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

[CloakNDagger]

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

Um, a lot of people I grew up around celebrated it. I'm quite familiar with it, thank you, and I'm not a racist. Many of the people around me, unlike what Othello said, would NOT go to the other side of the street if a single young black guy was walking down the street. We'd just as likely as not be playing basketball with him and having a good time.

It kind of smacks me as funny how much some here on FJ WANT everyone from my background to be racist. It just ain't so.

[CloakNDagger]

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.

Maybe not so much in the right, but certainly within American precedent. Also, maybe you're right and it wouldn't have worked, but does that mean it shouldn't have been tried first? I wouldn't call economic sanctions, etc... to be "ask them nicely" - it should have been real pressure.

Secession itself shouldn't be any more wrong than it would be for a battered woman to seek shelter and protection from an abuser. Of course if you are the abuser, it's a bit hypocritical to seek shelter, but in this case I believe that both the North and the South had their reasons. I suggest that the North's reasons weren't so much the moral high ground as they were about power and economic and political dominance, which I find disgusting. I think they used the (genuinely bad) institution of slavery as an excuse to do things which changed the nature of the Federal government for the worse. Because of the way secession itself was treated by the Federal Government during and after the war, if a truly abusive situation was taking place, the states have lost much of their ability to challenge the powers in DC.

No matter what you guys say, I still think that war was the answer of those who wanted to do a lot more than just free the slaves, I still think they actually were trying to gain power and advantage over other people in a more sanitized way as has happened throughout history many times when wars are fought.

[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.

Quoting this in case it was missed.

CnD think about the fact that you can not produce a single non war way to end slavery quickly. What makes you think that it could be ended without war?

[ViolaSebastian]

Maybe not so much in the right, but certainly within American precedent. Also, maybe you're right and it wouldn't have worked, but does that mean it shouldn't have been tried first? I wouldn't call economic sanctions, etc... to be "ask them nicely" - it should have been real pressure.

I'm going to type this one more time, since apparently it didn't get through the first time. Britain had ZERO interest in discontinuing slavery in the southern United States. While it was an unpopular idea amongst commoners, the powers that be, both economically and in the government, had absolutely no intention in supporting abolition. In fact, Britain had a lot to gain economically from the south continuing slavery and also in their succession. They made a great deal of money using the cotton and tobacco grown and harvested by slaves in their mills, which helped support the economy of Britain. Furthermore, they also made money off supporting the south in the war--by supplying them with guns, ammunition, ships, etc. Understand, there were still a lot of hard feelings between the United States and Britain at the time as well--Britain wasn't about the listen to the United States' request to help them end slavery. Most British nationals that served in the American civil war did so on the side of the Confederacy. Britain let the Confederacy use the Bahamas as a staging area to do blockade running when the Union navy prevented it. Britain didn't want to discontinue slavery in the south, there was too much profit to be made off of it, and this is evidenced by the simple fact that they SUPPORTED the side of the confederacy when all heck broke loose.

[ViolaSebastian]

The solution needed to be ideological, theological, and somewhat gradual (but as quick as possible) and targeted at the larger, more powerful slave owners starting with those that had already begun thinking about freeing slaves such as the Lee family. It would probably have required a 5-10 year process, but in the end would probably have worked better than War IMO.

I want to touch on this a little bit. You have to realize that unfortunately, most slave owners in the south felt that what they were doing was Biblical. The main point they made was Genesis 9:24-27:

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "

Now, a lot of Christians at the time believed that Ham resettled in Africa, and that part of his curse was having black skin. So you see, owning slaves wasn't just good economic sense, it was actually a system designed by God and justified in the Bible. Heck, Stonewall Jackson himself was an army chaplan, and clearly he didn't find any conflicts between being a Bible-believing Christian and a supporter of slavery. In fact, a lot of Confederates chose to frame the war as an orthodox Christian nation (the south) versus anti-Christian forces (the Union).

Another favorite in the 'Slavery is Biblical' arsenal is Paul's Epistle to Philemon, in which slaves are told to obey their masters. Paul doesn't outright say that Onesimus should be freed, so some felt that they weren't morally obligated to do it.

When the slave trade began, the pope was brought in to weigh in on what some were squeamish about engaging it. He decided it was fine so long as those captured were non-Christian. In fact, it was deemed a good thing, because at least then those poor, unsaved Africans would have the opportunity to be exposed to Christianity.

One more thing to think about: slavery was perfectly legal in Brazil until 1888. That only occurred because it started to be less profitable to own slaves than it was to pay for cheap immigrant labor. Slavery in the south was under no such constraints--it was only becoming increasingly profitable to own slaves.

[julie paradox]

Coco: yes, I got that. I was puzzled by the non-slavery attitude. Now I know that taxes were part of it it makes a whole lot more sense.

[formergothardite]

CnD, you say that secession is like an abused woman seeking shelter, except in this case the South was violently abuser who was seeking shelter so that they could continue abuse and murder.

If you read back, no one is claiming the North went to war to end slavery, they were preserving the Union and as a result slavery would end. The very things you criticize the North for are the reasons that just letting the South go and form their own country BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF BLACK PEOPLE ALWAYS BEING ENSLAVED(I don't think this can be said loud enough) would not have worked to end slavery. Their main goal wasn't to end slavery, so they might temporarily do things like have high tariffs and say that they would protect slaves, but most likely they would shortly begin to fade away and people would just turn a blind eye to the slavery. As you have been told, Britain wouldn't have helped.

So you are willing to risk prolonging slavery and the repression of black people for who knows how long, for what? Because you find the North's political actions more disgusting than slavery? If you don't feel this way, then don't write things that make it sound like you do.

And honestly, I don't think having a strong Federal Government is the absolute most evil thing in the world or even that horrible of an idea. Especially when you compare it to slavery.

[samurai_sarah]

Um, a lot of people I grew up around celebrated it. I'm quite familiar with it, thank you, and I'm not a racist. Many of the people around me, unlike what Othello said, would NOT go to the other side of the street if a single young black guy was walking down the street. We'd just as likely as not be playing basketball with him and having a good time.

It kind of smacks me as funny how much some here on FJ WANT everyone from my background to be racist. It just ain't so.

Read what you wrote. Then read it again. You may notice something.

Hint: You claim you're not racist, but you're okay with some people owning others, based on skin colour.

[snarkopolis]

[formergothardite]

I think that CnD has shown the end result of being raised believing the teachings of VF and the religious right. They both present the Civil War as the South representing state rights(which is the good guy) and the North representing a strong federal government(which is the bad guy). This is a lie, but when you have been raised believing a lie it is very hard to see the truth.

The South wanted a strong federal government that enforced slavery in all the states. They wanted a strong federal government that was on the side of slavery. When they couldn't do it with the United States they tried to start their own country with a strong federal government whose cornerstone was slavery.

So the truth is that the North did represent a strong federal government, but so did the South. You have to stop seeing the South as representing state rights and seeing them as representing a strong federal government that includes slavery. And when you see them that way, who is really the bad guy?

[CloakNDagger]

Read what you wrote. Then read it again. You may notice something.

Hint: You claim you're not racist, but you're okay with some people owning others, based on skin colour.

Where have I said that I'm ok with some people owning others based on skin color? I don't believe I have... and I explicitly do not believe that it's ok for a person to own another based on skin color. You can't go putting words into people's mouths and get a free pass.

[formergothardite]

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.

When you present yourself as being more upset about soldiers blood than slave blood and as being willing to let more slave blood be spilt so that a strong federal government would be avoided, it makes it look like slavery doesn't bother you that much. Realistically it would have been much, much longer than 5-10 years that slaves would have suffered and died if a war hadn't been fought. Yet, you haven't shown much concern for them.

[ViolaSebastian]

Harriet Beacher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was published in 1852. It was responsible for the horrors of slavery being brought to the attention of regular folks, and as a result, people started to get up on their hind legs about it and started demanding change. That being said, five years later, in 1857, was not sufficient time to end slavery--and that's because there were many, many factors at play. I mentioned that it took Brazil until 1888 to ban slavery--and again, this solution was only acceptable because it was turning out to not be economically advantageous.

CnD, I'm wondering if you've ever seen the film C.S.A: The Confederate States of America? It covers an alternative history in which the south won the civil war and it's quite insightful and utterly fascinating.

[CloakNDagger]

I think that CnD has shown the end result of being raised believing the teachings of VF and the religious right. They both present the Civil War as the South representing state rights(which is the good guy) and the North representing a strong federal government(which is the bad guy). This is a lie, but when you have been raised believing a lie it is very hard to see the truth

You ARE blind to nuance... there's a fine line that you can't see. Do I believe in "States Rights" - yeah, but I said that I thought they were using it for the wrong reason in my post above and that despite that, I thought that the way the North handled it really set a terrible precedent.

It'd be like if you were a child abuser and your husband said that you should stop and you didn't want to and decided to divorce him. The right answer is not to murder you, nor is it to make a law against divorce, it would be to correctly address the child abuse before an appropriate judge and jury. It would also be ridiculous for your husband to want to force you to stay in the marriage without a heart / mind change and then tell other wives that because of your mistake, no wife could ever divorce her husband again. That's how I feel about what the North did. They came in with a big sledge hammer instead of a drill for a root canal. And you wonder why people in the South don't appreciate their Northern "dentist"?

The NORTH was racist as well and the strong Federal government continued in evil ways with the belief that they were indeed every bit as superior as a race in their genocidal dealings with the American Indian directly following the Civil War. Y'all make it out like they were champions of freedom and I just cannot see that. They were willing to go to war to achieve any end that was convenient and I think that was wrong. Find a way to stop slavery, GREAT - but don't tell me that war was the ONLY option.

The South wanted a strong federal government that enforced slavery in all the states. They wanted a strong federal government that was on the side of slavery. When they couldn't do it with the United States they tried to start their own country with a strong federal government whose cornerstone was slavery.

That's a serious oversimplification. Sure, some of the south clearly wanted a strong Confederate government, but I think a large minority (if they were a minority) actually were anti-federalist, and to say that everyone in the South was for the way the Confederate government was constituted would be silly.

So the truth is that the North did represent a strong federal government, but so did the South. You have to stop seeing the South as representing state rights and seeing them as representing a strong federal government that includes slavery. And when you see them that way, who is really the bad guy?

Both.

I think that the following letter from the pen of Patrick Henry is telling:

http://www.nytimes.com/1860/07/09/news/ ... henry.html

I think that there was a faction of people in the South that would have worked WITH the abolitionists, etc... to end slavery if more effort had been made to end it's "convenience" and less war-mongering and political power-play had been used.

[samurai_sarah]

Where have I said that I'm ok with some people owning others based on skin color? I don't believe I have... and I explicitly do not believe that it's ok for a person to own another based on skin color. You can't go putting words into people's mouths and get a free pass.

And yet, you're the one defending slavery.

[CloakNDagger]

And yet, you're the one defending slavery.

I have repeatedly denied that. You lie.

Here's what I hear from you: "War is the ONLY option." I say BS.

[formergothardite]

The Confederacy wanted a strong central government when it came to slavery, in other areas they were not. But I'm not sure why you think the Confederacy would not have tried to squash abolitionists encouraging rebellion against the Confederate constitution. They went and squashed any areas in the South that tried to rebel against the idea of secession.

You are willing to prolong the suffering of slaves for who knows how long CnD. Why does the blood and suffering of slavery not bother you as much as war?

[samurai_sarah]

I have repeatedly denied that. You lie.

Here's what I hear from you: "War is the ONLY option." I say BS.

Read your posts again. You're defending slavery.

[CloakNDagger]

The Confederacy wanted a strong central government when it came to slavery, in other areas they were not. But I'm not sure why you think the Confederacy would not have tried to squash abolitionists encouraging rebellion against the Confederate constitution. They went and squashed any areas in the South that tried to rebel against the idea of secession.

First, the war united the South - people who probably would have voted for abolition DID see Lincoln's call for troops as an imminent threat. Virgina did discuss abolition prior to Nat Turner's rebellion, and there were people like the Lees and the Henrys (did you read that letter I linked to?) who KNEW that it was morally wrong. A better effort at winning their support and dividing the slave owners into factions I think might have been effective having read their own words.

You are willing to prolong the suffering of slaves for who knows how long CnD. Why does the blood and suffering of slavery not bother you as much as war?

Because the choice to go to war wasn't just about the slaves. It was a deliberate decision that would lead to the other ends that powerful men in the North were interested in. It REALLY was about the nature of the union in addition to slavery. I don't think you understood my analogy above. It permanently altered the way a State (notice that we even today have a "State Department" that deals with other Nations) was viewed in most of this continent and secured power to the Federal Government that was not intended to be in their hands.

The truth is I see both slavery, AND the war to have been equally bad.

[formergothardite]

You see a strong federal government as worse or equally bad as enslaving, raping, and murdering an entire race of people?

How long are you willing to allow slaves to be murdered until war would be okay? How much slave blood could be spilled before a strong federal government is a better alternative?

[Coco]

Harriet Beacher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was published in 1852. It was responsible for the horrors of slavery being brought to the attention of regular folks, and as a result, people started to get up on their hind legs about it and started demanding change. That being said, five years later, in 1857, was not sufficient time to end slavery--and that's because there were many, many factors at play. I mentioned that it took Brazil until 1888 to ban slavery--and again, this solution was only acceptable because it was turning out to not be economically advantageous.

CnD, I'm wondering if you've ever seen the film C.S.A: The Confederate States of America? It covers an alternative history in which the south won the civil war and it's quite insightful and utterly fascinating.

Friday movie night! :popcorn2:

[bBvideo 560,340:2gmoqi4r]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJJtH_5vcmM[/bBvideo]

wow the beginning sounds like Josh's fathers' day message. :shock:

the comments on this are interesting. amazon.com/CSA-The-Confederate-States-America/dp/B000FZEU0Q

[ViolaSebastian]

I'm all ears to hear about your ideas of how you would have ended slavery in the south without a war. I've already gone over why waiting it out and appealing to Britain wouldn't have been viable options. So I'm all ears--er, eyes--to read about the solution you have, and how that makes you more intelligent than all the anti-slavery forces in the United States up to 1860.

Look, as a southerner myself, I've been exposed to the same sorts of attitudes to which you were exposed. There's still a good deal of anger and resentment towards the north here and that somehow the north is responsible for the economic and social downturn of the south. As someone with Confederate ancestors, it's a difficult thing to come to terms with the fact that a member of one's family tree fought for the enslavement of other people.

[Hane]

Friday movie night! :popcorn2:

[bBvideo 560,340:3kb5p8ay]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJJtH_5vcmM[/bBvideo]

wow the beginning sounds like Josh's fathers' day message. :shock:

the comments on this are interesting. amazon.com/CSA-The-Confederate-States-America/dp/B000FZEU0Q

Despite a few flaws here and there, this movie was gripping and amazing.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip) Because the choice to go to war wasn't just about the slaves. It was a deliberate decision that would lead to the other ends that powerful men in the North were interested in. It REALLY was about the nature of the union in addition to slavery. I don't think you understood my analogy above. It permanently altered the way a State (notice that we even today have a "State Department" that deals with other Nations) was viewed in most of this continent and secured power to the Federal Government that was not intended to be in their hands.

The truth is I see both slavery, AND the war to have been equally bad.

You got exceptions if you were drafted. Slavery didn't do exceptions. You always got to "serve".

[CloakNDagger]

And I thought a lot of fundies were war hawks!