Charlie Reese on Jefferson Davis

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by fastpat
but I don't suffer fools gracefully

Yes, you certainly suffer most ungracefully! I am with oldE. You are not the most intelligent being on Earth contrary to what you may belief. Being able to make very forceful statements like "In Fact" and playing "Teacher" does not make you any more correct.

IN FACT, the majority of what you spout is simply warmed over thoughts from someone else.

Originally posted by fastpat
What I've posted is well researched literature from historians and economists, it's in textbook form for the most part. It's not a "mishmash", whatever that might be in your mind.

If you are such the authority, why are you not a well renowned author of period history book?

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by MRM
You're sounding a little defensive, Pat. Is it getting hard to justify being on the losing side, the side that picked a fight they knew they were going to lose, and the side that was fighting to preserve slavery. Sure, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, if you say so, but the south was trying to perpetuate slavery. The North put an end to it. The North dropped the ball when it let Reconstruction end without fully integrating the south and requiring full rights for all human beings.

Come to think about it, that's another reason I dislike Franklin Roosevelt. He has the biggest majority of his party in both houses of congress when he was elected and he didn't send Federal troops to re-occupy the south, even though he had the political power to do so. He left it to that flaming liberal Ike to send in the 101st Airborne.

If the damn yankees wanted to put an end to slavery, why was it still legal up north after they started the war??? Admit it or not, as bad as slavery was (still is in Africa) descendants of slaves are far better off today because of it than those who are still in Africa today.

[fastpat]

[MRM]

The veneer on Pat's finally cracked and he's showing his true colors.

A more fitting slogan would be "Losers for more than a century and still can't let go."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by MRM
The veneer on Pat's finally cracked and he's showing his true colors.

I've never hidden anything, my true colors have been the same for a long time, Sonny Jim.

That's the national flag of the Confederate States of America, a country held to another by threat of violence, still.

Free the South and US out of South Carolina

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by fastpat
I've never hidden anything, my true colors have been the same for a long time, Sonny Jim.

That's the national flag of the Confederate States of America, a country held to another by threat of violence, still.

Free the South and US out of South Carolina

Wow.... I can't believe people actually waste their time dreaming of such nonsense. WTF? Pride of heritage is understandable, but this ***** is just bizarre.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
I've never hidden anything, my true colors have been the same for a long time, Sonny Jim.

That's the national flag of the Confederate States of America, a country held to another by threat of violence, still.

Free the South and US out of South Carolina

please quit telling us how YOU think the US government should be run--after all, you are a member of the confederacy, so it is none of your business.

and that pic of charleston is hilarious.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Eric 951
please quit telling us how YOU think the US government should be run--after all, you are a member of the confederacy, so it is none of your business.

and that pic of charleston is hilarious.

If you think that was hilarious, then you must have split your sides laughing at the black men hanging from lamp posts in New York City in 1863.

Your a thug, you can't help it I'm sure, for you it appears genetic.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Wow.... I can't believe people actually waste their time dreaming of such nonsense. WTF? Pride of heritage is understandable, but this ***** is just bizarre.

A goal without a plan is a dream, the goals are clear and the plan is working nicely, thanks to guys like eric 951 and others like him.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat

Your a thug, you can't help it I'm sure, for you it appears genetic.

don't make me pack my carpet-bag, don my top-hat and start buying land in travelers rest. I have some spare cash bruning a hole in my pocket.

and no, I don't think the pictures of New York are funny, just the ones of Charleston.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
A goal without a plan is a dream, the goals are clear and the plan is working nicely, thanks to guys like eric 951 and others like him.

ooooo, I am part of a plan. Is it a "master plan?" does it involve maps? lists? covert ops?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Eric 951
ooooo, I am part of a plan. Is it a "master plan?" does it involve maps? lists? covert ops?

Oh, no, Eric 951; you're doing your part right now. Keep up the good, um, "work".

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
Oh, no, Eric 951; you're doing your part right now. Keep up the good, um, "work".

Yes, sir! Just let me know when the goals are accomplished, so I can divert my resources to other endeavors.

[Moses]

Why does a potentially great discussion degrade into a gradeschool pissing contest?

I'm no secessionist and I'm not a southerner, but Pat brings a lot to the table in terms of historical reference. Are we all so comfortable with our present state of understanding that we don't need to learn anything new?

In the early 18th century, slave ownership was highest in Charleston. What city ranked #2? Atlanta? Birmingham? Nope. It was New York City. At one time 42% of New Yorkers held slaves.

In the mid 19th century, slavery was a hotly debated, devisive social issue, muh like abortion is today. Emancipation was a very short-term eventuality with or without the war. In short, emancipation was a political byproduct of the war but not the reason for it.

Honestly I wish you guys would lighten up a bit. I'm no libertarian, but I don't feel threatened by ideas.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Eric 951
Yes, sir! Just let me know when the goals are accomplished, so I can divert my resources to other endeavors.

I'm afraid, for you, it's a lifetime committment. That's the problem with genetic thugs, you are what you are morning, day, and night, even while you sleep.

It never quits for you. the good thing is that you fit in with most people from Connecticutt and so forth, the bad thing is that you just won't fit in down here.

Isn't it great how that works out. You and Joe Lieberman, two of a kind.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Moses
Why does a potentially great discussion degrade into a gradeschool pissing contest?

I'm no secessionist and I'm not a southerner, but Pat brings a lot to the table in terms of historical reference. Are we all so comfortable with our present state of understanding that we don't need to learn anything new?

In the early 18th century, slave ownership was highest in Charleston. What city ranked #2? Atlanta? Birmingham? Nope. It was New York City. At one time 42% of New Yorkers held slaves.

In the mid 19th century, slavery was a hotly debated, devisive social issue, muh like abortion is today. Emancipation was a very short-term eventuality with or without the war. In short, emancipation was a political byproduct of the war but not the reason for it.

Honestly I wish you guys would lighten up a bit. I'm no libertarian, but I don't feel threatened by ideas.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york

Here is petition you can sign from one of Pat's above posted websites. If you are buying what Pat is selling, I am sure you will enjoy the "ideas" being discussed there.

To: State Officials
These United States formed a govenment in 1788-89 based on a contract between the people of the various States. Our union was voluntary, and each State decided for itself, and itself alone, to become a party to this contract. This was the position consistently held by the Southern States. When they left the union in 1860-61, they were opposed by Lincoln and the Republican Party, who invaded the South rather than acknowledge that a State has the right to secede. Unfortunately, our Confederate ancestors were defeated and brutally forced to return to what became an involuntary "union." In fact, after 1865 the United States became a "Consolidated Nation-State," the very thing that the Founding Fathers dreaded most. By signing this petition and leaving your comments, you will be voicing your support for the South's right--then and now--to secede from the current regime and to form its own government or governments as free men and women. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this poll.

The League of the South is working to re-educate Americans to the historical truth on this issue. Help us by joining our cause and spreading the truth. Visit http://www.dixienet.org today!

Sincerely,
Slow Pat

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
Why does a potentially great discussion degrade into a gradeschool pissing contest?

I'm no secessionist and I'm not a southerner, but Pat brings a lot to the table in terms of historical reference. Are we all so comfortable with our present state of understanding that we don't need to learn anything new?

In the early 18th century, slave ownership was highest in Charleston. What city ranked #2? Atlanta? Birmingham? Nope. It was New York City. At one time 42% of New Yorkers held slaves.

In the mid 19th century, slavery was a hotly debated, devisive social issue, muh like abortion is today. Emancipation was a very short-term eventuality with or without the war. In short, emancipation was a political byproduct of the war but not the reason for it.

Honestly I wish you guys would lighten up a bit. I'm no libertarian, but I don't feel threatened by ideas.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york

Thank you, Moses. (Wow, that's very biblical, isn't it.)

Yes, there were more abolistionist organizations in the South than in the North, but all were harmed irreparably by the yankee funded John Brown crimes. Naturally, none of the six were charged, much less tried for their actions; yet all were contributors to the fear and loathing of the era far beyond most others.

Even more interesting is how the laws of the yankee states were set up to not only end slavery, but to remove as many blacks from their soil as possible, as fast as they could. Slaves were sold to the Southern states or to Central and South America; and free blacks were "invited to leave".

All well documented in several recent scholarly texts.

Or web sites:

The elements which characterized Southern slavery in the 19th century, and which New England abolitionists claimed to view with abhorrence, all were present from an early date in the North. Practices such as the breeding of slaves like animals for market, or the crime of slave mothers killing their infants, testify that slavery's brutalizing force was at work in New England. Philadelphia brickmaker John Coats was just one of the Northern masters who kept his slave workers in iron collars with hackles. Newspaper advertisements in the North offer abundant evidence of slave families broken up by sales or inheritance. One Boston ad of 1732, for example, lists a 19-year-old woman and her 6-month-old infant, to be sold either "together or apart."[5] Advertisements for runaways in New York and Philadelphia newspapers sometimes mention suspicions that they had gone off to try to find wives who had been sold to distant purchasers.
http://www.slavenorth.com/

[Nathans_Dad]

To bring the thread back to what it originally was supposed to talk about (The Dukes of Hazzard), I went to see the national touring production of Chicago last night here in San Antonio. Guess who played the role of the lawyer?????? Drumroll....


TOM WOPAT!!! That's right boys and girls, Luke Duke himself was on stage singing and doing a little softshoe. He actually was very good, who knew Luke Duke could sing??

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by Moses
Why does a potentially great discussion degrade into a gradeschool pissing contest?

I'm no secessionist and I'm not a southerner, but Pat brings a lot to the table in terms of historical reference. Are we all so comfortable with our present state of understanding that we don't need to learn anything new?

In the early 18th century, slave ownership was highest in Charleston. What city ranked #2? Atlanta? Birmingham? Nope. It was New York City. At one time 42% of New Yorkers held slaves.

In the mid 19th century, slavery was a hotly debated, devisive social issue, muh like abortion is today. Emancipation was a very short-term eventuality with or without the war. In short, emancipation was a political byproduct of the war but not the reason for it.

Honestly I wish you guys would lighten up a bit. I'm no libertarian, but I don't feel threatened by ideas.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york

Moses,

I agree with you. I am always open to hearing new information relative to historical periods--especially the Civil War. I have been a hobbyiest military historian, but did more in-depth study of the period during my college years. The problem I have is the manner in which the information is presented-- constantly painting Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and all "Yankees" as evil. Which, I guess if you are a southerner, is how you may be inclined to view them, since they were instrumental in bringing about the collapse and defeat of the CSA.
I can respect one having southern pride, and do not paint all southerners with a single brush. I have a great admiration for many of their commanders of the time such as Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc..
On the flip side, there is nothing wrong with having "Yankee pride". My family has Northern roots, and I am proud of that. If displaying that makes me a target of those who abhor "all things Yankee"--so be it. I will not sit back and allow certain posters free-for-alls besmirching the legacies of Northern heroes. They may view them as villians due to their defeat at their hands, but others view them as heroes who triumphed a righteous cause during a tumultuous period in our history.
As for pat, I hold nothing against him personally, and can appreciate his views on certain issues. His views are his and will not be changed, just as my views are mine and will not be changed.
We can disagree on who the good guys/bad guys were during that period, the causes and ramifications of the conflict, and who was righteous and who was not. I feel with him being a southerner and me being a yankee--we may never agree on some of these points. I guess we are fighting the Civil War all over again in Pelican OT...(sorry pat, the war of southern independence)

[KFC911]

Originally posted by Eric 951
.... I guess we are fighting the Civil War all over again in Pelican OT...(sorry pat, the war of southern independence)

You're lucky my great granny isn't still alive, or I'd sign her up for PPOT and she'd want you to explain that "again" comment