Celebrate Lee and Jackson in January, Not MLK

[rstrong]

Article 1
Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Instead they must call it a Memorandum of Agreement.

Examples:
- Memorandum of Understanding for Flood and Drought Mitigation on the Red River
- Memorandum of Agreement for State and Province Emergency Management Assistance
- Memorandum of Understanding on Trade, Tourism and Mutual Economic Cooperation between the State of Texas and the Province of Manitoba
- Memorandum of Understanding on Inland Port Development between Kansas City SmartPort, Inc., USA and the Province of Manitoba, Canada
...and many more.

[rstrong]

Same challenge....explain your statement that secession is "unconstitutional" or any part of the constitution that a state can lose "statehood" by any action allowed by the federal government.

I'll let the US Supreme Court answer that one, in Texas v. White (1869).

Even Justice Robert Grier's dissenting opinion seems to agree. He said that a states's claim that it was not a state during the Civil War was the equivalent of making a "plea of insanity", and asked the court to overrule all acts "made during the disease".

or any part of the constitution that a state can lose "statehood" by any action allowed by the federal government.

This is also explained in the link above, halfway through the "Majority opinion" section.

HTH

[Bungalow Bill]

Yep, after the war the former slaves had a pretty bad life under the same people
who had held them as slaves and/or supported that institution. Big surprise.

[Bungalow Bill]

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Mississippi and Eden.

[Stinger]

so mid-19th century - that would be what? say just about in time to end slavery without a war

You're trying the old canard about machines would have replaced slaves? Ludicrous.

I grew up on a farm. I still live on the farm. My neighbor has the largest farm in the county. We had "slaves" when I was a kid -- blacks who worked in hot fields all day long for a dollar an hour or less. A drink of water every few hours whether they needed it or not. No restrooms. A sandwich-- bologna and two slices of bread -- and a hot soda for lunch. Some of them stayed in shacks on the farm. A bare bulb in the house. A pitcher pump out front. An outhouse out back.

This was the 1960's, not the 1860's.

My neighbor has "slaves" today -- Mexicans who work in fields all day for low wages.

To claim that machinery would have magically displaced the need for slaves is only made by those who know little or nothing of farming.

The first gas tractor came along in the 1890's. It replaced mules, not slaves, and that took quite a while. There were plenty of farmers still using mules during the early 20th century. Machinery gradually lessened the need for slaves, but it has never eliminated the need for cheap labor.

stinger - I grew up on the same farm. I was making the point that industrialisation reduced the need for slaves in the north and would have done so it the south - given time. slavery was dying around the world and there is no reason to believe that the southern united states would be any different

and thank you for supporting the point I've been trying to make from the beginning of this thread - lincoln's war did nothing - sure the slaves were freed on paper - by law, but that was about it. free to share crop for about the same life they had as slaves, free to fear the kkk, free to live in shacks, free to live under jim crow, free to live apart from society, free to be called boy, free to not drink from the white only water fountain, free to move up north and live apart from the rest of society, free to be treated differently by law enforcement

lincoln's war fueled hatred in the south along with the destruction of homes and farms and railroads
lincoln's war created the corruption of reconstruction
lincoln's war lingers today


I keep imagining on this thread that I'm arguing with a bunch of right-wing war mongers

Your grandiose claims won't fly. You said slavery would have just magically ended about the time of the Civil War because of advances in farm machinery ... advances that didn't come for decades and decades and decades after the Civil War. I called bullshit on that idea, I didn't support it.

Slavery was dying around the world but it was still around at the beginning of the 20th century. France had reinstated slavery to grow sugar cane in its colonies and allowed slavery in Ndzuwani until 1899.

The Southern states were 100% committed and invested in slavery. They seceded from the United States in order to maintain slavery. They weren't giving it up anytime in the 19th century. What would have ended slavery in the South -- besides the Civil War -- would have been boycotts of their products, not farm machinery. And the boycotts wouldn't have come until well into the 20th century.

You conveniently forgot one new freedom that blacks gained with the Civil War. They gained the freedom to move to Northern states. I know a number of black families who still live and farm on land their families were given after the Civil War. For over 145 years, those families have been raising crops and keeping the profits . . . and not being whipped and sold down the river.

You might imagine that their lives weren't better off after the abolition of slavery, but I think they would disagree with you. I don't think your claim's any more valid than those who try to claim that blacks were better off when they were slaves.

So another half-century or more of slavery would have been okay?

History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.

...

Frankly I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was "well timed," according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." It has been a tranquilizing Thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.

...

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens' "Councilor" or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direst action" who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[Crock Hunter]

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Mississippi and Eden.

Ever notice that despite humans originating in Africa with dark skin almost all the Adam and Eve depictions look like we came from Norway?

With fundamentalist Christians as flag bearers... the religious zealot's passion for self-deception is unparallelled ...

[Stinger]

Caught "Fresh Air with Terri Gross" on the way home. She was discussing the Civil War with an eminent historian, Bruce Levine.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168793872 ... mmentBlock

Good listen. Levine pointed out that at the advent of the Civil War, only a few radicals were proposing abolition. Lincoln wasn't. He just wanted the states back in the Union.

Once they were back in, the anti-slavery faction could then begin nickel and diming slavery to death. Levine points out that this would have taken a very long time, and that slavery would most likely have endured into the 20th century.

Not surprising to anyone who knows the South and the history of slavery.

[Bungalow Bill]

Yes, and Jesus is often depicted as if he might have come from the same territory.
Since it's just a myth, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much anyway.

[Stinger]

Yes, and Jesus is often depicted as if he might have come from the same territory.
Since it's just a myth, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much anyway.

I still remember a scene from "Sanford and Son" when Fred told Lamont that one of the people in the the "Spirit of 76" picture was one of their ancestors.

Lamont said that that couldn't be true because all the people in the picture were white.

Fred said the picture was wrong and gave the following analogy.

Fred G. Sanford: How many times you see pictures of Jesus and he's white?

Lamont Sanford: What about it?

Fred G. Sanford: That's wrong, too, 'cause you can't hang around Jerusalem no thirty-some years and don't wear no hat and stay white.

I've seen a lot of pictures with a really white Jesus.

[rstrong]

Yes, and Jesus is often depicted as if he might have come from the same territory.
Since it's just a myth, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much anyway.

I still remember a scene from "Sanford and Son" when Fred told Lamont that one of the people in the the "Spirit of 76" picture was one of their ancestors.

Lamont said that that couldn't be true because all the people in the picture were white.

Fred said the picture was wrong and gave the following analogy.

Fred G. Sanford: How many times you see pictures of Jesus and he's white?

Lamont Sanford: What about it?

Fred G. Sanford: That's wrong, too, 'cause you can't hang around Jerusalem no thirty-some years and don't wear no hat and stay white.

I've seen a lot of pictures with a really white Jesus.

Since the Bible doesn't claim any unusual skin color for Jesus, we can assume that it wasn't unusual for the folks around him.

Before holocaust and assorted pogroms brought in a lot of white Europeans, before the crusades brought in a lot of white Europeans, before the Roman Empire brought in a lot of white Europeans, before various expulsions brought in a lot of white Europeans, before pilgrimages brought in a lot of white Europeans - the folks in that area had olive skin.

Or darker: Before that the Israelites had come out of Egypt. Jewish communities still in Africa, in Ethiopia and elsewhere, have much darker skin. As did Jews further east. Today he might be called black.

But we create god in our own image. It's only natural that European images of Jesus look European.

[Stinger]

Or darker: Before that the Israelites had come out of Egypt. Jewish communities still in Africa, in Ethiopia and elsewhere, have much darker skin. As did Jews further east. Today he might be called black.

Fred's point exactly.

But we create god in our own image. It's only natural that European images of Jesus look European.

But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.

- Xenophanes

[rstrong]

Steam traction engines (steam tractors capable of running belt driven equipment) were being used as early as the 1850s. Technology and the need for skilled operators would have forced slavery to the dustbin of history where it belonged.

Incorrect.

First, it would be at least another generation before steam tractors were common.

Second, those steam tractors weren't any good for picking cotton or many other things slaves were used for. It wasn't until the 1950s that reliable cotton harvesting machinery was introduced into the South.

Third, for every slave job that technology would have taken away, it introduced five more. Now large amounts of labor was needed in the textile mills. Now large amounts of labor was needed in the mines and steel mills. Now large amounts of labor were needed in brickworks and to lay railroads.

The British used poor children in the mines and textile mills the way God intended. The South would have used slaves.

[Stinger]

And I lost track of nothing, dumbass. The cotton gin was a processing aid, not a farming aid. What I spoke of was mechanical FARMING, which was under development far sooner than the development of the internal combustion engine. Steam traction engines (steam tractors capable of running belt driven equipment) were being used as early as the 1850s. Technology and the need for skilled operators would have forced slavery to the dustbin of history where it belonged.

Pointless bullshit. As covered above, tractors didn't really start putting any serious dent in agriculture until the 20th century. And that was without slaves. With slaves, there would have been even less incentive to switch to mechanical farming. Tractors didn't really become popular until the 1910's.

So, slavery would have lasted for at least another half century? None of the white folks would have complained. I'm sure the slaves would have been okay with it.

I grew up on a farm. Unlike you, I actually know something about farming. I grew up on one. Even in the 1950's and 1960's, there was a need for slaves. My dad used to drive an old surplus school bus to town in the morning, load up the 20th-century slaves, let them work in blazing fields all day, no restrooms, a drink of water from a water keg every hour or two -- whether they needed it or not -- a bologna sandwich for lunch ( which they paid for), take them home on the weekend, and pay them $50 or so at the end of the week.

I still live on the farm. There are 21st-century slaves -- Thorn's Mexicans, but they're not making any upper-middle-class income.

Too bad you don't know what you're talking about. I don't care how much machinery you have, a farmer could always use a good slave or two or three . . . or ten.

[Bungalow Bill]

The neo-Confederates will go to about any length to avoid the horror of slavery
and pretend it would have disappeared just after 1865. They're just sore losers
who can't recognize reality.

[Stinger]

So your farming experience consists of exploiting workers in your lifetime while daring to criticize someone from 150 years ago. If this is you idiotic idea of what it's like, you don't know jack shit about farming. I've spent a lifetime on farms, but unlike a squatter like you, I paid for my own and I work it every day without any of your despicable practices.

Yet another example of Pissant62 not knowing what the fuck he's talking about, going down in flames, and standing at the crash site claiming he's the authority.

You haven't done jackshit on farms and don't know jackshit about farming, or you wouldn't be making stupid statements about machinery replacing the need for slaves.

Any farm that hires workers "exploits" them, by your simplistic illogic. I guess if you have any farm experience, it's on a rinky-dink farm so small that you never had to hire anyone. Those two rows of beans in your back yard don't really qualify you as any sort of expert on farming.

[rstrong]

Uh...another "generation" past 1850 was just a few years after the Civil War (1870).

I meant a generation after slavery ended.

Evidently that wouldn't have been fast enough for some Northern folks; they would rather butcher 620,000 soldiers to speed things up.

That was the South's decision, not the North's.

As far as cotton harvesting, somehow it got harvested between 1865 and the 1950s without slave labor....how in the world did that happen???

WITHOUT SLAVE LABOR. What's your point?

Farm machinery would have been more efficient in many areas and required skilled labor, a need that drove slavery from the North before the Civil War. Had they won, an independent South would have had to begin developing industries since near term trade with the North would have been slow to recover.

It that little fantasy works for you, enjoy it. Just don't expect anyone outside of Stormfront to share it.

The British used poor children in the mines and textile mills the way God intended. The South would have used slaves.

As far as child abuse, as well as adults, the North was easily the equal of the evil British in exploiting employees before, during and after the ACW.

Not quite. America was still the place that Brits and others escaped to for a better life.

And that caused a problem for the South. The immigrants were all heading for the non-slave states in the north, because slavery was killing the South's job market and economy for everyone but the wealthy slave owners. The south was no better than the north for the average non-slave worker. With the north's population growing while the south stayed stagnant, they insisted on slaves being counted as votes, and insisted that new states be slave states.

Those employees in the north still had it far, far better than the slaves in the south. And if they didn't like it, they could leave.

"I had the great good fortune to live in Japan for about 8 or 9 months, back in the mid 80s. Being a Brit, it was a delightful pleasure to return to the traditional values that served the British Empire well - misogyny, rampant xenophobia, a hierarchical class system beyond belief and a blind obedience to ill-deserved authority."
- Spike Young

[JTA]

I can't wait for the MLK day festivities to commence!

[O Really]

I can't wait for the MLK day festivities to commence!

And the inauguration. Poor, poor racist Partisan62.

Oh, man...I didn't even think of that! MLK day and inauguration of the second term of the "Kenyan" on the same day? What is the world coming to? Armageddon on wheels. Of course, none of that will bother Parti, since in his world it doesn't exist.

[O Really]

Tick-tock, indeed. But I have a question. I'm no spring chicken, and I wonder how people younger than I, ostensibly growing up in the same country manage to hold views similar to Parti and others. I run into people who are in management positions now, who weren't even born when the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed; who have never lived a day in their life when it wasn't illegal to discriminate based on race, sex, etc., and who still somehow think it's OK to pay the women less because...well, they're women. (See for example Wal-Mart's explanation for why 72% of company employees are women, but only 33% of managers are.. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88057&page=1 )

What are these people's life experiences? Where did they go to school? Where have they traveled? How do you manage to get to 2013 and hold on to attitudes from the 40's and before? Taking it out of politics, seat belts have been mandatory for at least 30 years. Yet all the time you see somebody under 30 getting killed no wearing a seat belt. How is it that these people have ever in their lifetime gotten into a car an not used a seat belt? Why is it not as automatic as turning the ignition switch?

Let's say you grew up in the far hollers of Madison County. OK, so as long as you stay there, you might very well believe (lighthearted example) the revenuers are out to bust your still, and you might even have a still. But let's say you join the military and spend three or four years in a diverse environment, and visit several countries, some of which you're not even getting shot at. Aren't you going to learn from that experience? Could you really come back after that and think it's OK to shoot at the "revenuer" because they're after your still?

Is it really possible to create your own world and live in it despite all evidence that it's not real, and still not be carted away to the looney bin?

[Stinger]

What Partisan62 and his comrades were up to yesterday.

So young and so stupid.

http://www.classwarfareexists.com/it-wo ... ust-sayin/