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.
Not saying I disagree. Just saying that this line some folks have been spouting that the south is better integrated is bunk.
I agree for the most part. There are still some racial issues. In fact, one of the reasons metropolitan Atlanta has a fragmented mass transit system is because of racial issues. Back in the 1970's, MARTA was being built. Some residents in Cobb and Gwinnett counties didn't want it. There were some people who didn't want the Black population from Atlanta have access to said counties. In fact, it was mockingly referred to as Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta.
I won't lie. There are places in Atlanta where if a White person went, he or she would be given some problems. There are places I have been to where I have had issues as an African-American.
I say the South and the North are not that much better than one another when it comes to race, just different in some ways.
agree. No matter how you feel about which may be "better" than the other, if you think either the north or south is beyond race being an issue then you need to take the blinders off. It's unfortunately still an issue in this country, north or south.
Here is another falsehood for you: The Civil war was fought between the north and the south. It was actually the Union vs. the Confederacy.
thanks for clearing the obvious up, einstein.
Quote:
"While practically all Northerners supported the Union, Southerners were split between those loyal to the entire United States (called "unionists") and those loyal primarily to the southern region and then the Confederacy.[59]"
what does this have to do with anything we're talking about? there were republicans and democrats on both sides of the mason dixon line. there are liberals in alabama, there are conservatives in san francisco. your little history lesson serves no point whatsoever here. these "unionists" that you speak of were those who had UNION UNITS IN CONFEDERATE STATES. there were no confederate units in northern states, but many people from the north did join the confederacy despite not being a resident of the confederacy. they were ASSIGNED TO CONFEDERATE STATE UNITS in SOUTHERN STATES, NOT CONFEDERATE STATE UNITS IN NORTHERN STATES.
what does this have to do with anything we're talking about? there were republicans and democrats on both sides of the mason dixon line. there are liberals in alabama, there are conservatives in san francisco. your little history lesson serves no point whatsoever here. these "unionists" that you speak of were those who had UNION UNITS IN CONFEDERATE STATES. there were no confederate units in northern states, but many people from the north did join the confederacy despite not being a resident of the confederacy. they were ASSIGNED TO CONFEDERATE STATE UNITS in SOUTHERN STATES, NOT CONFEDERATE STATE UNITS IN NORTHERN STATES.
What does republican and democrat have anything to do with what we're talking about? Conservatives in San Francisco? What are you smoking? You keep referring to the north and south in your posts when you should be referring to the union and confederacy. That was the point.
1.the south had no right to legally secede from the united states. show me where they have this right? also while neither side was without fault and the north wasn't exactly fighting against slavery... the south basically was fighting FOR slavery, so yea while you probably can't say the north was totally righteous, they certainly were much more righteous than the south which attempted to break up the union in order to continue to own slaves and then when informed that their secession would not be tolerated they fought for that right to own slaves.
2. Are you really trying to state that slavery was good for some slaves because their owners treated them well? really? well in that case i'd like you to come up to philly. The apartment below me just opened up, i'll pay for it, you can live there. I'll treat you real nice, give you 3 square meals a day. I'll let you go to church, and i'll even let you learn how to read and write. In return all you have to do is give up your free will and become my slave. Don't worry the work won't be too hard. all i expect is an honest days work and you'll be treated nice. sounds like a nice deal right? come be my slave. otherwise eat your words.
i never said slavery was good. not once and there's not a chance you'll ever catch me saying slavery is good.
Quote:
5. Glad you're so proud of all the a$$ the south kicked in the civil war. it's this kind of juvenile behavior that was exactly what i was talking about in my post that you didn't take the time to read. i mean honestly bragging that the south killed more northerners than the northerners killed southerners is about as juvenile as it gets. it was a war. our forefathers fought and killed each other. it was a great tragedy. but please continue to brag about how many people the south killed in their war to own slaves... that REALLY makes it better.
i'm not GLAD people died. where exactly did i say that? what i said perfectly clearly is that i am trying to dispel the annoying, ignorant misconceptions against the south. i'm sick of northerners moving here and as soon as the subject of the civil war comes up, they talk about how great the supposed "freedom fighters" were, and that the north kicked the south's #$$. if anything, it's the northerners who use that against the south most, which is why i said it; to shut the few hundred or thousand registered and non registered people who read that comment up in the future as it dispels the myth of this supposed "#$$ kicking" as if southerners are a bunch of gun toting jak#$$es who can't even shoot their own guns.
i do apologize for jumping to conclusions and not reading your response. i was tired of hearing the anti-south diatribes from everybody with a location displayed north of baltimore and west of nevada. you were one of the ones i expected to hear that most from. i'm part irish, i'm a hothead, which means i get antsy and can't read when i'm upset.
What does republican and democrat have anything to do with what we're talking about? Conservatives in San Francisco? What are you smoking? You keep referring to the north and south in your posts when you should be referring to the union and confederacy. That was the point.
you had said that there were supporters of the union in the south who were usually republicans. you were implying the obvious, that there were people of differing political beliefs in all areas of the country.
i can refer to the confederacy as the south and union as the north if i want to. if that's what you're going to pick at then wow.
you had said that there were supporters of the union in the south who were usually republicans. you were implying the obvious, that there were people of differing political beliefs in all areas of the country.
i can refer to the confederacy as the south and union as the north if i want to. if that's what you're going to pick at then wow.
I said nothing about political parties. There were many southern leaders in the union army including some of the most successful generals. This is well documented. Andrew Johnson, the president at the end of the war and reconstruction was a southerner. To refer to the union as "the north" and to give credit for the victory to the northern states of this country is simply wrong. I am not making this stuff up:
i know in can be confusing and a lot of people make similar mistakes but you seem to display a fundamental lack of understanding as to how our government works.
the use of the declaration of the united states as a legal governmental document that can be used to ascertain rights whether individually or collectively as states is about as incorrect as using the harry potter books as your source of reference.
the declaration of independence was a document signed by the second continental congress to severe our relationship with Great Brittan. It never at any point in time governed this country, nor did it ever give rights to anyone, people, states, or any other entity.
Back when the civil war started as well as today we operate under the constitution and by adopting the constitution and accepting it as the governmental system of this country the southern states... just like all the other states, lost their ability to act in a manner that was in anyway not in accordance of the constitution... this includes secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride
i never said slavery was good. not once and there's not a chance you'll ever catch me saying slavery is good.
then why try and make the point that some slaves were not poorly treated blacks and not all slave owners were evil white guys? obviously, everyone knows these things... obviously there were a lot of slaves that were treated fairly well. but they were treated fairly well in relation to OTHER slaves... not fairly well compared to the rest of humanity. They still had no free will, they still were slaves. all slavery is not just "not good" it's an awful destruction of human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride
i'm not GLAD people died. where exactly did i say that? what i said perfectly clearly is that i am trying to dispel the annoying, ignorant misconceptions against the south. i'm sick of northerners moving here and as soon as the subject of the civil war comes up, they talk about how great the supposed "freedom fighters" were, and that the north kicked the south's #$$. if anything, it's the northerners who use that against the south most, which is why i said it; to shut the few hundred or thousand registered and non registered people who read that comment up in the future as it dispels the myth of this supposed "#$$ kicking" as if southerners are a bunch of gun toting jak#$$es who can't even shoot their own guns.
i do apologize for jumping to conclusions and not reading your response. i was tired of hearing the anti-south diatribes from everybody with a location displayed north of baltimore and west of nevada. you were one of the ones i expected to hear that most from. i'm part irish, i'm a hothead, which means i get antsy and can't read when i'm upset.
people who say things like the north were freedom fighters are obviously incorrect. i myself never said anything like that and i don't really think it's a position that most northerners have... or at least most educated northerners.
i appreciate the apology. I understand that some in the north will put down the south and their history of slavery... likely without even being smart enough to realize that slavery was once everywhere in america. it can be frustrating. but my advice is to let them look foolish and not drop to their level.
I said nothing about political parties. There were many southern leaders in the union army including some of the most successful generals. This is well documented. Andrew Johnson, the president at the end of the war and reconstruction was a southerner. To refer to the union as "the north" and to give credit for the victory to the northern states of this country is simply wrong. I am not making this stuff up:
like i said, people had differing political views in each state back then. only an idiot would assume that all southerners had the same political opinions, and same for northerners, even back in the day. i never denied the fact that there were southernes in the union army, just as you shouldn't deny the fact there were were northerners in the confederate army. the difference in that is that the union army had units in southern states and the confederacy didn't have units in northern states. so southerners who joined the union army were union soldiers in southern units. northerners who joined the confederate army were in southern state confederate units, as there were no confederate units in their home states up north. for example, someone from kentucky or pennsylvania or whatever who joined the confederate army couldn't join the confederacy in kentucky or pennsylvania, he had to join the confederate army in a confederate state, in which he will then be accounted for as a southern confederate. whereas southerners were able to join the union army in mississippi, and be accounted for as southern union soldiers because their units were in a confederate state. why you brought up southern unionists i don't know, it doesn't prove anything other than the fact that people in every state, both sides of the mason dixon line, had differing political views.
as for calling them the north or union, south or confederacy, there's really no need to pick at that. noone's confused about who the war was fought between.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 04-27-2011 at 05:43 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.
