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

[formergothardite]

So are we ever going to learn of your plan to end slavery with no war? And how many years you are okay with slaves suffering and dying so that war could be avoided. We know that you are okay with 10 years, but after that, would war be okay?

[CloakNDagger]

We know that you are okay with 10 years, but after that, would war be okay?

I think so, just figure out a plan where first slaves can't be separated from their families, then they can't be sold at all, then they have to be paid and finally are free to leave. Only go to war with clearly stated reasons that were well defined at the outset and a real offer for peace if the slaves are freed and a chance for the states that seceded to retain their original status Constitutionally.

No BS stuff like the Emancipation Proclamation after the war is started that only frees the slaves in disputed territory while a general like Grant still has his own slaves.

[Flyinthesoup]

May I just say, I am taking in all this conversation and am thankful! I am learning so much! Having grown up the the North West, attending public schools, I never was even taught about the "south", other than the obvious, south was bad, wanted slaves, north was good, rescuing the slaves, etc. Lincoln was wonderful who could not like Lincoln? It was only about 5 years ago I heard some negative talk about Lincoln, and it surprised me! I obviously have NO CLUE!

I am thankful for the resources and links given in the thread. I'm ashamed :embarrassed: I don't know more of the history and yet, I don't know if I could stomach the hideous truths.

My hat is off to all your well educated people who have a good grasp of this history. Please continue with this discussion, I for one am learning a great deal.

[ViolaSebastian]

I think so, with clearly stated reasons that were well defined at the outset and a real offer for peace if the slaves are freed and a chance for the states that seceded to retain their original status Constitutionally.

No BS stuff like the Emancipation Proclamation after the war is started that only frees the slaves in disputed territory while a general like Grant still has his own slaves.

What 'well defined reasons' do you think would convince someone to give up a system that had worked and resulted in profits for generations? Keep in mind that each slave was worth about the same as a luxury car is to us now--and unlike cars, slaves are reproduce and make more slaves.

[ViolaSebastian]

Lincoln was wonderful who could not like Lincoln? It was only about 5 years ago I heard some negative talk about Lincoln, and it surprised me! I obviously have NO CLUE!

I have relatives that don't celebrate Thanksgiving because they feel it was a holiday imposed by the Yankees and that 'no good' Lincoln. They're the same relatives that were told I was studying the history of the south when I was in school the first time to avoid any scenes at family reunions. :? I say fine, more turkey and stuffing for me.

[CloakNDagger]

What 'well defined reasons' do you think would convince someone to give up a system that had worked and resulted in profits for generations? Keep in mind that each slave was worth about the same as a luxury car is to us now--and unlike cars, slaves are reproduce and make more slaves.

The same stuff Patrick Henry wrote about in that letter I linked to. Many Southerners did have a conscience issue with it. Play that up more. You don't catch bears with vinegar like supporting the John Brown types.

How did the North escape from most of the slavery there and move to hiring people for factories?

[formergothardite]

I think so, just figure out a plan where first slaves can't be separated from their families, then they can't be sold at all, then they have to be paid and finally are free to leave. Only go to war with clearly stated reasons that were well defined at the outset and a real offer for peace if the slaves are freed and a chance for the states that seceded to retain their original status Constitutionally.

No BS stuff like the Emancipation Proclamation after the war is started that only frees the slaves in disputed territory while a general like Grant still has his own slaves.

So you are okay with slaves being tortured and murdered for up to 10 years but you aren't okay with soldiers dying for four years? Do you realize how this sounds?

[ViolaSebastian]

And many Southerners did not, or were so heavily invested in slave labor that even if they did have moral qualms about slavery, manumission of slaves would bankrupt them and their descendants for years. Thomas Jefferson, one of the most famous anti-slavery advocates among the founding fathers felt slavery was reprehensible--but you know what he didn't do? Free all his slaves. Jefferson was in serious debt at the time of his death and didn't want that passed down to his daughter Patty. When the moral argument came up against the financial argument, the financial argument tended to win out. So the economic factors would have to be addressed for the south to accept it--and no one, anywhere, had that kind of loot hidden away.

One of the big reasons that slaves were able to be gradually emancipated in the north was that they didn't exist in numbers anywhere near the amount of slaves in the south. I mean, we're talking a drop in the bucket. One reason for that was that the northern climate was better suited to growing grain crops, which are just by default less labor intensive than the crops grown in the south, such as tobacco and cotton, which still takes a ton of labor. Now, because there were less slaves, they were also easier to control and the system of slavery in the north tended to be less harsh and paternalistic than the one in the south. (That is not to say, again, that the north was guiltless--the same practices of punishment for running away, flogging, shackles, and forced reproduction were in play with the north as well as the south.) Helping out the fact that there were less slaves was the fact that you also had many free blacks in the north, and frequently they would try to buy the freedom of slaves.

Also, most slaves in New England and the north didn't work in factories. Most slaves were used for domestic tasks in the north, or house slaves as they're sometimes referred to. Because the north had a huge influx of immigrants coming to America, it became cheaper to hire labor there than to support a slave. The south didn't have this influx of population, so slavery became critical to the labor force.

The moral argument did play some part in the gradual emancipation of slaves in the north. The Methodists and Quakers, who existed in greater numbers in the north, pushed abolition for, as you put it, issues of conscience. But the Quakers and Methodists didn't hold much sway in the south.

[ViolaSebastian]

I just want to address this before it comes up--I tried to edit my post but it was too late. Jefferson did, in fact, free some of his slaves. Two were freed during his lifetime, three left Monticello with Jefferson's consent, and three were freed in his will. However, all of the slaves had the same last name: Hemmings. Aside from Sally Hemmings, their mother, there is substantial evidence (including genetic, although some will tell you that the children were fathered by Jefferson's brother, which I think is total B.S.) that the slaves Jefferson chose to free were in fact his own children and grandchildren.

It should be noted the other two-hundred slaves were sold at a real-estate auction after his death to pay off his considerable debts.

Two not-so-fun facts: Sally Hemmings had the same father as Jefferson's wife, making them half-sisters. What a difference in fortune. And just to tie it back into the purpose of free jinger, the Mormon church chose to not only baptize Hemmings and Jefferson, but also have them married--in 2012. Which is all sorts of creepy.

[fuglyexfundy]

Good job to all trying to educate those who were given the neo-Confederate version at SOTDRT. I admire your efforts to enlighten those who just want to remain in denial...or worse.

That said, I've heard no significant updates about DPIATR. Has anyone in his area of Texas seen him or Beall? Any sightings? I know someone has seen something.... What line of work or scamtoolery is he in now?

[halcionne]

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.

Chiming in to say that this is a good comment and you should feel good! :worship:

What I have observed about CloakNDagger (along with Nolan & Lourdes, the ORIGINAL original topic of the thread ;) ) is a capacity for critical thinking and an ability to look at established notions from new, wider, perspectives. This is a rare gift that will serve them all well. Growth for individuals, and societies, i.e. the Confederate South, is tremendously slow and painful, if at all possible, without the ability to reflect and self-criticize. I commend anyone who can do this in any way, shape, or form, and it's why I'm particularly hopeful for these three people. Leaving a cult takes a lot of deprogramming! Many of the issues around racism in the US touched on in this thread (even 21st century ones) aren't being fully considered by people who have access to the finest educations.

Does the VF brand of homeschool discuss manifest destiny? Because it's one of the few things I actually remember from eleventh grade US History, and I don't believe the American public or Legislature would have simply allowed a massive chunk of the continent to secede within that context. Ever. In a million years. Here's a wikipedia article, no better source because I'm no expert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

And a quote from the article, because it sounds like something Doug Phillips is a Rapist would have admired and emphasized:

Ill-defined but keenly felt, manifest destiny was an expression of conviction in the morality and value of expansionism that complemented other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism and Romantic nationalism.

And visual aids!

[Coco]

Does the VF brand of homeschool discuss manifest destiny? Because it's one of the few things I actually remember from eleventh grade US History, and I don't believe the American public or Legislature would have simply allowed a massive chunk of the continent to secede within that context. Ever. In a million years. Here's a wikipedia article, no better source because I'm no expert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

And a quote from the article, because it sounds like something Doug Phillips is a Rapist would have admired and emphasized:

Imhsotdrto, yes, VF was all about manifest destiny. (at least, they were all about gloriously expanding into government to reclaim America for the religious right). Don't give the Tool any ideas for naming his next venture. :lol:

[ViolaSebastian]

I am frankly amazed that no fundies have their daughters Manifest Destiny. It seems like it would be right up their alley and it would be a "character name" that is so popular amongst those living in Toolistan.

I'm totally not ruling it out for the Bradericks. You're welcome for the name for your next daughter, Kelly. 8-)

[halcionne]

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"?

These analogies are flawed in ways that I'm having trouble articulating, but I'll start by saying the north and south weren't paired like marriage partners, and going to war doesn't equate murdering the so-called spouse. I won't touch the slaves are children argument. The sledgehammer versus drill was more helpful in getting me to understand where you're coming from, though it's still inadequate. Slavery was a cancer that was metastasizing and quickly killing the patient. Sorry for hyperbole. Don't come at me with laser treatment options, either, lol.

Secession rights might be nice, I guess, but, and this also speaks to your silly "State Department" comment, it's "The United States" because the founding fathers wanted to strike a balance between states with a measure of independence and STRENGTH IN UNITY, cooperation among neighbors, etc. And interstate commerce, of course. And national defense. Things the south would have struggled to provide itself on its own. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the south receives more federal money than it contributes, but that's not very convenient for libertarians and tea partiers to think about. :shrug:

And besides, secession rights aren't more valuable than human rights.

[halcionne]

I am frankly amazed that no fundies have their daughters Manifest Destiny. It seems like it would be right up their alley and it would be a "character name" that is so popular amongst those living in Toolistan.

I'm totally not ruling it out for the Bradericks. You're welcome for the name for your next daughter, Kelly. 8-)

omg I love it :cracking-up:

[halcionne]

Hey everybody here's a quick video about how to avoid getting derailed in a talk about racism!

[bBvideo 560,340:b85q0kk5]

[/bBvideo]

[Coco]

Hey everybody here's a quick video about how to avoid getting derailed in a talk about racism!

that's awesome :D Thank you! That guy is so good at speaking it almost sounds like poetry. (or rap lol)

[DefraudedByPlaid]

And many Southerners did not, or were so heavily invested in slave labor that even if they did have moral qualms about slavery, manumission of slaves would bankrupt them and their descendants for years. Thomas Jefferson, one of the most famous anti-slavery advocates among the founding fathers felt slavery was reprehensible--but you know what he didn't do? Free all his slaves. Jefferson was in serious debt at the time of his death and didn't want that passed down to his daughter Patty. When the moral argument came up against the financial argument, the financial argument tended to win out. So the economic factors would have to be addressed for the south to accept it--and no one, anywhere, had that kind of loot hidden away.

became cheaper to hire labor there than to support a slave. The south didn't have this influx of population, so slavery became critical to the labor force.

I read an article last year asserting that TJ stopped speaking out about the immorality of slavery once he calculated the profit to him when his slaves had children. A full-on, numerical formula breaking down people's worth into dollars. I'm pretty sure this is the same article (not breaking link because I doubt Smithsonian Magazine will flounce):

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/t ... 04/?page=3

[formergothardite]

These analogies are flawed in ways that I'm having trouble articulating, but I'll start by saying the north and south weren't paired like marriage partners, and going to war doesn't equate murdering the so-called spouse. I won't touch the slaves are children argument. The sledgehammer versus drill was more helpful in getting me to understand where you're coming from, though it's still inadequate. Slavery was a cancer that was metastasizing and quickly killing the patient. Sorry for hyperbole. Don't come at me with laser treatment options, either, lol.

Secession rights might be nice, I guess, but, and this also speaks to your silly "State Department" comment, it's "The United States" because the founding fathers wanted to strike a balance between states with a measure of independence and STRENGTH IN UNITY, cooperation among neighbors, etc. And interstate commerce, of course. And national defense. Things the south would have struggled to provide itself on its own. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the south receives more federal money than it contributes, but that's not very convenient for libertarians and tea partiers to think about. :shrug:

And besides, secession rights aren't more valuable than human rights.

I've been trying to think of a way to explain why his analogies don't work.

But I think it does come down to if he feels like secession rights and state rights are more important than human rights. Ending slavery might have not been the North's main goal, but in the end we know they ended slavery. We do not know if any of CnD's plans would have worked and even he admits that slaves would have continued to suffer and die at the hands of their masters for up to 10 more years. And there is no guarantee it wouldn't go on much longer.

[CloakNDagger]

I've been trying to think of a way to explain why his analogies don't work.

But I think it does come down to if he feels like secession rights and state rights are more important than human rights. Ending slavery might have not been the North's main goal, but in the end we know they ended slavery. We do not know if any of CnD's plans would have worked and even he admits that slaves would have continued to suffer and die at the hands of their masters for up to 10 more years. And there is no guarantee it wouldn't go on much longer.

I'm not saying my analogy is perfect, either.

You have pointed out the downside of my thoughts. Here's the upside: if men like Patrick Henry (who acknowledged the moral failure that was ignored as a convenience) were persuaded to free their slaves and recognize them as equal then even if the process of ending slavery took a bit longer, the end result would have been better than the aftermath of the war and thing like segregation would likely have not been able to be justified. The aftermath in the South should give pause to those who think that war was the best solution. I still think that the events and choices that led to the war were ill conceived and did more harm than necessary. They certainly didn't guarantee the slaves a significantly better life after being freed because many of their neighbors were now bitter, resentful, broke, and still thought them inferior. Others, who might actually consider the, equal, were probably not in as good of a position to help them either. A morally-driven voluntary freeing or gradual emancipation of the slaves would have been worth a lot more effort especially considering how much money, blood, tears, etc... was required by the war in he long run. The cost of the war alone doesn't account for the lost potential earnings of the Northern soldiers who died and more families torn apart.

[CloakNDagger]

These analogies are flawed in ways that I'm having trouble articulating, but I'll start by saying the north and south weren't paired like marriage partners, and going to war doesn't equate murdering the so-called spouse. I won't touch the slaves are children argument. The sledgehammer versus drill was more helpful in getting me to understand where you're coming from, though it's still inadequate. Slavery was a cancer that was metastasizing and quickly killing the patient. Sorry for hyperbole. Don't come at me with laser treatment options, either, lol.

Secession rights might be nice, I guess, but, and this also speaks to your silly "State Department" comment, it's "The United States" because the founding fathers wanted to strike a balance between states with a measure of independence and STRENGTH IN UNITY, cooperation among neighbors, etc. And interstate commerce, of course. And national defense. Things the south would have struggled to provide itself on its own. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the south receives more federal money than it contributes, but that's not very convenient for libertarians and tea partiers to think about. :shrug:

And besides, secession rights aren't more valuable than human rights.

Texas contributes more... But that's a side note.

Secession rights are a subset of human rights. If you want to argue that, let's pull out the Declaration of Independence. By declaring secession illegal, the North condemned it's own existence as a breakaway from England. The South's basic failure was not secession, which is a concept clearly acceptable to the history of the Thirteen original colonies and Texas, but to forget that all men of any skin color are created equal, as their own delegates to the Constitutional Conventions had signed on to (by omission of the word white), and had inalienable rights.

Lincoln's desire to preserve the Union was incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and the South's willingness to cling to slavery was also incompatible, so I still think both sides were wrong.

[milkncookies76]

Texas contributes more... But that's a side note.

Secession rights are a subset of human rights. If you want to argue that, let's pull out the Declaration of Independence. By declaring secession illegal, the North condemned it's own existence as a breakaway from England. The South's basic failure was not secession, which is a concept clearly acceptable to the history of the Thirteen original colonies and Texas, but to forget that all men of any skin color are created equal, as their own delegates to the Constitutional Conventions had signed on to (by omission of the word white), and had inalienable rights.

Lincoln's desire to preserve the Union was incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and the South's willingness to cling to slavery was also incompatible, so I still think both sides were wrong.

um, no. The colonies did not have enough representation in the British gov't (hence "No Taxation without representation"). This was not the case for the south. They had ample representation, they just did not like the direction the American gov't was going in.

[milkncookies76]

I'm not saying my analogy is perfect, either.

You have pointed out the downside of my thoughts. Here's the upside: if men like Patrick Henry (who acknowledged the moral failure that was ignored as a convenience) were persuaded to free their slaves and recognize them as equal then even if the process of ending slavery took a bit longer, the end result would have been better than the aftermath of the war and thing like segregation would likely have not been able to be justified. The aftermath in the South should give pause to those who think that war was the best solution. I still think that the events and choices that led to the war were ill conceived and did more harm than necessary. They certainly didn't guarantee the slaves a significantly better life after being freed because many of their neighbors were now bitter, resentful, broke, and still thought them inferior. Others, who might actually consider the, equal, were probably not in as good of a position to help them either. A morally-driven voluntary freeing or gradual emancipation of the slaves would have been worth a lot more effort especially considering how much money, blood, tears, etc... was required by the war in he long run. The cost of the war alone doesn't account for the lost potential earnings of the Northern soldiers who died and more families torn apart.

Did you completely miss ViolaSebastian's posts where she explains why big, powerful slave owners would not give up their slaves, despite moral misgivings, due to their financial gain?

[ViolaSebastian]

Here's the thing. People tried the moral argument for years. Abolition forces produced books and treatises about how cruel and morally reprehensible the system of slavery and the slave trade was--and they are incredibly difficult to read and even harder to contemplate. As I mentioned before, there were a lot of churches that tried to further the abolition cause. Benjamin Franklin and Frederick Douglass, two of the most intelligent and learned men that America has ever produced tried to turn the tide of slavery on moral arguments--and it didn't work.

Heck, they even tried to play up the race angle by using photographs of slave children that could pass as "white" (I use the quotation marks because race is a social concept) to play upon people's outrage. Surely the south would be upset to know that little blonde-haired, blue-eyed moppets were being bought and sold!? Many, many angles were tried--if you can think of it, that angle was used by abolitionists.

Here's the harsh reality: slavery is an economic system. A deeply flawed and wrong one, but an economic system. Slavery was only abolished in the north and South America when it became economically advantageous to have other forms of labor--in both cases, immigrant labor. So you can't just hit at it with the moral angle--the financial one is always going to play a part and had to be addressed if war was to be avoided. It wasn't, because no one, anywhere, had an extra $3 billion lying around to buy the freedom of every slave.

As a side note, I have absolutely no pity for the south in regards to reconstruction. The south truly screwed the pooch when Booth killed Lincoln. Lincoln's plan for reconstruction wasn't nearly as harsh and punitive as the one that came under Johnson. Remember the famous story about how Lincoln had the band play Dixie? He offered pardons (with some notable exceptions) to any Confederate that would swear allegiance to the Union and the constitution, and pocket veteod the Wade-Davis Bill. But, unfortunately for the south, killing the president was a step too far, and the lust for retribution took over when Johnson did.

[formergothardite]

Still not an ounce of compassion for the blood, sweat, and tears that would be shed by slaves in your hypothetical but most likely longer 10 years of extended slavery. Don't blame the north for the south being so horrible after the war. They chose to treat black people horrible.The north didn't make them.