A Confederate Heritage Apologist on Slavery

Recently a Confederate heritage apologist declared:

Southerners, by and large, did not go to Africa and steal slaves — some of the the ancestors of some federal soldiers did that (primarily, the New England maritime flavor of yankees). The huge, vast majority of the folks of the South did not rape, rob, steal, kill and murder innocent men women and children as part of slavery, or for any other reason. Most slaves — men, women and children — were not raped, robbed, stolen, killed and murdered. 

Let’s take a look at this, shall we?

The first sentence is a common claim made by defenders of Confederate mythology. As with other such claims, it has a grain of truth to it. Were New England merchants involved in the slave trade? Of course they were. That’s a fact. Guess who bought the majority of the slaves in question? That’s right, white southerners. Were there no buyers, there would be no sellers (I’m always amazed that so-called defenders of capitalism don’t understand this basic fact). Moreover, in 1787 it was white southerners who wanted to prolong access to the slave trade, and they secured a provision to prevent Congress from acting against it for two decades. Finally, who wanted to reopen that international slave trade in the 1850s? That’s right, white southerners, led by South Carolina’s Lawrence Keitt. Why did white Virginians oppose this idea? Because they wanted to sell their slaves south. The second largest export of Virginia in 1860 was enslaved human beings.

So let’s set aside the notion that Yankees alone were responsible for trading human beings when it came to slavery in the United States. It might warm the heart of a Confederate heritage advocate, but it isn’t good history. Pointing out that New Englanders participated in the slave trade does not absolve white southerners of anything.

After all, as Elijah Chastain said in the Georgia Secession Convention in 1861, he believed that “every man, woman and child in the Southern States should own a slave,” and that “the best plan to do so was to open the African slave trade.”(See Jonathan D. Sarris, A Separate Civil War: Communities in Conflict in the Mountain South [2012], page 50.)

In short, a Chastain advocated the opening of the African slave trade so that every white southerner could own their own slave. That’s history, even if a Chastain wants to deny their own heritage.

The second sentence is rather problematic. The “huge, vast majority” of white southerners did not murder or kill enslaved blacks, in large part because that would prove counterproductive to their enslavement. Dead slaves do no work. Moreover, to do harm to someone else’s slave might involve one in legal proceedings for destruction of property. However, I’m sure no one will deny that some slaves were murdered in cold blood, and it’s true that once blacks were free, their lives didn’t seem to be worth quite as much to whites, as Reconstruction and its aftermath suggests.

That said, the vast majority of southern whites did, in one way or another, benefit from stealing the labor and the freedom of African Americans. Again, as slavery changed from an American to a southern institution, the vast majority of white southerners saw no problem with robbing blacks of their freedom, stealing them away from their families, and depriving them of the fruits of their labor. Indeed, they convinced themselves that slavery was a positive good for blacks as well as whites. Sometimes it appears that certain advocates of Confederate heritage continue to believe this.

As for rape, why, you would think that someone who claims to be an expert about rape accusations would know better. Do you really believe that enslaved women were not raped by their masters and other whites? Seriously?  Were all those children of mixed race products of voluntary unions?

As for what happened to most slaves … well, no one argued that male slaves were raped. Female slaves were raped. We don’t know how many. And, as I’ve suggested before, it would be a bad idea to murder most slaves, because that would undermine the whole system (something our Confederate heritage advocate seems unable to understand, bless her heart). But it is painfully clear that enslaved blacks were robbed of their freedom, saw their loved ones stolen, and were deprived of the fruits of their labor by whites who stole it from them so that they could make a living.

That someone actually has to point this out amazes me. But then that’s what we’ve come to expect from someone who basks in her ignorance of history while claiming to celebrate a heritage that’s largely make-believe.

Of course, our Confederate heritage apologist seems to have overlooked what was said. First, this was the statement made on this blog: “… was it okay for “your” folks of the south land to rape, rob, steal, kill, and murder innocent men, women, and children as part of slavery?”

No one said that a majority of southern whites committed acts of rape or murder. That did not stop our favorite Confederate heritage advocate from setting up a strawman statement. By the way, she didn’t answer the question.

Second, that statement was offered in response to a declaration made by a Confederate heritage advocate, H. K. Edgerton, who recently proclaimed:  “This is an army that came here raping, robbing, stealing, killing and murdering our people. The kinds of things that happened here under the sanction of Abraham Lincoln were for these men to commit total warfare against innocent men, women and children who could not defend themselves.”

Spare me such tripe. Moreover, using the standard of our favorite Confederate heritage apologist, I’d point out that the “huge, vast” majority of Union soldiers did not commit acts of rape. Nor did they “commit total warfare” against an innocent people, “robbing, stealing, killing and murdering our people.” Nevertheless, as that icon of Confederate heritage, Nathan Bedford Forrest, once said, “War means fighting, and fighting means killing.”

That our favorite Confederate heritage apologist doesn’t understand any of this is to be expected, I guess. But to complain about atrocities of war while ignoring the atrocities of slavery … well, I guess that is to be expected from a Confederate heritage apologist who is an avowed fiction writer.

162 thoughts on “A Confederate Heritage Apologist on Slavery

  1. P Diddy December 12, 2013 / 6:16 am

    You are regressed to your little knowledge of history sir: Slave trade was made from the backs of rich New Englander’s and the Whiskey trade with Tribal Leaders in Africa. They sold their own brothers. Furthermore the largest slave owner in the South was a Black . Quit condemning the Southern white male as most did not own slave one. The war was not over slavery. Why would a man that owned no slave fight to persevere another mans practice. The war was over taxes that had over burdened the South, while the North paid very little.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 12, 2013 / 7:54 am

      Thanks for reminding us of how some people think. Oh, those poor white southerners! Forced to own human beings … forced to break up families … so unfortunate! How dare we evilize the primary victims of slavery … white southerners!

      Get a grip.

    • Jimmy Dick December 12, 2013 / 8:00 am

      What taxes?

      • John Foskett December 12, 2013 / 8:35 am

        Let’s see what our expert comes up with on “taxes”.

      • Talmadge Walker December 12, 2013 / 1:41 pm

        The Georgia Declaration of Secession mentions a tax on slaves. Maybe that’s what P Diddy’s talking about.

    • John Foskett December 12, 2013 / 8:34 am

      “I’ll Be Missing You”.

    • Thelibertylamp December 12, 2013 / 9:46 am

      P Diddy, you’re telling one of the most respected academics of history in the country that he has “little knowledge of history”? REALLY?

      Well, where are your creds as expert in history?

      Or do you really believe that reading the crap Sea Raven press peddles around?

      Because a propaganda press service knows more than those who have actually gone to UVA and have degrees in the subject?

      And you wonder why your group of ConFetishists are never taken seriously…

      • Andy Hall December 12, 2013 / 11:05 am

        I’ll settle for documentation of the statement, “the largest slave owner in the South was a Black.”

        • rortensie December 12, 2013 / 1:26 pm

          Andy,

          Its printed on the internet so it has to be true. Gotta run, got a modeling gig to finish up….us French models are busy, busy, busy….

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 12, 2013 / 1:31 pm

          For information on the largest slaveholders in 1860, one could start here.

          William Ellison may be the person BR/B has in mind, but Ellison’s not on the list. So let’s see whether BR/B admits he’s wrong.

          • Talmadge Walker December 12, 2013 / 1:47 pm

            I notice there are no Hamptons or Camerons on the list. That’s surprising.

        • Sean Morrissey April 17, 2016 / 8:33 am

          The only thing Anthony Johnson was first of, in regards to slavery, was that he was the first slave owner as the result of a “civil suit”, which ultimately amounts to nothing. There have been no cases citing Johnson vs. Parker as precedent of anything. He did not invent slavery and he is certainly not responsible for slavery. At most, his trial only illustrated how hard is was for Negroes to escape from being reduced to lifetime enslavement as owners would ignore their contract of indentures and servants were too illiterate and powerless to do anything about it. Any attempt at trying to claim Johnson was the first slave owner and thus the father of slavery is ignorant and an attempt at revisionist history. Though Anthony Johnson did participate in slavery thinking he was equal to his white neighbors, he too was ultimately reduced to a heathen when the courts ruled that Johnson, being a Negro heathen, did not have any rights guaranteed by English laws and thus his family was forced to cheaply sell their property.

      • Jimmy Dick December 12, 2013 / 11:49 am

        It is because the crushing weight of the facts that prove Southern Heritage (TM) to be nothing but a lie is too much for them to bear. Instead, they circle around each other and wave little flags around like children. Then they repeat the same things over and over like a mantra to ward off reality. It’s a cult built on mass delusion.

        One of my students pasted a link to the 1995 webpage on the League of the South featuring Hill and Fleming. They asked about what the claims where and what they meant. This was at the end of our Civil War study. I asked the students to go through the document and show me how many uses of the word slave or slavery were in the document. They came with the answer, one. I asked, “What does this tell you?”

        The students answered back, “These people are just lying.” “They don’t want to say what the real cause of the war was.” One of my favorites was the student who said, “They’re just making s*** up!” That’s what happens when you teach with facts and give the students the actual documents from the past. History shows the heritage people are wrong.

    • BorderRuffian December 12, 2013 / 1:09 pm

      Yes, the North was willing to compromise over slavery (Corwin Amendment) but not over taxes (Morrill Tariff).

      • Brooks D. Simpson December 12, 2013 / 1:12 pm

        And the South was not willing to compromise on slavery and not on tariffs, either (except if it benefited them). Oh well.

        • Billy Bearden December 17, 2013 / 7:22 am

          If I read it right, the US Congress passed the amendment thru both houses, and 2 states had ratified it, Ohio and Maryland?. Some others were discussing it. I also am to understand the war stopped the debates, and it remains an active propsed amendment/bill/law because it was never killed/withdrawn.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 17, 2013 / 9:26 am

            It would be a bit difficult to ratify that amendment now given the actual Thirteenth Amendment.

          • Billy Bearden December 18, 2013 / 6:36 am

            If I somehow implied any possible ratification of Corwin, which I didn’t, I will state I didn’t. I have thought, however, that with the popular ‘apologies for slavery’ made by some governmental bodies, why don’t those states that have actually ratified Corwin make a public statement by repealing said ratification? They are technically still active.

      • Jimmy Dick December 12, 2013 / 5:32 pm

        Ah, the Morrill Tariff that only passed AFTER the senators from the Lower South left the Senate. It could not pass until then. So since that tariff was not able to become law until AFTER seven states seceded it was not affecting the South in any way, shape, or form. However, the tariff that they had created and passed was. It was the lowest tariff in US tariff history.

        Hmm, those facts must be something you are unfamiliar with. Oh yes, that’s because they’re part of the thousands of pages of documents you ignore. Learn real history for a change and stop lying to us. Use facts.

      • John Foskett December 13, 2013 / 9:57 am

        Speak, if you can, about the financing of the federal government up to the Civil War; the Tariff of 1846; the Tariff of 1857 and its coincidence with the Panic of 1857, as well as the resulting impacts on federal revenue; who favored and who opposed tariff reform following those events; the role of Buchanan’s Georgian Secretary of the Treasury in all of this; and the actual “tax” burden imposed under the Morrill Tariff. There’s a reason that the Tariff occupies a remote and generally invisible presence in the letters and speeches of the Secession Commissioners in 1860-61 as they urged their brethren to secede. Something else occupied a much more prominent and central role.

      • Jimmy Dick December 16, 2013 / 6:43 pm

        Kind of hard to compromise when seven states had voted to secede BEFORE the Morrill Tariff was passed in the Senate. Had those fourteen senators been present to vote no, then it would no have passed and it would not have become law. However, the entire point is the tariff that was in effect when those states voted to secede was one they had put into place! Therefore any arguing by anybody that those states seceded because of a tariff reveals their ignorance.

    • Joshism December 12, 2013 / 5:16 pm

      “Quit condemning the Southern white male as most did not own slave one.”

      The majority did not, but the politicians and the rich & powerful who could sway their decisions did.

      “Why would a man that owned no slave fight to persevere another mans practice.”

      Or to put it in 2012 terms: why would a poor man defend the right of a rich man not to be taxed at a higher rate?

      I would say a great deal of that comes from what I call Lotto Syndrome: even though realistically you will never win, in your heart and in your statistics-challenged head you believe some day that could be you. Also, because those with can and do stoke the fears of what would happen to those without.

      But for slavery in particular there were plenty of reasons for non-slaveholding whites to preserve slavery. Slaves were property; if slave property could be taken away by the Federal Government what other kinds of property were at risk? If slavery ended what was to happen to all those suddenly freed black savages? Surely they would plunder, rape, and murder all the whites in revenge (just like Haiti)! Best to keep them contained and supervised on plantations. Besides, who would do all the manual labor done by slaves? That kind of labor was beneath a white man, even a poor one.

    • 2maik7 July 13, 2015 / 2:37 pm

      I’m sure that you are referring to the tariffs and the perceived unfair treatment of the Southern states. The “unfair treatment” that came due to their refusal to end slavery. You are correct, many of them did not own slaves, but they saw the black man as inferior and felt that he had only one place, to serve the superior white man. That along with the fact that their livelihood was dependent on the backs of slaves. The civil war was not about slavery for the Union at first, not at all, it was about preserving the Union. The Union was not innocent by any means regarding slavery but they eventually began to fight in order to realize the American ideal that “all men are created equal”. An ideal that the Confederate government’s vice President made very clear that they opposed,

      “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas (referring to ‘All men are created equal’); its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”

      -Alexander Stephens

      There is no doubt that the South, from the very beginning, was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. Their entire economy and world view was dependent upon it. Contrary to Confederate apologist lies, slavery more than doubled after 1790 and the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery (human beings!) were worth more then any other economic sector in the country. Those good ol boys that you refer to as fighting a powerful and tyrannical government were doing so because that powerful and tyrannical government was attempting to take away their main economic sector, owning other human beings.

      Now, we all hear southern apologist speak about states rights and the tyrannical central government, these are ideas that I understand. In a historical sense I would be a Jeffersonian democrat. However, what is more tyrannical then slavery? We always talk about states rights and tyranny, in light of the civil war, with only white men in mind. What could possibly be more tyrannical than citizens, with government approval and protection, owning upwards of 1.3 million human beings?

      It comes down to this; the South rebelled and seceded illegally. It then attacked the United States of America. Secession was very obviously illegal after ratification of our great Constitution.

      There is a difference between the right of revolution and secession. The southern states had no rational argument to revolt against the United States of America. They were given every chance to end their tyrannical and evil institution. They were even offered money from the federal government to buy every slave in the south, which I would not agree with because you DON’T BUY AND SELL HUMAN BEINGS. Confederate apologists are truly questionable human beings. Morally and intellectually.

      If you still believe that the South was not fighting for slavery I suggest you read the Confederate states individual declarations of secession. In their own words they make it clear that it was.

  2. rortensie December 12, 2013 / 6:54 am

    “Most slaves were…” That is like saying “most men don’t wear socks.” Just look at James Henry Hammond and his son as well as many other well-to-do Southern plantation owners, they all had their mistresses. I’m sure these groups have their own classifications of what “rape” means but forcing yourself onto someone is rape, just because she does not resist doesn’t make it right. I force myself upon a York Peppermint Patty once a day, does it have the capacity to resist?

    It goes the other way as well and its been a while since I read it but I think Martha Hodes covers it in her work “White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South.”

  3. BorderRuffian December 12, 2013 / 7:19 am

    “Were New England merchants involved in the slave trade? Of course they were. That’s a fact. Guess who bought the majority of the slaves in question? That’s right, white southerners.”

    The majority? Most likely Cuba.

    *

    “Were there no buyers, there would be no sellers (I’m always amazed that so-called defenders of capitalism don’t understand this basic fact). Moreover, in 1787 it was white southerners who wanted to prolong access to the slave trade, and they secured a provision to prevent Congress from acting against it…”

    …and with the vote of every New England state present at the Constitutional Convention.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 12, 2013 / 7:58 am

      I guess white southerners never have anything to do with slavery in the minds of Confederate heritage apologists.

      • Jimmy Dick December 12, 2013 / 8:05 am

        It is just the continual denial of reality while trying to portray the South as victims of Northern aggression. Basically, the southern heritage folks continue to lie to themselves and each other because the truth is a harsh mistress.

    • Rob Baker December 12, 2013 / 8:46 am

      Cuba? Actually it was Brazil; that country received something like 40% of all African slaves traded. But still, slavery was abolished in Brazil, before the American revolution. Only a fraction of slaves traded were sent to British North America. Something like 5%. But the reality is that slave trade was established in N. America, fought for and extended. Southern colonies/states became the first to pass laws classifying slavery, and maintaining slavery over a longer course of time. Virginia was the first colony/state to make slavery matrilineal (shared status through the mother). In effect, Southern colonies began the process of breeding slaves in British North America.

      “With the vote….”

      Apparently you do not know history. The Constitution Convention did not decide the issue of the slave trade, they instead dumped it off for Congress to decide.

      Honestly, you can keep on fighting and deflecting….but you’ll keep on being wrong.

      • Al Mackey December 12, 2013 / 10:26 am

        Brazil abolished slavery in 1888.

        • Rob Baker December 12, 2013 / 5:59 pm

          You’re right, I was thinking about the Portugese policy. Portugal abolished slavery, but allowed it in the overseas colonies.

      • BorderRuffian December 12, 2013 / 1:22 pm

        RB-
        “The Constitution Convention did not decide the issue of the slave trade, they instead dumped it off for Congress to decide.”

        Dumped it off???

        Without that provision in the Constitution, Congress would have had no authority to abolish the trade.

        • Rob Baker December 12, 2013 / 5:59 pm

          ……really? I mean really?

        • M.D. Blough December 13, 2013 / 7:34 pm

          Really? We’re talking about international trade here and the high seas. Among other governmental powers, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” The provision on the transatlantic slave trade didn’t grant Congress ANY powers. It barred it from using powers it otherwise would unquestionably had for a twenty year period.

    • M.D. Blough December 12, 2013 / 12:27 pm

      You act like any votes were conducted in a vacuum. During the discussion of the future of the slave trade, this is what was said on August 21, 1787:

      >>Mr. L. MARTIN [MD}, proposed to vary the Sect: 4. art VII. so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. 1.20 as five slaves are to be counted as 3 free men in the apportionment of Representatives; such a clause wd. leave an encouragement to this trafic. 2. 21 slaves weakened one part of the Union which the other parts were bound to protect: the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. 3. 22 it was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution an

      d dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.

      Mr. RUTLIDGE [SC] did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this Section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily exempt the other States from the obligation to protect the Southern against them. -Religion & humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southn. States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of Slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.

      Mr. ELSEWORTH [CT] was for leaving the clause as it stands. let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interest. The old confederation had not meddled with this point, and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one:

      Mr. PINKNEY [SC] South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of the Congress, that State has expressly & watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on this subject, S. Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia & Maryland have already done.<> August 22, 1787, “General PINKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself & all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution & use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their Constituents. S. Carolina & Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, & she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require S. C. & Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent before the Revolution had never been refused to S. Carolina as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to employ the carrying trade; The more consumption also, and the more of this, the more of revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of S. Carola. from the Union.

      Mr. BALDWIN had conceived national objects alone to be before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a Genl. Governmt. to be the pursuit of the central States who wished to have a vortex for every thing- that her distance would preclude her from equal advantage-& that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect of ——– which he said was a respectable class of people, who carried their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.<>Genl. PINKNEY thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did not think S. Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time, but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved to commit the clause that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports which he he thought right & wch. wd. remove one difficulty that had been started.

      Mr. RUTLIDGE. If the Convention thinks that N. C. S. C. & Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous agst. striking out the Section, and seconded the motion of Genl. Pinkney for a commitment.<>On the question for committing the remaining part of Sect. 4 & 5. 4 of art: 7. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. ay N. J. ay Pa. no. Del. no Maryd. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay S. C. ay. Geo. ay..<<

      Madison's "Notes on the Federal Convention of 1787" (Bicentennial Edition, pp. 503-508) http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates

      It could not have been more specific. The core of the Constitutional Convention was to establish a more perfect Union by, in part, curing the defects of the Articles of Confederation that were risking disunion. The Northern states (not just New England. Pennsylvania, still influenced by its Quaker heritage, had already started down the road of gradual emancipation) were faced with unequivocal statements from the Deep South that if the Constitution that came out of the Convention with what at least South Carolina and Georgia believed were inadequate protection for slavery, neither state would ratify. Some delegates fought harder against this than others but ultimately, the other states were not willing to see if the delegates from SC and GA were bluffing. The stakes were too high. Slavery, particularly the importation of slaves from Africa, was not forced on South Carolina or Georgia. Both states fought for it tooth and nail in 1787.

      • BorderRuffian December 12, 2013 / 1:33 pm

        Face it, Ms Blough, the New England states made tons of money off the trade. During the ‘legal’ period (to 1808) and beyond (to the 1860s) probably 70 to 80 percent of the ships were from NE ports.

        No other northern state voted to continue the trade to 1808 – they had no interest ($) in it.

        • M.D. Blough December 12, 2013 / 3:16 pm

          The moratorium on legislation on the slave trade purely affected the federal government. States could and did abolish it on their own, even slave states. The only reason that any ships would legally be in a state’s harbor(s) with slave cargo to trade would be because that state legalized the trade. I won’t repeat Bob Huddleston’s excellent comment but Northern bottoms were the SMALLEST group of slavers in South Carolina harbors right before the end of the moratorium and the federal legislation abolishing the African slave trade. Where are your figures from on slave smuggling into the US after 1808?

          Georgia and SC CHOSE to reopen their borders to slave importation before 1808. Between the 1800 and 1810 censuses SC slave population went from 146,151 196,365 and Georgia’s skyrocketed from 59,699 105,218. If neither state had reopened their borders, then legitimate shippers would not have had the opportunity to make any money. Smuggling was difficult and dangerous and expensive. Unlike some other parts of the Americas, the US did quite well by the natural increase of the domestic slave population and the legal, internal intra and interstate slave trade was alive and thriving and did not need nearly as much in terms of shipping.

        • Jimmy Dick December 12, 2013 / 5:37 pm

          Face it Border Ruffian. You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. You’ve been proven wrong on this set of posts so much it isn’t even funny. Every single thing you’ve brought up here has been proven wrong.

          You haven’t even won a dollar on Jeopardy. Weird Al could sung this song about you.

          Well, I’m givin’ up Don Pardo
          Just tell me now what I didn’t win, yeah, yeah

          I lost on Jeopardy, baby (oooh)
          I lost on Jeopardy, baby (oooh)

          That’s right, Al–You lost. And let me tell you what you didn’t win: a twenty volume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a year’s supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. But that’s not all. You also made yourself look like a jerk in front of millions of people. You brought shame and disgrace to your family name for generations to come. You don’t get to come back tomorrow. You don’t even get a lousy copy of our home game. You’re a complete loser!
          Don’t know what I was thinkin’ of
          I guess I just wasn’t too bright
          Well, I sure hope I do better
          Next weekend on The Price Is Right, -ight, -ight

          I lost on Jeopardy, baby (oooh)
          I lost on Jeopardy, baby (oooh)
          I lost on Jeopardy, baby

          • BorderRuffian December 13, 2013 / 6:46 am

            …forgot to take your meds?

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 14, 2013 / 9:30 am

            Now, now, now, BR/B … someone all too afraid to post under your own name, because you really would not want to be held accountable for the nonsense you post …

            Here you are, playing up to your good buddy Connie …

            …and these are suppose to be professional people with high degrees. Can you believe the pettiness? And it’s the whole bunch – not just Simpson.

            And yet here you are, the model of good behavior, asking someone if they have taken medication. I suspect you’re the one’s who’s sick.

            Continuing with your playing up to Connie:

            I’ve been jousting with them now for several years till their behavior has become an amusement – whether it’s a nutty tirade from Jimmy Dick, a sappy, self-righteous post by Ms. Blough or Rob Baker trying to impress me with 50-cent words…I guess what I’m saying is – don’t take them too seriously.

            Actually, you’ve posted false information frequently, made accusations you’ve had to retract, failed to produce evidence you claim exists, and so on. Yet I tolerate you because once in a while you offer something that makes people think and sparks responses. However, if you now admit that all you’re doing is playing games, then I find that you can play those games with your playmate Connie. Thanks for admitting that you lack integrity. We’ll miss you as a source of amusement and as something of an easy mark as well as a source of amusement.

            Don’t worry … you’ll still have Connie. She possesses the quality of mind that would be impressed by your contributions, so you’ll be happy there.

          • M.D. Blough December 14, 2013 / 3:36 pm

            I’m offended. I was the one trying to impress him with 50-cent words (actually, I was aiming for 75-cents). ☺

          • Jimmy Dick December 16, 2013 / 6:44 pm

            He can’t post until his own name because he is a coward.

  4. Rob Baker December 12, 2013 / 7:24 am

    Pointing out that New Englanders participated in the slave trade does not absolve white southerners of anything.

    No kidding. The tu quoque deflection methods used by the advocates is a moot point to begin with.

    Love the Sarris reference by the way; he was the fourth presenter and commentator of my paper at the Appalachian Studies Association Conference in 2013.

  5. M.D. Blough December 12, 2013 / 7:37 am

    Henry Laurens, a major figure in US history from the Revolutionary era, was from South Carolina. He also was, at one point in his life, a major slave trader in the transatlantic slave trade and a large slave owner. He turned against slavery later in his life, in part due to the influence of his son John who died in action during the Revolutionary War. Charleston was also a major port of call for the 18th century transatlantic slave trade..

  6. Corey Meyer December 12, 2013 / 8:24 am

    I found the comment odd as well since most discussions about slaves and Africa include the usual Confederate Heritage talking point about how it was blacks in Africa that sold other blacks into slavery.

    • Billy Bearden December 14, 2013 / 11:12 am

      Corey,
      I seriously doubt the speaker of this quote has any desire or motivation for Confederate Heritage.
      I have to wonder why the story from whence the quote came from was not printed in American media…..

      Uganda President Yoweri Museveni states he blames “black traitors” more than white Europeans for the 17th and 18th century slave trade. “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them,” he said. “If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.” – March 1998

      Thank God for the BBC!
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/africa/68974.stm

      • Corey Meyer December 14, 2013 / 2:19 pm

        Billy,

        Really, If I understand you correctly, the speaker of the quote is Connie Chastain, Webmaster for the Virginia Flaggers. I think she is fully motivated for Confederate Heritage.

        • Billy Bearden December 16, 2013 / 2:33 pm

          Corey, read the quote and do a bit of research on the context. President Bill Clinton went to Africa and had wanted to make a apology for slavery. It didn’t go off as planned, as President Museveni cut him off and made the above comments.

          I read once where a Dutch ship captain reported that after he had made a purchase of slaves to fill his holds, as he pulled away he witnessed the captives driven into the sea and murdered.

          Again, this info is not taught to our children, just the still lingering ROOTS legacy that whitey caught blacks in the jungle to provide fodder for the evil Confederates and their slavery invention.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 16, 2013 / 2:35 pm

            I think you’re confusing myths here, Billy. After all, I’ve been told that slavery was forced upon southern whites by New England slave traders.

          • Corey Meyer December 16, 2013 / 2:50 pm

            Sorry Billy…was not sure what quote you were talking about…usually people put quote marks (“) around quotes to denote a quote that you want to standout as a “quote”.

            That being said, I don’t think the Roots version of history has been taught to anyone in a very long time. I was not taught it and I don’t teach it.

            However, due to the quote you gave I suppose you want to claim that since a African president blames black traitors for the slave trade, we can all sleep well for the crimes of slavery here in the US since it was those darn pesky Africans pushing slavery on.

            So what was your point again?

          • M.D. Blough December 16, 2013 / 4:43 pm

            Corey-He’ll never accept that white Southerners bear any share of the responsibility for slavery instead of believing that those nasty [fill in the blanks] FORCED, I say FORCED (consider this as being done by the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn) unwilling and innocent white Southerners to buy Africans in the first place; make them labor; buy, lease (as lessee or lessor) and sell the Africans and their US born descendants as well as use them for collateral for loans and bequeath them in wills for nearly 250 years.

          • Billy Bearden December 17, 2013 / 7:51 am

            M.D.

            Know my mind better than I, huh?
            Everyone, everywhere, at one point or another, had their dirty little hands involved in slavery and all it’s evils at one time or another, including white southerners. A generation or two preceding my Confederate ancestors, I found one of my ancestors owned about 5 slaves. He bequeathed them to his progeny, who would later free them.

            Merry Christmas

          • Billy Bearden December 17, 2013 / 7:43 am

            My “point” was speaking to the topic of this thread, Corey.

            “Recently a Confederate heritage apologist declared:

            Southerners, by and large, did not go to Africa and steal slaves — some of the the ancestors of some federal soldiers did that (primarily, the New England maritime flavor of yankees)…”

            I have no idea if the person who gave the quote above knows of the Museveni statements in the BBC article, but it does bolster the fact that, as opposed to what Alex Haley would have us believe, the old fat white redneck slave ship crew didn’t go bounding thru the African wilds tossing nets over Kunte Kinte.

            I see a lot of things being attributed to my postings here, as ‘absolving any guilt by southerners” for better sleep at night. Whatever.

            I look at your photo, Corey, and I’ll bet you weren’t even born in 1977. That’s fine. You have no recollection of what it was like to be assigned to watch the miniseries ROOTS, and do a report on it for a grade. That teacher (black) taught ROOTS as 100% fact. I learned more in that social studies class about Kunte Kinte, Kizzie, and Chicken George than I learned of more important facts in math, english, and P.E. Those images were seared into our young minds. It wasn’t until 2001 that I learned ROOTS was pure artistic license to sell a book and movie deal.

          • Corey Meyer December 17, 2013 / 9:20 am

            Billy, I was borrn in 1970 and I have never believed what you see in Roots was 100% historical. Do you believe everything you see in movies is 100% historical…aside from Gods and Generals?

          • Billy Bearden December 17, 2013 / 11:04 am

            Corey Corey Corey….
            It is good that you are my friend, else I might get frustrated with you.

            In 1977, I was but a wee 7th grader with a mind full of mush. I looked to the teachers as the divine givers of knowledge and instructors of truth. How could any 7th grader of the time question what was being ‘taught’ us? He told us to watch it for a classroom grade. He expounded on it. He pushed that meme. For me (and I suspect all other students that went thru his class) that was the ‘slavery gospel’ and for years afterwards (til 2001) should thoughts be entertained or topics of that subject matter be discussed, ROOTS was what revisited.

            TV was then a vastly different thing than what it is today. A TV ‘mini series’ was a huge event. Moreso cause it was a class project. You were 7 at the time, ancient history now.

          • Corey Meyer December 17, 2013 / 11:14 am

            I understand Billy, however being a student of history since my junior year in high school, 1986-1987, it was very obvious early on in my reading on slavery and such that what was portrayed in Roots was not histoically accurate. It is obvious that your study of history is geared for the heritage side of it not the educations side and I don’t mean that in a snobby way…it just speaks to the focus IMHO.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 17, 2013 / 9:25 am

            I’m not sure what’s got you upset here, Billy. Are you telling me that you were taught a piece of history in school that you subsequently found out was wrong? Welcome to the club.

            That’s why historians are inherently revisionist in much of what they do. They test and sometimes correct popular misperceptions of American history as well as the work of their predecessors.

            You seem scarred by this experience. I hope you get over it.

          • Billy Bearden December 17, 2013 / 11:07 am

            Brooks,
            Thank you for the concern. I seemed to recovered from that 1977 event circa 2001.
            I will be scarred, though, if I am not amongst the contenders in the Flagger follies.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 17, 2013 / 11:08 am

            You’ll have to keep coming back to find out.🙂

          • Rob Baker December 17, 2013 / 4:22 pm

            Heard that. I do it all the time with my students.

            It’s really more of a generalization history that narrows as one advances through the educational system. Example: Rosa Parks

            Elementary: her feet hurt.

            High School: She was tired, tired of the bullshit. She stood up for herself.

            College: Rosa Parks was a trained Civil Rights Activist, she did exactly what she was trained to do.

          • Andy Hall December 17, 2013 / 8:15 pm

            Great example. One thing I’ve noticed for a long time is that Confederate heritage folks always seem to assume that people who disagree with them do so because they have that “elementary school” level of understanding. In most cases it’s quite the opposite.

    • Billy Bearden December 14, 2013 / 11:19 am

      Corey,

      You said “I found the comment odd as well since most discussions about slaves and Africa include the usual Confederate Heritage talking point about how it was blacks in Africa that sold other blacks into slavery”

      Well, perhaps this man is using Confederate Heritage talking points too?

      Uganda President Yoweri Museveni states he blames “black traitors” more than white Europeans for the 17th and 18th century slave trade. “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them,” he said. “If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.”

      Possibly it was he who invented that particular talking point?

      Also, I wonder why not a single US news outlet shared that story?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/africa/68974.stm

      • Jimmy Dick December 14, 2013 / 12:17 pm

        Why would they? It is common historical knowledge. However, it doesn’t do what you want it to do. The Confederacy was still about defending the ownership of slaves. The Lost Causers try to use this point to shift blame, but they cannot do so as it still came down to white Southerners buying slaves, selling slaves, and using slave labor to construct most of the pre-Civil War South.

        • Billy Bearden December 16, 2013 / 2:24 pm

          Mr Dick,
          It is common knowledge in America that the white man ran thru the jungles of Africa throwing nets over all the Kunte Kintes, capturing them and dragging them to the southern slave ships. That is the legacy that America grew up on (Yes, I was assigned to watch ROOTS and give a repot on it in my 7th grade class) so thanks to Alex Haley, that is what America was taught. I grew up believing that was what happened until just after the turn of the century.
          That is not the truth though.

          • Jimmy Dick December 16, 2013 / 6:48 pm

            It still does not change the fact that white southerners bought black slaves. No one made them do it. They chose to do it on their own terms to create their own wealth. It does not matter who captured the blacks in Africa which we know was done by blacks and whites. Don’t forget the Arabs had a hand in this trade as well.
            You are creating a strawman argument to deflect the fact that white southerners bought slaves. You can’t get around that issue.

      • M.D. Blough December 14, 2013 / 12:18 pm

        Mr. Bearden-

        Stop it. Just please stop it. If someone doesn’t know that Africans were involved in the transafrican slave trade, it’s not because anyone has been hiding the information. Even if you got that particular piece of information to every single human being on the planet and made sure that they thoroughly accepted it, as was once said in another context, it’s true but it’s also irrelevant. It’s irrelevant to the issue of responsibility for slavery and the slave trade either on the part of the middlemen (purchased slaves from Africans, transported them to the New World, and/or sold them and/or provided necessary goods and/or services to the trade) or purchasers, either at point of disembarkation or later in the internal trade. It’s just as true that the massive involvement of whites doesn’t change the responsibility of those Africans who sold their fellow Africans to the whites. BTW, the only thing that legally ended in 1808 was the importation of slaves from foreign countries into the US. The internal and very legal US slave trade continued on a massive scale until the Civil War and was still going on, to an extent limited by the war, until the very end of the war. I’ve yet to see that blacks played any significant role, especially an independent one, in the intra- and inter-state slave trade in the US.

        The only ones who had no choice in the matter were the enslaved. Everyone else did, including those Africans who started selling in larger and larger quantities to Europeans instead of slaves remaining in African and treated according to local custom. Whites settled in British North American who CHOSE not to use slave labor.

        I don’t know the validity of your quote but, even if it’s 100% accurate, I don’t think it’s in President Museveni’s power to speak for those whose lives were ended abruptly, cut short, or irrevocably changed centuries ago by being kidnapped and enslaved. There is more than enough blame and, if you prefer the term, responsibility to go around.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 14, 2013 / 12:51 pm

          By now you must have gotten used to the bogus logic and paranoid fantasies of Confederate heritage apologists who become very quiet when someone points out the shortcomings in their logic. Their other response is to go off like Connie Chastain or BR/B.

          The real Confederates deserve better than these pathetic excuses for defenders of their heritage … I think.

  7. Al Mackey December 12, 2013 / 8:51 am

    I suppose the poor, unsuspecting white southerners woke up one morning and found those evil Yankees had dropped all these slaves all over the place. Being naturally kind-hearted, the white southerners took these poor, unfortunate souls in and lovingly cared for them, taking care of their every need. But then, those evil Yankees came down and forced the kindly white southerners to have the slaves work in fields or as servants. Behind every white southerner paying for a slave was an evil Yankee with a gun to his head, forcing him to do it.

    • Corey Meyer December 12, 2013 / 10:08 am

      Al, also remember that the North had no moral right to be in the south either…hence the reason there sould not be a Union monument at Olustee and there are only Confederate monuments in Gettysburg because of Union forces illegally invading the south. Oh my!

    • M.D. Blough December 12, 2013 / 12:51 pm

      Al-I always thought of it more that in the innocent white South as victims of predatory New Englanders fantasy that it had to involve New England armies and navies coming down and forcing protesting Southern whites to accept and use slaves at gunpoint.

  8. Bob Huddleston December 12, 2013 / 10:03 am

    As for the supposed Yankee influence forcing slaves on unwilling Southerners, when South Carolina reopened the slave trade in 1807-1808, *all* of the States, including South Carolina, had outlawed the importation of slaves from Africa before the Constitutional prohibition could be acted on – only South Carolina then reversed itself.

    From January 1, 1804 to the legal end of the Trade on December 31, 1807, 202 ships entered Charleston with slaves: three were French, 70 were British, 59 were from Rhode Island, four from Baltimore, two from Norfolk, one from Sweden, one from Boston, one from Connecticut – and 61 belonging to Charleston. (Speech of Sen. William Smith of South Carolina, _Annals of Congress_, 16th Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 73-77, Friday, December 8, 1820. The speech is online at the Library of Congress site, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=037/llac037.db&recNum=2 [that’s a long one: I would suggest you copy and paste it!])

    Foreign countries: 74 (of these, 70 were British)
    Southern ports: 67 (of these, 61 were from Charleston itself)
    Northern ports: 61 (of these, 59 were from Rhode Island)

  9. Jefferson Moon December 12, 2013 / 10:06 am

    Thank goodness I’m from Ohio, not a dang yankee or a dang southerner, Ohio never had slaves of which I am proud.But my folk did come to Ohio from Virginia and some did own slaves.

  10. Pedrog December 12, 2013 / 10:09 am

    I love this constant reminder that “they sold their own brothers.” Does this apply to your standard 19th century white American in how they felt about the Irish immigrants?

    • Joshism December 12, 2013 / 5:25 pm

      Presumably implies something about Native Americans too since they allied with whites against other Native Americans rather than presenting a unified front. Clearly the failure of one race to unify against another race proves that race’s inferiority? *eyeroll*

  11. Eric A. Jacobson December 12, 2013 / 10:38 am

    Taxes. Yes, taxes on slaves. Just take the State of South Carolina’s word for it:

    “The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves…”

    The word is NEVER mentioned again, and was not mentioned by any of the other states, for that matter. On the other hand, South Carolina used the term slave, slavery, or slaveholding eighteen different times. But of course, it was not about slavery, but taxes.

    • M.D. Blough December 16, 2013 / 5:01 pm

      Eric-Ironically, what the Southern representatives wanted was for slaves to count as an entire person. Article 1, Section 9, No. 4 states: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” The census is provided for in Article 1, Section 2, No. 3 which states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” The Southern proposal was met with resistance by Northern representatives in which had smaller ratios of free to enslaved and which had ended or were heading towards ending slavery. In addition to some who vociferously raised moral objections to slavery, the northerners pointed out that the southerners said slaves were property and no aspect of northern property was being included in the tally. The result was the 3/5 compromise. I do not believe that any direct taxes were enacted prior to the Civil War (that was based on the war power IIRR) but the provision dramatically stacked the balance of power in favor of the slave states.

  12. D. R. December 12, 2013 / 11:59 am

    You stated:

    “As for what happened to most slaves … well, no one argued that male slaves were raped. Female slaves were raped. We don’t know how many. And, as I’ve suggested before, it would be a bad idea to murder most slaves, because that would undermine the whole system (something our Confederate heritage advocate seems unable to understand, bless her heart)….”

    You have put “color of skin” into the argument for abolition of slavery and now charge Southern whites with the crime of rape concerning black slaves.

    I disagree with your put down of white Southerners and regret that you and others are trying to make the white people of the South the scapegoats of all the injustices done in the context of slavery. You are actually fueling black-white hatred by your comments.

    You admit that you have no statistics to support your comments on the number of rapes. But I can provide some statistics (I am sure there is more crime going on than what is reported) via FBI reports to show in our current era that there is a lot of black-on-white crime especially concerning the capital (once upon a time) crime of rape. I think you and others give hostile blacks the justification for the anger they exhibit at times which is just a projection of your own hatred and disgust towards white conservative Southerners.

    Here is a summary I found about interracial crime:

    Interracial Crime

    •Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

    •Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

    •Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

    •Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 12, 2013 / 12:09 pm

      Try to keep up. We’re talking about slavery before the American Civil War. That was before 1861 … and before there was an FBI. As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinion. Do you think the statistics you cite offer a justification for slavery, racism, or white supremacy? In other words, tell us what you really think and feel.

      • Jefferson Moon December 12, 2013 / 12:26 pm

        They are disturbing…

      • D. R. December 12, 2013 / 7:33 pm

        I did.

        And I will add that you are attacking the institution slavery from a secular position turning it into a issue on racism. You, abolitionists, had no authority to outlaw an institution that has existed over 1,000’s of years, just as you had no real authority to stop the Confederate states from withdrawing from a government that the people in their states no longer wanted to associate with.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 13, 2013 / 12:06 am

          Thank you for sharing your perspective. The difference between us is that I think slavery is wrong and it was a good thing to end it, while you think that it was a good thing and should have been continued. I’m content with my position.

          • D. R. December 13, 2013 / 5:16 am

            Personally, I would not want to have slaves; but because it is allowed in the Bible and a true Christian is to live by the Word of God, I allow it. Abe Lincoln reportedly read the Bible numerous times which shows he missed some things when it comes to slaves/servants/bondservants.

        • neukomment December 13, 2013 / 12:38 pm

          Hey DR, It will be a cold day in hell before I EVER apologize for my abolitionist Great-great Grandfather and the assistance he and his family gave to the Underground Railroad! That’s MY heritage and why I will always be an Unrepentant Yankee!

          • D. R. December 13, 2013 / 9:10 pm

            What is your explanation of why the Underground Railroad bypassed the North and went all the way to Canada?

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 13, 2013 / 10:57 pm

            Because the Fugitive Slave Law could not be enforced in Canada.

          • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 9:13 am

            Mr. Simpson, your attack against slavery and the white Southern people would have to be altered if the USA, both North and South had of followed the Bible by adhering to the following verses:

            Deuteronomy 23:15-16

            Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

            He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

            The North is just as guilty as the South in whatever evils were done in the context of slavery. There are both good and bad Southerners, good and bad Northerners and good and bad slaves. If slaves were terribly mistreated as you charge, they could have escaped to the free states and should have been taken care of. That would have solved the problem but it appears the North apparently did not want them, because of racism?

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 14, 2013 / 9:22 am

            You seem to have as good a grasp of history as you do of religion. First you say that slavery was a good thing, sanctified by scripture, and now you admit that it’s evil, but that everyone’s at fault because white northerners, too were racist. Clearly you haven’t been reading the blog very carefully (which comes as no surprise, given your incomplete rendering of scripture).

            So you’ll have to make up your mind as to whether slavery’s moral or immoral, a good thing or a bad thing, instead of scattering yourself all over the place in a desperate effort to defend white southerners. Your intellectual incoherence does not advance your cause.

          • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 3:45 pm

            The Bible allows for slavery. But it has some rules on what to do and not to do. (Some of those rules are very strict to say the least.)

            But what I quoted about not returning runaways to their masters would have alleviated some of the problems of mistreatment that you seem to insist was rampant among white Southerners (only 6% owned slaves). Here, we see the North, not owning slaves, but willingly participating in violating the scriptures and returning runaways. If these runaways were fleeing mistreatment as you claim was the norm then your beloved North is a participant in this so called mistreatment.

            Now, I am not agreeing to all your charges on mistreatment but rather stating that if this mistreatment you claim was true then you, the North, was aiding the South in this.

            Is that clear enough? I support the Bible which does allow for slavery and you will not find a statement in its pages that forbids taking and possessing bondservants.

            But there is a very clear statement saying one can take and possess bondservants:

            Lev 25:44-46

            Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

            Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

            And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

          • Jimmy Dick December 14, 2013 / 6:38 pm

            Once again, you use the Bible to try to make the modern day conform to it. The past is in the past. It is not the present day. That passage applies to the people of the past, not the people of the present. Quit running around using God’s Word to lie to people. It is wrong. But if you want slavery back I’m all for it as long as you’re the one in chains. You and the other fellow racists can be the slaves. I bet you won’t think that meets Biblical passages. You think it only applies to other people.

          • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 7:56 pm

            “Jimmy Dick
            Once again, you use the Bible to try to make the modern day conform to it. The past is in the past. It is not the present day. That passage applies to the people of the past, not the people of the present. Quit running around using God’s Word to lie to people. It is wrong. But if you want slavery back I’m all for it as long as you’re the one in chains. You and the other fellow racists can be the slaves. I bet you won’t think that meets Biblical passages. You think it only applies to other people.”

            So anyone who disagrees with a Northern abolitionist should be enslaved, especially if they’re from the South, even if slavery is not forbidden in the Bible:

            “Most Copperheads actively participated in politics. On May 1, 1863, former Congressman Vallandigham declared the war was being fought not to save the Union, but to free the blacks and enslave Southern whites. The army then arrested him for declaring sympathy for the enemy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to imprisonment, but Lincoln commuted the sentence to banishment behind Confederate lines. The Democrats nevertheless nominated him for governor of Ohio in 1863; he campaigned from Canada, but lost after an intense battle.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperhead_(politics)

          • SF Walker December 14, 2013 / 8:24 pm

            “The Bible allows for slavery.” Yes, that’s true, because slavery was simply a fact of life during the time it was written. However, the Bible contains no claims in either Testament that slavery is ordained and supported by God as a just practice. Look closely at the quotes you’ve provided so far. They’re all concerned with nothing more than the expected behavior of slaves and their masters, according to the customs and laws existing in that part of the world.

          • khepera420 December 14, 2013 / 8:25 pm

            “But there is a very clear statement saying one can take and possess bondservants:
            Lev 25:44-46”

            Yeah, well there’s also this very clear statement:

            There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
            Galatians 3:28

            I’m always amused by you self-professed Christians who rely on Old Testament writings, intended as instruction for the tribe of Levi, to bolster your prejudices.

          • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 10:41 pm

            “SF Walker
            “The Bible allows for slavery.” Yes, that’s true, because slavery was simply a fact of life during the time it was written. However, the Bible contains no claims in either Testament that slavery is ordained and supported by God as a just practice. Look closely at the quotes you’ve provided so far. They’re all concerned with nothing more than the expected behavior of slaves and their masters, according to the customs and laws existing in that part of the world.”
            ————————
            “khepera420
            “But there is a very clear statement saying one can take and possess bondservants:
            Lev 25:44-46″

            Yeah, well there’s also this very clear statement:

            There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
            Galatians 3:28

            I’m always amused by you self-professed Christians who rely on Old Testament writings, intended as instruction for the tribe of Levi, to bolster your prejudices.”
            —————————–
            Slavery is not condemned in the Bible and you have scriptures to support your secular religion with abolition as your main tenet. The North was just playing the slave(race) card against the South and using a divide and conquer strategy by using the slaves to help them subdue the South.

            Religiously, there are NT scriptures that give instructions to slaves and masters:

            Eph 6:5-9
            Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

            Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

            With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

            Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

            And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
            ———————–

            Spiritually speaking, true Christians are all one in Christ. But in the flesh we are not all one. There is a difference between slave and free, male and female, etc. You are twisting the scriptures to try and justify your aggression towards the South.

            Now, Christ is going to free this entire world from being enslaved to Satan the Devil. There is a Levitical ceremony (Lev 16, Yom Kippur) that pictures the putting away of Satan (Rev 20:1-3) for a 1,000 years and then finally forever. Mankind will no longer be enslaved to Satan’s broadcast. So Christ will free one from slavery to Satan but everyone must become a bondslave (spiritually) to Christ and serve God and Christ and then be born into the very Family of God and live forever. You are going to have to serve one or the other. Is it God or is it Satan? God uses slavery to punish those who refuse to serve Him and delivers them into the hands
            of those who will rule over them with rigor and He also allows slavery to preserve life for those who do not have the resources to take care of themselves.

            Therefore, Isaiah 14:1-3 pictures a time when your attempt to upstage God and come up with your version of Christianity will be exposed as the reasoning of men cut off from God and you will be put in your place when you see regathered Israel take their former captors and possess them as servants and maidservants. (However, I believe you will discover your error years before this happens.)

          • M.D. Blough December 14, 2013 / 9:37 am

            North and South were not just as guilty. NONE of the provisions in the Constitution protecting slavery would have been there, including the Fugitive Slave Clause, if several of the original slave states, primarily Georgia and South Carolina, had not made their presence an absolute condition precedent for ratification. The draconian provisions of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law were among the essential provisions before slave state congressional delegations would vote for the Compromise of 1850. During the same period northern states had ended (or, in New Jersey’s case, all but ended) slavery within their borders, some immediately. For decades, whites in northern states had allowed their fear of disunion to overcome everything else but, instead of assuaging Southern fear and anger (the number of abolitionists AND the number of fugitive slaves who went North were both quite small), Southern demands escalated until it became clear that they would never be satisfied until they could bring their slaves everywhere and meet with nothing but approbation.

            The northern whites were guilty of moral cowardice but, if the Northern model had been followed nationally, slavery in the US would have ended peacefully.

          • M.D. Blough December 14, 2013 / 12:22 am

            Ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850? President Franklin Pierce, a northerner who not only owed his election to slavery forces but was sympathetic to them, vigorously enforced it. Pierce sent hundreds of federal troops into the City of Boston in 1854 to return the fugitive slave Anthony Burns over fierce resistance by Bostonian abolitionists and spent the 1854 equivalent of $2,000,000.00 in the process. Federal Marshals actively enforced the law there and elsewhere. The Black population of Ontario approximately doubled (about 11,000) in the 1850s as northern Blacks fled across the border to Canada because of the draconian new version of the Fugitive Slave Law. Because of the provisions of the law that would deter even legally free(d) blacks from being able to prove themselves as such and the financial incentives to federal commissioners of ruling in favor of “aggrieved” slaveowners under the law free(d) blacks felt themselves at peril.

          • neukomment December 15, 2013 / 11:35 am

            DR: Because slavers violated the states rights of the free states, and used The Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott decision to force slavery on the free states. The hypocrisy of the confederates states rights mantra is nauseating. They had no respect for the states rights of the free states. Of course you are very likely grossly ignorant of the content and argument in Lincoln’s Copper Union address or you would already know that… Of course in the wake of the defeat of the rebellion in 1865, it is easy to forget the aggression of the slave states against the free states in the 10 years before 1860…

    • Jimmy Dick December 13, 2013 / 12:44 pm

      Why would anyone want to believe statistics whipped up by the New Century Foundation which is a white supremacist group? This is nothing more than the usual stinking pile of crap from racist nutjobs who lie to America in order to perpetuate a warped and sick ideology.

  13. George December 12, 2013 / 5:13 pm

    I believe the topic of discussion here was originally about the treatment of slaves! I fail to see where anybody can say either way how the majority of slaves were treated! I do not doubt that there were many slaves who were abused and mistreated but I also do not doubt that there were many who were not! I do not believe that anybody can truthfully or accurately say what that majority was! I do know that some southern states had laws pertaining to the treatment of slaves and that it was illegal in many of those states to abuse or mistreat slaves! Just like it is with today’s laws, I’m sure that there were many slave owners who tried to abide by the laws but I am sure there were many who didn’t pay a bit of attention to those laws whatsoever! Either way, I do not think that trying to say how the majority of slaves were treated would be an accurate statement from either side and I fail to see where anybody can come up with an accurate or reliable figure to back it up!

      • George December 13, 2013 / 4:12 pm

        Mr. Simpson, with all due respect, my post was not intended as a defense of slavery! The point I was trying to make is that I am not willing to agree with anybody who makes a statement about how the majority of slaves were treated unless they have some numbers to back up what they are saying! The writer who made the statement “Most slaves-men, women, children- were not raped, robbed, stolen, killed and murdered” is not in my opinion making an accurate statement unless he has some facts and statistics to back it up. I believe the same applies to anyone who makes a statement saying the majority were abused! The only way to accurately know what that majority might be is to take a survey of the slaves which is not possible due to the fact that none of them are still alive! Again as I said earlier, I am not defending slavery, slavery was and still is a very deplorable and reprehensible institution! It is a very ugly stain not only on the southern states but the entire United States as well! When I state that some slaves were obviously treated better than others that is not intended as a defense of slavery, neither is my remarks about the fact that some slave owners obeyed the laws concerning treatment of slaves! Neither one of those remarks were in any way intended to be Pro-Slavery! I was merely stating obvious facts! Just wanted to make that clear!

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 13, 2013 / 5:34 pm

          Do you not think that enslavement of a human being is inherently abusive?

          • George December 13, 2013 / 6:55 pm

            Mr. Simpson, again with all due respect, my remarks pertained to the comment you posted about the writer who stated that “Most slaves-men, women,children-were not not raped,robbed,stolen,killed and murdered’! That was all! As I said in my last post, I am not defending slavery in any shape or form! Yes I will agree that Slavery in itself is an abuse! As I said earlier it is a very reprehensible institution and I’m glad that it is no longer legal in this country! However one cannot deny that some slaves were treated better than others and some slaves owners did obey the laws pertaining to the treatment of slaves! That’s not only facts, that’s just plain common sense! I do not believe that all plantations were like Tara in “Gone with the Wind” but I don’t believe that were all like what was depicted in “Roots” either! Again that is not intended as a defense of slavery and if there’s anything in those remarks that still lead you or anybody else to believe that it is then please feel free to explain what it might be because I’m not seeing it!

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 13, 2013 / 8:21 pm

            “However one cannot deny that some slaves were treated better than others and some slaves owners did obey the laws pertaining to the treatment of slaves! That’s not only facts, that’s just plain common sense!”

            So what?

          • George December 14, 2013 / 10:59 am

            Maybe we better just let it go. I think you and I are in agreement about some things we just can’t seem to get on the same page!

    • Joshism December 13, 2013 / 7:10 pm

      George, why do you end every one of your sentences with an exclamation point?

      • George December 14, 2013 / 10:54 am

        Been out of school for a while, that’s all. Never was the best at correct punctuation!

  14. Neil Hamilton December 12, 2013 / 11:31 pm

    Professor Simpson,

    Connie is all about the fight, not the facts. There truly is no historical fact here in her replies on her blog, this is all about confrontation. She is compelled to lash out at those she needs to engage with, she needs to fight with, or what will she really have to talk/post about at all?

    It is painful for me to see her and you do such as she is reduced to simply posting rants and you feed her more ammunition to do so.

    In my own view, she and her comments and her blog should be ignored by those who really wish to learn about history in general and the American Civil War in particular.

    I wonder if she could truly bear to be fully ignored by those she considers ‘floggers.’ I think she needs these very people she fights or she would simply slide off the ‘heritage’ radar. It would be refreshing to see a prolonged ‘quiet time’ for her and a return to actual learning here at your own blog.

    Sincerely,
    Neil

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 13, 2013 / 12:05 am

      Neil: I appreciate your perspective. Thank you.

      I don’t agree that people ignore what Connie Chastain says. Yes, a good number of people do, and that’s to the good. But there are people who believe differently. There are people in the Confederate heritage movement who think she is correct, just as she believes that the widely discredited Michael T. Griffiths is a reliable source. Griffiths was exposed and discredited when he appeared on a number of discussion groups years ago … yet his twisted understanding of history remains available through a search engine, where an equally discredited Ms. Chastain now cites it as gospel truth (a perusal of Google will suggest a far more complicated and sophisticated understanding of Mr. Griffiths’s declarations than one would gather from Ms. Chastain’s complete acceptance of his simple-mindedness). The same goes for the Virginia Flaggers, whose pretensions simply to restore the honor have been shown to be hollow, while the group’s behavior and associations have come under scrutiny (in fact, I’d say it was the growing prominence of the Flaggers and Ms. Chastain’s espousal of them that saved her from obscurity).

      I don’t intent to revisit Mr. Griffiths’s interpretation of various issues. Folks will have to find out for themselves what I’ve said before.

      I have noted this before and I will note it again: people may claim that they would prefer not to have these little streaks of engagement, but I don’t see them actively supporting more substantive discussions. Meanwhile, hit counts suggest what drives people to various blogs. That’s not to say that one blogs to achieve those hit counts (contrary to the curious claims made by some people), but I notice that when this blog uses the attention it gets because of such skirmishes to draw attention to worthwhile discussions elsewhere, those discussions gain the attention they might otherwise not receive. So controversy in a way benefits substantial conversation of the sort you desire precisely because people coming here for whatever reason encounter thoughtful commentary they might not otherwise see.

      My own sense is that while the discussion over the I-95 flag reinvigorated certain forms of controversy, the rather insignificant result means that we will soon find ourselves following the paths you prefer to pursue more often. Given that at this time I’m preoccupied with completing several more important scholarly projects, you’ll excuse me if for the moment I prefer this light entertainment as a distraction from those endeavors (Connie amuses me, especially when she’s outrageous … just wait). Moreover, readers can always help to drive the discussion by raising questions about substantial issues and commenting on such posts. It strikes me as ironic that we waste a good deal of time debating over whether we are wasting a good deal of time, and these discussions give attention to the very people some believe should be ignored. Let’s get past that.

      Again, thank you. Rest assured that there are times I am in full agreement with your sentiment.

  15. Michael Confoy December 13, 2013 / 12:18 am

    The majority of most southerners were not “innocents.” They voted and supported secession and were therefore traitors. They also engaged in treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy as defined by the US Constitution. If they really want to understand what armies of destruction are about, then look at the second world war in Germany with us and the British delivering devastation from above and the Soviet Army giving new meaning to the rape of innocents.

    • D. R. December 13, 2013 / 5:46 am

      This whole nation was founded on a spirit of rebellion (treason) against the throne of England. And you have the gall to call someone a traitor. I believe that the throne of England is the transpanted throne of David. Time and space will not allow me to prove it but we are rebelling against the very throne that God used to rule over the affairs of ancient Israel and this is the very throne that Jesus Christ will return to when He comes back to this Earth to rule, And by the way, the prophecies in the Bible reveal that when Christ returns, the descendants of ancient Israel will be regathered in land around Jerusalem and they will once again take and possess slaves/servants/bondservants–this is written in the Bible. Again, Abe Lincoln must have missed this prophecy, and I would like to see the look on all these holier-than-thou abolionists when this day comes….

      • John Foskett December 13, 2013 / 10:06 am

        I’ll give you this much. You are the only “Southern Heritage” supporter who has posted on this site and who admits that the AWI was a “rebellion”. That, of course, poses an insurmountable constitutional problem for the rest of the fiction-spinners who like to analogize the 1861 secession to the AWI and who argue that what happened in 1861 was lawful under the Constitution.

      • rortensie December 13, 2013 / 10:06 am

        Hmmm…this seems oddly familiar to the 1850s argument and the slipping of the churches giving us the Northern sects and Southern sects. Your “holier-than-thou” comment may come home to roost to those who defended slavery for the good of the slaves because the Bible said so.

      • Jimmy Dick December 13, 2013 / 12:38 pm

        Time, space, reality, facts, documentation, and a lot of other things will prevent you from proving this crap.

      • khepera420 December 13, 2013 / 1:50 pm

        My my my. . .what an exquisite piece of work you are.🙂

        “Time and space will not allow me to prove it. . .”
        Well, I’ll let ya in on a little secret; neither will reality or anything in the real world.

        I call Poe’s Law on this one. Else. . .wow.

        • Michael Confoy December 14, 2013 / 11:21 am

          My bet s Poe’s law. It’s unlikely we are dealing with an intellectual schizophrenic are little part of the world here.

  16. D. R. December 13, 2013 / 6:57 pm

    Isaiah 14:1-3

    For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

    And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

    And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve…

    • Jimmy Dick December 13, 2013 / 8:55 pm

      I will venture to say your interpretation of this verse is really off. It refers to a specific time period from 742 BC to 687 BC. It was written with its meaning applying to the situation of that time, not today. This is where the cults and cultists of today go off on a tangent because they take the Bible and try to twist it to support their personal desires.

      • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 1:01 am

        Wrong.

        Christ spoke of the soon coming Kingdom of God. He spoke of a coming literal Kingdom on this earth when King David would be resurrected and rule under Christ and over the 12 tribes of Israel with the 12 Apostles over each one of the tribes of Israel. The descendants of ancient Israel will be regathered and come again and live in Palestine which Isaiah 14:1-3 is referring to. The House of Israel was lost from view whereas the House of Judah has never been lost because they have always kept their identifying sign the Holy Sabbath and annual Holy Days, but however have been scattered and they too will be regathered along with the House of Israel.

        The House of Israel (not the House of Judah) was taken captive around 721-718 BC removed from the land around Samaria and they migrated eventually toward Northwestern Europe along with their captors. They had stopped keeping the Sabbath and lost their identity and their language and are known today as the Lost 10 tribes of Israel.

        Isaiah 14:1-3 is referring to the time in the future when they, modern day Israel, will be brought out of an end-time captivity (Jer 31 refers to this exodus back) and brought back to Palestine.

        The problem with the United States today is that false ministers are misleading the people and we are going to be nuked and our survivors taken into captivity as a result of all of our sins. There are many people in the USA who are descendants of ancient Israel who will one day be regathered and brought back to Palestine and fulfill Isaiah 14:1-3.

        God speed the return of Christ and bring back Israel who will possess the ones who held them captive and have them for servants and handmaids and shut the mouths of these secular abolitionists who do not know God.

        • SF Walker December 14, 2013 / 7:41 pm

          D.R.—According to God’s laws as laid out in the Bible, wearing clothes made from more than one type of fabric is strictly forbidden. It’s safe to say that practically all of us here are violating that one. Just how far do you want to go with this?

          • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 10:44 pm

            I have had people throw that at me more than once so take your best shot.

    • Neil Hamilton December 13, 2013 / 9:55 pm

      D.R.,

      You can’t fix stupid, in the Bible or anywhere else, if it is fully embraced as ‘truth.’

      God help you.

      Sincerely,
      Neil

  17. Jimmy Dick December 14, 2013 / 7:42 am

    D.R.,
    You are one of the false ministers. You use the Bible in a way that makes me cringe. I can only imagine what God has to say about sick bastards like you that twist his words to support their warped ideology. Jesus said to love thy neighbor like you would God. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Jesus brought a message of love to the world. Sick assess like you don’t follow his message. You twist it to make a prophecy of fear and hatred. I have to pray for people like you because you are on the path to Hell for bearing false witness.

    Study history, not warped beliefs. What you said about the Jews is a lie. There are no lost tribes of Israel. Only idiots believe that garbage. It was the Diaspora that caused the Jews to enter Europe in large numbers. But I do not expect you to study history because you are out there making stuff up to support your kooky beliefs.

    • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 3:19 pm

      You are wrong! Dead wrong!

      First of all, I am not a minister. However, I do read and study the Bible and you will find no command saying, “Thou shalt not take and possess bondservants.” The New Testament even has instructions for both masters and servants on how to conduct themselves in a Christian manner. You are just supporting secular abolitionists whose ways are not of God but their own human reasoning. God allows for slavery for several reasons which I may reserve for a future answer I you persist in your attacks.

      As far as the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel, and the throne of David being transplanted to England, I believe I am correct. You do have the right to disagree. And I will not use slanderous words in answering your putdowns which betrays your evil hostile nature.

      • Jimmy Dick December 14, 2013 / 6:34 pm

        Have fun believing in a white Jesus and the Lost Tribes of Israel. Where are you loonies when I want to make money selling fake bridges anyway? Oh, that’s right. You’re taking Bible passages out of context and making them fit modern events so you can make a buck conning the gullible. Just like the Lost Cause myth does. Just like several other demagogues out there who lie to people. Con men with a Bible.

        • D. R. December 14, 2013 / 7:39 pm

          God never told King David to free the slaves while King David ruled over ancient Israel and David is going to be resurrected and rule over the regathered 12 tribes in the future. And these Israelites will take and possess their captors as servants and maidservants. So save your attacks against slavery until then because you will need everything you’ve got to fight against God, Christ and those serving them. OK?

          • khepera420 December 15, 2013 / 1:12 am

            DR, your blathering is pretty much wasted on me. Aside from the fact that I’m fairly contemptuous of those who use biblical scripture to justify racism, I’m two things that I’m fairly certain you’d abhor. One, I’m an “uppity” black man. Two, I’m not a Christian or a member of any other Abrahamic religion (and no, I’m not an atheist; but neither are you a Christian, so we’ve that in common at least).😉 I’ve nothing more to say to the likes of you. It’s fruitless. Enjoy the 15 minutes of blogosphere “fame” that Prof. Simpson is allowing you.

          • Jimmy Dick December 16, 2013 / 6:51 pm

            I don’t fight against God. I fight against the deranged sick nutjobs like you who twist the Bible around. If you want to use the Old Testament, then get busy. Temple prostitution was part of it. So was marrying your sister-in-law when your brother died. Polygamy was the law of the land as well. So get busy being a slave since you want it so bad.

          • D. R. December 15, 2013 / 3:49 am

            Wrong. Thelibertylamp is a slanderer, seeking the worst. The Bible does not condemn slavery but it does condemn those who bring up a false witness against someone else.

            Deu 19:15-21

            One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

            If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

            Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;

            And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

            Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

            And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

            And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

          • Thelibertylamp December 15, 2013 / 11:09 am

            You’re already found out, and none of your cult spam will cover it up.

            With every chunk of spam that you post you slander yourself.

            Take it back to Martin Lindstedt …. quack….

        • D. R. December 15, 2013 / 4:32 pm

          What is really sad about the whole thing is that when you would have finally realized what I am saying is correct you will either have already died, have been killed by nuclear weapons/subsequent side-effects or wish you were dead having lived through these horrors.

          • Thelibertylamp December 15, 2013 / 4:51 pm

            Well, D.R., if it happens I hope it happens before I have to make a mortgage payment…

      • Thelibertylamp December 14, 2013 / 9:55 pm

        D.R.- “Christian Identity” is a white supremacist cult from the cult called “British Israelism”

        I should have known you were one of those quacks from the bible spamming….

        • khepera420 December 15, 2013 / 12:58 am

          Thelibertylamp, yes and not just from the Bible spamming. At first I thought he was just a creepy Dominionist, but the throne of David idiocy was the CI giveaway. That bunch is even creepier than the Dominionists. I’m fairly familiar with their ideas.

          • Thelibertylamp December 15, 2013 / 11:13 am

            Khepra-Yeah, the throne of David babbling is what set it in stone…CIs are notorious for their spamming and ranting on like lunatics, usually they are even more off the wall than the Dominionists ….

          • D. R. December 15, 2013 / 11:19 am

            Well, both of you are wrong. I don’t belong to any organization of men.

            I guess if Hitler was to have worshipped Christ then you two would have to abandon Christianity completely because “there goes the neighborhood”, and you can’t associate with him in your beliefs and will have to move on.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 15, 2013 / 3:03 pm

            Guess you didn’t find any action on alt.war.civil.usa.🙂

          • D. R. December 15, 2013 / 4:58 pm

            Time will tell…

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 15, 2013 / 4:59 pm

            Well, not here it won’t. You’ve had your say, and you’ve strayed far afield. That’s enough.

  18. Thelibertylamp December 14, 2013 / 10:09 am

    LOL @ bible spamming …. it’s a pathetic last resort for an internet troll to do when they run out of original ideas…

      • Thelibertylamp December 14, 2013 / 10:51 am

        HAHA! The crazy rantings of a swamp rat!

  19. Roger E Watson December 14, 2013 / 1:57 pm

    WOW !! I’m glad we’re in the middle of a snowstorm. Otherwise, I’d never have made it through the 92 comments. I’m just disappointed nobody’s mentioned the Nazis yet ! 😉

    • khepera420 December 14, 2013 / 8:27 pm

      ummm. . .you just did.😉

  20. Jimmy Dick December 15, 2013 / 6:36 am

    I always like how the white supremacists say the Bible allows slavery, but balk at the idea that they should be the ones enslaved. In DR’s case, he is envisioning someone else wearing the chains and being punished because in his mind God is on his side. This is just the continuation of the US vs. THEM theme of history.
    Fortunately, people like DR are pretty much ignored by most of the world. Only the loons listen to them. I think it’s time we stop giving him and his false ministry any more attention.

    • M.D. Blough December 15, 2013 / 11:27 am

      Even if the descendants of Ham were cursed forever, how does anyone get from that to deciding that different brothers gave rise to different races, much less decide which race descended from which brother? Slavery was not unique to Africa and whites of various nationalities and religious views were often enslaved, I always love the absolute certainty of some people that, even if they are nowhere near that status now, when it all works out THEY are going to be the ones on the front verandah sipping mint juleps and not the enslaved ones serving the masters’ every need or working in his fields. What’s the saying, “Man proposes but God disposes.”?

    • D. R. December 15, 2013 / 11:46 am

      No, you are wrong! I belong to no organization, secular or religious. You can’t kill the message so you try to kill the messenger.

      But what I see coming is the most horrific scene imaginable.

      A nuclear nightmare and winter that will threaten to destroy every man, woman and child in the USA, preceded by tremendous drought. Probably not even enough water to cool our nuclear power plants. Cannibalism rearing its ugly head as people fight for self-preservation like animals.

      Our survivors taken captive by enemy nations and made slaves to their citizens and regimes. You may want this to come on me, but it will come on almost all the ones who survive these tremendous nuclear blasts and subsequent side-effects.

      The only way we can avoid this is to return to God and obey the Bible. There are a lot of sins we need to repent of, both North and South and time is running out.

      Should the South separate from the North then may she return to a much more conservative way of life instead of being led down this deadly path to destruction by these liberals who reject the scriptures.

      Sorry, I got to preaching, but that’s where we in the USA are headed — slavery — for all of our rotten sins!

      • Thelibertylamp December 15, 2013 / 1:32 pm

        D.R.-

        • D. R. December 15, 2013 / 4:25 pm

          We MAY HAVE entered into the period known as “between the two evenings” – late eventide – where soon the USA gets a very powerful lesson in nuclear physics up close and personal and then we enter into perpetual darkness – the end of our nation! Time will tell! But I think it will be a little later and there will be a severe drought first.

          • Thelibertylamp December 15, 2013 / 4:47 pm

            D.R.- And then the blue fairy will come and turn you into a real boy….

          • D. R. December 15, 2013 / 5:18 pm

            Well, just remember me when there is a very severe drought in this nation if you live long enough to see it. I don’t think you will be too snarky at that time. And remember what I said is to come on the heels of the drought.

          • Thelibertylamp December 15, 2013 / 7:47 pm

            D.R. – I am already working very hard to forget you. Heels of a drought?

            It has been raining all week. LOL!

            Now, I believe professor Simpson has mentioned that you have already over stayed your welcome, so why don’t you pack up your tinfoil hat and hocus-pocus and go back under your troll bridge….hmmm?

  21. Bob Huddleston December 15, 2013 / 5:24 pm

    Our friend DR seems to have no problem with cancelling the un-Biblical 13th Amendment. I am sure he will be in the front of the line to volunteer to become a slave of one of the humane masters. And he will have no problem following Abraham in offering his first born as a personal sacrifice on an altar.
    Reinstituting the Biblical punishment for adultery. Of course we might have a shortage of Hollywood stars, as well as his Washington stars like Gingrich and Dole, to say nothing of Rush. I am assuming DR is male. If DR is really a female, she will have no problem with polygamy.

    Maybe DR will even follow my favorite Biblical verses, “Judas hung himself/Go ye therefore and do likewise.” I may have left some out of the middle but I am sure any missing versus are irrelevant.

  22. Jimmy Dick December 15, 2013 / 8:30 pm

    I think D.R. is a leftover relic of the Cold War and the apocalyptic literature which accompanied it. The crazies used nuclear warfare to sustain their prophecies and wrote a bunch of novels incorporating the rapture myth into their version of Revelations. Now D.R. is taking it further and saying that unless the South is made into a separate nation everything will be destroyed. Yeah, right.

    Only the gullible and those willing to be conned subscribe to his false religion.

  23. D. R. December 15, 2013 / 8:40 pm

    >Maybe DR will even follow my favorite Biblical verses, “Judas hung himself/Go ye therefore and do likewise.” I may have left some out of the middle but I am sure any missing versus are irrelevant.

    Why should I try to beat you to it?

  24. D. R. December 15, 2013 / 9:11 pm

    No. Unless the South repents they will be destroyed. And the same goes for the North.

  25. Shik April 19, 2014 / 9:12 am

    Using the Bible to justify slavery is a slippery slope. Basically, it is cherry-picking a few lines of a book that, if you want to read it that way, encourages rape, torture and a multitude of actions that are in this day and age and presumably also in the antebellum South thought of as disgusting, inhuman and criminal. Of course, in the antebellum south only, as long as it happens to a white person…
    Example: Go out, see a pretty girl you like. No need to get to know her, court her, talk to her parents, buy her flowers, no, just rape her to your hearts delight, pay fifty shekel of silver and you can rape her every day of her life from now on. Her consent is of course unnecessary, because she is a woman. In case that is a society you want to live in, I suggest searching out an islamic state with sharia law, convert and move there. I would say good riddance, but I worry about the poor islamic ladies who would have to put up with that mindset.

  26. Leo Walsh March 31, 2016 / 8:15 am

    Excellent article. I love southerners. They are more gracious and gregarious than most people I’ve run across up north. Most of the American musicians I love come from the south. My favorite 20th Century author, William Faulkner, as from and wrote about the south.

    And yet, I am amazed that southerners ignore their great cultural heritage and refuse to acknowledge that the antebellum southern economy benefited from slave labor. And that most people, from south, north, east and west, now view slavery as evil.

    Strange. And sad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s