PDA

View Full Version : [Video] Jack Hunter / Southern Avenger: SA@TAC - Liberals for Slavery




ctiger2
04-14-2011, 11:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xuiLht2eOs

juleswin
04-14-2011, 11:51 AM
Jack out did himself again today. Little did I know that Jefferson Davis was anti nullification. This would be perfect if we can somehow spread this message to the masses :(

jmdrake
04-14-2011, 01:40 PM
Jack out did himself again today. Little did I know that Jefferson Davis was anti nullification. This would be perfect if we can somehow spread this message to the masses :(

Well before we can educate the masses, we have to educate ourselves. Nullification and secession were two different animals. This video woke me up to really undersrtanding nullification.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTlmznJTXo

Legend1104
04-14-2011, 09:23 PM
It is also funny how the first major attempt/threat of seccession was not in the South at all. It was in Connecticut with the Hartford Convention opposing "Mr. Madison's War" of 1812.

AGRP
04-14-2011, 09:25 PM
How about Lincoln's tyrannical action of splitting Virginia into two states for his own personal gain?

I'm surprised Jack didn't mention that.

madfoot
04-14-2011, 09:26 PM
Wow this is manipulative as fuck.

low preference guy
04-14-2011, 09:38 PM
Wow this is manipulative as fuck.

What are you referring to by "this"?

madfoot
04-14-2011, 09:55 PM
"Liberals for slavery"

Sola_Fide
04-14-2011, 10:14 PM
"Liberals for slavery"

Huh? Why are so so intentionally vague dude?

We get that you are a flaming liberal, we get it. Now try to offer up some arguments about where you think Jack was wrong. Um...I think he was pretty on point.

madfoot
04-14-2011, 10:24 PM
For fuck's sake I'm not a liberal. If I was one I would be proud of that.

Sola_Fide
04-14-2011, 10:55 PM
For fuck's sake I'm not a liberal. If I was one I would be proud of that.

What is your disagreement with the video? Just the title?

madfoot
04-14-2011, 11:01 PM
Watched the video. Maddow's statement which Jack takes issue with is that John C. Calhoun was one of the biggest proponents of state nullification. This is true. And there's a good point to be made that the North used nullification itself.

But he goes and ignores the nullification issue and the video becomes yet another "The Civl War wasn't about slavery" type of revisionism. No one thinks it was the only issue. But it was the main issue. If you read the South Carolina Declaration of Secession, half of it is about slavery.

Dumb video.

Sola_Fide
04-14-2011, 11:12 PM
Watched the video. Maddow's statement which Jack takes issue with is that John C. Calhoun was one of the biggest proponents of state nullification. This is true. And there's a good point to be made that the North used nullification itself.

But he goes and ignores the nullification issue and the video becomes yet another "The Civl War wasn't about slavery" type of revisionism. No one thinks it was the only issue. But it was the main issue. If you read the South Carolina Declaration of Secession, half of it is about slavery.

Dumb video.


He said slavery was a WEDGE issue in the Civil War, just like the turrists are a wedge issue today with the wars we have going on. It was an excellent point. No one today but complete idiots think that the wars we have going on today are primarily to fight the Taliban, or whoever. Lincoln had similar overridding statist goals, and he used slavery for those goals.

How could you disagree with that comparison? It makes perfect sense.

madfoot
04-14-2011, 11:15 PM
He said slavery was a WEDGE issue in the Civil War

It wasn't.

low preference guy
04-14-2011, 11:15 PM
Dumb video.

It wasn't any dumber than the Maddow video which said that the people fighting for nullification are somehow neoconfederates still fighting the civil war even when Jefferson Davis himself was opposed to it. The fact that you take no issue with the obvious manipulations and lies of Rachel Maddow but stick to criticizing minor points about Jack Hunter's video makes it hard to believe that you're not a heart-bleeding leftist with complete disregard for the truth and reality.

madfoot
04-14-2011, 11:20 PM
It wasn't any dumber than the Maddow video which said that the civil war was about nullification

Where does she say that?


The fact that you take no issue with the obvious manipulations and lies of Rachel Maddow but stick to criticizing minor points about Jack Hunter's makes it hard to believe that you're not a heart-bleeding leftist with complete disregard for the truth and reality.

I don't blindly trust her. I do respect her as a pundit though for generally being honest, and not being a total hack like O'Donnell, for example. Before you attack me and call me a big government leftist, she's on a small list with Judge Nap, Shep Smith, and Anderson Cooper.


but stick to criticizing minor points about Jack Hunter's makes it hard to believe that you're not a heart-bleeding leftist with complete disregard for the truth and reality.

Oh boy. And I thought liberals were intolerant >_>

Sola_Fide
04-14-2011, 11:21 PM
It wasn't.

Do you think this ^^^ is convincing to anybody at all?

Sola_Fide
04-14-2011, 11:23 PM
I do respect her as a pundit though for generally being honest, and not being a total hack like O'Donnell, for example. Before you attack me and call me a big government leftist, she's on a small list with Judge Nap, Shep Smith, and Anderson Cooper.


.........

madfoot
04-14-2011, 11:24 PM
Well what do you want me to say? South Carolina admitted the war was about slavery in their very secession document. It can't possibly be any more blatant than that.

madfoot
04-14-2011, 11:25 PM
.........

Sorry, I didn't realize being a libertarian meant I couldn't have respect for people who disagree with me politically.

Ricky201
04-15-2011, 02:15 AM
Well what do you want me to say? South Carolina admitted the war was about slavery in their very secession document. It can't possibly be any more blatant than that.

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side" - Ulysses S. Grant

Also...

http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-13.html

"Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861."

Lincoln and Grant's words and actions seem to disagree with you that the war was about slavery. If anything, it was an after thought IMO.

jmdrake
04-15-2011, 05:38 AM
It is also funny how the first major attempt/threat of seccession was not in the South at all. It was in Connecticut with the Hartford Convention opposing "Mr. Madison's War" of 1812.

I didn't know that. This forum is like a history class.

eqcitizen
04-15-2011, 05:51 AM
The South may have succeeded in response to the Norths meddling with slavery, but it was one of many causes. The main cause, in my view (and in most wars) was economic. Most of the south only left after Lincoln won the election, and it was mostly due to the tariffs that he was going and did try to impose upon them.

But let us also not forget that Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina only left the union after Lincoln sent the army to South Carolina. They hardly left over the cause of slavery. In fact General Lee had freed his slaves in 1862, while General Grant did not free his slaves until forced to by a Missouri emancipation law in 1865. In every major battle during the war, a slave owning northerner fought against a non slave owning southerner. Also, let us not forget that the last state to outlaw slavery was New Jersey after the war had ended.

jmdrake
04-15-2011, 05:56 AM
Where does she say that?

She clearly implies that the civil war was about nullification when she says that it's no surprise the shots were fired from South Carolina because that was the home of John Calhoun who was an avid supporter of nullification.

And for the record I'm quite familiar with the declarations of secession. I've posted links to them here countless times to show that the slavery issue was one of the major reasons the south seceded. But Jack Hunter doesn't gloss over that issue. In fact he mentions that southerners were upset over nullification of the fugitive slave law and mentioned their anger over that in at least one of the declarations of secession. So clearly for the south, protecting slavery was one of the reasons they seceded. The only thing I would fault Jack for is that he overplayed Lincoln's antipathy towards slavery. It is true that Lincoln was not at all in favor of forcing emancipation on the south. Lincoln sought to gradually extinguish slavery by not allowing it to expand further than it already had. And Lincoln did attempt compensated emancipation with the border states, but was only successful in Washington D.C. Further Lincoln didn't actually oppose nullification of the fugitive slave law. He made it clear just how unclear his position was.

Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

That said, Jack's overall take on the issue of secession, nullification, the civil war and slavery is the most fair and balanced I've seen. (I hate that Fox news has co-opted that term). He doesn't duck the issue of slavery. Far from it. He cites the south being against northern nullification of the fugitive slave laws as one of the reasons for secession. But he disentangles nullification from secession and ultimately from slavery.

jmdrake
04-15-2011, 06:15 AM
The South may have succeeded in response to the Norths meddling with slavery, but it was one of many causes. The main cause, in my view (and in most wars) was economic. Most of the south only left after Lincoln won the election, and it was mostly due to the tariffs that he was going and did try to impose upon them.

But let us also not forget that Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina only left the union after Lincoln sent the army to South Carolina. They hardly left over the cause of slavery. In fact General Lee had freed his slaves in 1862, while General Grant did not free his slaves until forced to by a Missouri emancipation law in 1865. In every major battle during the war, a slave owning northerner fought against a non slave owning southerner. Also, let us not forget that the last state to outlaw slavery was New Jersey after the war had ended.

I assume you meant "seceded" instead of "succeeded". Not a jab. I make typos like that all the time myself. ;)

It is true that the south was facing the possibility of the Morrill Tariff, but it couldn't have passed if they hadn't seceded. Before secession the anti tariff, pro slavery democratic party had control of the senate. They lost control because after secession 14 southern senators left the senate.

Also Robert E. Lee never owned slaves. His father in law owned them. Robert E. Lee became executor of the estate. His father in law stated in his will that his slaves should be freed at his death within 5 years of his death. Lee became executor in 1858. He did not free the slaves until 1862. That was well into the 5 year limit and after the start of the civil war.

See: http://home.nps.gov/arho/historyculture/slavery.htm
http://www.arlingtonblackheritage.org/exhibits/curtislee.html

Robert E. Lee did integrate a church after the civil war. (Sorry that I don't have a link for that. I saw it in the documentary "The Clinton 12").

Romulus
04-15-2011, 06:52 AM
The rub is that if you look up nullification, it is defined as a legal "theory" - everywhere. THAT is the problem - its been rewritten as just a "theory".

NewRightLibertarian
04-15-2011, 07:06 AM
The rub is that if you look up nullification, it is defined as a legal "theory" - everywhere. THAT is the problem - its been rewritten as just a "theory".

As much as we'd like it to be referred to as the nuclear truth, I don't see any problems with calling it a theory

stuntman stoll
04-15-2011, 10:40 AM
"Liberals for slavery"

Either you have no concept of logic or are generally naive. Jack was pointing out the conflicting nature of progressive "principles". If they had principles and were intellectually honest, they would have had to tolerate slavery in the past if they were in fact against nullification in principle.

jmdrake
04-15-2011, 10:44 AM
Either you have no concept of logic or are generally naive. Jack was pointing out the conflicting nature of progressive "principles". If they had principles and were intellectually honest, they would have had to tolerate slavery in the past if they were in fact against nullification in principle.

Nailed it!

http://www.adaptivestructure.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/hammer_hits_nail_with_sparks.jpg
http://www2.free-clipart.net/gallery/clipart/Construction/Hammer__Nail.jpg

Ball
04-24-2011, 04:49 PM
"I bring up these contradictory historical views concerning what were once considered all-American decentralist concepts, not to prove that slavery wasn’t a major issue during the Civil War. It obviously was. But it was not the only issue, not always the primary issue, and was quite frequently a wedge issue, exploited by those on both sides for the purpose of empowering political, corporate or special interests."
QFT
And just in case you missed it, "It obviously was."
Do you have excess wax in your ears or something?