Justice for Zimmerman
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- Status
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Oh, well Louisiana "donated" more, 24500 actually. I guess they "donated" them because they were northern too? Oh wait, no. The slaves fled the south in large numbers to join the North. In fact, more colored troops came from Southern states than Northern. Because of what I said, when war broke out they could runaway.
But keep pushing this bowl of shit that you guys freed your own slaves despite not freeing them legally and having one of the strongest pro-slavery constitutions. You got a source for your bullshit?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Yeah you're still not making a dent in the point that Kentucky's alliance with the Union defines it as a northern state. Slavery was a complicated issue at the time and everyone, Lincoln included was walking a fine line to not make the whole process fall apart (which it basically did anyway cause lol Civil War).
Welcome To Camp Nelson
Third largest ex slave camp during the war. 10,000 slaves from Kentucky came there to be freed. Right in the heart of the State. After it declared for the Union and allowed them to build the camp there. 10,000 slaves freed there. A major training site for ex slaves as soldiers in the war. Right smack dab in the center of the state.
Welcome To Camp Nelson
Third largest ex slave camp during the war. 10,000 slaves from Kentucky came there to be freed. Right in the heart of the State. After it declared for the Union and allowed them to build the camp there. 10,000 slaves freed there. A major training site for ex slaves as soldiers in the war. Right smack dab in the center of the state.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Again, 24 THOUSAND slaves were freed in Louisiana right in New Orleans. 20,000 Tennessee slaves were freed, 17000 from Mississippi. None of the bullshit you're posting is indicative of people from Kentucky freeing their slaves. All it's indicative of is that the economically aligned north allowed the Union Army to get a foot hold in the center of your state which your slaves could run to illegally.
Illegally. Because Kentucky didn't abolish slavery until after the war. So we know other "deep" south States gave as many black soldiers to the North, and they all did so by Slaves running away. But because you say so, in Kentucky's case, it was because everyone freed them--even though your "Union" government didn't have the support to abolish slavery legal.
Cite a fucking source that supports your assertion or give it up.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Dude again: Its irrelevant. Kentucky was granted amnesty on freeing slaves when it was accepted into the Union. So we would have time to work it out.
That's been pointed out numerous times during this debate.
You're just going circular back to shit Araysar tried to bring up days ago that was refuted then. Ad naseum more.
The rest of your argument is a giant strawman. At no point did I say we freed them all, I said 75% of them were free before the 13th amendment passed. You're off on a tangent because, frankly, you're mad you can't score a hit.
So for the record, and about the 50th time, we were not required to free the slaves and neither were any other border states who remained in the Union. We were given time to wind it down in our own fashion, which we did.
Want to come up with an original argument there Lithose?
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
You said you "let them go" (Left). You allowed them to go. But the reality is a large portion were not "allowed" go legally, or by the will of the people who owned them. A large amount escaped, and bravely trekked through a racist culture in order to fight for their freedom. After which, once the South was defeated, and it was assured Kentucky's playing of both sides had paid off--you allowed the rest to run off.
Which is pretty much what happened in EVERY fucking Southern state---and the evidence thus far proves that, because many other southern states allowed just as many slaves to run off.
Once again, do you have a fucking source that Kentucky was different in this?
By the way, for those who missed it, this is what Hodj calls "biscuit and gravy" consumption.
So lets begin. What makes someone, Southern. Well, how about the prevalence of a common religion? Namely, Southern Baptist?
Attachment 50275
How about attraction to southern accents, and "southern" cuisine? A shared identity in in language and cooking is pretty important. (Note: Below the Kentucky gets a 1.5-1.9 out of 2.0 for the respondents enjoying southern food, and accents.) This one is kind of silly, I know. Still though, it does show that people in Kentucky like biscuits and gravy a lot more than up north: Which is something you wanted.
Attachment 50276
Lets just say something silly, like a subscription to southern living. (Notice how the north is all blank?)
Attachment 50277
Naa, honestly, from an sociological perspective, identity is much deeper than that. And it can be hard to track it among cultures that bridge ethnic groups (Like the South). So in order to impartially track the American South, Reed did a study about the presence of "Dixie" and "Southern" in business names. The Reed study was old, but I found a new one. Interesting thing is that it was found that the presence of these names has INCREASED in Kentucky, while dropping in places like Texas. The theory is that as northerners move down, they bypass Kentucky and are moving to places like Texas--making Texas "less old south" than Kentucky! I know, right!
So I took a gander at them there study pictures, and wouldn't you know it? Kentucky ranked in the top quartile in the Dixie statics it produced.
Attachment 50278
And then they did one with Southern in the name. This time Kentucky was in the second quartile.
Attachment 50279
You know what these fellers at North Carolina who wrote Rethinking Boundaries of the South thought about Kentucky? That it was pretty darn south! Not "deep south" but pretty darn south. (So much so that you'd have to be an oblivious person to not believe it was Southern. (Citation: Rethinking the Boundaries of the South. Page 82..Since I couldn't include a picture of it at my limit.) Reed also thought this, in fact the southern "culture" maps are from a short essay he wrote trying to define where the "South" is.
But fuck it. Lets actually ASK people in Kentucky if they believe they are from the South.
Survey (A literal survey) says!
Attachment 50281
93% of those interviewed from Kentucky and WV believe they were a Southern State (Southern Focus poll). The poll also showed 90% thought THEY were Southerners (But I ran out of picture room.) So really, it is just you Hodj. Not sure why I decided to do this--rare moment of boredom during the busy season, I should in all honestly be asleep, I've been up since 4am. 15 minutes well spent though! Anyway though, seriously. Most people in Kentucky think they are Southern. There is a shared religion, food, customs, and even honor system (Book: Southern Honor a history of violence. Yeah Kentucky is included).
In addition, Sociologists foremost in the field, like Reed, all say Kentucky is south. There are multiple, valid authorities that say's it's South. In the polls conducted through SFP, Kentucky's answers matched the South's in terms of religion, political beliefs, personal beliefs, and identity. The fact that the entirety of the state chose to betray it's brethren over purely economic reasons is an absurd argument that Hodj has latched onto now in a final desperate bid to prove himself correct. It's frankly embarrassing. At this point I'm sure he's trolling or desperate because he was so embarrassed, and thankfully I'm just glad that the pathetic attempts at it are now contained to this thread. But lets be precise at what Hodj straw mans as "biscuits and gravy".
So lets begin. What makes someone, Southern. Well, how about the prevalence of a common religion? Namely, Southern Baptist?
Attachment 50275
How about attraction to southern accents, and "southern" cuisine? A shared identity in in language and cooking is pretty important. (Note: Below the Kentucky gets a 1.5-1.9 out of 2.0 for the respondents enjoying southern food, and accents.) This one is kind of silly, I know. Still though, it does show that people in Kentucky like biscuits and gravy a lot more than up north: Which is something you wanted.
Attachment 50276
Lets just say something silly, like a subscription to southern living. (Notice how the north is all blank?)
Attachment 50277
Naa, honestly, from an sociological perspective, identity is much deeper than that. And it can be hard to track it among cultures that bridge ethnic groups (Like the South). So in order to impartially track the American South, Reed did a study about the presence of "Dixie" and "Southern" in business names. The Reed study was old, but I found a new one. Interesting thing is that it was found that the presence of these names has INCREASED in Kentucky, while dropping in places like Texas. The theory is that as northerners move down, they bypass Kentucky and are moving to places like Texas--making Texas "less old south" than Kentucky! I know, right!
So I took a gander at them there study pictures, and wouldn't you know it? Kentucky ranked in the top quartile in the Dixie statics it produced.
Attachment 50278
And then they did one with Southern in the name. This time Kentucky was in the second quartile.
Attachment 50279
You know what these fellers at North Carolina who wrote Rethinking Boundaries of the South thought about Kentucky? That it was pretty darn south! Not "deep south" but pretty darn south. (So much so that you'd have to be an oblivious person to not believe it was Southern. (Citation: Rethinking the Boundaries of the South. Page 82..Since I couldn't include a picture of it at my limit.) Reed also thought this, in fact the southern "culture" maps are from a short essay he wrote trying to define where the "South" is.
But fuck it. Lets actually ASK people in Kentucky if they believe they are from the South.
Survey (A literal survey) says!
Attachment 50281
93% of those interviewed from Kentucky and WV believe they were a Southern State (Southern Focus poll). The poll also showed 90% thought THEY were Southerners (But I ran out of picture room.) So really, it is just you Hodj. Not sure why I decided to do this--rare moment of boredom during the busy season, I should in all honestly be asleep, I've been up since 4am. 15 minutes well spent though! Anyway though, seriously. Most people in Kentucky think they are Southern. There is a shared religion, food, customs, and even honor system (Book: Southern Honor a history of violence. Yeah Kentucky is included).
In addition, Sociologists foremost in the field, like Reed, all say Kentucky is south. There are multiple, valid authorities that say's it's South. In the polls conducted through SFP, Kentucky's answers matched the South's in terms of religion, political beliefs, personal beliefs, and identity. The fact that the entirety of the state chose to betray it's brethren over purely economic reasons is an absurd argument that Hodj has latched onto now in a final desperate bid to prove himself correct. It's frankly embarrassing. At this point I'm sure he's trolling or desperate because he was so embarrassed, and thankfully I'm just glad that the pathetic attempts at it are now contained to this thread. But lets be precise at what Hodj straw mans as "biscuits and gravy".
Want to duck and appeal to emotions about how you "bled" for the North again? Or simply refuse to acknowledge statistical evidence by saying "Hmm, he's only an expert in the field with ample statistical evidence of his assertion but why should I believe him!?" "Just like the guys who wrote that report, just like the published statistical surveys! All invalid, because Hodj says so!"
Anyway, original argument, consistently avoided. Further arguments driven down to minutia at which point you simply "choose not to believe you lost" when you do, eventually lose and then appeal back to the original argument hoping the somehow it's now gone. It's not.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Again: We weren't legally obligated to free them all immediately. They were all freed in time. In the process, we fought to preserve the Union, on the predicate that slaves would end up free.
No, what happened in EVERY southern state, was they seceded. And fought a war against the Union to preserve their right to own slaves. The exact opposite of what happened in Kentucky.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
So you admit you kept them in bondage, while supplying troops and supplies to both sides. Okay. Just asking, because...
I wonder if New York didn't free their slaves, while fighting on both fucking sides, until after the war.hodj_sl said:
Oh no, they did in 1827. 23 Years before Kentucky enacted one of the strongest pro-slavery Constitution in the Union (Citation: Legislative Research Commission. Kentucky Government Informational Bulletin 137.)
Tell me why this isn't a false equivalence, Hodj.
Watch this guys. Just watch.
Izo
Tranny Chaser
- 19,435
- 23,501
Didn't you all steal the land from the indigenous people of the Americas in the first place?
Denmark sold you guys 100,000'ish slaves during theAtlantic triangular slave trade.
Denmark sold you guys 100,000'ish slaves during theAtlantic triangular slave trade.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
I said we weren't required to free them immediately.
25000 of them signed up for the military here.
Because all states benefitted from the profits of slavery even if they had abandoned the practice on their own.
And especially the big money and export states like New York and Virginia, the states where we were exporting all the textiles and raw minerals abroad were all making fucking bank on slavery even after they abolished it themselves.
Further, AT SOME POINT New York had slavery. Which means it profited directly from Slavery for a period of time of close to 200 years at minimum (early 1600s to early 1800s). So no state is burdenless for that sin
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
LOL, look at him chasing that tail. So now it's because all states benefited from Slavery that the abolition in New York 23 years earlier than Kentucky's strengthening of Slave laws makes them equal in how they handled slavery. Jesus, Hodj. Is this the next level you're going to reduce it down to? How about we skip this and you can make some metaphysical philosophy 101 argument that we are all one, therefor consciousness is an illusion, therefor Kentucky is North because it's both. Because that's where you're going, and it's sad, ugly and terrible.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Yeah bro. All states profited from slavery. This nation was built on that shit. Me and Araysar covered that like two and a half weeks ago though. Like I said, might want to come up with an original argument. Araysar covered most of the territory though already.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
- Status