Deranged Rhino Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I'm wondering where your thesis was published. Sons of the confederacy quarterly ? Physical abuse of southern slaves was rampant. S Carolina even wrote laws restricting discipline to whipping and chaining while seeing the need to expressly forbid burning, castrating and scalding. Torture implements were even devised specifically for use with American slaves. The references are plentiful and easy to find. I can't find one that doesn't make the statement that the cruelty was widespread. Perhaps you can link your novel thesis that these slaveholders were generally good to their property. While you're at it cite similar examples of such abuse on Apple employees :lol: I don't know what's funnier, your complete mischaracterization of me, my politics, my position on this issue, or your absolute raging ignorance and hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 :lol: I don't know what's funnier, your complete mischaracterization of me, my politics, my position on this issue, or your absolute raging ignorance and hypocrisy. Didn't characterize you or your politics at all. I characterized your description of antebellum American slavery. Prove me wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Didn't characterize you or your politics at all. I characterized your description of antebellum American slavery. Prove me wrong Actually I think it would be more fun for you to prove where he said no slaves were harmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Actually I think it would be more fun for you to prove where he said no slaves were harmed. He didn't say no slaves were harmed, that was not the argument attacked and you know it. You are making a dishonest counter argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Didn't characterize you or your politics at all. I characterized your description of antebellum American slavery. Prove me wrong Prove your inaccurate assessment of what I said wrong? That's a waste of time. First you have to understand what I said, and your response made it clear you did not. I didn't say abuses didn't happen, ever. And if you think anything I've said on this subject is in line w neomconfederate historians then you're laughably incorrect. You admit you know nothing about this subject, now it's clear you know nothing about what has been said in this thread. It really helps to know people's arguments and positions before you make blanket statements... ... Which brings us back to the original point I was making. Actually I think it would be more fun for you to prove where he said no slaves were harmed. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 And if you truly knew your history in this area you'd know those examples were not the norms, not even close to the norms, in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers. This thread is getting nasty and I thought I'd try to bring back to civility a little. Your mention of antebellum south reminded me that JP Losman joined a band after the Bills cut him. Here is one of their videos. He is playing the piano at :10 and a better picture at 1:22. Even if you don't like country you have to admit he is better at this than at QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Exactly. You've got to remember, this is the same (*^*&%^$^#that said there were no guns in Europe. Nuance doesn't exist for him. At all. Ever. He considers details to be confusing ("obfuscating," as he says) and ignores them. You can't discuss the Civil War era who considers the concept of "states" an apologetic nuisance designed to cloud the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Anyone ever read the book civil war 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 You've got to remember, this is the same (*^*&%^$^#that said there were no guns in Europe. Nuance doesn't exist for him. At all. Ever. He considers details to be confusing ("obfuscating," as he says) and ignores them. You can't discuss the Civil War era who considers the concept of "states" an apologetic nuisance designed to cloud the issues. HA HA. So is your Greggy right that slaves were generally treated well as property? Boy, you are really out of sorts! What nuance are you talking about? Take a deep breath already And what in the world are you talking about in the bold there??? What's that got to do with how slaves were treated? Good old state's rights! Eh Tom? The Battle of Liberty Place was an attempted insurrection by the Crescent City White League against the Reconstruction state government on September 14, 1874, in New Orleans, where it was then based. Five thousand members of the White League, a paramilitary organization of the Conservative Democratic Party, made up largely of Confederate veterans, fought against the outnumbered Metropolitan Police and state militia. The insurgents held the statehouse, armory, and downtown for three days, retreating before arrival of Federal troops that restored the elected government. No insurgents were charged in the action. This was the last major event of violence stemming from the disputed 1872 gubernatorial election. Both the Conservative Democrat John McEnery and Republican William Pitt Kellogg claimed victory; the U.S. government supported Kellogg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place Can't wait for Wacka or LABillz to show up saying, "Look, Democrats! Obama bad" Does this really seem worthy of a monument in New Orleans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Four organizations whose goals are to protect and preserve New Orleans' historic landscape have filed a federal lawsuit to halt efforts to remove four prominent Confederate monuments. The Louisiana Landmarks Society, Foundation for Historical Louisiana, Monumental Task Committee and Beauregard Camp No. 130 on Thursday challenged the City Council's vote to remove the structures and Mayor Mitch Landrieu's approval of the ordinance. http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/The-Latest-Vote-on-Confederate-monuments-in-New-6704859.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 HA HA. So is your Greggy right that slaves were generally treated well as property? Boy, you are really out of sorts! What nuance are you talking about? Take a deep breath already And what in the world are you talking about in the bold there??? What's that got to do with how slaves were treated? Good old state's rights! Eh Tom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place Does this really seem worthy of a monument in New Orleans? Probably not but what does this have to do with the other monuments being removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Probably not but what does this have to do with the other monuments being removed? My favorite part of Gator's little link. In 1891, the city erected a monument to commemorate and praise the insurrection from the Democratic Party point of view, which at the time was in firm political control of the city and state and was in the process of disenfranchising most blacks. The white marble obelisk was placed at a prominent location on Canal Street. In 1932, the city added an inscription that expressed a white supremacist view. In 1974, the rethinking of race relations after the Civil Rights Movement caused the city to add a marker near the monument explaining that the inscription did not express current philosophy. After major construction work on Canal Street in 1989 required that the monument be temporarily removed, it was relocated to a less prominent location and the inscription was altered. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Probably not but what does this have to do with the other monuments being removed? It was all part of the same thing. Civil War, fighting against reconstruction, monuments celebrating both, no different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 And what in the world are you talking about in the bold there??? What's that got to do with how slaves were treated? That you even ask that question more than proves my point, you dumb !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 HA HA. So is your Greggy right that slaves were generally treated well as property? That is not what I said, or close to it. You're out of your element, Donny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Prove your inaccurate assessment of what I said wrong? That's a waste of time. First you have to understand what I said, and your response made it clear you did not. I didn't say abuses didn't happen, ever. And if you think anything I've said on this subject is in line w neomconfederate historians then you're laughably incorrect. you said this: " in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers." i say this is untrue. they were not outliers. it was so common that laws were needed to protect them from amputations or cutting off the tongue in addition to those horrible acts already mentioned. prove me wrong. i believe a consensus of historians would judge your stance quite sympathetic to antebellum slaveholders and quite unsympathetic to slaves. it would most certainly be questioned during a thesis defense. but it's an historical point. and you stated you're an historian that published a thesis on the civil war. the reference to support your point should be easily plucked from your bibliography. go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I NOLA is successful in removing/relocating monuments, maybe TBD should launch a drive to remove/relocate some of the nonsensical posts/posters seen in this thread...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 you said this: " in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers." i say this is untrue. they were not outliers. it was so common that laws were needed to protect them from amputations or cutting off the tongue in addition to those horrible acts already mentioned. prove me wrong. i believe a consensus of historians would judge your stance quite sympathetic to antebellum slaveholders and quite unsympathetic to slaves. it would most certainly be questioned during a thesis defense. but it's an historical point. and you stated you're an historian that published a thesis on the civil war. the reference to support your point should be easily plucked from your bibliography. go for it. He said that? Oh Lord....I stopped reading his nonsense and look what I missed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) He said that? Oh Lord....I stopped reading his nonsense and look what I missed rhino: " The history of slavery in the Americas is one of my niches. I've studied it extensively, written papers on it and a thesis. There is no question the root cause of the war was slavery and the desire to see the practice continued and expanded into the new territories. one would think it a pretty facile task to defend statements made by someone so learned on the subject. I would enjoy the privilege to read what is likely to be a very interesting, if not likely well received, thesis. I NOLA is successful in removing/relocating monuments, maybe TBD should launch a drive to remove/relocate some of the nonsensical posts/posters seen in this thread...? which nonsensical posts are you referring to? cuz this one is pretty nebulous on its own. Edited December 29, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts