Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
philly_2011, i sort of skimmed your response and saw that you said we think the civil war wasn't about slavery. pardon me if i "missed your point" but that was way too long to read. as has been said over and over again, there's no doubt slavery played a major role in the civil war. but the fact of the matter is that the north had no constitutional right in stepping in. what i'm trying to dispel is the falsehoods that 1) the south was wrong and the north was right 2) all slave owners were evil white men and all slaves were victimized blacks 3) the north were freedom fighters who didn't profit off of slavery 4) the north didn't have slaves 5) and the falsehood that the south got "crushed" in the war. the south didn't get crushed at all. the south had 1/2 the soldiers the north had, and the north lost MORE soldiers in the war. the south kicked #$$, but we lost because the north had a larger economy at that time.
1. The south was wrong because slavery is one of the most vile acts of man. This does not excuse the slavery in the north either.
2. The vast majority of slave owners were white men.
3. The north did profit off of slavery. That also is horrible that they did.
4. The north did have limited numbers of slaves.
5. The South did get crushed. If anything, Sherman's march thru Georgia and the fact that until the 1980s, the South didn't fully recover from the Civil War pretty much shows that they were crushed.
I'm not sure why this is still an argument with you. Slavery was a horrible institution that is one of the sickest inventions of mankind. Both "north" and "south" were responsible for it. Both paid dearly.
I also find it unbelievable that until 1964, we had state sponsored segregation. It's frightening that most in this country actively remember discrimination based on something so ridiculous as skin color. It's baffling that it was allowed to continue for so long.
have you ever heard of "no taxation without representation?" or do they not teach you that in your pathetic california schools? if anything, your little argument here supports the confederacy's actions. thanks for proving yourself wrong.
I'm pretty sure the British didn't legally owe the colonies the right to representation in parliament, that falls more under something the colonists considered "morally" wrong.
I notice that people who aren't from the south speak very poorly about southern cities and people. Please tell me why no one likes the south. We got major metropolitan areas, great food, and great vacation destinations. So why do people hate us so much?
I personally can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't respect the region's shameful racial history nor its long-standing place as ground zero for the Conservative ideology. Every election year, the region is painted deep red and I find this inexcusable.
Sure, I've met some fine people from the South, but the region suffers mightily because of these two factors IMO.
yeah, exactly, LEGALLY CORRECT. the law is the law. emotions don't count in court. that's pretty much how court works, and why they ask jurors with biases to leave.
have you ever heard of "no taxation without representation?" or do they not teach you that in your pathetic california schools? if anything, your little argument here supports the confederacy's actions. thanks for proving yourself wrong.
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to engage until you can converse without falling into juvenile attack mode.
"No taxation without representation" is not a LAW. It's a moral philosophy. And it completely supports my position. The Colonists did what they felt was MORALLY correct, much like the North did against slavery. The law at the time may not have supported it, but it doesn't make it less "right". There are a lot of unjust laws in the books, and there has been throughout history.
as for the schools, the south is a new player in the industrialization game. it's economy wasn't historically as large as the north's. that is changing and schools are getting better in places like texas and georgia. expect them to climb spots.
alabama, mississippi, etc still have a long way to go.
philly_2011, i sort of skimmed your response and saw that you said we think the civil war wasn't about slavery. pardon me if i "missed your point" but that was way too long to read. as has been said over and over again, there's no doubt slavery played a major role in the civil war. but the fact of the matter is that the north had no constitutional right in stepping in. what i'm trying to dispel is the falsehoods that 1) the south was wrong and the north was right 2) all slave owners were evil white men and all slaves were victimized blacks 3) the north were freedom fighters who didn't profit off of slavery 4) the north didn't have slaves 5) and the falsehood that the south got "crushed" in the war. the south didn't get crushed at all. the south had 1/2 the soldiers the north had, and the north lost MORE soldiers in the war. the south kicked #$$, but we lost because the north had a larger economy at that time.
you're responding to my post w/o reading it? No wonder your response makes zero sense. If you want to respond to what I wrote try reading it first
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to engage until you can converse without falling into juvenile attack mode.
"No taxation without representation" is not a LAW. It's a moral philosophy. And it completely supports my position. The Colonists did what they felt was MORALLY correct, much like the North did against slavery. The law at the time may not have supported it, but it doesn't make it less "right". There are a lot of unjust laws in the books, and there has been throughout history.
the colonists constitutional rights were violated by the british government, which is why they revolted. it was emotional, duh, but it was also because their constitutional rights as englishmen were consistently violated (kind of similar to the north violating the south's constitutional rights).
English Bill of Rights "In other words, the precept was the issue, not Parliament. The colonists had no representation in Parliament, as was the case of Ireland, certain areas of the British Isles and other parts of the British Empire. Yet, it was the right of all English citizens. The colonists were represented in their colonial assemblies. Hence, those bodies by the Bill of Rights were the only bodies which could tax them."
I personally can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't respect the region's shameful racial history nor its long-standing place as ground zero for the Conservative ideology. Every election year, the region is painted deep red and I find this inexcusable.
Sure, I've met some fine people from the South, but the region suffers mightily because of these two factors IMO.
the ignorance is astounding. the hypocrisy.
ladies and gentlemen, welcome to BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
you're responding to my post w/o reading it? No wonder your response makes zero sense. If you want to respond to what I wrote try reading it first
then make your novel a friggin comment. knowing your usual self, i really didn't want to read all of it, because i'd probably just fume at the fact that nothing was learned here. my comment was 100% correct; "what i'm trying to dispel is the falsehoods that 1) the south was wrong and the north was right 2) all slave owners were evil white men and all slaves were victimized blacks 3) the north were freedom fighters who didn't profit off of slavery 4) the north didn't have slaves 5) and the falsehood that the south got "crushed" in the war. the south didn't get crushed at all. the south had 1/2 the soldiers the north had, and the north lost MORE soldiers in the war. the south kicked #$$, but we lost because the north had a larger economy at that time."
if you can find a false piece of information in the italicized response there, be my guest and tell me specifically.
ladies and gentlemen, welcome to BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
I am well aware of what happened in Boston. This still doesn't change the fact of all the things that happened in the South. I never said that bad things weren't happening up North. I know all about Boston.
This event in Boston just proves that this happens on both sides of the line. It isn't like I would live in Boston anyway.
Now, I would like to compare some Southern cities to Seattle, or even some Canadian cities.
Something else I would like to mention. I looked up the places that were considered the best places for interracial families. None of them were in the South, unless you count Washington DC. Among the cities ranked among the top best for interracial families included: New York(NY), Seattle(WA), Minneapolis(MN), Denver(CO), Oakland(CA), Columbus(Ohio), San Jose(CA), Montclair(NJ),Washington DC, San Diego(CA), Honolulu(HI). The worst cities for interracial families, according to a poll included: Pittsburgh(PA), Birmingham(AL), Atlanta(GA), Cleveland(OH), Detroit(MI), Cincinnati(OH), Jacksonville(FL), New Orleans(LA), Memphis(TN), Philadelphia(PA). 5 are located in the South.
Last edited by green_mariner; 04-26-2011 at 07:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
