"Ty Seidule On Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..." Topic

According only to you and your views.

You also made insinuations as to what was said in it. I contradicted what you wrote, and you come up with different reasons it was wrong. Keep moving that target. 😉

I have made no insinuations, merely pointed out the inaccuracies which are many. Apparently, mis-attributing a racist quote to Brooks is alright with you? Presumably because his social media posts were "conveniently wiped"? I take it that your view is that the racist quote's origins doesnt matter? After all, you appear hypersensitive to imagined misquotes, how do you think Brooks might feel about actual ones?

So you're saying that two of those black men not killing anyone is simply according to me and my view? I didnt come up with different reasons, I mentioned several additional reasons the article is flawed. I didnt realize there was a time limit to identifying errors and digging through your rambling. Even now, some of the tangents you've laid out are just not worth getting into…right now. In fact, just about the whole NY Post article is a falsehood.

Basic facts are true. They all tried to kill people because of race. 1 succeeded, 2 failed to kill, but not for lack of trying.

Attempted murder is basically the same as murder? ROFL. Is this a misquote too?

I try to correct your misreading and you still
Misread and misunderstand. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

And of course you are right… It's all about you, it's always been about you. 😉

35thOVI wrote -
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Try finding a place where the water flows under an old bridge ….. ;-)

B

Try finding a place where the water flows under an old bridge ….. ;-)

He might be more comfortable drinking from da Nile

["Again", I stated that I do not believe black supremists are rampant, just like white supremists are not rampant. white supremists are a Bogeyman dredged up by the left. But authors like the one this thread is about, try to use history as a methodology to dredge it up using some personal Epiphany or self Revelation to do so. All of which is bogus. I would be happy to not bring them up, if the left wokesters stop dragging up the white supremists bogeymen.]

It's a good thing that white supremacy is a made up "bogeyman" otherwise we'd probably have ten of these a day rather than the normal once a week:

Buffalo mass shooter's alleged manifesto leaves no doubt attack was white supremacist terrorism

link

link

Interesting that you go-to source agrees that it isnt fair that the "Dems" blame Tucker Carlson for the shooter adopting his white replacement theory views.

link

Ahh I thought this would bring you back out from under the bridge again. I Think that is what Blutarski's snippet refers to.😉 Think Shrek, but not an Ogre.

"Try finding a place where the water flows under an old bridge ….. ;-)
B"

First off I will say what I said about Frank James and Darrell Brooks. This white supremists that did this is a Hemorrhoid on society and I think there should be a quick trial and then take him out and string him up on the nearest light post. I have no use for him. The same "should" happen to Brooks and James.

I am sure you agree. Correct? White racist, black racist, yellow racist, red racist, they should be treated exactly the same. Again do you agree? Quick Trials and removal from society.

Having now made my position totally clear, has anyone noticed how much differently this shooting has been handled compared to either James or Brooks? How much differently by the mainstream media? We immediately knew the murderer was white, 11 of his 13 victims black, hate crime was immediately on the table. His web posts made public. A promise for a quick trial and the most severe penalties possible. Not quite the same with Brooks or James. I ask, Why the differences?

Pas again my original full quote that you Paraphrased.

"You all asked for other articles, I provided them. You Locked on that one. "Again", I stated that I do not believe black supremists are rampant, just like white supremists are not rampant. white supremists are a Bogeyman dredged up by the left. But authors like the one this thread is about, try to use history as a methodology to dredge it up using some personal Epiphany or self Revelation to do so. All of which is bogus.

NOTICE I said specifically:

"I stated that I do not believe black supremists are rampant, just like white supremists are not rampant"

They EXIST, but are NOT rampant. Although the left would have us believe they exist in every shadow and under every bed.

Yes I do believe white supremists are a boogeyman, dredged up by the left to try to scare the minorities and keep them slavishly voting for Democrats into eternity. They started doing this again, immediately, yesterday as soon as this took place.

Now back to your accusation of me insulting you with "hyperbole". Let me break that paragraph into more easily digestible sentences.

"So if an Originalist is an "ultra conservative", are those who believe in a living Constitution "ultra leftists"? "

Note Pas, that is a question, referring back to one of your statements previously. Do you See the question mark?

"Or are there just ultra conservatives? "

Again Pas a question. This time relating back to your original statement and to my previous question.

These sentences referred back to, "or are there just ultra conservatives?" From above. THEN I make an Analogy:

So I was not insulting you. Again you read it the way you wanted to and assumed an insult.

FYI the site you continue to insult, I thought had a pretty fair article on this yesterday. Even before all the details were known.

Subject: UPDATE: Mass Shooting at Buffalo Grocery Store; Ten Killed. Three Wounded, Shooter in Custody – Shooter Allegedly Left 106 Page Manifesto


link

Blutarski, I hope I did not misquote you or your meaning. If I did, I apologize.

35thOVI wrote -
"Blutarski, I hope I did not misquote you or your meaning."

I have no idea what you are referring to ….. Let's just consider it all as "water under the bridge".

B

Understood 😉

I am now halfway through the book. It is an easy read, a personal memoir of a southern boy who grew up worshipping Lee. There are all kinds of tidbits you can believe or not. The second most distributed book in the US after the Bible is Gone With The Wind. A book and movie he loved. His story is about facing his own past, a reckoning.

From the beginning he seems to know that changing minds is nearly impossible. He is giving you his understanding of how he grew up, what he learned, and how he came to see past the past and understand things anew.

As I said before, his army career includes bona fire stints as a commander overseas, including serving in the 101st airborne. He understands the personal attacks he gets, but he is secure in his record and career view.

Talking about the causes and aftermath of the war is still like getting jabbed with a red hot poker for a lot of people. But I also know people who do not know when it was fought or why, what the uniform colors were, could not find Gettysburg or Vicksburg, or even Chicago on a map. But I am thinking as I read this book that it really matters as much as it ever did.

I think this book was cathartic for the author. His own racist past, and the way his change of mind and heart came about may change some readers, infuriate others, like every single thing we seem to write or say about the war that maybe never ended.

I am thinking as I read about how the word "woke" was demonized and made political, until you don't say it except to condemn something. I do it. "Asleep" is not the right word for the Lost Cause, because it has been so purposeful in writing a history.

So, a provocative read, will cause some gnashing of teeth. It's no 1619 thing, it's about a modern soldier and Robert Lee.

Thanks Tort. Appreciate your doing a review.

Some day I will relate to you the questions I have been asked at Civil War parks when my groups presents to the public. Some really funny ones.

You have one of those new Chinese MBT's on order yet? 🙂

Take care

Thanks 35th!

I thought I would make my own tank – anybody can do it! (Apparently) Old John Deere riding mower – just add armor!

Don't forget the missiles.

Ahh I thought this would bring you back out from under the bridge again. I Think that is what Blutarski's snippet refers to.😉 Think Shrek, but not an Ogre.

"Try finding a place where the water flows under an old bridge ….. ;-)
B"

I consider Blutarski the gold standard for sanity checks. Whenever he sneers at me, I know I'm alright.

First off I will say what I said about Frank James and Darrell Brooks. This white supremists that did this is a Hemorrhoid on society and I think there should be a quick trial and then take him out and string him up on the nearest light post. I have no use for him. The same "should" happen to Brooks and James.

Yes

I am sure you agree. Correct?

I do sir, I do.

White racist, black racist, yellow racist, red racist, they should be treated exactly the same. Again do you agree? Quick Trials and removal from society.

Justice delayed, is justice denied.

Having now made my position totally clear, has anyone noticed how much differently this shooting has been handled compared to either James or Brooks? How much differently by the mainstream media? By the Governor of New York, (am I the only one who watched her full speech)? How differently by the White House? We immediately knew the murderer was white, 11 of his 13 victims black, hate crime was immediately on the table. His web posts made public. A promise for a quick trial and the most severe penalties possible. Not quite the same with Brooks or James. I ask, Why the differences?

I believe James was immediately convicted in the media as both a racist and a terrorist. I can't remember the Brooks coverage. I think you are suggesting that the coverage creates a false impression that there is both white and black supremacy when, in fact, there is neither black nor white supremacy?

Is that right?

Also, Twitch quickly removed the shooters live feed. Hardly seems like something one would do if we are all singling out white supremacists for unfair treatment.

link

So I was not insulting you. Again you read it the way you wanted to and assumed an insult.

I'm not sure I believe this but I'm willing to forgive and move on.

FYI the site you continue to insult, I thought had a pretty fair article on this yesterday. Even before all the details were known.

link

I just thought you'd like to know that Tucker Carlson is apparently being unfairly attacked. Poor Tucker, a man with neither means, nor education nor platform to defend himself. Is there no justice?

I read the link, it seems like the Gateway Pundit writer was careful not to mention white supremacy. Well, it's a developing story. I suppose we have to wait until the manifesto is available.

Wow this is probably as close to reasonable as you and I will get.

Tucker is a big boy, I am sure he will defend himself. He does not need me to.

"I believe James was immediately convicted in the media as both a racist and a terrorist. I can't remember the Brooks coverage. I think you are suggesting that the coverage creates a false impression that there is both white and black supremacy when, in fact, there is neither black nor white supremacy?"

"Is that right?"

Not really. We know there are white and black supremists. But not in extremes. Problem one is the media tries to portray white supremists as being rampant, as they have done again with the Buffalo shootings. They are not rampant, nor very Prevalent. Secondly I tried to point out the completely different ways the mainstream media and politicians handle one mass shooting (Buffalo) and the way they handled 2 others (New York and Wisconsin). Not the same.
It is all strictly politics and nothing more.

Case in point from yesterday:
How much do you know about the shootings yesterday in Laguna Woods Ca.? Did you know the church was attended by Taiwanese? Did you know the killer was 67 year old David Chou? Did you know he was a Chinese Immigrant? That he, like the Buffalo shooter drove over 200 miles to do his shooting? Did you know he was motivated by hate of the Taiwanese people? I doubt many know. Why? It does not fit agenda and it will not garner votes. But isn't this mass shooting just as important as Buffalo?

The President is going to Buffalo to Console the people of Buffalo. He refused to go to Wisconsin. Although they did send his wife later. Will he go to Laguna Woods to console the Taiwanese?

Actually Peter Doocy called the administration out on the difference between his trip to Buffalo and no trip to Wisconsin, today. I was very surprised.

So anyway, since this is as close as we have gotten to being reasonable. I am willing to drop this thread. I am sure all who are still reading this,(probably not many) are board with us. I know I am board of it. I assume you are board with me too.

Subject: WATCH: Peter Doocy Grills White House Spox: How Come Biden is Visiting Buffalo, But He Couldn't Visit Waukesha?

Haw!!! Put on the spot and caught!!

link

Not really. We know there are white and black supremists. But not in extremes. Problem one is the media tries to portray white supremists as being rampant, as they have done again with the Buffalo shootings. They are not rampant, nor very Prevalent. Secondly I tried to point out the completely different ways the mainstream media and politicians handle one mass shooting (Buffalo) and the way they handled 2 others (New York and Wisconsin). Not the same.
It is all strictly politics and nothing more.

You believe that the media stories have the power to shape what people think and do?

What do you think the solution here is? Is it a matter of equal time in the media?

Should we have laws specially tailored for racially motivated attacks?

Should we have a domestic terrorism statute?

The President is going to Buffalo to Console the people of Buffalo. He refused to go to Wisconsin. Although they did send his wife later. Will he go to Laguna Woods to console the Taiwanese?

Did he refuse? Does this make a difference? Does the President have to go every mass shooting site?

Did he refuse? I don't recall hearing this. What was the reason?

There is now a lot of data on domestic terror incidents going back 20 years. Data is always useful in seeing trends and shaping policy. I believe it has continued to show white supremacy as the most significant domestic threat. In terms of numbers of people affected as a percentage of the whole population, the number of incidents is not huge, I believe. But for the families and all of us the impact is huge and tragic. The symbolic impact, I believe makes these acts of terror, crimes to send a threat message.

"You believe that the media stories have the power to shape what people think and do?"

Absolutely! Especially when combined with the indoctrination going on in our countries universities and even our lower level schools. Did not and does not the Nazi and Russian media influence the views of their populace? If not go read some of the Russian citizens views on the Ukrainian war in Ultramodern Warfare threads.

Can I assume you don't believe they influence peoples thoughts, since on the whole they seem to agree with most of your own beliefs? Just asking, not an accusation.

Equal time might be interesting. But with only one media outlet on TV that opposes the views of the others, that will never happen.

No I don't think we need anymore governmental agencies or laws. We already have "the ministry of truth" proposed. No more jobs draining taxpayers money for life. It is beginning to feel like "Harry Potter", with the government controlled by Voldemort. 😂

I just want the hyperbole on one type of mass shootings to stop. Cover all equally. Are blacks any less dead when killed by a white man in Buffalo, then they are killed by other blacks in a weekend in Chicago? Are the Taiwanese in CA. any less dead because they were killed by Nationalist supremists Asian from China, then they would be by anyone else? As I stated, the only reason the white on black killings are blown up like they are, is strictly liberal politics and votes.

Yes, if you watched the 2 videos, he did refuse to go to Wisconsin. Since he is going to Buffalo, he should go to Ca. As well. Better, go to none, he makes no difference and just gets in the way and cost lots and lots of needless money to be spent. Not counting all that fuel and pollution. But they might lose votes and potential political momentum.

Tort watch the videos in the link. One with Jen about Wisconsin and one with the new press secretary about Buffalo.

I said: You believe that the media stories have the power to shape what people think and do?

Absolutely! Especially when combined with the indoctrination going on in our countries universities and even our lower level schools. Did not and does not the Nazi and Russian media influence the views of their populace? If not go read some of the Russian citizens views on the Ukrainian war in Ultramodern Warfare threads.

What do you mean by indoctrination?

Do you believe that speech should be restricted?

Can I assume you don't believe they influence peoples thoughts, since on the whole they seem to agree with most of your own beliefs? Just asking, not an accusation.

They dont influence me, not past a certain visceral level. I try and fact check before I make a final decision. I think speech does or can influence behavior but I am trying to understand what you think and what you think needs to be done about it.

In any case, if you believe that people become what they read, do you think we can never read Mein Kampf?

Do you think that speech needs to be controlled? Controlled only in some instances? Or not controlled at all? And if not at all, why worry about it?

Any assumptions you might be making about my beliefs may be based in part that your own views are extreme and that you seem to believe in binary politics ("us" and "them") which in turn tends to reinforce that your views are extreme and unyielding.

Equal time might be interesting. But with only one media outlet on TV that opposes the views of the others, that will never happen.

It's a conspiracy then?

No I don't think we need anymore governmental agencies or laws.

SO nothing is to be done about it? I wouldve thought you'd be all for treating people such as Frank James as terrorists?

I just want the hyperbole on one type of mass shootings to stop. Cover all equally. Are blacks any less dead when killed by a white man in Buffalo, then they are killed by other blacks in a weekend in Chicago?

Cover all equally? How about drop them all together? Does that work too?

I dont know that blacks are any more or less dead by the hand of any particular demographic of killer but the motivation might be more widespread and organized when white supremacy causes targeted killing sprees.

Do you believe that motives matter or not? Or do you only believe that they sometimes matter but only when you approve or disapprove?

Maybe youre conveniently spending too much time on the physical killings and not enough following the motivations. I saw with the Brooks case, you appear to not want to tie the facts together concerning his killings and what motivated them. Read the facts of that case.

You believe in "agendas", "politics", "Indoctrination", fascist media tactics, Marxist takeovers of the schools and our children, the magic of "hyperbole" to affect behavior but you dont believe there is an organized white supremacy ideology as opposed to individual acts of violence (racist or otherwise)? Amazing how so many injustices exist except for the one they claim they're fighting against. I suppose it's the irony of ironies?

I dont see the president not going to Waukesha as any sort of "Aha!" moment and I think it is somewhat conniving to cast his behavior as a "refusal". There is no evidence that Brooks pre-planned this Waukesha attack based on racist paranoia the way that the Buffalo killer did. The FBI has declared that white supremacy is the number one dosmetic terror threat and the President is going to uphold the FBI's finding and one of its unfortunate manifestations.

But it is true the president cant go to every mass shooting location.

Au Pas I am not going to rehash things that I have said in 7 total pages of this thread over and over again. You and others can agree, disagree or ignore. You seem to be searching for some "AHA" sentence, or moment.

If I kill you because, let us say you are Chinese, or I kill you to take your wallet. Does that make you any less dead? Do you care more because of one or the other? No, you are dead. Does making one a hate crime and the other not, help you? Shouldn't killing you be crime enough? Shouldn't I get the same sentence either way? Evil is evil! There are not degrees of dead. All hate crimes are for is attempts to mollify one group and to obtain votes from that group. It is strictly politics.

Again I will say I am wiling to let this topic drop, are you?

The current state of legacy media is pretty awful. I watched last Sunday's Meet the Press episode and it was honestly a shrill spectacle from the Left. How far MTP has fallen since the days of Tim Russert.

I am fascinated that the legacy media doesn't seem to understand that the more race is lifted up as the defining human characteristic the more problems like Buffalo we will have. I compare the current CRT world view with the approach that Martin Luther King Jr. promoted. King wanted to neutralize race as a matter for human consideration. Let people be judged not by the color of their skin but by the quality of their character he said. That was his motto and it is mine too. Interestingly enough, today if you say I don't consider race in your dealings with other you can be accused of being a racist.

Let me tell how bad it has gotten. A 13 year old "white" girl was washing dishes with a 13 year old BIPOC boy. The girl noticed that the water had become dark and dirty and needed replacing and mentioned this to the boy. The boy accused her of being a racist. Really!

Au Pas… You seem to be searching for some "AHA" sentence, or moment.

Am I really? And what would I do with that exactly?

If I kill you because, let us say you are Chinese, or I kill you to take your wallet. Does that make you any less dead? Do you care more because of one or the other? No, you are dead. Does making one a hate crime and the other not, help you? Shouldn't killing you be crime enough? Shouldn't I get the same sentence either way? Evil is evil! There are not degrees of dead.

This is interesting because it mirrors totalitarian, Soviet laws that motive is irrelevant, only result.

My answer to you is that YES, motive matters. In a moral, western democracy, intent makes a difference.

All hate crimes are for is attempts to mollify one group and to obtain votes from that group. It is strictly politics.

This is a dangerous viewpoint. There is no such thing as hate crimes? Aside from the fact that based on your posts I dont believe you believe this, it also sounds like it is deployed with self interest.

Again I will say I am wiling to let this topic drop, are you?

You do as you like.

One thing though. You have a unique chance to straighten out and tighten your thoughts. My impression is that you proceed along the lines of suspicion, caution and consensus. If your beliefs cant stand up to scrutiny, then they were never grounded in anything other than the way you would like things to be.

I come from the standpoint of consistent values which I cherish enough and find awesome enough to challenge constantly. It reinforces my tenets and underlines their value.

Now, the problem with weak thinkers, fanatics and ideologues is that they panic or get angry when someone pushes back, always making assumptions that someone isnt with them and can therefore be written off as a waste of time. I suppose it is is smarter and truer to find people who already agree with you but less interesting. However, if intellectual stimulation isnt what a person is looking for, then I understand.

Just so you know, we will never be friends, we may never agree but when you absent the chance to strengthen or test your own beliefs, it exposes a fear that they cant survive the light of day. It's your loss, not mine.

On a broader note, I find it disturbing that a lot of the "Free Speech" Hawks on here run around freaking out about the speech of others that they dont like. Hate speech is a fiction, things they dont like aren't truly speech they're "indoctrination", people cant be trusted to read something without becoming it.

And then they think they're the free thinkers and everyone else is programmed? I find that terrifying.

But, I'm willing to engage them, if they can make an argument and support it. I would imagine that anyone not recruiting or trying to change someone's opinion would appreciate that.

I am fascinated that the legacy media doesn't seem to understand that the more race is lifted up as the defining human characteristic the more problems like Buffalo we will have. I compare the current CRT world view with the approach that Martin Luther King Jr. promoted. King wanted to neutralize race as a matter for human consideration. Let people be judged not by the color of their skin but by the quality of their character he said. That was his motto and it is mine too. Interestingly enough, today if you say I don't consider race in your dealings with other you can be accused of being a racist.

I know you are a big MLK fan but what do you think he would've made of your "The South didn't secede over slavery" guys over at the Abbeville Institute?

Do you think that all speech related to race needs to be removed?

Let me tell how bad it has gotten. A 13 year old "white" girl was washing dishes with a 13 year old BIPOC boy. The girl noticed that the water had become dark and dirty and needed replacing and mentioned this to the boy. The boy accused her of being a racist. Really!

Why were they washing dishes at 13? Is this at some child labor camp?

I suppose that'll teach the white parents a lesson not to allow interracial dish-washing.

So the boy is an idiot why do you care? Some crazy black lady called me a racist for no reason and I laughed at her. I laughed so hard, she started laughing. Hopefully the little girl laughed at the boy.

MB +1

AP, we can't be friends? 😢 well shoot, I had your Christmas presents all picked out. A Tucker Carlson book and a Jessie Waters book.

"You know, Au Pas, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it."

I am glad you are convinced of your beliefs. You know so am I. As I stated, I made all my points necessary and in the last 7 pages. Just be rehashing them.

Now the President just came on TV to make his speech in Buffalo, which I am sure is only being made to bring everyone closer together. We all know he is a uniter and not a divider.

Today I chose NOT "to be your Huckleberry".

I'm thought it would be interesting to actually read Payton Gendron's manifesto, instead of getting the crap we get from all media. Took a bit, but found a link. You can now get into the mind of a nut job. Large sections deal with nothing but weapons and body armor. The man did not like blacks. He hated Jews. He rambles. He list his influencers. He did not like any media, including Fox. They are "all run by Jews". I can see why he had to undergo Psychiatric test previously.

A few other things:

"Are you a conservative?
No, conservatism is corporatism in disguise. I want no part of it

Are you a Christian?
No I do not ask God for salvation by faith, Nor do I confess my sins to him.

Are you a fascist?
Yes fascism is one of the only political ideologies That will unite whites against the replacers.

Are you a white supremists? Yes.
Are you a racist? Yes.
Are you an anti semite? YES

Are you right wing?
Depending on the definition sure.

Are you left wing?
Depending on the definition sure.

Are you a socialist?
Depending on the definition.

Did you always hold these views?
When I was 12 I was deep in to communist ideology, Talk to anyone from my old high school and ask about Me and you hear that. At 15 to 18 however I consistently Moved further to the right on the political compass I fall into the mild moderate Authoritarian left Category, and would prefer to be called a populist"

Pay attention to pages 157 through 165

Subject: Payton Gendron's Manifesto – The Occidental Observer


link

I know you are a big MLK fan but what do you think he would've made of your "The South didn't secede over slavery" guys over at the Abbeville Institute?

He probably would have disagreed with me. Or maybe not. I still think you've missed my big point ApdC which is not that I am correct about Secession but that my position stands within a valid set of possible interpretations.

The 13 year olds were at a camping event. Actually, the girl was a bit traumatized by the accusation and it took her parents talking her down to explain that in fact the boy was an idiot. But again, in the CRT world everything is about race, and every event is about power, even washing dishes.

My criticism about the current way of talking about race is that it is actually making things worse, not better. King, I think was able to bring people together. Not those in the public view today.

I see that OVI is still talking about black supremacy as if it excuses white supremacy … lol. When is the last hobby convention that you've attended? Mine was this past weekend, very enjoyable, relaxing, no one in essence yacking about "oh, but what about black supremacy". Thank goodness.

He probably would have disagreed with me. Or maybe not.

Who knows, maybe his ancestors were slave owners…

I still think you've missed my big point ApdC which is not that I am correct about Secession but that my position stands within a valid set of possible interpretations.

But really, it isn't whether I believe it or understand it. It's about who is making these claims and why. Unfortunately, Livingston makes his points mostly with a series of innuendos. The net result is deflection of wrongdoing and rehabilitation of the Old South. Additionally, I dont respect "whataboutism" history. Whataboutism flies too close to the twin stars of "Denialism" and "I was only following orders-ism"; which is why the wax feathers melt off the arguments and they then plummet like the proverbial lead turkey.

And one more thing, this idea Im getting from some of the confederate defenders on here that I cant read, that I cant understand, that I miss points or take things out of context may be a reflection of the flimsiness of the ideas or the inability of them who hold those ideas to express those ideas elegantly enough. If you have a radical idea and others dont want to swallow them wholesale and you get frustrated by that, consider making a better set of talking points.

The 13 year olds were at a camping event. Actually, the girl was a bit traumatized by the accusation and it took her parents talking her down to explain that in fact the boy was an idiot. But again, in the CRT world everything is about race, and every event is about power, even washing dishes.

I'm not sure what CRT is exactly or why a 13 year old girl wouldnt laff a stupid comment like that off but in your anecdote, the big loser is the little boy because it sounds like his parents are a bunch of low brows. If I were the girl's parents, I'd find a better class of camp or never associate with those people again.

My criticism about the current way of talking about race is that it is actually making things worse, not better. King, I think was able to bring people together. Not those in the public view today.

It does seem to rely on assumptions and blanket statements and contradictions but for a long time it was a settled monolith not because everything was alright but because we had a our heads in the sand. Now it's going to be a mess for a while.

Race might very well be both political and confusing nowadays but I think whites have only themselves to blame for inventing legal color lines.

I dont have great hopes for any solutions any time soon. The current racial equality is a fad. It will fade. I have faith that America will return to its historical racial equilibrium and stratification. In fact, because of the social silos created by Covid, things might get worse across the board with different races, classes, regions having even less empathy for each other.

And thus the need for things to be repeated, to confront the southern sympathizers complaining about how folks are showing up to tell the truth about what happened and why. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are there for good reason. The folks acting in ways today to challenge the ideas in those amendments, including but not limited to their talk of the South's noble cause, if and when they stop acting inappropriately towards the ideas espoused in those amendments, then there might not be as much need to repeatedly confront their crud. However, teaching the history of what happened anyway will require repetition as an attempt and a way to move humanity forward in a more positive direction than what was being done through the subjugation of blacks, and the determined nationalistic attitude of it's leaders to have their own nation where they could continue to do such.

The cause of the ACW was slavery. As stated by the Southerners themselves at the succession conventions and in Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech". All the other issues could have been worked out short of war.

Before the war Lincoln said he did not want to eliminate slavery where it existed. Just the expansion of it. That wasn't good enough for them. In 1860 dollars it is estimated that slaves were worth three billion dollars. The expansion of slavery to the west would have open up new markets for slaves and more profits. Was three billion dollars worth 750,000 lives?

"…Was three billion dollars worth 750,000 lives?" Was liberating 4 million Americans worth 750,000 lives?

Just remember Au pas de Charge, some of the Confederate apologists you are arguing with here lack the cognitive ability to even form a personal opinion. You can't expect them to grasp higher ideas. Or ideals.

The cause of the ACW was slavery.

No it wasn't. It was "a cause."

Cleburne, you propensity to ad hominin attacks is a sign of your lack of intellectual rigor. So before throwing stones at others perhaps you should look in the mirror.

No it was more than a cause. It was THE cause. Let us look at the events that occur between 1848 and 1860 that one will find in any history textbook

1. When attempt to appropriate money with which to pay Mexico at the end of the Mexican War added to the bill was the Wilmont Proviso that SLAVERY would not be expanded into the territories.

2. Compromise of 1850. California would come in as a free state. Selling of SLAVES in District of Columbus is outlawed. North promises to enforce Fugitive SLAVE Act. Rest of the territories would not be said to be either SLAVE or free. Everything here was about SLAVERY.

3. Northern states pass personal liberty laws saying will not help capture run away SLAVES.

4. Nashville Conference states South will not compromise on SLAVERY again.

5. 1852: Kansas-Nebraska Act. Popular sovereignty will be used to decide if a territory comes in SLAVE or free.

6. The Republican Party forms around support for Wilmont Proviso. No expansion of SLAVERY.

7. Bloody Kansas. So called because of the fighting and violence over the issue of SLAVERY in Kansas.

8. 1856: Dred Scott Decision. Supreme Court say free territories and north states are unconstitutionally banning SLAVERY. Slavery can expand anywhere.

9. The three largest Christian denominations Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian all split apart of the issue of SLAVERY.
10. Congressmen now come armed to sessions of Congress. Several large scale brawls breakout during sessions. Why? Over the issue of SLAVERY.

11. 1858: John Brown attacks Harper's Ferry. Reason, to start a revolt to free the SLAVES.

12. 1860: Democratic Party splits apart over the issue of SLAVERY.

13. Seven SLAVE states secede from the Union. They write Declarations of Secession that lists the reasons they are leaving. Virtually every reason deals with the issue of SLAVERY.

14. The seceded states now send representatives to the other eight SLAVE states. In their speeches and writing they urge these states to leave the Union. What is at the center of their arguments? To protect SLAVERY.

15. Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the CSA, says in a speech that SLAVERY is the cornerstone of their new country.

Okay, can we finally admit the Civil War was over the issue of slavery? The primary sources, the secondary sources all state is was slavery. How could it not be? It is right there in the events that happen.

Everyone should read MacPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It spends the first 3rd of the book showing all the ways in which slavery not only caused the war, but made it absolutely inevitable.

Gamespoet
I am glad you enjoyed your convention. Maine can be lovely in the Spring. I hope your folk and your Orc and Goblin allies did not eat too many of the good folk of Middle Earth. My condolences to those Hobbits and Dwarves who gave up their lives to fill your bellies. But good to know you're back home to the caves of the White Mountains again or under a bridge, wherever.

Now as too another of your many false accusations of my views. I have never said that black supremacy excuses white supremacy…. as you well know. My point remains, supremacy exits with all races, but none are rampant or dominating the thoughts of the vast majority of the people of our country. This is unlike what a certain party, most of the media, this particular author and revisionist like him and many in academia would like to have all of us believe. But alas.. votes are votes.

You and others have accused me repeatedly of being scatter gunned and diverging from the topic. Let's go back to the beginning:

1) what was Tango's original topic on page 1? "White Supremacy and Treason". What does that signify we are to garner from Ty Seindule's book, his self revelations and our Alleged current white supremists society?
2) start back on page one and look at the different entries and see that I not only had to address you and Au Pas, but at least 3 others and they are all, all over the spectrum as to what they say.

So it is "not just you" or Au Pas I responded to.

On page 2, I made a series answers to yours and other peoples Accusations. I then asked if they were (true) or (false). You ignored the questions and instead made the accusation that I was answering my own questions.

(From Page 2 my original post)

("1) check my posts again on April 20th. I have said slavery was bad. I also said I believe slavery was the catalyst for the war. NO WHERE did I ever deny that. True?
2) I have said that not every soldier in the South fought to preserve slavery. Not every Union soldier fought to free the slave. Although that may eventually have been the goal of those in charge on both sides, it was not the overriding reason the individual soldiers fought on both sides. 
3) I have said that I believe the Confederacy was wrong to succeed. True? 
4) I did give what I thought the other reasons for succession were. True? I found one I thought was somewhat valid. Again True? I was then accused of being pro Succession and pro Confederate. 😂
5) it may seem that I have gotten scatter gunned on multiple subjects in this thread, check the individual threads of those who have challenged me. It pretty much runs the gamut of things I have covered. 
6) Gamepost are you from the US? Your profile is blank as relates. I have been honest in other threads that I worked in the private sector and am a pro military, conservative. Your beliefs?

Now before I answer anything else, please enlighten me and anyone else who is interested, what you believe this author is trying to say, what his purpose is in writing this book and those related to the same subject and what his ultimate purpose for writing them is.")

The "True?", signified a question. Is what I said true or false? Remember, one can always go back to page one to determine the truth.

Note, you nor anyone other than Tort(who I very much respect), have EVER answered this particular question I originally asked on page 2.

(The question again)
"Now before I answer anything else, please enlighten me and anyone else who is interested, what you believe this author is trying to say, what his purpose is in writing this book and those related to the same subject and what his ultimate purpose for writing them it?"

Of course you could just copy Tort's answers, but that would be cheating and the truly enlightened never cheat. Correct? 😉

FYI, in case you forgot, this was your original response to my 6 questions above.

(your original response. I think this is when you started reverting to Quotations by the way)
""Seeing more rhetorical questions, although this time with answers, yet this isn't showing an understanding of why your black supremacy question is not relevant. And in more than one post there are questions about me, which seems like more avoidance, deflection, and inappropriate.
Your work experience, and political persuasion is of no interest to me, nor should mine be to yourself. Especially since you've already demonstrated negative views of some sectors of society, and because some of them in those sectors "vehemently" oppose your actions, beliefs, and views expressed. I wouldn't want such aspersions cast on to the sectors I belong to just because you're unhappy with me.
Plus, if what I've given previously hasn't helped, anything else might only bring more confusion when what has already been provided seems to have not been comprehended. However, just in case I am mistaken here is a quote anyway … "Be always displeased with what you are if you wish to be what you are not" … by St. Augustine""

That is pretty much the response I would expect from a deflector and from someone who views themselves as being wiser and more enlightened than the un enlightened masses. That's really not you, is it?

Please elaborate for all of us, if you would, on your most resent thread.

(Full text of this is down about 2 paragraphs below, so don't accuse me of taking it out of context)

"…need to repeatedly confront their crud."Can we assume then that only yours and those who agree with your views, are the truly enlightened and correct, and those of the rest us, are "crud"?

Please explain to all the "un enlightened" in this topic how you would accomplish the goals of your comments below. What it would entail being done and what the ultimate outcome would be?
Be specific this time, how do you view the final solution? No fluff and sound bytes. How you view this brave new Utopia and how this is to be accomplished. Also if you would be so kind, since it all most Evidently change, how do YOU view our Country currently? You and others who agree with you, must see the U.S. as seriously flawed. Are we really that bad of a Pyorrhea on the world?

(Part of Your last entry)
"will require repetition as an attempt and a way to move humanity forward in a more positive direction than what was being done through the subjugation of blacks, and the determined nationalistic attitude of it's leaders to have their own nation where they could continue to do such."

(This is that full text I promised earlier)
"And thus the need for things to be repeated, to confront the southern sympathizers complaining about how folks are showing up to tell the truth about what happened and why. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are there for good reason. The folks acting in ways today to challenge the ideas in those amendments, including but not limited to their talk of the South's noble cause, if and when they stop acting inappropriately towards the ideas espoused in those amendments, then there might not be as much need to repeatedly confront their crud. However, teaching the history of what happened anyway will require repetition as an attempt and a way to move humanity forward in a more positive direction than what was being done through the subjugation of blacks, and the determined nationalistic attitude of it's leaders to have their own nation where they could continue to do such."

For those arguing about the illegality of the Souths secession and their use of slavery as the reason. remember neither were fully illegal prior to the end of the Civil War.

There was no provision in the U.S. Constitution until after the Civil War, which prohibited a state from seceding from the union.

We can argue all we like Illegality of secession, but our views are nothing but our own opinions and the opinions of others who may be like minded. There would have been no need for the 13th or 14th amendments and Texas vs White in 1869, if either of those issues were decided matters prior to the Civil War. So Seindule's Arguments and some of the others in this thread, that the Southerners were all traitors because secession was illegal, is open to much debate and argument. The argument that secession was illegal prior to the Civil War, was based on opinions and Interpretations of the Constitution by those on both sides.

13th Amendment- Abolishes slavery. January 31, 1865
14th Amendment- 1868, granted citizenship and Civil and legal rights to African Americans
It was also written to drive the stake into the argument of legality of secession
"The Fourteenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession"

Subject: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession by Daniel A. Farber :: SSRN


link

I as I previously stated, I believe the South's main reason for secession (slavery) was the wrong reason to base secession on, but I believe they had the right to Secede from the union of states.

As to Seindule's. How do you take a man seriously who idolized a man as a 11 (Lee) and Jesus as 5? Why would anyone idolize any man or woman? You have to question any man who would. So are we supposed to take his catharsis seriously?

"Robin Lindley: In your new book, you describe your virtual reverence for Robert E. Lee, and how your education as a child and young adult was imbued with Confederate myths and racist history. At one point as a child, you ranked Lee as an "11" out of a scale of 10, and ranked Jesus at five. How do you see the origins of your adoration of Lee? Did your parents and teachers encourage your embrace of Lost Cause myths and the veneration of Lee when you grew up in the 1960s?"

He comes to the conclusion that slavery is wrong and racism is wrong. Quite the epiphany for someone living in our modern times. Not exactly going out on a limb is he. Then somehow he tries to tie all of this to some great white supremists gremlin in modern America. You are welcome to believe that if it pleases you. You are welcome to believe in the Easter Bunny, he's just as real. I and I hope others don't buy into it. I believe the United States is one of the greatest beacons of multi Culturalism in the world today. There are more opportunities in this country for minorities then anywhere else. The fact that we have thousands coming here legally and millions illegally every year says more than I ever could. Feel free to tear down our history and country, but don't expect me to join in your parade.

To top it off, a few more links you can disregard.

Notice the Representative never lets a little thing like race, get in the way of agenda and narrative.

Subject: Dem Rep. Beatty blames White supremacy for Dallas Korean hair salon shooting, but suspect is Black | Fox News


link

Subject: Dallas police chief: Koreatown hair salon shooting suspect ‘motivated by hate' | Fox News


link

Au Pas, am surprised no one ever challenged your statement:

"The SS would have treated black people better"

You might enjoy this and find a little insight about the Germans and those of the black race. The source is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

Subject: Afro-Germans during the Holocaust | Holocaust Encyclopedia


link

Ah! OVI avoiding the question about his recent conventioning, leads one to believe there hasn't been any. It's time for having some fun, and keep that ranting in essence about there being black supremacy for the what-about-ism that it is, and get back out there and enjoy a hobby convention.

As for this …

… Now as too another of your many false accusations of my views. I have never said that black supremacy excuses white supremacy…. as you well know. My point remains, supremacy exits with all races, but none are rampant or dominating the thoughts of the vast majority of the people of our country. This is unlike what a certain party, most of the media, this particular author and revisionist like him and many in academia would like to have all of us believe. But alas.. votes are votes.

Which has nothing to do with the original post. And the idea that your more interested in making points about black supremacy, political parties, media, and back to the anti academia crud again, too … that is all very telling. It avoids the issues made by the author, distracts from the real point he is making, and conveniently shows you're walking in step with other southern apologists, while inappropriately moving off topic with points that have nothing to do with what the author is writing about. I'm not accusing a scatter gunned approach, but divergent, your own actions here on this thread show that is exactly what is being done.

And saying slavery is bad, well gee duh, no kidding. Yet that doesn't dis-obligate one from the path of southern sympathizing that is being done as well. And then dredging up the reasons for why specific soldiers fought, doesn't change the idea that they were being led by nationalistic southerners, and those who were interested in preserving slavery, and so again another inappropriate distraction from the main ideas the author is presenting.

And then questioning my citizenship and beliefs? Oh come on dude, get a clue, and come down out of the clouds with those discriminatory ways. Go have fun at a hobby convention, and enjoy life instead of spreading ideas that aren't even relevant to the issues being presented, while ignoring, or not understanding, or forgetting, or a combination of those, for the ideas and beliefs already expressed in this thread.

If one is going to walk along the same lines as the southern lost cause, it is what it is. Or at least go read the book at the library, and some of your questions will be answered, even if the answers won't be paid attention to, and filtered through the darkness of the stream of consciousness crud that keeps being spewed out on to this thread.

Ahhh, exactly the answers I expected. I doubt you read more than a few paragraphs, and then back to the video game. But hey, thanks for playing.

On reading & video games, got me confused with someone else, and it's further inappropriate divergence.

Truly a fascinating discussion of miniatures, gentlemen.

Au Pas, am surprised no one ever challenged your statement:

"The SS would have treated black people better"

You might enjoy this and find a little insight about the Germans and those of the black race. The source is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

Subject: Afro-Germans during the Holocaust | Holocaust Encyclopedia

I was speaking about soldiers in the field. I dont think the Waffen SS wouldve returned blacks to slavery, or shot them for being black. Additionally, I wasnt suggesting the Waffen SS wouldve treated them well, just that, if I were a black soldier, I'd take my chances with the Waffen SS over confederate soldiers.

Further, we need to be careful here with Nazi treatments and views towards Blacks. Many of their views and practices on race (Including sterilization) were lifted from the United States and some of the US laws/attitudes were rejected by the Nazis for being too harsh.

Additionally, at the Munich Olympics there is evidence to suggest that Jesse Owens was not only treated better by Hitler and the Nazis than the Americans but that the American media had the nerve to propagandistically portray it the other way around as if the Nazis were awful, bad racists and the Americans were the bastion of racial equality.

Now, having said all this, I am not sure why my comment, which was partly a quip, bothers you? In the grand scheme of this thread, it was a minor comment. Therefore, if you dont want me to think that you are defending and rehabilitating the confederacy, that was certainly not a good thing to come back to and attempt to detract from. Aside from misunderstanding what I was saying, it looks like you're trying to prove that the SS were greater abusers of Blacks than the Confederates and their soldiers, is that right?

Ok we will say that is what you were really trying to say. (See I am actually giving you the benefit of the doubt). That a black man had a Better chance with a Waffen SS soldier, than a Confederate soldier. If you want to believe that based on what we know of the SS, feel free. You might check out Pat Cleburne's and some other Confederate officers ideas near the end of the war,
("Cleburne advocated that blacks serve as soldiers should be emancipated.")
before jumping to that conclusion. Cleburne was a great general and a man ahead of his time.

What do others think of Au Pas's theory?

It is the lack of careful argumentation that I find most appalling in this conversation. So we have Gratten54 compiling a list of arbitrary historical moments and then presenting them as kind of definitive conclusion to the relationship between Secession and slavery. That is not a serious argument. If I had the time I would want to seriously engage on many of the specifics in this list. Beyond that, the list only proves a broad correlation between Secession and slavery. It hardly proves causation. But remember, I agree that slavery is "a cause." So the list demonstrates perhaps that there is some casual relationship between the two. Beyond that it is meaningless.

Also, I own a copy of Battle Cry of Freedom. Great book. Like it a lot. I would consider McPherson a decidedly northern orientated historian. There is strong ideological frame shaping the book that is evidenced by its title. So it doesn't surprise me that he sees slavery being the definitive issue of immediate pre war years. That is the basic frame he wants to interpret the war through. The question is whether the full panoply of evidence supports this claim. I have explained above why I don't think it does.

I think it is not really a useful comparison. Captured while being black would presumably not go well in either case, but why compare? I must have missed the point in comparing Confederates to SS Nazis, which I object to, and I am an evil Yankee.

Yes, listed solid historical facts is so arbitrary.

I think it is not really a useful comparison. Captured while being black would presumably not go well in either case, but why compare? I must have missed the point in comparing Confederates to SS Nazis, which I object to, and I am an evil Yankee.

Although he will doubtless accuse me of misquoting him, 35thOVI said this:

My issues are the constant attempt to take the slavery of the South and use it to beat the White race today and saddle them with that guilt. To use those concepts to indoctrinate the white youth of today with that burden of guilt and the Moniker of "White Privilege". To claim that only whites can be racist. Lastly to basically treat those who fought for the Confederacy, as no better than German SS troopers. That is agenda and not history.

To which I said:

I agree with this completely. It's completely unfair to equate the SS with CSA soldiers. The SS troopers would've treated black people far better.

To which 35thOVI rebutted:

Pas

"The SS would have treated black people better" you are not serious?

To which I replied:

I am serious. If I were a black man, I'd take my chances with the SS before I would with the CSA soldeirs.

I assumed we were speaking of Waffen SS field soldiery who although they did perform massacres from time to time were usually too exhausted and preoccupied to commit military atrocities. Additionally, even if there were laws about Blacks on their books enacted by the government, the ordinary SS field troops wouldve been more curious about black soldiers than angry at them.

Whereas, confederate soldiers of all classes killed a lot of black soldiers including many trying to surrender, used slaves in camp and commonly shot them (or at them) when they tried to escape and also immediately returned escaped slaves to the authorities.

It wasnt supposed to be a completely serious comment nor do I suggest that the Waffen SS would hand out milk and cookies to black soldiers but I dont think killing or enslaving black people was primarily on their mind.

If someone has authority to the contrary, I am open to it. Are there frequent records of SS field units shooting soldiers because they were black? I'm sure they shot a lot of people but did they specially single out black people?

Apparently this bothers 35thOVI because he is not trying to disprove that confederate soldiery were racist or slave minded.

But I must point out that the SS had a unit of some 4500 Indian soldiers in its ranks. I suppose they were channeling their inner Pat Cleburne?

Did I ever say Waffen SS? You have the quote above. If you assumed, you assume incorrectly. Indians in no way equate to Blacks of African decent. I furnished the Nazi view of African blacks from the Holocaust encyclopedia last link. Read it.

No, not all Confederate soldiers were evil. Were there evil ones? Of course. Just as their were evil Union soldiers. The Prevailing view on both sides was that the black man was inferior. Most soldiers on both sides were products of their times. Again, why must the Confederate soldiers all be evil, to prove the lost cause belief as wrong?

Yes I am tired of the revisionist trying to saddle the white race, with white shared guilt for slavery and the moniker of white Privilege. We do not practice slavery today. We did not own slaves, nor did our fathers and mothers. Many of us never owned slaves in past generations. Many of us lost forefathers fighting for the Union. What price on their deaths? The current generation of blacks were never slaves. That time has passed.

Did not know that a small contingency of Indians, hated the British so much, that they would fight as Waffen SS troopers. That is actually sad.