to equate their poverty with the harshness of slavery.  But the poverty of the poor Southern white person has never received the kind of sympathy that other poor folks in other parts of the world, or even of America, have received.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5105/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FDR did not minimize the poverty of the South, white and black.  Why should folks on Atlas?  Is that a liberal or progressive thing to do?

[Karpatsky]

FDR did not minimize the poverty of the South, white and black.  Why should folks on Atlas?  Is that a liberal or progressive thing to do?

No one is 'minimizing' the poverty of the South; rather, they are objecting to it being used to deflect from the issue at hand, which is the gross human rights violation of Southern slavery.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

FDR did not minimize the poverty of the South, white and black.  Why should folks on Atlas?  Is that a liberal or progressive thing to do?

No one is 'minimizing' the poverty of the South; rather, they are objecting to it being used to deflect from the issue at hand, which is the gross human rights violation of Southern slavery.

I get that, but slavery ended in 1865.  The crushing poverty endured by persons of both races in the South continued well into the 20th century.