Two interesting maps - Obama's votes and the cotton plantations

[nino_savatte]

No nino, don't spin what the revisionists would rather keep out of your sight.

The only one who is "spinning" is you. You also make the classic (and rather predictable) mistake of assuming that I've bought into some form of revisionist thought because I counter your arguments and don't accept your apologies blindly.

Bad move.

 

[nino_savatte]

That "equal rights" shit is another perfume drenched myth.

It was a noble gesture and it's a pity that the southern states couldn't countenance the thought of enfranchised blacks. In any event, 7 or 8 million blacks left the south for new lives in the north. Which wasn't perfect but was certainly much better than life in the south.

Speaking of myths, here's one that you constructed earlier.

First lets get this straight - there didn't have to be a reconstruction. We're talking about one of the wealthiest places in the world at that time. In all the countries of Europe and the Americas the CSA ranked 3rd. Sure any country that has fought a war would be depressed but it surely didn't need the US government's help.

Wrong, the south's economy was heavily reliant on agriculture (cotton and tobacco) and could not compete on equal terms with the north or any other country for that matter. Indeed its economy was in tatters after the war. The south seceded and lost the Civil War and was admitted back into the union. The price exacted for readmission was Reconstruction. The south could not exist without Federal help in the aftermath of the war nor would it grant equal voting rights to its Black citizens without Federal pressure.

 

[dilute micro]

No revisionism here.

Dude, if I were you I'd have problems believing in something that left me so wide open in a debate.

You're so ignorant of this topic - due to what the revisionists like Foner want you to know - you don't know what has been revised or glossed over.

 

[dilute micro]

It was a noble gesture .

Bahahahahaahahaahahaha.


Yeah sure it was. Keep on believing.

 

[nino_savatte]

Dude, if I were you I'd have problems believing in something that left me so wide open in a debate.

You're so ignorant of this topic - due to what the revisionists like Foner want you to know - you don't know what has been revised or glossed over.

You're an unreconstructed apologist for Jim Crow.

You're dishonest and insincere and that is demonstrated by your tendency to misrepresent your opponent's posts.

 

[nino_savatte]

Bahahahahaahahaahahaha.

Yeah sure it was. Keep on believing.

Laugh all you like, the south was ruined in the aftermath of the war. Southern whites would never have agreed to equal rights for blacks.

Everyone is "ignorant" but you. LOL!!! I think it's obvious who's the ignorant one here, chum.

Once again, you have no reply to the fact that millions of blacks fled the south for a better life in the north. That is the biggest hole in your thesis.

 

[dilute micro]

The only one who is "spinning" is you. You also make the classic (and rather predictable) mistake of assuming that I've bought into some form of revisionist thought because I counter your arguments and don't accept your apologies blindly.

Bad move.

I'm talking facts.

Actual history.

That's not spin.

When all you have to say is the 'official' version approved by the guardians of "Truth, Justice and the American Way" ... then yeah that's the same revisionist shit that was manufactured in real time.

 

[dilute micro]

You're an unreconstructed apologist for Jim Crow.

You're dishonest and insincere and that is demonstrated by your tendency to misrepresent your opponent's posts.

No I'm just talking facts - the truth of what happened.

Don't let that bother you.

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm talking facts.

Actual history.

That's not spin.

When all you have to say is the 'official' version approved by the guardians of "Truth, Justice and the American Way" ... then yeah that's the same revisionist shit that was manufactured in real time.

No, you are providing selective 'facts' to apologise for black disenfranchisement. Big difference.

You still have a problem dealing with the fact that the Federal government wasn't going to allow the South to carry on as it had before the war.

You crap on about "revisionism" in a mantra-like fashion in the vain hope that it will deflect from the gaps in your thesis. But it doesn't work.

 

[nino_savatte]

No I'm just talking facts - the truth of what happened.

Don't let that bother you.

No, you're employing selectivised (and narrow) facts and tropes as a defence.

 

[nino_savatte]

What did the Ludwig von Mises Institute have to say about Reconstruction? Their position differs little from your position...in fact, it's practically identical.

 

[dilute micro]

Wrong, the south's economy was heavily reliant on agriculture (cotton and tobacco) and could not compete on equal terms with the north or any other country for that matter. Indeed its economy was in tatters after the war. The south seceded and lost the Civil War and was admitted back into the union. The price exacted for readmission was Reconstruction. The south could not exist without Federal help in the aftermath of the war nor would it grant equal voting rights to its Black citizens without Federal pressure.

See here again you come at me with revisionist shit.

No one plowed salt into the fields nino. The south would have been able to recover better than with the north's "help". Nino, you say that without knowing what you're talking about. Do you want to hear how the north helped the south? You're just reading it off of the net I believe, nino. Be smarter than that. You know I'll knock that crap down eventually if you keep at it.

And here's another one for you and your revisionist crap - the south if they were truly states and never had left the union cannot be expelled from the US. For a law to be legal they have to be there and a part of it. The US is in a sticky little situation on that one.

 

[nino_savatte]

And here's another one for you and your revisionist crap - the south if they were truly states and never had left the union cannot be expelled from the US. For a law to be legal they have to be there and a part of it. The US is in a sticky little situation on that one.

You're the revisionist: you've already said that the period referred to as "Reconstruction" wasn't so called. You've also offered plenty of counterfactual historical rubbish in lieu of the facts. One simple fact remains in all of this: that the Federal government was never going to allow the southern states back into the union unconditionally. It's commonly known as "victor's justice" and plenty examples of this exist throughout history. It happened; get over it.

Wars destroy places...that's what happens. Presumably Sherman's march to the sea never took place and Atlanta never burned.

We've been here before and I'm weary of your games....which reminds me, your counterfactual arguments are in line with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, particularly the work of Thomas di Lorenzo, a noted Civil War revisionist.

You still ducked the issue of the millions of blacks who left the south for the north. Presumably they did so because they wanted to see white Xmases.

 

[nino_savatte]

So remind me, what exactly was so bad about Lincoln? I mean, J W Booth shot and killed him, isn't that enough for you?

 

[nino_savatte]

What did the Ludwig von Mises Institute have to say about Reconstruction? Their position differs little from your position...in fact, it's practically identical.

You missed this, dilute.

On another note: Reconstruction (I know how much that word must rankle ) was designed by Lincoln and it was his legacy? Is this correct?

 

[N_igma]

What are your views on Redemption dilute? Or did that not exist either?

 

[N_igma]

Some northerners even admitted it like General Donn Piatt, a friend of president Lincoln, “All race antagonism came from the carpetbaggers using Negro votes to get their fingers into the Treasury”
.

Because Donn Piatt says it it must be true.

What primary evidence have you got that "all race antagonism came from the carpetbaggers using Negro votes to get their fingers into the Treasury"?

How do you think race antagonism came about? We all know that on a very basic level planters were racist in their exploitation of free black labour but I'm talking about the poor white farmer, why did the poor white farmer become racially antagonistic towards the poor black farmer when their interests were totally the same? Do you think it's all the carpetbaggers fault or are you totally ignoring the main issue at hand here?

 

[nino_savatte]

Because Donn Piatt says it it must be true.

What primary evidence have you got that "all race antagonism came from the carpetbaggers using Negro votes to get their fingers into the Treasury"?

How do you think race antagonism came about? We all know that on a very basic level planters were racist in their exploitation of free black labour but I'm talking about the poor white farmer, why did the poor white farmer become racially antagonistic towards the poor black farmer when their interests were totally the same? Do you think it's all the carpetbaggers fault or are you totally ignoring the main issue at hand here?

Dilute won't listen; he'll tell you that "not all overseers were white" or that "some blacks owned slaves". With regards to the latter, he overlooks the fact that blacks weren't allowed to read, write or vote, free or slave. He also ignores the reason why some blacks bought slaves and it wasn't for the same reason as white planters. He also thinks that the federal government should have left the southern states to their own devices, though history tells us that the victor always imposes conditions on the vanquished, whether it is right or wrong: Versailles, the partition of the Late Roman Empire by the Franks, the Occupation of Germany by the allies after WWII and so on.

He also ignores the way in which Jim Crow laws were implemented as a form of revenge against blacks.

It's as if Frederick Douglass or John Brown never existed.

He gives his location as "ANV", which tells us something about his intentions here.

 

[nino_savatte]

So, dilute, why did the KKK come about in the South in the aftermath of the war? Was it just a few "good ole boys gettin' togethuh for a coupla drinks and some lynchin' and cross burnin' fer a good time - southern style?

Or was it a form of Confederate resistance to the reform measures of Reconstruction?

Does the name Nathan Bedford Forrest ring any bells? It should.

How about the Red Shirts or the White League?

What about the circumstances of Rutherford B. Hayes's election in 1877...just an ordinary election or something else?

Then there are the so-called Redeemers...

 

[dilute micro]

You're the revisionist: you've already said that the period referred to as "Reconstruction" wasn't so called.

Nino, sorry I haven't been round lately but what are you talking about? You have cognitive difficulties dude. I never said any such thing. We agree on what it was called. I disagree that it was actually what it's said to be.

Pay attention nino.

 

[dilute micro]

So, dilute, why did the KKK come about in the South in the aftermath of the war? Was it just a few "good ole boys gettin' togethuh for a coupla drinks and some lynchin' and cross burnin' fer a good time - southern style?

Or was it a form of Confederate resistance to the reform measures of Reconstruction?

Does the name Nathan Bedford Forrest ring any bells? It should.

How about the Red Shirts or the White League?

What about the circumstances of Rutherford B. Hayes's election in 1877...just an ordinary election or something else?

Then there are the so-called Redeemers...

Nino, go read something other than wiki. Neither you nor N_igma have shown that you're past the puppet show. Why should I waste my time? On other boards I hate when people say stuff like - "go read up!". Only thing I find myself doing it here not because I think you will or that I think it'd help but because you might have less questions to be insincere about. So go read up nino.

 

[N_igma]

Nino, go read something other than wiki. Neither you nor N_igma have shown that you're past the puppet show. Why should I waste my time? On other boards I hate when people say stuff like - "go read up!". Only thing I find myself doing it here not because I think you will or that I think it'd help but because you might have less questions to be insincere about. So go read up nino.

Ah a true sign of defeat. It actually is you who needs to do the reading, I mentioned DuBois and you said he churns out the same formula-raw aggression. Give me a critical evaluation of DuBois's Black Reconstruction? Something more than one line like you did the last time.

 

[Random]

is dilute micro a complete racist, then? Odd, s/he's been posting for ages and I never noticed it.

 

[Belushi]

is dilute micro a complete racist, then? Odd, s/he's been posting for ages and I never noticed it.

He's a (very clever) apologist for the Old South, I dont think he's a White Supremacist as such.

 

[N_igma]

Wouldn't say out and out racist, more an apologist for the old Democrat party and the old Southern way of life.

The impression I get from dilute is, "Oh I'm American, I know how bad the Republican party were during Reconstruction, they didn't care, see I'm educating you lot and you won't listen". Erm...we do know dilute and we've said numerous times on this thread that the Republican party failed during Reconstruction, you on the other hand haven't said once how bad the Democratic party where or commented on any of their misgivings, therefore you are an apologist for the old Democratic party.

 

[Random]

He's a (very clever) apologist for the Old South, I dont think he's a White Supremacist as such.

aha. Nostalgic for Old Dixie and all that and trying to tell us it wasn't all that bad?