# Think Tank > History >  Bill Maher just compared Jefferson Davis to Hitler

## devil21

Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)

In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.

----------


## Mandrik

Yet another reason to cleanse your DVRs of this show.

----------


## RSLudlum

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.


Yeah, I heard it also.  Seems Maher thinks the terrorist Lincoln was a saint.  

The interview with Baer was pretty good overall.  Baer:  "We can't spread democracy....it doesn't work"

----------


## Bman

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.


The south had slvery.  Nothing else about the conflict is even remembered or taught.  Of course Bill Maher would have made such a comment.  No one ever talks about the good things Hitler did.

When you lose all you are told is the bad things the loser had done.  Anything good is irrelevant.  At least that is how history is written.

You can be offended but what do you expect.

----------


## Aratus

technically, George III was a very modern almost model monarch by comparison 
to James I & VI --- kynge jamie may have racked guy fawkes most personally 
and directly in london's tower!!! trust me!  George III was less hands on....

technically, in the 1990s we were gettin' along with yeltsin & putin, so again trust me... 
stalin & brezhnev were worse, for khruschev blinks over cuba... i'd scratch putin from this!

technically,  from late 1941 to april of 1945 methinks we more than simply stood up to hitler...

so... now we get to jefferson davis and where he sits. captain wirz hangs for andersonville, yet 
andrew johnson spares the former confederate leader. jefferson davis's incarceration alternates
between harsh and somewhat harsh, and this is at the core of the dispute between the potus and 
sec' of war stanton over the leg irons let alone cotton batting under canvas hoods approach to they who 
were thought  to be conspirators, so there is an irony in this... we all know bill maher could have 
made a more effective point by seizing on the civil war's own verson of dick cheney... namely 
the sec' of war that lincoln had, who was quite a johnson administration hold-over. with the inclusion
of jefferson davis, Bill Maher dilutes & confuses a more important point. admittedly slavery brutalized
 many of the slaves, as it corrupted they who felt they had a legal contract over human souls, yet 
i cannot fathom the precise point he was made! truely... truely... truely... its our mutual history! 
James Ist inherited something like a police state apparatus from Elizabeth Ist & yes, his son Charles Ist
was more than scolded about the abuses of the legendary Star Chambers... so, i must do a re-write...

???should Bill Maher have said-------- "We as a nation stood up to tin horn tyrants like Stalin and Hitler 
because our REVOLUTIONARY traditions had us opposing the expansion of royal power by autocratic
monarchs like Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, Charles II and lastly but not least George III!!! By jingo! We've 
made both Putin and Khrushchev blink... Why? admittedly during our Civil War, Abe Lincoln & Jefferson Davis both 
suspended the writ of habeas corpus and we then had large draftings of men! We have faced down external adversaries 
and internal strife as a nation... and have somehow preserved our union..."   ----(yes... bill maher is an idiot.... often!)

----------


## asimplegirl

> The south had slvery.  Nothing else about the conflict is even remembered or taught.  Of course Bill Maher would have made such a comment.  No one ever talks about the good things Hitler did.
> 
> When you lose all you are told is the bad things the loser had done.  Anything good is irrelevant.  At least that is how history is written.
> 
> You can be offended but what do you expect.


But, so did the North...that is why the articles that released slaves had to be done twice...the first one that was made legal only made the ones in state's that were resisting union control illegal to own slaves..

No one seems to remember that, though.

----------


## Aratus

we as a nation have often stood up to external foes without the cowardly act of resorting to torture...

there was a reason and then some in 1901 why bill mckinley has waterboarding defined and then outlawed...

----------


## Aratus

> But, so did the North...that is why the articles that released slaves had to be done twice...
> the first one that was made legal only made the ones in state's that were resisting 
> union control illegal to own slaves...  No one seems to remember that, though.


technically, slavery did not exist after the 13th amendment became the law of the land 
and this all happens during andy johnson's whitehouse years, for abe lincoln's post-antietum 
document was neatly conditional and partial...  keep in mind the military governor of
tennessee got that there state very excluded... for starters. its the slaves who owned by
the rebels who were freed... then! so we go onto the deeper WHY of reconstruction, and why
90% of either the contemporary documents  and all later revisitionistic takes are instances of 
political mythmaking rather than a string of bland factoids! andy johnson is a war democrat
who repudiates southern debts and tries to scale down the federal gov't. he ships many many
many springfield rifles down to el paso as he demobilizes the army. he restores habeas corpus
and dismantles much that was under war sec' stanton. he agreed with the abe lincoln stances
of 1858 by 1864 even though he had been a Democrat. he was a unionist rather than a radical
republican. after his first veto, he sits back and does not sign things. his loyalty oathing promices
from the leading confererates were rejected by thaddeus stevens and sec' of state stanton... so i 
may infer the potus feels like a fool in december of 1865. his pardoning was and is double-edged. 
he gets hamstrung by congress. he had been a mititary governor... he had previously understood
the position to be almost british as a focus & he took on more perogatives than those that he once had 
as a very civilian governor previously in his career... before he enters the senate. he almost would have
been labeled a scalawag, for he clearly was a unionist. reconstruction has at its core is the debate over
sharecropping, serfdom, and slavery... and what freedom actually is! technically, potus andrew johnson
liberated more slaves than did honest abe. reconstruction reaches a social experiament culmination
under ulysses s. grant, and thusly nearly all scholars are idiots on the whole subject. dixicrats are too
narrow, radical republicans are too rigid, and when we see depressingly what the robber barons next 
did to appalachia as the coal & timber interests gut and render into a desert what was an edenic garden,
we cannot praise our leaders of the 1870s and 1880s and 1890s at all. bigotry also resumes and presumes
a caste structure. andrew johnson was at the eye of a political hurricane. he may be always known as the dude
who does not bring to trial and/or hang jefferson davis. clearly he kept the southern president continually inside a
very rarified and suspended (lacking of a) writ of habeas corpus for the longest time. the eventual pardon is quite slow... 
nearly all others under the auld southern caste system by degrees have gotten their pardons, first... and then finally jeff davis!

----------


## Aratus

andrew johnson gets impeached because he is not enforcing the newer 
laws of the land to the 110 percentile. abe lincoln technically liberated more
slaves on paper than andy johnson did, yet freedom more greatly happened 
in full... in the days of the accidental successor's stint as potus. yes, the black codes
happen quickly... yes... liberation's fulsome freedoms get trunctuated over time...
yes, the era is complex and mythic, and nearly all takes are wrongheaded for
none of this is cut and dried. O! to think that bill maher is an example of a success
of a our school systems as a nation, public and private... O! to think he is vox populii...

----------


## Aratus

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.





> Yet another reason to cleanse your DVRs of this show.





> Yeah, I heard it also.  Seems Maher thinks the terrorist Lincoln was a saint.  
> 
> The interview with Baer was pretty good overall.  Baer:  "We can't spread democracy....it doesn't work"


indeedy... quite clearly our own autocrat George III isn't even close to Hitler's evil meglomania...
Bill Maher was very rough on both Putin and Jeff Davis. I do not totally praise Sec' Stanton... either!

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

BILL MAHER  =  Bad Bag of *Paraquat* Weed

someone tell him to change suppliers... it's making him delusional

----------


## Aratus

stanton was lincoln's wirz. andersonville was a new low. hense the 1865 hanging.

----------


## nate895

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.


Nate895 regarding the topic of torture "We Southerners stood up to the likes of King George III, Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, and Bill Maher without resorting to torture."

----------


## Anti Federalist

I place Maher in the same category as Shamity.

Two sides of the same coin.

And two people I _really_ loathe, on a personal level, at least based on their public persona.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

I am so tired of the anti Confederate nonsense in this country. If those who mock had half of a brain they would know that the men who served the confederacy were men of bravery, heroism and lovers of liberty. I am extremely proud of the fact that almost every one of my ancestors during that period sided with the confederacy and gave their all. They were the grandsons of my ancestors who fought the British throughout the south and I am very proud of my lineage.

If you have confederate ancestry or even if you are sympathetic to the confederate cause than please find a local chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (www.scv.org). We work to preserve monuments, graveyards, battlefields and relics that are so much a part of our southern history. Beyond that we also fight (using courts and protests) those who seek to destroy our heritage. We are the first and last line for heritage defense. So join up and show this country that there are many more of us out there who are proud to be  descendents of confederate soldiers and sailors and your part to preserve our heritage.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> yes, the black codes happen quickly......


Eh, the direct ancestor of the Jim Crow laws started in the North well before The Civil War. It was mostly due to the xenophobic Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the North. They would later become the basis for the Christian Progressives that denuded this country of so much of its freedom.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I place Maher in the same category as Shamity.
> 
> Two sides of the same coin.
> 
> And two people I _really_ loathe, on a personal level, at least based on their public persona.


I think Maher is someone i could get a long with just fine in real life, so long as we didn't talk politics.  I like his personality and his sense of humor but, i really think he's bias'd and uninformed when it comes to political issues.   He's feeding on too much liberal media and not looking at conservative media with an open mind.

----------


## Aratus

gabriel's rebellion in the year 1800 triggered stricter laws concerning the status of slaves.
the north did have slavery at times. woman tended to have a lesser status, always. the north 
tended to have populations of free men and freedmen. new amsterdam had slavery, my own
home state at a very early mid-1600s date outlawed the same. tacitly had andrew johnson
signed the civil rights bill, and vetoed what he did thereafter, he might have had a slim slight
chance of securing his election to the office of the presidency as a democrat. this is one of 
the paradoxes. after the rupture with stanton, he did not attempt a political compromise... 
am i all washed up in my contention that reconstruction is well remembered by a folklore as it is
abysmally convoludedly wrapped up in inaccuracies of a mythic proportion? other than the way
the standard texts right now delve into the years of the period, and why the black codes happen, 
my longish paragraph then thusly is not gibberish or foolish? yes, i do feel many southerners could 
feel highly insulted by the idea that jefferson davis was morally equal to herr hitler. i feel bill maher 
also insulted George III and Mr. Putin. maybe stalin and mao would have been more appropiate in 
that context.  why lit into putin when either the cuban missle crisis or the cold war in general could 
have flared up and incinerated us all? ---as to when we pick confrontations, and bravery, we were 
abysmally fighting the british with a disadvantage most of the time in the war of 1812, and our
 starkest victory transpires after the peace treaty is signed. i feel we as a young republic were 
foolishly brave when we went to war against the U.K! the crux of this is thus thusly... STALIN or HITLER?
 --- folks in the 1940s had a binary choise, if one rules out isolationism. we can wonder how events 
would have gone had our nation gone down another path. perhaps the nicest thing i can say about 
david duke is that he likes to imagine how things would be had ww2 gone differently. should i bring up
the thread that has the poll where we had to choose between stalin or hitler? this is food for thought...

----------


## LATruth

> I place Maher in the same category as Shamity.
> 
> Two sides of the same coin.
> 
> And two people I _really_ loathe, on a personal level, at least based on their public persona.


I absolutely loathe his show, "Real Time with Bill Maher", but his movie "Religulous" was funny as all hell. 

I hate supporting him altogether, but I have to give him some credit for making a good movie.

----------


## Aratus

setting aside the question of the rebellion, and the peculiar institution...
as i said before, both lincoln and davis suspended habeas corpus and 
had large drafts. admittedly the north did this sooner and quicker. if one 
directly totally avoids slavery as a question, then one has to be more critical 
of the way abe lincoln conducted himself in a firm & legal manner, for it took a 
tad longer for jefferson davis to be as totally criticized in his capacity as a wartime
leader. as a notherner, i'd feel intensely insulted by the very idea that lincoln and
hitler are moral equals. i must concede that both jefferson davis and abe lincoln
are easily more moral than herr hitler and this is my firm belief. on a deep level, i
tend to agree more with abe lincoln than i do jeff davis. this is the way i see things...

----------


## Aratus

> I absolutely loathe his show, "Real Time with Bill Maher", but his movie "Religulous" was funny as all hell. 
> 
> I hate supporting him altogether, but I have to give him some credit for making a good movie.



every now and then he can say something as controversial 
as his "cowardly' cruise missle comment! he's often funny...

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.


How many slaves did Jefferson Davis own?  Why are you offended by this?

----------


## nate895

> How many slaves did Jefferson Davis own?  Why are you offended by this?


Jefferson Davis taught his slaves the law, in preparation for eventual freedom. His court system was based on the common law and was very friendly to his slaves.

----------


## RSLudlum

> Jefferson Davis taught his slaves the law, in preparation for eventual freedom. His court system was based on the common law and was very friendly to his slaves.



Him and his brother educated their slaves, encouraged christian studies, forbade torture/harsh punishmnet (like the whip), and was concerned about their well being but of course this sounds exactly like the kind of government we're fighting against right now; a nanny state funded by about 4mos of slavery.  Davis thought that 'slavery' was an institution that would bring the negro into Christianity and out of 'savagery' and saw a future where the institution would die off.  Of course, he still owned slaves, therefore wasn't willing to personally take the first step towards the future he predicted.

----------


## nate895

> Him and his brother educated their slaves, encouraged christian studies, forbade torture/harsh punishmnet (like the whip), and was concerned about their well being but of course this sounds exactly like the kind of government we're fighting against right now; a nanny state funded by about 4mos of slavery.  Davis thought that 'slavery' was an institution that would bring the negro into Christianity and out of 'savagery' and saw a future where the institution would die off.  Of course, he still owned slaves, therefore wasn't willing to personally take the first step towards the future he predicted.


He stated in early 1861 that he felt that no matter the outcome, that he believed that the South would lose their slave property when all was set and done.

----------


## Aratus

to be fair about the issue of slavery, we must contrast jefferson davis with james monroe, george washington and thomas jefferson... so are all these good men on the issue near to being moral equals?

as wartime leaders, abe lincoln and jeff davis approached their jobs and tasks in a similar manner. methinks we have to be inclusive of the potuses we had before and after the civil war. lets toss harry truman, bill mckinley, james polk and jamie madison into the mix, let alone FDR and woodrow wilson! jefferson davis then is in good company, and if we be more inclusive, and include lyndon johnson, richard m. nixon, jerry ford as well as andrew johnson & james buchanan as well as teddy roosevelt, or even john adams and his crisis with the french, this enlivens our debate...

i am going to be be very fair. i shall divide the civil war in half. jeff davis in the south, abe lincoln in the north. four de facto presidents, three wars. wilson, FDR, davis, lincoln... four guys who saw into human souls. i can say i think i see three 'de jure' potuses and one de facto southern dixicrat if i so choose, yet to compare jefferson davis to hitler as an equal on many levels is a complete total insult... to jefferson davis. i could argue in a similar way about George III and how he may have been more capable than we think that he was...

----------


## Epic

Civil war wasn't about slavery so basically all the debate about it is mostly irrelevant.

Anyone who defends Lincoln must have drank the kool-aid in government schools... they need to take the LewRockwell.com antidote...

----------


## devil21

> How many slaves did Jefferson Davis own?  Why are you offended by this?


Epic's post above pretty much sums it up.  The war wasn't about slavery but rather was the first time the feds tried to overstep the bounds of the 10th Amendment and dictate state law from Washington.  It was about state's rights.  Jefferson Davis was defending his state's rights as outlined in the 10th.  The issue of slavery itself is separate and distinct and your personal opinions on the subject are irrelevent in the face of the first federal move to shred the Constitution.  Bill Maher recognizes that 99% of his viewers are historically ignorant (or Bill himself is...) so he can "get away" with such an ignorant comment, with the sole purpose to be an insult to southerners; more directly aimed at conservatives.

Btw, whether Davis owned slaves or not is beside the point.  Would Lincoln have waterboarded Jefferson Davis?  We know the answer is no.  So not only is his comment ignorant from a historical perspective it is also ignorant from a practical perspective.  He was talking about torture after all.

----------


## Athan

I think Ron Paul does a better job of discussing the Civil War. He points out simply that Lincoln could have just "bought" the slaves to free them and that the Civil War was fought for other reasons. If prompted he shows his knowledge at that point.

Don't bother defending Jefferson Davis (_not saying that to discourage discussion here. Just in normal debates_). Point out that there were better ways to free the slaves. No mass section of constituents will want a complete history lesson. Just a quick comment that can be proven and makes people wonder the issue on their own.

Defending Davis just sounds like you are pro-south/pro-slavery to the general public.

----------


## nate895

> I think Ron Paul does a better job of discussing the Civil War. He points out simply that Lincoln could have just "bought" the slaves to free them and that the Civil War was fought for other reasons. If prompted he shows his knowledge at that point.
> 
> Don't bother defending Jefferson Davis (_not saying that to discourage discussion here. Just in normal debates_). Point out that there were better ways to free the slaves. No mass section of constituents will want a complete history lesson. Just a quick comment that can be proven and makes people wonder the issue on their own.
> 
> Defending Davis just sounds like you are pro-south/pro-slavery to the general public.


I am pro-south, I am not pro-slavery. I do not discuss the war unless asked to defend my position against Lincoln and I then specifically request a great length of time to defend my position.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Jefferson Davis taught his slaves the law, in preparation for eventual freedom. His court system was based on the common law and was very friendly to his slaves.


Oh he was friendly to his slaves   Oh well that's another matter then.  Sorry I didn't realize he was so nice to them. 

The man owned friggin slaves.  End of.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> to be fair about the issue of slavery, we must contrast jefferson davis with james monroe, george washington and thomas jefferson... so are all these good men on the issue near to being moral equals?


Personally yes.  I'll go on record.  Anyone who owned slaves is a dip$#@!.

----------


## nate895

> Oh he was friendly to his slaves   Oh well that's another matter then.  Sorry I didn't realize he was so nice to them. 
> 
> The man owned friggin slaves.  End of.


Argumentum ad hominem, anyone? We can't judge people's opinions to be bad based on their personal affairs. Even Stalin could have said something entirely correct. Neither can we judge Mr. Davis for owning slaves in a time period when slave property wasn't considered the end all, be all of all that was bad in the world. Mr. Davis believed in gradual emancipation, an entirely reasonable approach at the time, especially considering the fact that many of the ex-slaves' posterity are still in poverty because of the damage caused to the Southern economy due to the burning of their economic resources, and a flood of new labor onto the market in the form of freemen.

----------


## Aratus

> Personally yes.  I'll go on record.  Anyone who owned slaves is a dip$#@!.



somehow, i think hitler was way worse than our slaveowning founding fathers...

----------


## Aratus

i really think that john quincy adams was highly moral

----------


## Athan

> I am pro-south, I am not pro-slavery. I do not discuss the war unless asked to defend my position against Lincoln and I then specifically request a great length of time to defend my position.


I still have the common sense not to bother defending Davis in the general public. Hell can you imagine a beaner such as myself rooting for the south? People would think I was that character Dave Chapelle played who was a blind black man leading the KKK. 

I am pro-Texas Republic, and its easier for people to digest when I just cry "Remember the Alamo" and simply point out that "Texas is so cool we should be our own country again" Debating succession turns into the media frenzy it did before Ron Paul defended secession and Perry's remarks. It takes people who can deliver the message of Liberty and Freedom without creating hostility. Around liberty lovers its perfectly fine having intellectual discussions regarding secession. Don't expect Bill Maher to understand though. He and many others have such large issues with neo-cons that he paints most conservatives that way.

----------


## nate895

> I still have the common sense not to bother defending Davis in the general public. Hell can you imagine a beaner such as myself rooting for the south? People would think I was that character Dave Chapelle played who was a blind black man leading the KKK. 
> 
> I am pro-Texas Republic, and its easier for people to digest when I just cry "Remember the Alamo" and simply point out that "Texas is so cool we should be our own country again" Debating succession turns into the media frenzy it did before Ron Paul defended secession and Perry's remarks. It takes people who can deliver the message of Liberty and Freedom without creating hostility. Around liberty lovers its perfectly fine having intellectual discussions regarding secession. Don't expect Bill Maher to understand though. He and many others have such large issues with neo-cons that he paints most conservatives that way.


Just point out to them the numerous Hispanics who proudly served the Confederacy, including some who crossed the border (both from Mexico and the Union) to support the Confederacy. I have an advantage as far as defending them, though. I am the "smart guy" at school, and my knowledge of history is more vast than the teachers' knowledge, and most students agree with that. 

Also, as for Jefferson Davis being compared to Hitler, Hitler banned the Confederate Flag. It was a crime to display it, and the penalty was death.

----------


## sailor

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.


Nonsense. He did not compare Davies to Hitler. Unless if you are going to claim he compared King George or Vladimir Putin to Hitler as well.

He only said those were/are far more powerful enemies than those the government wants to use torture because of.

What is objectionable about his quote is his talk of "standing up" to Davies (and Putin) when it is Washington who was (is) the aggressor, but that is an unrelated story, for some other time.

----------


## Athan

Trust me. Its easier to point out among fellow Hispanics something like: 
*"Texas was formed because Santa Anna was a dumbass $#@! dictator wannabe who eventually lost half of mexico anyway and ruined the Mexican constitution. At least Texas Hispanics knew this and had the common sense to fight for Texas independence"*

They'll react on these lines: "Oh, yeah, he did lose half of Mexico didn't he?"
(_Me and you would just bury our hands at the obvious fact of this._)

If I find another Hispanic around me that understand liberty, (relax Ron Paul is gaining popularity with hispanics) then yes a real discussion can happen. Ron Paul supporters tend to act like long lost brethren.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

what an interesting discussion!  The War of Northern Aggression was about high tariffs on the south and SLAVE POWER.  The yankees feared expansion of slavery to the new territories..and the balance of power in congress in favor of the slave owning states..who had a more free market philosophy than the new englanders who were Hamiltonian protectionists.  There was only concern about human rights issues from the small group of abolitionists, who were backed by the new englanders, and paid to put out all the crazy abolitionist pamphlets and fliers.  Tones

----------


## Bman

> But, so did the North...that is why the articles that released slaves had to be done twice...the first one that was made legal only made the ones in state's that were resisting union control illegal to own slaves..
> 
> No one seems to remember that, though.


That's the point.  I guarentee you Bill Maher only sees slavery vs non-slavery.  Which is why he would say what he says.  He has no idea of the tariffs and economic situations of the time which made the south desire to choose sucession.

I had no idea that slavery was ever in the north until I was doing some family tree research, a few years ago, and came across census forms that had an area for slaves.

----------


## devil21

> Nonsense. He did not compare Davies to Hitler. Unless if you are going to claim he compared King George or Vladimir Putin to Hitler as well.
> 
> He only said those were/are far more powerful enemies than those the government wants to use torture because of.
> 
> What is objectionable about his quote is his talk of "standing up" to Davies (and Putin) when it is Washington who was (is) the aggressor, but that is an unrelated story, for some other time.


Of course he did.  The ol' guilt by association tactic used to elicit an emotional reaction.  You overestimate the intelligence of the average television viewer.  His statement essentially states that "we" fought all of these "tyrants" so therefore Davis was a tyrant like Hitler.  Of course he wasnt insinuating that Davis gassed Jews or beheaded people in the public squares like the King.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Just remember...Lincoln was in communication with Karl Marx...and the communist labour folks had already started migrating to the USA in 1831...connect the dotz. tones

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.


He didn't compare them, he gave them as examples of opponents of the USA.  This is a media matters/left wing style criticism of Maher that I hope would not be used too often.

----------


## Vessol

> But, so did the North...that is why the articles that released slaves had to be done twice...the first one that was made legal only made the ones in state's that were resisting union control illegal to own slaves..
> 
> No one seems to remember that, though.


Hah. I remember being in High School and I mentioned that in class. My teacher told me to "stop being a racist or I'll have you go down to the office, now.." and ignored it.

----------


## nate895

> Hah. I remember being in High School and I mentioned that in class. My teacher told me to "stop being a racist or I'll have you go down to the office, now.." and ignored it.


Few teachers have the will to debate me at my high school. Since the 4th grade (though in a different state), I have made a habit of arguing with teachers over points of fact, I stand with a record of 5-1, though that is because I later retracted my eighth grade argument because I favored the PATRIOT Act in that one. Since then, many kids just take what I have to say as fact. In my Freshman English class, I even got together with the teacher before class to make sure her historical lecture points met with my approval.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

Something peole dont like to talk about, especially people who hold the Abolitionists up as moral pillars, is the fact that Southern Slavery was based on Caste, not on Race. There were Black Slaves and Black Slave Owners. There were Mulatto Slaves and Mulatto Slave Owners. There were even White Slaves and, naturally, White Slave Owners. There were Freedmen who themselves became Slave Owners. Read about Mary Chestnut Boykin and you'd be surprised how much DOESN'T get taught in schools today.

Now, the reason I say Caste and not Race is because Slavery was considered to be an Inherited Condition through the Maternal Line. If your mother was a Slave and had not been Emancipated, you were born a Slave. What do you think alot of the biracial children of White Slave owners and Black Slave women became? They were many times the hated House Slave, since they were lighter skinned and given relatively better treatment. 

It was only later, again thanks to the racist douchebag Christian Progressive $#@!s, as an outgrowth of the horrific Eugenics movement that we got the 1% Rule. Thats why in America anyone who is considered to have Black ancestry is usually deemed as being Black instead of Biracial. 

Now, I'm not saying the South was a paradise for Slaves, but it wasn't quite the Hellhole people often portray it as being. Slavery was and is immoral and it should have been phased out. Jefferson Davis and the others in the Confederate Government should have moved quickly to legally empancipate those held in bondage under their control to defuse the situation. They should have realised it would be used as a bludgeon against them. Its especially ironic given that there were Black and Mulatto troops fighting unofficially in the ranks of various Confederate field armies since Bull Run.

----------


## AutoDas

Davis was an idiot. He had the opportunity to emancipate the slaves, but he didn't do it. The war was about slavery. If he would have done that then European nations might have helped the South secede.

----------


## PatriotLegion

> Davis was an idiot. He had the opportunity to emancipate the slaves, but he didn't do it. The war was about slavery. If he would have done that then European nations might have helped the South secede.


If the south freed the slaves during the war was not what they wanted. Lincoln freed them to spite the south and to make them look more evil. The European community (Britain) saw potential in a southern victory over the north but after the crushing defeat at Gettysburg the British gave the south a 10% or so chance to achieve its goals and European support was lost.

The south pushed on for another 2 years after Gettysburg to fight for there rights but we all know the outcome. 

Just to add to the discussion what is the difference between a slave and an indentured servant? Which the north had plenty of which I'm sure Lincoln had as well? 

I personally liked the Civil War on the terms of on group disagreed with the other side and banded together against the government which they seen as a threat to there Constitutional rights and there way of life. There is many reasons why the south seceded from the north but the main focus was of course slavery.

----------


## nate895

> Davis was an idiot. He had the opportunity to emancipate the slaves, but he didn't do it. The war was about slavery. If he would have done that then European nations might have helped the South secede.


The only way he could have gotten it passed was if the Europeans recognized the CSA for it, and they refused to do so. Slavery and emancipation were the aces in the civil war political game for the South, and sadly the Europeans wouldn't let the Southerners use them.

----------


## AutoDas

> If the south freed the slaves during the war was not what they wanted. Lincoln freed them to spite the south and to make them look more evil. The European community (Britain) saw potential in a southern victory over the north but after the crushing defeat at Gettysburg the British gave the south a 10% or so chance to achieve its goals and European support was lost.


Lincoln issued a Emancipation *Proclamation*. The South could have done the samethat the slaves would be emancipated when the war was over but they didn't. From what I remember of history class, Europe was sympathetic to the Confederacy but didn't like the slavery so they refused to help them.

----------


## nate895

> Lincoln issued a Emancipation *Proclamation*. The South could have done the samethat the slaves would be emancipated when the war was over but they didn't. From what I remember of history class, Europe was sympathetic to the Confederacy but didn't like the slavery so they refused to help them.


They forget to mention that Davis made repeated overtures to do just what you are suggesting should the Europeans recognize them. Slavery was a card that the South held, it would have been stupid to give it up when they could have held it and gotten something for it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Regarding the topic of torture, Bill Maher just said "We stood up to the likes of King George III, Jefferson Davis, Adolf Hitler, and Vladamir Putin without resorting to torture." (paraphrased slightly)
> 
> In other words, Maher compared the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War to Hitler.  Wow.


"We" did not stand up to Jefferson Davis.  We invaded the South.

"We" did stand up to Hitler, because Germany declared war on us.

Maher loses based on Godwin's law.

----------


## nate895

> "We" did not stand up to Jefferson Davis.  We invaded the South.
> 
> "We" did stand up to Hitler, because Germany declared war on us.
> 
> Maher loses based on Godwin's law.


Not Godwin's Law, but _argumentum ad hitlerium_ (Hitler can be substituted with any dictator), Godwin's Law is simply a law that the longer an internet (specifically usenet) thread goes on, the closer to 1 the odds get of mentioning Hitler. It is a rule to say that once Hitler is mentioned, the thread has run its course.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> They forget to mention that Davis made repeated overtures to do just what you are suggesting should the Europeans recognize them. Slavery was a card that the South held, it would have been stupid to give it up when they could have held it and gotten something for it.


Well when that card is owning people - maybe you give it up.

Are we really arguing this?

----------


## Minarchy4Sale

Bill Maher is a douche of epic proportions.  Nobody involved in the Civil War was free of guilt, except the slaves and the dumbasses who signed up to die on both sides.

----------

