If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Lafayette Advertiser)   The city of Memphis votes to rename three city parks that honored the Confederacy and its leaders, including one named after the founder of the KKK. Sadly, even in this day and age, some people have a problem with that   (theadvertiser.com) divider line 589
    More: Interesting, KKK, Confederacy, Memphis, Sons of Confederate Veterans, diamond, Jefferson Davis Park  
•       •       •

7022 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2013 at 1:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



589 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-06 04:53:18 PM

The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.


That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.


/My family has never lived nor associated ourselves with anything south of the Mason-Dixon line going back to pre-Revolutionary times on my father's side and back to Plymouth Rock on my mother's.
//Like I said though, the whole country was involved in the slave trade, only the South was dependent on it.
 
2013-02-06 04:54:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: give me doughnuts: Dr Dreidel: You're from the South? Awesome - talk about biscuits and football and NASCAR and Texas oil and Florida/LA heat and have a silly accent and wear overalls and drink you some sweetea. DON'T, however, be proud of secession, civil war and slavery.

That's the point. Southerners aren't allowed to do any of that without having some assholes rub the rest of it in their faces. If you keep insulting people with something for long enough, they adopt it with pride just to be contrary and piss you off.

What kind of assholes do you hang out with? Living just outside DC for the better part of the last 20 years, I've met a million Southerners, and never once have I heard Northerners start bringing that shiat up to counter a Southerner's boast (unless a Southerner was being a dick about it) - most of us have moved on from the Civil War, mostly by not having reminders of the losing side's power structure every 30 feet.

EVERY culture has shameful parts of their history, full stop. When you start referencing that history, best to not recall those shameful parts. "Come to the South, we put 800g of sucrose in every glass of our tea!" will get a much better response than "Come to Norfolk, where we showed them Yankees what-fer!"


Especially from the Type II diabetics.  If they can walk that far before passing out.
 
2013-02-06 04:55:28 PM
"We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future." -Frederick Douglass

www.massmemories.net
 
2013-02-06 04:55:57 PM

Ox: Why are so many American's such strong supporters of traitors?



Because our nation was founded by traitors.
 
2013-02-06 04:56:26 PM

Dr Dreidel: "A colloquial term that could mean anything from 2 to 7-8."


I've always thought of a few as 3-5.  A couple was what I always used for 2, and anything above 5 was several. But then again, I'm just a dumb southerner, what do I know?

/Not that you aren't right.
 
2013-02-06 04:58:12 PM

over_and_done: Dr Dreidel: give me doughnuts: Dr Dreidel: You're from the South? Awesome - talk about biscuits and football and NASCAR and Texas oil and Florida/LA heat and have a silly accent and wear overalls and drink you some sweetea. DON'T, however, be proud of secession, civil war and slavery.

That's the point. Southerners aren't allowed to do any of that without having some assholes rub the rest of it in their faces. If you keep insulting people with something for long enough, they adopt it with pride just to be contrary and piss you off.

What kind of assholes do you hang out with? Living just outside DC for the better part of the last 20 years, I've met a million Southerners, and never once have I heard Northerners start bringing that shiat up to counter a Southerner's boast (unless a Southerner was being a dick about it) - most of us have moved on from the Civil War, mostly by not having reminders of the losing side's power structure every 30 feet.

EVERY culture has shameful parts of their history, full stop. When you start referencing that history, best to not recall those shameful parts. "Come to the South, we put 800g of sucrose in every glass of our tea!" will get a much better response than "Come to Norfolk, where we showed them Yankees what-fer!"

Especially from the Type II diabetics.  If they can walk that far before passing out.



We got enough assholes in Rascals, we don't need to import any from up North.
 
2013-02-06 04:58:38 PM

dukwbutter: danfrank: Abraham Lincoln owned slaves? Please provide a citation for that, because I think you're full of shiat.

Git some!!!  You freaking liberal yankees are getting a full does of truth today.  Sucks.  Nothing like what you learned in the history books, is it?  OMG they lied to me in school. Doh!  Suck it libtards!

http://www.dixiescv.org/slavery.html


I'm pretty sure this just turned into performance art. Nobody can be from that deep in the south and use a computer.
 
2013-02-06 05:00:36 PM

give me doughnuts: over_and_done: Dr Dreidel: give me doughnuts: Dr Dreidel: You're from the South? Awesome - talk about biscuits and football and NASCAR and Texas oil and Florida/LA heat and have a silly accent and wear overalls and drink you some sweetea. DON'T, however, be proud of secession, civil war and slavery.

That's the point. Southerners aren't allowed to do any of that without having some assholes rub the rest of it in their faces. If you keep insulting people with something for long enough, they adopt it with pride just to be contrary and piss you off.

What kind of assholes do you hang out with? Living just outside DC for the better part of the last 20 years, I've met a million Southerners, and never once have I heard Northerners start bringing that shiat up to counter a Southerner's boast (unless a Southerner was being a dick about it) - most of us have moved on from the Civil War, mostly by not having reminders of the losing side's power structure every 30 feet.

EVERY culture has shameful parts of their history, full stop. When you start referencing that history, best to not recall those shameful parts. "Come to the South, we put 800g of sucrose in every glass of our tea!" will get a much better response than "Come to Norfolk, where we showed them Yankees what-fer!"

Especially from the Type II diabetics.  If they can walk that far before passing out.


We got enough assholes in Rascals, we don't need to import any from up North.


I just had a LOL or two, thanks.
 
2013-02-06 05:03:20 PM

dukwbutter: CheekyMonkey: dukwbutter: That's right. Everyone can be proud of their heritage. Except for Southerners. That seems fair, right?

Remind me again what they have to be proud of? I mean, aside for the systematic subjugation, oppression and dehumanization of a group of people with darker skin, of course...

I love this.  The North had slaves. And to look at a group of people and say that they have nothing to be proud of.  Classic.  Love this.  Thanks for showing your colors.
Q: How many liberals does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: You're a racist.


Yes, the North had slaves.  However, the North does not have some sort of bizarre idea of "pride" based around that fact.  Also, you have not answered my question:  What DOES the South have to be particularly proud of?  Only thing I can think of is food, and Southern food is mostly based on what slaves ate.

\the whole concept of regional "pride" is dumb
 
2013-02-06 05:04:00 PM

give me doughnuts: Ox: Why are so many American's such strong supporters of traitors?


Because our nation was founded by traitors.


Oh no he di'int!!!!
 
2013-02-06 05:04:41 PM

George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.


 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.
 
2013-02-06 05:05:33 PM

dukwbutter: CheekyMonkey: A good point for a different discussion. It, however, doesn't address my original question, unless you're trying to say that subjugating Africans was OK by virtue of the fact that we'd already subjugated the Native Americans.

CheekyMonkey, you seem to miss somehow that the North had slaves also.  Not only that, but the Civil war wasn't about slavery.  Lincoln told the South they could keep their slaves if they'd just stay in the Union.  Also, the Emancipation freed only the slaves in the South, not the Slaves in the North. The more you know. ;)

Not really so cheeky now are we?  More like a politically correct fool.


Nope.  Didn't miss it.  My original question still stands:  Since Southern "pride" is forever being proffered as an excuse for holding onto things like the Confederate flag, what, exactly, are these people proud of?
 
2013-02-06 05:05:58 PM
Steve Cropper Park sounds nice.
 
2013-02-06 05:08:07 PM

CheekyMonkey: what, exactly, are these people proud of?


THESE PEOPLE!??!?!?! THESE PEOPLE?!?!?!?!WHATTAYOUMEAN THESE PEOPLE!?!?!?!
 
2013-02-06 05:08:35 PM

Cortez the Killer: CheekyMonkey: dukwbutter: That's right. Everyone can be proud of their heritage. Except for Southerners.  That seems fair, right?

Remind me again what they have to be proud of?  I mean, aside for the systematic subjugation, oppression and dehumanization of a group of people with darker skin, of course...

[www.smokymtbarbecue.com image 800x600]


Yup.  Regional food is really the only thing I could think of.  The funny thing is, most of what constitutes "Southern food" is actually slave food.
 
2013-02-06 05:08:42 PM

danfrank: Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, Sumter are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.


Edited for accuracy.
 
2013-02-06 05:09:53 PM

dryknife: Steve Cropper


img2.timeinc.net

"If the shiat fits, wear it!"
 
2013-02-06 05:11:36 PM

danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.


The southerners, especially the interim Confederate Government were eager for war. Not enough states had seceded to be a viable nation in their opinion. They needed to get the border states off the fence. They knew a war with the federal government would probably bring that about. They decided to initiate fighting rather than wait a few weeks more for the garrison at Sumter to have to surrender.
 
2013-02-06 05:11:59 PM
George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.


Well, that is certain to provoke a much more intelligent flamewar than the one we've been having, and I commend you for it.

But if I can give my "both sides are right" speech, my (limited) understanding of history is that the North didn't go to war to abolish slavery.  The North went to war to preserve the Union. So, when people say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, they're half right. It wasn't about slavery for the North (well, not directly, at not at first, and never entirely).

But it was always about slavery for the South.  The only way that anyone can say with a straight face that the South didn't go to war to preserve slavery is for them to say that the South only  seceded because of slavery, but the North started the war.  And that's just splitting hairs too far for me.
 
2013-02-06 05:13:28 PM

dukwbutter: danfrank: This. Why so proud of causing the war that killed more than a half million Americans?

Because they were fighting for their way for life? For what they believe in?  They have every right to be proud.


Their way of life inlcuded the slavery.

You may continue to pretend that it wasn't really about slavery but it really was.

That was the main reason why so many states in the South wanted to leave the union.

Sorry but I get tired of Southerners who try to revise history like this. The CSA is not something you guys should be proud of.
 
2013-02-06 05:13:43 PM

danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.


Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.
 
2013-02-06 05:16:55 PM
Now let's just change the textbooks to say that the civil war never happened it was all just a big misunderstanding that was fixed over a game of pinocle.
 
2013-02-06 05:17:05 PM

George Babbitt: danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.

Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.


Not only was secession completely illegal, but Sumter was not even properly part of South Carolina. Sumter was a man created island. It had been built entirely by the United States Federal Government. The State of South Carolina had no more claim on it than it did on the possessions of the soldiers stationed there.
 
2013-02-06 05:19:23 PM

George Babbitt: Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.


Lol... Oh, man. Please tell me you're serious and you really believe this.
 
2013-02-06 05:19:49 PM

DittoToo: ScouserDuck: max_pooper: dukwbutter: That's right. Everyone can be proud of their heritage. Except for Southerners.  That seems fair, right?

They can be proud all they want but they shouldn't be surprised when people correctly point that their "heritage" is deeply rooted in destructive racism.

Whose isn't?

You know man, I did a Ctrl-F on this whole thread looking for somebody who addressed your question.


Did you find anything? I sure didn't.
 
2013-02-06 05:21:48 PM

George Babbitt: danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.

Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.


But, wasn't it their home, too?
 
2013-02-06 05:22:23 PM

Nabb1: KenShabby: Nabb1: oldfarthenry: Ya know - I "could" point out that the star-spangled banner was a poem about a war you guys LOST!

/tries to deflect heat off them-there southern folk

You could, but you'd be wrong.

Yeah, that was the War of 1812.

Yes, he brings that up a lot. A whole lot. I expect him to post a pic of Canadian soldiers burning the White House any moment now.


The War of 1812 was essentially a draw, though the Americans achieved some decisive victories against native tribes in the South and Midwest, on Lake Erie, and against British raids at Baltimore and New Orleans.  More importantly, British backing of native tribes in the US ended and that had a major impact on the Indian Wars in what was then the far west and elsewhere.  The British on the other hand lost influence and never threatened the US again, though they did see fit to arm the Confederates from time to time.

A lot is made of the invasion of Canada from New York, and how the Americans failed to take Canada, but in reality the US simply did not bring its 'A' game to the fight and it showed.  Our best commanders were in the west and the south.  As for the forrays of the British into the US, the raid on Washington was just that, a raid.  Not even the British commander in his wet dreams could image taking Washington and holding it and forcing the US to surrender.

FYI: The raid on Washington was motivated by the Americans burning of what would become Toronto (the capital of Upper Canada).  It was carried by British regulars not their Canadian colonial allies.

Canadians like to thump their chest about how they "whipped the Americans", but in reality without the British fleet, British resources, and British troops and armaments, you'd all eating Dunkin' Donuts not Tim Hortons, your alphabet would end in ZEE not ZED, and a maple leaf would be found on a maple tree or laying on the ground waiting for a rake.
 
2013-02-06 05:25:09 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Will someone please tell me what the positive legacies of Nathan Bedford Forrest were? What exactly is being honored? His profound ignorance? His slaughter of surrendered troops. His slave trading? His terrorism? What is the "legacy " that deserves anything beyond derision?


My GG grandfather fought with him. Helped him raid the Union soldiers.

That is why Forest was considered a hero. He attacked Yankees.

He left KKK when it got too racial. KKK was originally anti-Republican and anti blacks who supported the Republican party. They shot a relative of mine bc he was Republican (genealogy is interesting, my family fought on both sides)
 
2013-02-06 05:25:14 PM

The Larch: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

Well, that is certain to provoke a much more intelligent flamewar than the one we've been having, and I commend you for it.

But if I can give my "both sides are right" speech, my (limited) understanding of history is that the North didn't go to war to abolish slavery.  The North went to war to preserve the Union. So, when people say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, they're half right. It wasn't about slavery for the North (well, not directly, at not at first, and never entirely).

But it was always about slavery for the South.  The only way that anyone can say with a straight face that the South didn't go to war to preserve slavery is for them to say that the South only  seceded because of slavery, but the North started the war.  And that's just splitting hairs too far for me.


Whereas I don't mind splitting hairs, I'll stay on your train. Yes, it was about slavery for the South, but what we fail to appreciate, right or wrong, is that the South was entirely dependent on the actual persons that were slaves for the continuation of their agriculture-based economy. The North which profited from slavery through the transport of slaves from Africa to the South, and from turning the raw good of molasses into rum for sale or for the trade and acquisition of more slaves, the North could continue to make rum and use it as either barter or commodity regardless of who was in the fields growing the cane. One of the largest issues that the North had with taxes levied on the colonies by the British crown was the Sugar Act of 1764 which put a big hurt on their profit margins from the Triangle Trade.
 
2013-02-06 05:25:49 PM

George Babbitt: danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.

Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.


But Lincoln never recognized them as a legitimate foreign sovereign government. Neither did Britain or France for that matter. Those federal troops were on US land and had no obligation to leave.
 
2013-02-06 05:26:32 PM

bump: As long as they don't mess with The Rendezvous or Garabaldis (off Highland Ave, near MSU.... back when it WAS MSU...)

/old, old Germantown High alumni


THAT will never happen!!!

/not quite so old GHS alumni
//still live here sadly
 
2013-02-06 05:26:43 PM

George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.


/My family has never lived nor associated ourselves with anything south of the Mason-Dixon line going back to pre-Revolutionary times on my father's side and back to Plymouth Rock on my mother's.
//Like I said though, the whole country was involved in the slave trade, only the South was dependent on it.


Funny. Seeing as the confederate states were not recognized nationally or internationally as a sovereign nation; There was never any such thing as "confederate land". The land was simply occupied by a treasonous political faction. Confederate claims to territories were not legitimate.

If I laid claim to my neighbors' pool and start shooting when he refused to leave, I doubt anyone would say he started the fight nor would they refer to the pool as mine.

Seriously, one would have to be stupid to try to spin the attack on fort sumter as a retaliation.
 
2013-02-06 05:28:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: George Babbitt: danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.

Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.

Not only was secession completely illegal, but Sumter was not even properly part of South Carolina. Sumter was a man created island. It had been built entirely by the United States Federal Government. The State of South Carolina had no more claim on it than it did on the possessions of the soldiers stationed there.


Territorial waters of the bordering sovereign extend out 12 miles from shore. Fort Sumter was well within that boundary.
 
2013-02-06 05:28:58 PM

George Babbitt: molasses

to rum

Molasses to rum to slaves, oh what a beautiful waltz
You dance with us, we dance with you
Molasses and rum and slaves
Who sails the ships out of Boston
Ladened with bibles and rum?
Who drinks a toast to the Ivory Coast?
Hail Africa, the slavers have come
New England with bibles and rum
And its off with the rum and the bibles
Take on the slaves, clink, clink
Hail and farewell to the smell
Of the African coast
Molasses to rum to slaves
'Tisn't morals, 'tis money that saves
Shall we dance to the sound of the profitable pound
In molasses and rum and slaves
Who sails the ships out of Guinea
Ladened with bibles and slaves?
'Tis Boston can coast to the West Indies coast
Jamaica, we brung what ye craves
Antigua, Barbados, we brung bibles and slaves!
Molasses to rum to slaves
Who sail the ships back to Boston
Ladened with gold, see it gleam
Whose fortunes are made in the triangle trade
Hail slavery, the New England dream!
Mr. Adams, I give you a toast:
Hail Boston! Hail Charleston!
Who stinketh the most?

/1776 was one of the greatest musicals ever
 
2013-02-06 05:29:51 PM

zetar: The Fort Pillow massacre.

Yeah, N. B. Forrest; heck of a guy.


A long time ago I drove through Ft Pillow
to the banks of the Mississippi and smoked
one with a half black- half Okinawan girl.
Thanks for the memory.

Csb
 
2013-02-06 05:31:13 PM

MCStymie: das: MCStymie: So...what would the crime rate look like on Nathan Bedford Forrest Avenue?

About the same as on MLK Drive.

I, for one, have visions of trailer-rowhomes, loud country music blaring at all hours, and tricked-out pickup trucks.


I can tell that you have never been to Memphis. White trash stays north of the Wolf River
 
2013-02-06 05:31:32 PM

George Babbitt: Philip Francis Queeg: George Babbitt: danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.

Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.

Not only was secession completely illegal, but Sumter was not even properly part of South Carolina. Sumter was a man created island. It had been built entirely by the United States Federal Government. The State of South Carolina had no more claim on it than it did on the possessions of the soldiers stationed there.

Territorial waters of the bordering sovereign extend out 12 miles from shore. Fort Sumter was well within that boundary.


And yet the land was owned by the United States Federal Government. It's odd that a country created to protect property rights to human beings would ignore the property rights of land owners.
 
2013-02-06 05:32:03 PM

danfrank: George Babbitt: danfrank: George Babbitt: The Larch: George Babbitt: From molasses to rum to slaves, the whole country, north and south were in on the slave trade.

Well, only one side went to war to preserve it.

That would be the North that went to war. The South retaliated. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter where Union troops refused to vacate from Confederate land.

 Uhhhm, not really. The feds already had men in Fort Sumner, are they supposed to just up and leave when the traitors tell them to? The first shots were fired by the Confederates. Lincoln made sure this was the case.

Fort Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. When South Carolina dissolved its relationship with the U.S.A., the U.S. federal troops were then trespassing on foreign soil. So yes, they were supposed to just up and leave when the foreign sovereign power tells them to get out of their land. First shots fired are not always the first acts of aggression. When someone is unwelcome in your home and you tell them to leave and they say no, that is an act of aggression.

But Lincoln never recognized them as a legitimate foreign sovereign government. Neither did Britain or France for that matter. Those federal troops were on US land and had no obligation to leave.

The Jay Treaty(Great Britain) and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce(France) would like to have a word with you.
 
2013-02-06 05:32:39 PM

oh_please: George Babbitt: molasses to rum

Molasses to rum to slaves, oh what a beautiful waltz
You dance with us, we dance with you
Molasses and rum and slaves
Who sails the ships out of Boston
Ladened with bibles and rum?
Who drinks a toast to the Ivory Coast?
Hail Africa, the slavers have come
New England with bibles and rum
And its off with the rum and the bibles
Take on the slaves, clink, clink
Hail and farewell to the smell
Of the African coast
Molasses to rum to slaves
'Tisn't morals, 'tis money that saves
Shall we dance to the sound of the profitable pound
In molasses and rum and slaves
Who sails the ships out of Guinea
Ladened with bibles and slaves?
'Tis Boston can coast to the West Indies coast
Jamaica, we brung what ye craves
Antigua, Barbados, we brung bibles and slaves!
Molasses to rum to slaves
Who sail the ships back to Boston
Ladened with gold, see it gleam
Whose fortunes are made in the triangle trade
Hail slavery, the New England dream!
Mr. Adams, I give you a toast:
Hail Boston! Hail Charleston!
Who stinketh the most?

/1776 was one of the greatest musicals ever


That song has been running through my head since I saw this thread LOL
 
2013-02-06 05:34:32 PM

George Babbitt: Territorial waters of the bordering sovereign extend out 12 miles from shore. Fort Sumter was well within that boundary.


Doesn't matter. That was US land and the Confederate states were not a sovereign nation recognized by the US or any other sovereign government.

If my 8 year old tells me to get out of his room because he owns it, that doesn't mean he actually owns it.
 
2013-02-06 05:36:49 PM
DougTaupe:

If I laid claim to my neighbors' pool and start shooting when he refused to leave, I doubt anyone would say he started the fight nor would they refer to the pool as mine.

Automatically disqualified for use of strawman.
 
2013-02-06 05:39:03 PM

George Babbitt: The Jay Treaty(Great Britain) and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce(France) would like to have a word with you.


Huh?

Jay Treaty - signed in 1794.
Treaty of Amity Commerce w/France - signed in 1778

What am I missing?
 
2013-02-06 05:47:03 PM

danfrank: George Babbitt: Territorial waters of the bordering sovereign extend out 12 miles from shore. Fort Sumter was well within that boundary.

Doesn't matter. That was US land and the Confederate states were not a sovereign nation recognized by the US or any other sovereign government.

If my 8 year old tells me to get out of his room because he owns it, that doesn't mean he actually owns it.


The Articles of Confederation which were the precursor to the U.S. Constitution had an article that stated "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." and provides the necessary insight for proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that goes "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It was always the intent of the Framers of the Constitution that the U.S. would be a collection of sovereign states working together for their mutual benefit.
 
2013-02-06 05:48:34 PM

danfrank: George Babbitt: The Jay Treaty(Great Britain) and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce(France) would like to have a word with you.

Huh?

Jay Treaty - signed in 1794.
Treaty of Amity Commerce w/France - signed in 1778

What am I missing?


You said "Neither did Britain or France for that matter."
 
2013-02-06 05:51:38 PM

George Babbitt: DougTaupe:

If I laid claim to my neighbors' pool and start shooting when he refused to leave, I doubt anyone would say he started the fight nor would they refer to the pool as mine.

Automatically disqualified for use of strawman.


You must be a troll. No one could be so obtuse.

To quote Lisa Simpson: No, it's not it's apt. APT!
 
2013-02-06 05:52:25 PM
George Babbitt:
The Articles of Confederation which were the precursor to the U.S. Constitution had an article that stated "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." and provides the necessary insight for proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that goes "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It was always the intent of the Framers of the Constitution that the U.S. would be a collection of sovereign states working together for their mutual benefit.

You know the Articles of Confederation was different from the US Constitution and failed because it made the Federal Government so weak it couldn't do anything and as a result anything involving 2 or more states could never get accomplished.

Yes it was originally the intent of the framers of this country to be a loose Federation of different states but the Constituion was actually created to give the Federal Government more power because the United States under the Articles of Confederation couldn't function at all.
 
2013-02-06 05:54:21 PM

George Babbitt: danfrank: George Babbitt: Territorial waters of the bordering sovereign extend out 12 miles from shore. Fort Sumter was well within that boundary.

Doesn't matter. That was US land and the Confederate states were not a sovereign nation recognized by the US or any other sovereign government.

If my 8 year old tells me to get out of his room because he owns it, that doesn't mean he actually owns it.

The Articles of Confederation which were the precursor to the U.S. Constitution had an article that stated "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." and provides the necessary insight for proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that goes "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It was always the intent of the Framers of the Constitution that the U.S. would be a collection of sovereign states working together for their mutual benefit.


The Articles of Confederation also stated:


And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.
 
2013-02-06 05:54:22 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: HotWingConspiracy: Mid_mo_mad_man: Forrest did not start the KKK that existed in the 1950's. The klan he founded died out fairly quickly.

Well that hardly deserves a park naming.

Being a brilliant military commander does. Btw the federal armies did not defeat Lee. Northern manufacturing & the USA Navy did


Hmm,  interesting.  The men pulling the triggers did not kill and defeat the enemies, the guns did it of their own volition.
 
2013-02-06 05:54:40 PM
It's history... being obliterated.
 
2013-02-06 05:55:08 PM
lolpics.se
 
Displayed 50 of 589 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report