All Things Doug Phillips & VF, Including Lourdes's Lawsuit

[formergothardite]

The problem is, nothing we say matters because CnD thinks the South was in the right and the North was in the wrong because they should have not fought to preserve the Union.

Honestly, if my state decides to form it's own country and enslave all the atheist I really hope somebody wages a war against it.

[CloakNDagger]

So that is why you blame the North. You think the South was in the right to be able to start their own country and keep people enslaved.

I divide the two things you combined. I think that the South had the legal / basic right to leave, they were morally wrong for WHY they wanted to leave based on my current assumption that it WAS about slavery.

This is why you continue to blame the North for all the blood shed while ignoring that the South was drenched in blood, because in your eyes the South should have been able to do this. It makes sense now.

It takes two sides to fight, but the North did intend to invade. And yeah, I do blame them for that because two wrongs a right do not make. We don't murder people to keep them from mistreating employees in a labor situation or shoot shoplifters.

It wasn't the North's job to "fix" the South's racism. It was the South's job. They failed miserably because they simply didn't want to do so. Until they wanted to do so, nothing the North did could have changed them. Letting them start their own country where they got to continue slavery without much of a fight would have done nothing to encourage that change. Most likely people in the North would have gotten tired of paying more for things from the South, they would have voted in politicians who would have gotten rid of the high tariffs on slave made products and slavery would have been just an accepted way to get cheap products, much like it is today. When the labor unions in the North started demanding fair treatment, the factories that could move probably would have moved to the South so that they wouldn't have to deal with that. They could work slave children all day in the factories and if they protested they could just beat them into submission. But just letting them go and not trying to preserve the Union and make slavery illegal would have not helped end the underlying racism. You are living in a dream world if you think it would have.

Again, that's where I see the hypocrisy. I think it was both sides problem. New England was a HUGE part of the slave trade and there were still slaves in the North. The fugitive slave laws worked exactly because there WERE lines of jurisdiction between states and states including the Northern States had, and should have had the right to make laws for their territory as long as they were just laws. Everyone knows that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Southern slaves. Except for the Abolitionists, those in leadership in the North didn't really want to change the South because they were so charitable and kind to blacks, it was about the economics and power in addition to the slavery issue. It never appears to me to have really been about taking the moral high ground and working on the root of the problem.

[CloakNDagger]

CnD this is for you :D have fun!

The Bible Against Slavery uses the differences between the context of ancient Israel and the context of then modern-day America to denounce the practice of slavery. Through passages from the Bible and much comparison to the Canaanites, Weld argues the politics of religion in the direction of Abolition.

Read book here

Source: deila.dickinson.edu/slaveryandabolition/title/0182.html

That looks fun and I will be reading it.

[formergothardite]

I never claimed that the North's goal was to work on racism. Their goal was to preserve the Union. By doing so they would have ended slavery in the South. The North my have been hypocritical and had political reasons for war, but at least they weren't forming a country where the cornerstone was the black people were inferior and should always be enslaved. That gives them the moral high ground. Why doesn't it in your mind?

Why do you feel like it is the North's responsibility to change the South's views on race and slavery?

[snarkopolis]

Why are you all even bothering? It is clear that CnD will never admit that slavery could have only been eliminated in the US with a war. He talks about a lot of things which make no difference in the issue (for those of us educated in a real school not the SODRT).

CnD, your arguments are the product of a subpar education coupled with a lack of real critical thinking and no knowledge of real world (USA) society.

The Civil War was about the right to own slaves and to extend "the peculiar institution" west. Wealthy southerners who owned slaves used the big bad federal government argument to con sway the masses (southern males who were poor and didn't own slaves) to their point of view.

To ignore the underlying principle of slavery--that by virtue of the color of a person's skin they are not a "real person" and that there were/are many people who wholeheartedly embraced and espoused this idea and made millions of dollars off of it and would fight to keep slavery shows your lack of real world perspective.

The celebration of the Antebellum South is a celebration of what? That some white people were able to kidnap, rape, sell and abuse other people(s) whose melanin content is greater than theirs? That they profited greatly off the free enslaved labor of those people(s)? That they did no work and yet extoll themselves as hardworking and their workers as shiftless and lazy?

These themes exist today as well. If you had grown up IN the society in which the rest of us have lived you might understand the nuance of this. However your background prevents you from even considering this view and that is why you have determined to defend the "peculiar institution" by complaining about the loss of life of the soldiers who fought in the Civil War and the economic cost. I mourn not for them but for the millions of Africans kidnapped from their homes and families and for those who did not survive the "Middle Passage" ( a term you might want to look up) to the New World. That is a human cost to the African Diaspora that can never be repaid.

[milkncookies76]

I don't have one. So only PHD's have there right to discuss this? I mean, I have found this a productive learning experience. I DID grow up in this culture you know.

First off, it took waay more than 5 years to change people's minds, but it took 4 years to fight the war, so 5-10 years is probably not seriously more hardship than it already was. Economically, you have a chance to make a transition and try to change the hearts and minds in the process.

The alternative is to dump them out on the streets in a hostile environment where people still think them inferior?

Well, you're CLEARLY soooooooo much smarter and well-informed then all the history professors who disagree with you, so of course you MUST be an expert. :angry-banghead:

Yeah, just one to six more years of hell in earth. Such a tiny difference. And do you have any proof that your plan would actually work?

And your plan would fix the problem of racism how?

[milkncookies76]

I divide the two things you combined. I think that the South had the legal / basic right to leave, they were morally wrong for WHY they wanted to leave based on my current assumption that it WAS about slavery.

It takes two sides to fight, but the North did intend to invade. And yeah, I do blame them for that because two wrongs a right do not make. We don't murder people to keep them from mistreating employees in a labor situation or shoot shoplifters.

Again, that's where I see the hypocrisy. I think it was both sides problem. New England was a HUGE part of the slave trade and there were still slaves in the North. The fugitive slave laws worked exactly because there WERE lines of jurisdiction between states and states including the Northern States had, and should have had the right to make laws for their territory as long as they were just laws. Everyone knows that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Southern slaves. Except for the Abolitionists, those in leadership in the North didn't really want to change the South because they were so charitable and kind to blacks, it was about the economics and power in addition to the slavery issue. It never appears to me to have really been about taking the moral high ground and working on the root of the problem.

Are you out of your fucking mind?!?!? :pull-hair:

Do you really think that shoplifting and the American slave trade are even REMOTELY fucking similar?

[formergothardite]

If the North had tried to change the hearts and minds of the South they would have still seceded because they didn't want to have their hearts and minds changed, they wanted to keep slaves. And once they seceded, according to CnD, the United States shouldn't fight for the freedom of the slaves or the preservation of the Union, they should just let them go. He seemed to agree with me that the high tariffs would have only been a temporary measure because the North would have eventually wanted cheap Southern goods and voted in ways to end them while turning a blind eye to the slavery that produced them, so that "solution" wouldn't have worked to end slavery. He also didn't seem to disagree that when the Northern labor unions started fighting for fair treatment the factories that could have moved would have moved to the South so they wouldn't have to deal with workers who make demands from them. So his solutions seem to have soldiers not die, but end up prolonging slavery for who knows how long.

A fight was needed to end slavery in the South. I really want to know why CnD thinks that it wasn't.

To act like this is like murdering people for not treating their employees nicely really downplays the atrocities of slavery. They weren't employees, they were slaves.

[TheSassyOne]

Where does the idea of the Civil War being fought to end racism come from? It seems as though CnD doesn't really have a valid counter argument for the factual information he's been given by FJ. Also, let's say his theory is correct: the one that we shouldn't have had a war because it didn't end racism and the North should have waited 5 to 10 years to allow slave owners to "right" this immoral practice.

So, in that vein, my parents who worked tirelessly during the '60s for civil rights were dumb because look here in 2014 there are still attempts to deny minorities the right to vote. Why should they have walked and protested [including just missing, thank the good Lord, being rounded up like cattle as other protesters were and beaten, shocked with cattle prods and actually "jailed" in cattle containers] because 50 years there is still discrimination against voters [mainly in the South, my my my].

My poor poor parents...they didn't have enough sense according to the Fundies to know their place because racism still exists today./sarcasm

Let me tell a little story. I was friends with someone about 15 years ago. We were out to lunch and somehow the conversation turned to the Old South. Her comment to me was "oh don't you wish we lived in the Antebellum South. Everything was so beautiful and life was so simple yet fun." I actually waited a full minute for her to start laughing at her own ridiculous comment. She didn't and instead I politely informed her that if I lived then I would not have been allowed to be the college educated teacher that I am today. She thought about it and I thought I saw the "aha" moment in her eyes. I did, but not what I was expecting. She told me it wouldn't be a problem because she would BUY ME...yeah buy me and let me live in her household. She didn't understand when I cut lunch short and ended that friendship. Of course when I saw she was supporting David Duke for political office, I realized she could never be a true friend to me.

I tell this story because I believe it illustrates another area where CnD is wrong. He says those who fought but had no slaves did so because of this flimsy "states rights" argument. No, they didn't own slaves but they still had that sense of entitlement. The were not wealthy, probably never would be; but in their minds they weren't low, like blacks. I see the same in the world today. It's just today, thankfully, people who have racist views don't mind sharing them because of course they're not at all racist - see ol Clive, or most of the conservative right who come up with every reason under the sun to demean the President. I told a few colleagues at my school, just go ahead and say you can't stand a black man being the leader of the free world, it will make you feel better to get it off our chest. Oops, maybe I should have followed Cnd's logic and given them another 5-10 years to come clean.

BTW, I realize discrimination/racism brushes all types of people. I used the examples I did because the discussion concerns the CW and attitudes that are still resonant today.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

Again, that's where I see the hypocrisy. I think it was both sides problem. New England was a HUGE part of the slave trade and there were still slaves in the North. The fugitive slave laws worked exactly because there WERE lines of jurisdiction between states and states including the Northern States had, and should have had the right to make laws for their territory as long as they were just laws. Everyone knows that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Southern slaves. Except for the Abolitionists, those in leadership in the North didn't really want to change the South because they were so charitable and kind to blacks, it was about the economics and power in addition to the slavery issue. It never appears to me to have really been about taking the moral high ground and working on the root of the problem.

The root of the problem is that some people enslaved others. That's inhumane and disgusting, no matter how you twist it. The mere fact that you seem okay with the concept of owning someone else is revolting.

[mausi]

It takes two sides to fight, but the North did intend to invade. And yeah, I do blame them for that because two wrongs a right do not make. We don't murder people to keep them from mistreating employees in a labor situation or shoot shoplifters.

Wait. What?

Bless your heart.

[ViolaSebastian]

It takes two sides to fight, but the North did intend to invade. And yeah, I do blame them for that because two wrongs a right do not make. We don't murder people to keep them from mistreating employees in a labor situation or shoot shoplifters.

Alright, I was staying out of this, but this just made me shake my head in wonderment. I majored in history for my first degree and concentrated on African-American history. Frankly, trying to equate the institution of slavery with poor labor practices is utterly ridiculous. There is a world of difference between mistreating employees (which, it should be noted, that in this day and age employees have some ability to lodge complaints with the government and sue for mistreatment) and the OWNERSHIP of a human being. Under the system of slavery, women were raped because it made economic sense for them to reproduce, men were castrated for running away, and children were separated from their parents so that their owners could make money--among many other disgusting practices that I won't even get into. Their bodies, lives, and labor were owned by another person. You simply cannot equate the two.

Now, that being said, I don't think that anyone here is saying that the North is blameless in the context of slavery. For example, the 3/5ths compromise was actually pushed by the north. The north didn't want the slaves in the south (where they were more numerous) to count towards the total that determined representation. By counting less population, the south was entitled to less representation under the government--the south actually pushed to count slaves as a whole person. (Not that they believed African-Americans were entitled to the same rights, quite the contrary, but more people=more representation under our system of government). Racism absolutely existed in the north as well as the south (and sadly, still does) and life was not easy by any means for free blacks living the north. It should be noted, though, that one of the greatest fears of blacks in the north was being kidnapped and sold into slavery in the south, which occurred with disturbing frequency. (I think someone along the line mentioned '12 Years a Slave' and I cannot recommend that film and book enough. It's one of the most realistic and searing movies about slavery that I have ever experienced. I wish I could make every person in American watch it.) It was really picking the lesser of two evils--and in this case, the north was considerably more friendly to live in than the south. It wasn't even a close choice.

If anyone is interested in learning about slavery in the north, I can't recommend Joanne Pope Melish's Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and "Race" in New England 1780-1860 more highly. Plus, Joanne is a great lady and deserves any royalties she can get. (Shameless plug over :D )

It should be noted that the population of both the north and the south realized quite early on that things were going to get bloody over the institution of slavery and that it was only a matter of time. You only need to look to the acquisition of Texas in 1845 and the brouhaha that took place deciding whether or not to extend slavery in that state. The issues of slavery collapsed political parties like the Whigs and the Know-Nothings and split the Democratic party right down the middle. Skirmishes such as the infamous 'Bleeding Kansas' took place in the 1850s--over what? The expansion of slavery into Kansas. Heck, I think an argument can be made that people knew the civil war was going to happen as early as the 1820s with the Missouri Compromise and the Nullification Crisis. Lincoln NEVER stated that he would repeal slavery; it was enough for the south that he wanted to prevent its expansion westward. But this train started down the tracks long, long before Abraham Lincoln ever became a household name.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson predicted the direction the country was headed in terms of federalism, westward settlement, and slavery:

“This momentous question,

like a fire bell in the night,

awakened and filled one with terror,

I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.

It is hushed indeed for the moment.

but this is a reprieve only,

not a final sentence . . .

we have the wolf by the ears

and we can neither hold him

nor safely let him go.â€

I live in the south and I hear the 'states' rights' line all the time. I like to reply with 'Yeah, the states' rights to do WHAT exactly?'

[RosyDaisy]

Excuse me, CnD, but the north didn't fire the first shot. It was the south at Fort Sumter, SC on April 12, 1861. The north was not the aggressor. Again, sit your fundie ass down and read an actual history book and the many highly educated posts in the forum on the subject.

[julie paradox]

I'd REALLY like to know why the people who were so worried over the 3/5 issue didn't just say ok, we'll make representation dependent on the size of the electorate.

[formergothardite]

CnD, do you think the rights of the state to secede and form their own slave based country trumps the rights of black people to not be slaves?

I'm curious why the blood spilt during a four year battle to save the Union and ultimately end slavery bothers you more than the blood spilt on slave plantations in the hypothetical 5-10 years that you think it would take to end slavery with no war.

[Artemis]

Can't quote on this new template but

Excuse me CND . . .

"I reach out to England to convince them to take the moral high ground and encourage the end of it as well."

Umm, sorry, but Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, and abolished slavery in 1833.

Clearly, you don't know much about history . . . . a quick Google even of despised Wikipedia would have shown you this!

[formergothardite]

Can't quote on this new template but

Excuse me CND . . .

"I reach out to England to convince them to take the moral high ground and encourage the end of it as well."

Umm, sorry, but Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, and abolished slavery in 1833.

Clearly, you don't know much about history . . . . a quick Google even of despised Wikipedia would have shown you this!

I think he was trying to say that Britain should encourage the South to end slavery. CnD's belief system appears to be that the South was in the right when it came to seceding and that the North should have accepted them as a new country based around slavery and then tried other means to encourage slavery to end including getting Britain to ask them nicely to no longer keep slaves. I don't think this would have worked and slavery would have continued on for a very, very long time with slave produced items just becoming an accepted part of life.

[Coco]

I'd REALLY like to know why the people who were so worried over the 3/5 issue didn't just say ok, we'll make representation dependent on the size of the electorate.

That voter representation problem brings up the whole culture of plantation owners. Many whites in the slave economy believed that a black person was not a full human being. They truly believed that blacks were less capable of intelligent thought and learning than whites. "Just intelligent oxen" It is horrible and evil what whites in the slavery economy believed. The attitude is alive and well TODAY in the condescending things said by Cliven Bundy.

Thinking that blacks were less than human is the only way that they could justify their treatment of the slaves: Beatings, breaking apart families, rapes... The slave owners had to believe lies about humanity just to stay sane, and even so many did turn into evil monsters. The mental disconnect that the white women went through, to turn off natural sympathy, had to be staggering. You still see it TODAY in the way society women will treat people they see as white trash or lesser-thans. And yet, they had mammies for their children, who actually breastfed their children! What was their line of thought when they handed their baby off to the mammy? A semi-intelligent milkcow? How could they think these things?

Maybe some of them just went along with things because it was the way society functioned, but there had to be intelligent women who suffered intensely to submit to the things their fathers, brothers, and sons did. I remember reading a book as a child about a house servant boy and crying when he longed to take blankets out of the closet to his siblings who were cold and sick in the shack. Treated no better than dogs.

If you watch the old Little Rascals movies this comes across in the way the black children are portrayed: dumb and wide eyed and falling into trouble just like an animal would. That old stupid Moteasuh Tribe joke is still going around the south.

Racism is a deep and terrible evil. There was no way to cut that cancer from society without bloodshed. The politics of slavery, the economics, the ingrained thought patterns... no way that was going to be a tame conversion over 5 or 10 years. :evil:

We don't understand the thought process completely, or understand how they could actually think some people were less than human because of skin color, because we have been raised on the equalizing influence of Oprah, The Cosby Show, Sesame Street, Fresh Prince, and just being around friends of other races in modern American culture. This is where fundies get themselves into trouble by not mingling with others who are different. They start trying to justify the lies of the past.

[Othello]

What's scary is that, while we see racism in action a lot in the U.S. (stereotypes to the extreme, mistreatment of others believed to be "less-than", the fact that yes, probably the majority of white suburbanites – whether they'd admit it or not – would cross the street if they were walking alone and saw a young black guy on their side of the street), it can be even worse in Europe. Chanting at and throwing bananas at black athletes is a common occurrence, as well as a lot of racial violence. It's not confined to white vs. black either – we're not far removed from the Yugoslav wars, after all, filled with horrible atrocities and ethnic bloodthirst despite the fact that most people around the world couldn't tell a Serb from a Bosniak from a Croat.

I think it's arguable that, while it's been a long process and there's still a long way to go, the Civil War was a factor in helping the USA actually make more progress in this area than many European and Euro-diaspora nations.

[Coco]

Yes. and forgot to add: these men actually went to auctions to bid on other human beings like mere cattle, examining their muscles and teeth...

i've been auctioned off for a fundraiser (some youth leader's dumb idea) and it was a horrible, shameful feeling to experience.

[ViolaSebastian]

I'd REALLY like to know why the people who were so worried over the 3/5 issue didn't just say ok, we'll make representation dependent on the size of the electorate.

Long story short, population was also tied into taxes. Under the system they were proposing, the number of inhabitants of a state was tied into how that state was taxed. The delegates from states with a large slave population wanted to have their slave populations counted in representation, but since they counted them as property if taxation was based on population. States with smaller slave populations wanted the opposite--people if taxation was based on population, property when determining representation. In other words, the north didn't want to lose representation to the south, but were also anxious to decrease their tax burden.

[ViolaSebastian]

I think he was trying to say that Britain should encourage the South to end slavery. CnD's belief system appears to be that the South was in the right when it came to seceding and that the North should have accepted them as a new country based around slavery and then tried other means to encourage slavery to end including getting Britain to ask them nicely to no longer keep slaves. I don't think this would have worked and slavery would have continued on for a very, very long time with slave produced items just becoming an accepted part of life.

Nope, it wasn't going to happen. While British commoners were in support of abolition in the United States, but the elite, upper-crust (who made the decisions about going to war and which side to supply) had considerable economic interest in continuing slavery here, for, among other things, the production of cotton for their mills. Britain is actually responsible for dragging the war along for as long as it did--no one thought the civil war was going to last four gruesome, horrible years. They supplied firearms, ammunition, ships--all those industrial things that the south couldn't produce. So there was no looking to them for the moral high ground, here.

After slavery collapsed in the south, Britain turned it's attention to another cotton-producing country: India. And things didn't go well there, either. In this case, it really was all about the Benjamins.

[samurai_sarah]

What's scary is that, while we see racism in action a lot in the U.S. (stereotypes to the extreme, mistreatment of others believed to be "less-than", the fact that yes, probably the majority of white suburbanites – whether they'd admit it or not – would cross the street if they were walking alone and saw a young black guy on their side of the street), it can be even worse in Europe. Chanting at and throwing bananas at black athletes is a common occurrence, as well as a lot of racial violence. It's not confined to white vs. black either – we're not far removed from the Yugoslav wars, after all, filled with horrible atrocities and ethnic bloodthirst despite the fact that most people around the world couldn't tell a Serb from a Bosniak from a Croat.

I think it's arguable that, while it's been a long process and there's still a long way to go, the Civil War was a factor in helping the USA actually make more progress in this area than many European and Euro-diaspora nations.

You're right. Racism in Europe is nasty. And just as disgusting as anywhere else.

[Othello]

You're right. Racism in Europe is nasty. And just as disgusting as anywhere else.

I think it's easy to see the problems around us, get frustrated, and view Europe as a social paradise, or go all "MURICA" and decry the rest of the world as inferior – but neither way fixes the issues at hand! I've met a lot of people that do one or the other... but the only way is to address the issues head on, deliberately and logically, and of course do what we can to handle things uprightly and justly toward all people, whether of a different gender, skin tone, nationality, you name it.

[snarkopolis]

CnD today is Juneteenth Day. Educate yourself about "this peculiar institution", and this holiday.