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.
to me so many southerners have been unable to resolve their pride for the south and the fact that the war was fought over slavery. in fact i'm sure people will respond to this very post telling me the war wasn't about slavery it was about state's rights etc. but the simple fact is that there is no debate, the civil war was about a lot of things but it was primarily about slavery. end of story.
but for some reason southerners just can't grapple with this fact and instead often resist it. argue it. defend their reasons for war. in the end it looks like poor excuses. most of the south remains unapologetic about the civil war and thus they have yet to be forgiven, by others and by themselves as well.
i often compare the situation with the situation in germany after ww2. not because the south was anything like nazi germany. get real. they weren't committing genocide or anything near as awful as that. but despite the fact that what the germans did during ww2 was so awful, the germans are basically totally forgiven today by the world at large and by jews themselves. not only that but i don't feel like the people of germany struggle with it so much any more... they have for the most part made peace with this awful part of their history, recognized it as such and moved on.
but Germany was able to move on because after the war they took responsibility and tried with their every subsequent action to their best to make amends.
i'm not saying the south owes anyone an apology or anything like that, i mean lets not be ridiculous. but by continuing to defend a fight for slavery 150 years later by making up excuses and whatever it creates the perception that they have no accountability. instead of moving on, they keep arguing with people over why they fought the war instead of just moving on.
i feel like they keep fighting over why they fought the war because a lot of southerners can't feel proud about the south if they look at what actually happened in the civil war. to them their southern pride is a constant fight. a constant "i don't care what you northerners say, i love the south!"
but it just doesn't have to be like that. Loving the south doesn't have to be a defiant act. Understanding your history even it's black eyes doesn't mean you still can't have pride in your heritage for all the good you accomplished.
southerners often are quick to remind that the north had slaves and the north has racism too. but the thing is in the north people don't refute this. they understand it, it's obviously not a good thing, but we've accepted it and attempted to move on.
so many southerners just can't move on.
those that have accepted that the civil war was about slavery have made the glorious discovery that they can accept this as truth and still feel proud about the south.
With all do respect sir, i believe it is unfair to the men who died on our side to paint the "reason" with such a large brush as Slavery being the reason they took up arms. While ill agree that the Major players that put together this rebellion was for the right to have slaves....it isn't why Southerns joined together to fight the North.
Southerns fought for Honor and Pride...
Its something most Northerns don't understand....Although i understand the northerns perspective.
Things weren't so cut and dry as "you shouldn't have slaves" and "yes you should". The fact that it was to be abolished threatened the very life and vitality of the South.. (and in fact the sudden shock of the war and losing it....caused us to free fall for over 100 years)
I abhor slavery....i abhor racism....as i am often a victim of it...But i understand the dilemma for the families of the South (about 70% didn't own slaves).
Imagine for those of us who think Welfare by the Federal Government is "Morally" wrong....can you imagine a situation where we pulled all of it right from under our poor Americans feet all at once....what do you think the reaction would be?
its an awful part of history.....i hate it.....but i get it.
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.
the only piece of information that says something similar to secession is that piece from the declaration of independence. but if there's nothing in the constitution regarding slavery, wouldn't that leave it to the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
the constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the union.
the only piece of information that says something similar to secession is that piece from the declaration of independence. but if there's nothing in the constitution regarding slavery, wouldn't that leave it to the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
the constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the union.
You are right.
The very premise and existence of our nation is founded on the idea that the people must consent to its Governor. The Constitution is a Document of "Negative" liberties....and what i mean by that is that it is a Document that says -We the Government do not have any power not enumerated to us by the Constitution...a Document that State and People have ratified and agreed to as valid and the standing law of the land-.
Most people don't like this about the Constitution. However the Federal Government was intended to be a small yet effective entity. The power rested in the States and People....allowing each and every state and people to decide and conduct the American Experiment.
issues of Sectionalism, and State rights came into play as the North tried to strong arm the south with its economical and political strength. The situation was handled very poorly by both sides.
From a purely economical standpoint, Slavery should of been abolished at a slow place...Educating the slaves that exited the fields, and allowing for paid workers to slowly come in and take their place.....many will be disgusted with that...but the truth is...The black population would of been better off had they been slowly integrated and introduced into a free society. In essence we created a welfare class from the very beginning. (it hard for me to say these words, but i have studied history in depth....and the truth is....that was the least destructive way to do it)
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.
This is not about some marginal number of people with "differing political views." We are talking about southerners who were generals in the union army. They were fighting on behalf of the union, NOT "the north." These southern union generals were instrumental in the defeat of the Confederate army. There were southerners in high-ranking political positions in favor of the union, such as Andrew Johnson, U.S. Senator from Tennessee and later military governor of Tennessee, Vice President, and U.S. President. Johnson was a southerner supporting the union, NOT the northern states. To say that "the north" defeated the south in the Civil War is wrong. The union, which consisted of both northerners and southerners defeated the secessionists. That confederate military posts were not located in the northern states is irrelevant. It would have made no sense. The secessionists were not interested in the northern states. They were just defending territory in the south, so there was no need for northern posts.
Ok I'm tired of people bringing up racism as a factor for the south not getting respect. Racism was and IS everywhere. I'v been racially profiled in New York. California has been in a damn race war. Arizona is being racist...just a tad. When the south had slaves...so did the north...so did europe...so did most of the rest of the world. Slaves have been a part of every country's culture for most of time. Northerners need to stop acting like the south was the only place in the world that ever had slaves. You're not so holy...
I tend to think of two different groups of states in the South -- the kind of "new South" states like North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. And then there are the "Deep South" states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
I think what colors many people's perception of the "South" are how Southern states (especially "Deep South" states) do in virtually any rankings of education, health, income, environment, etc. etc. To be fair, some "non-Southern"/Southern-adjacent states are in these rankings as well (such as West Virginia, Missouri and Oklahoma), but these lists are dominated by Southern states.
These lists and rankings paint the picture of an unhealthy, uneducated, poor region, and I think that it is unfair to states like North Carolina to be lumped in with Mississippi just because both are in the "South". Just as I'm sure Utah does not appreciate being lumped in with California because both are in the "West".
10 Most Obese States
1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. Tennessee
4. Kentucky
5. Oklahoma
6. West Virginia
7. Alabama
8. Arkansas
9. Missouri
10. TIE: Michigan and South Dakota
Highest Smoking Rates
1 (t). Kentucky
1 (t). West Virginia
3. Oklahoma
4. Mississippi
5(t). Indiana
5(t). Missouri
7. Alabama
8. Louisiana
9. Nevada
10. Tennessee U.S. Smoking Rates by State - US News and World Report
The bottom 10 poorest states
Rank State Median Income
1 Mississippi $35,693
2 Arkansas $37,987
3 West Virginia $39,170
4 Tennessee $40,034
5 South Carolina $41,548
6 Montana $41,587
7 Kentucky $41,828
8 Alabama $42,144
9 North Carolina $42,337
10 Louisiana $42,423 http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/economy/Americas_wealthiest_states/index.htm
State Outlay to Tax Ratio Rank
(How much each state gets back in federal taxes for every $1 they contribute)
1. New Mexico $2.03
2. Mississippi $2.02
3. Alaska $1.84
4. Louisiana $1.78
5. West Virginia $1.76
6. North Dakota $1.68
7. Alabama $1.66
8. South Dakota $1.53
9. Kentucky $1.51
10. Virginia $1.51 Donor States and Welfare states - Picture This!
This is not about some marginal number of people with "differing political views." We are talking about southerners who were generals in the union army. They were fighting on behalf of the union, NOT "the north." These southern union generals were instrumental in the defeat of the Confederate army. There were southerners in high-ranking political positions in favor of the union, such as Andrew Johnson, U.S. Senator from Tennessee and later military governor of Tennessee, Vice President, and U.S. President. Johnson was a southerner supporting the union, NOT the northern states. To say that "the north" defeated the south in the Civil War is wrong. The union, which consisted of both northerners and southerners defeated the secessionists. That confederate military posts were not located in the northern states is irrelevant. It would have made no sense. The secessionists were not interested in the northern states. They were just defending territory in the south, so there was no need for northern posts.
that's true, although if i was writing an essay for school right now, i'd write "confederacy" and i'd write "union," but i'm not in school. it's common to say north vs south, as much as it makes the politically correct folks want to jab forks in their ears.
there's not much else to disagree with in your post since you basically just stated facts. but before some people, not you necessarily, go around thinking there were no northerners in the confederacy and use that as some weird argument in opposititon to the south (believe me, i've heard some weird arguments against the south), take note of a man buried maybe 10 minutes from me, samuel cooper from the new york city area, who was a confederate general.
that's true, although if i was writing an essay for school right now, i'd write "confederacy" and i'd write "union," but i'm not in school. it's common to say north vs south, as much as it makes the politically correct folks want to jab forks in their ears.
there's not much else to disagree with in your post since you basically just stated facts. but before some people, not you necessarily, go around thinking there were no northerners in the confederacy and use that as some weird argument in opposititon to the south (believe me, i've heard some weird arguments against the south), take note of a man buried maybe 10 minutes from me, samuel cooper from the new york city area, who was a confederate general.
It's common to incorrectly say north vs south. And it's also common to say, as you mentioned in your earlier post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride
" 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.[/i]
This is what I commented on initially to point out another common, yet incorrect statement about the Civil War. And as you did in each round of responses, you have included irrelevant information in the last post. I never said there were no northerners for the confederacy so there is no need to mention it. But I think you can finally see the point of my first post, so my work is done. I enjoyed our conversation.
The reason the south is so obese is because we got the best food. Period
I think it's more due to lack of education on nutrition and lack of wealth to purpose healthier food options.
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.
