U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-25-2010, 05:17 PM
 
1,293 posts, read 1,199,984 times
Reputation: 3042

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by spikeboy25 View Post

I go back to New Jersey every summer to visit family and absolutely love it. This past summer I probably had my best vacation ever. With my college education ending soon, I'm really contemplating about whether I should make the move back up north. I know about the taxes, the colder weather, etc. But I just find the South too boring and overly religious. Am I looking at New Jersey with rose-colored glasses or what?
I recommend that unless you come from a family with far-flung connections, or are from a family used to constant relocations, you should try to stay as close as possible to your home. An exception would be if you marry into a family with deep roots in the place you are moving to, or if other family also moves.

This applies to anyplace, not just the South. Wherever you go you will either be an outsider, or one of a group of outsiders. You will not have the family support system that people have depended on for generations. Your expenses will always rise to your income, regardless of where you go.

We live in a town with no family, but once the children get to school they develop their own roots, and your interests are no longer as important. We still plan on moving back North, but it is now dependent upon the decisions our children make, where they settle, as we do not want to separate the family as we had in the past.

That's a lot to think about when you just get out of school, but my "3 year" stay in the South turned to decades. So, any decision that you make to leave, you must consider that you may never be coming back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-25-2010, 05:21 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,675 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
This perfectly summarizes why many Northerners do not like the South - the obsession with the Civil War, and the glorification of "state's rights" which is nothing more than a justification of treason and slavery. The institutions supported by the Confederacy were evil. I do not fault the Southerners who fought in the war, excepting those commissioned as US Officers, whom I consider treasonous in supporting an in armed insurrection against the United States. I see the Southerners as comparable to the average Germans who fought in Hitler's armies. For anyone, today, to continue to support the institutions and symbols of the Confederacy in anything more than an historical context - I consider that borderline treasonous and evil, as much as a Nazi supporter today would be.

I agree with you about the history book problem, though. The backward slave masters were not reformed, unfortunately, and THAT was the primary cause of 140 years of being (rightfully) badmouthed and disrespected. Southern resentment is that they could never accept that they were wrong.

It was AFTER civil rights legislation, desegregation, and a greater acceptance of ALL people that progressive Southern cities (Atlanta, Houston, etc) symbolizing the "new" South began an economic and social renaissance. Less progressive Southern cities have lagged behind.
You're nothing more than a politically correct, historical revisionist talking wind bag of cliches. Your thoughts are not your own, but have been spood fed to you in a fashion to gain your favortism and subservience, through which you pride yourself on your "tolerance" and "refined way of talking".

Please consult true history books by actually looking at letters, official documents, and texts from both sides prior to the 1920s before you go on about that which you know little about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 05:45 PM
 
1,293 posts, read 1,199,984 times
Reputation: 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
You're nothing more than a politically correct, historical revisionist talking wind bag of cliches. Your thoughts are not your own, but have been spood fed to you in a fashion to gain your favortism and subservience, through which you pride yourself on your "tolerance" and "refined way of talking".

Please consult true history books by actually looking at letters, official documents, and texts from both sides prior to the 1920s before you go on about that which you know little about.
I offered my opinion, not an historical reference to a period of time when my ancestors lived on a more civilized continent...

It may be of some people's opinion that the Civil War was not about slavery, but it cannot be denied that the creation and existence of the Confederacy was EXPLICITLY about slavery, as documented in the Constitution:

Quote:
Section 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Quote:
Section 2 (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Quote:
Section 3 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.]
Quote:
Section 9 (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

There is only one word which describes this: EVIL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 05:52 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,675 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
I offered my opinion, not an historical reference to a period of time when my ancestors lived on a more civilized continent...

It may be of some people's opinion that the Civil War was not about slavery, but it cannot be denied that the creation and existence of the Confederacy was EXPLICITLY about slavery, as documented in the Constitution:










There is only one word which describes this: EVIL.
That's your opinion. Slavery was a product of its time. I don't view it as evil. People accepted it at the time, for it was a way of life. Most slaves weren't beaten or treated in the harsh manner depicted on television, designed to villainize slave holders and people of the South.

Remember, negros were selling their own, and many still do to this day in Africa.

Slavery wasn't even a primary reason for the Civil War, however, even though the Confederate Constitution protected it. Slaves were seen as property. Whether you agree with the U.S. Constitution or not, any state had a right to overthrow the government, as outlined by the founding fathers, if the federal government became too powerful to usurp the rights of the people. After all, few powers were vested to the federal government. Everything else was left to the states. On the issue of slavery, it was a state's issue, even though it wasn't the primary reason for going to war. It was multifaceted, and I urge you to actually consult the papers prior to 1920, preferably before and during the war, to get a more comprehensive view on why the war happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 06:20 PM
 
18 posts, read 68,038 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
That's your opinion. Slavery was a product of its time. I don't view it as evil. People accepted it at the time, for it was a way of life. Most slaves weren't beaten or treated in the harsh manner depicted on television, designed to villainize slave holders and people of the South.

Remember, negros were selling their own, and many still do to this day in Africa.

Slavery wasn't even a primary reason for the Civil War, however, even though the Confederate Constitution protected it. Slaves were seen as property. Whether you agree with the U.S. Constitution or not, any state had a right to overthrow the government, as outlined by the founding fathers, if the federal government became too powerful to usurp the rights of the people. After all, few powers were vested to the federal government. Everything else was left to the states. On the issue of slavery, it was a state's issue, even though it wasn't the primary reason for going to war. It was multifaceted, and I urge you to actually consult the papers prior to 1920, preferably before and during the war, to get a more comprehensive view on why the war happened.
"Slavery was a product of its time. I don't view it as evil."

So was slavery in Egypt but that didnt make it right or else God would have not have had Moses free the Hebrew slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 06:22 PM
 
1,293 posts, read 1,199,984 times
Reputation: 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
That's your opinion. Slavery was a product of its time. I don't view it as evil. People accepted it at the time, for it was a way of life. Most slaves weren't beaten or treated in the harsh manner depicted on television, designed to villainize slave holders and people of the South.

Remember, negros were selling their own, and many still do to this day in Africa.

Slavery wasn't even a primary reason for the Civil War, however, even though the Confederate Constitution protected it. Slaves were seen as property. Whether you agree with the U.S. Constitution or not, any state had a right to overthrow the government, as outlined by the founding fathers, if the federal government became too powerful to usurp the rights of the people. After all, few powers were vested to the federal government. Everything else was left to the states. On the issue of slavery, it was a state's issue, even though it wasn't the primary reason for going to war. It was multifaceted, and I urge you to actually consult the papers prior to 1920, preferably before and during the war, to get a more comprehensive view on why the war happened.
If it was truly about "state's rights" why was it forbidden in the Confederate Constitution for states to ban slavery?

If you say is "was accepted" at the time, why was it considered illegal and immoral outside of the Confederacy and border states, let alone Britain and other nations? Why was it not "accepted" by everyone, then?

So "most slaves weren't beaten" is justification for slavery? Perpetual slavery of you and your children is not "harsh"?

And, as you say, "negroes" were selling there own? Well, so are pimps and drug dealers today, of all races and all over the world, aren't they? Does that also make it ok then?

As far as slaves being seen as property, by the specific clause in the constitution they were considered even greater than property. The founders recognized the unique status of the institution as instrumental to the Confederacy. It was about slavery, otherwise ALL property would have the same level of protection under the constitution.

Regarding the State's "rights" within the Constitution to overthrow the government, Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution states:
Quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
And if that wasn't clear enough, it was settled in blood on April 9 1865.

I am an American, and I support the Constitution and the government of the United States. I support the rights of all people living in the United States. I have an opportunity to change my government any election day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
6,514 posts, read 7,456,802 times
Reputation: 10912
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
This perfectly summarizes why many Northerners do not like the South - the obsession with the Civil War, and the glorification of "state's rights" which is nothing more than a justification of treason and slavery. The institutions supported by the Confederacy were evil. I do not fault the Southerners who fought in the war, excepting those commissioned as US Officers, whom I consider treasonous in supporting an in armed insurrection against the United States. I see the Southerners as comparable to the average Germans who fought in Hitler's armies. For anyone, today, to continue to support the institutions and symbols of the Confederacy in anything more than an historical context - I consider that borderline treasonous and evil, as much as a Nazi supporter today would be.

I agree with you about the history book problem, though. The backward slave masters were not reformed, unfortunately, and THAT was the primary cause of 140 years of being (rightfully) badmouthed and disrespected. Southern resentment is that they could never accept that they were wrong.

It was AFTER civil rights legislation, desegregation, and a greater acceptance of ALL people that progressive Southern cities (Atlanta, Houston, etc) symbolizing the "new" South began an economic and social renaissance. Less progressive Southern cities have lagged behind.


The reason you do not like to hear about states rights is because it threatens the power of the federal goverment. The founding fathers never envisioned the type of goverment we have now. They would be spinning in their graves if they knew how much power the feds have and how it has been abused in the interest of promoting obamas socialism. States rights are enshrined in the bill of rights to protect us from the abuses that are occuring today. Also secession is not treason, as this federal union was intended to be a voluntary one until the day a northern army changed all that at Appomatix. Still to this day however no one can prove secession to be illegal. In fact secession is the altimate check on federal power. The south was in fact right on the issue of states rights. States are semi soverign entities. Slavery is wrong and the south was wrong about that issue, but you are wrong if you believe the north was this moral force that wished to help the black man. Most northerners were as racist as southerners, and many only opposed slavery because it put northern business interests at a disavantage. Also northern traders ceased to earn a profit on slavery when the importation of new slaves stopped around the early 1800s. Once the profit in slavery ended it became much easier to oppose it. The northern abolisonist would be out nothing if it were outlawed, while the southern planter would be bankrupt if the slaves were freed, as much of his wealth was wrapped up in his slaves. After the war northerners did very little to help the slaves they had freed, and the sharecropping system was set up. Sharecropping was worse on blacks than slavery in some ways, as thier standard of living did not improve, and now the landowner had no interest in taking care of cheap labor, when as slaves they were cared for as valuable pieces of property. In fact many of the landowners were northern carpet baggers who used blacks to make them wealthy. The civil war and the confederacy are never discussed honestly in school history books, or on movies and TV. Most have been taught like you that the confederacy is 100% evil and the south is in general backward. I see things differently, the confederate postition on the power of states vs the power of the feds is dead right, and in line with the founding fathers. I know you have stated that anyone who supports the institutions and symbols of the confederacy is evil. Well I support some of the ideals of the confederacy, I fly the flags of the confederacy so I guess you see me as evil. I believe in power residing in the states, I believe in local control and I am obviously conservative. I also believe secession is legal, and can be used as a last resort against federal tyranny. Rebellion/secession is not always wrong, and if things keep going the way they are in this nation the day may come when it needs to be considered an option again as it was in 1775 and 1860.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 06:46 PM
 
1,293 posts, read 1,199,984 times
Reputation: 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
The reason you do not like to hear about states rights is because it threatens the power of the federal goverment. The founding fathers never envisioned the type of goverment we have now. They would be spinning in their graves if they knew how much power the feds have and how it has been abused in the interest of promoting obamas socialism. States rights are enshrined in the bill of rights to protect us from the abuses that are occuring today. Also secession is not treason, as this federal union was intended to be a voluntary one until the day a northern army changed all that at Appomatix. Still to this day however no one can prove secession to be illegal. In fact secession is the altimate check on federal power. The south was in fact right on the issue of states rights. States are semi soverign entities. Slavery is wrong and the south was wrong about that issue, but you are wrong if you believe the north was this moral force that wished to help the black man. Most northerners were as racist as southerners, and many only opposed slavery because it put northern business interests at a disavantage. Also northern traders ceased to earn a profit on slavery when the importation of new slaves stopped around the early 1800s. Once the profit in slavery ended it became much easier to oppose it. The northern abolisonist would be out nothing if it were outlawed, while the southern planter would be bankrupt if the slaves were freed, as much of his wealth was wrapped up in his slaves. After the war northerners did very little to help the slaves they had freed, and the sharecropping system was set up. Sharecropping was worse on blacks than slavery in some ways, as thier standard of living did not improve, and now the landowner had no interest in taking care of cheap labor, when as slaves they were cared for as valuable pieces of property. In fact many of the landowners were northern carpet baggers who used blacks to make them wealthy. The civil war and the confederacy are never discussed honestly in school history books, or on movies and TV. Most have been taught like you that the confederacy is 100% evil and the south is in general backward. I see things differently, the confederate postition on the power of states vs the power of the feds is dead right, and in line with the founding fathers. I know you have stated that anyone who supports the institutions and symbols of the confederacy is evil. Well I support some of the ideals of the confederacy, I fly the flags of the confederacy so I guess you see me as evil. I believe in power residing in the states, I believe in local control and I am obviously conservative. I also believe secession is legal, and can be used as a last resort against federal tyranny. Rebellion/secession is not always wrong, and if things keep going the way they are in this nation the day may come when it needs to be considered an option again as it was in 1775 and 1860.
According to our founding fathers:



Your path leads to destruction and death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 07:26 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,675 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
If it was truly about "state's rights" why was it forbidden in the Confederate Constitution for states to ban slavery?
The U.S. Constitution, not the Confederate Constitution, left it to the states.

That said, people were tired of the federal government telling people what they could do with their property, and slaves were property. They bought them with money, hence property. That is why they decided to place that clause into the Confederate Constitution. I never once said that slavery wasn't an issue the South redressed and rebuked the federal government for, of which led to a disfavor with the federal government. My point is that it was one of many.

Quote:
If you say is "was accepted" at the time, why was it considered illegal and immoral outside of the Confederacy and border states, let alone Britain and other nations? Why was it not "accepted" by everyone, then?
If you'll actually read letters and documents of the time, most people didn't consider it evil. The north abolished slavery because it threatened small farmers ability to make a living for themselves. Abraham Lincoln cared little for the slaves. Slavery was occurring at the time in places far and awide. It was accepted by most as a part of commerce.

Quote:
So "most slaves weren't beaten" is justification for slavery? Perpetual slavery of you and your children is not "harsh"?
It's not like they weren't enslaved in their African motherland. Who do you think sold them? Furthermore, their treatment and livelihood was much better in the Americas than on their home continent under such as position.

Personally, I wouldn't own slaves, nor would I want someone hanging around all the time, but times were different. You're viewing the world through the lens of Hollywood-influenced mainstream, modern times values with regard to the issue of slavery.

Quote:
And, as you say, "negroes" were selling there own? Well, so are pimps and drug dealers today, of all races and all over the world, aren't they? Does that also make it ok then?
I don't condone slavery, but I don't view it as this all-oppressive evil, in the same regard as murder. Mistreatment of the slaves is another issue, and with that I agree with you that it is evil. However, for most slaves, they weren't receiving horsewhippings and the like that Hollywood portrays. Most simply played the roles of farmers and maids, ones that were provided food, clothing, and shelter. Many had a strong bond with the slave master's family.

Prostitution violates the body and it corrupts the soul. Drug dealing destroys people's lives. These, in my opinion, are much worse than a form of slavery that isn't violent. On the other hand, a violent slavery can be as bad, or worse than Prostitution and drug dealing.

Quote:
As far as slaves being seen as property, by the specific clause in the constitution they were considered even greater than property. The founders recognized the unique status of the institution as instrumental to the Confederacy. It was about slavery, otherwise ALL property would have the same level of protection under the constitution.
What evidence do you have to support this?

Quote:
Regarding the State's "rights" within the Constitution to overthrow the government, Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution states:


And if that wasn't clear enough, it was settled in blood on April 9 1865.
That's related to an individual, not a state government.

Quote:
I am an American, and I support the Constitution and the government of the United States. I support the rights of all people living in the United States. I have an opportunity to change my government any election day.
Good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 07:30 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,675 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
The reason you do not like to hear about states rights is because it threatens the power of the federal goverment. The founding fathers never envisioned the type of goverment we have now. They would be spinning in their graves if they knew how much power the feds have and how it has been abused in the interest of promoting obamas socialism. States rights are enshrined in the bill of rights to protect us from the abuses that are occuring today. Also secession is not treason, as this federal union was intended to be a voluntary one until the day a northern army changed all that at Appomatix. Still to this day however no one can prove secession to be illegal. In fact secession is the altimate check on federal power. The south was in fact right on the issue of states rights. States are semi soverign entities. Slavery is wrong and the south was wrong about that issue, but you are wrong if you believe the north was this moral force that wished to help the black man. Most northerners were as racist as southerners, and many only opposed slavery because it put northern business interests at a disavantage. Also northern traders ceased to earn a profit on slavery when the importation of new slaves stopped around the early 1800s. Once the profit in slavery ended it became much easier to oppose it. The northern abolisonist would be out nothing if it were outlawed, while the southern planter would be bankrupt if the slaves were freed, as much of his wealth was wrapped up in his slaves. After the war northerners did very little to help the slaves they had freed, and the sharecropping system was set up. Sharecropping was worse on blacks than slavery in some ways, as thier standard of living did not improve, and now the landowner had no interest in taking care of cheap labor, when as slaves they were cared for as valuable pieces of property. In fact many of the landowners were northern carpet baggers who used blacks to make them wealthy. The civil war and the confederacy are never discussed honestly in school history books, or on movies and TV. Most have been taught like you that the confederacy is 100% evil and the south is in general backward. I see things differently, the confederate postition on the power of states vs the power of the feds is dead right, and in line with the founding fathers. I know you have stated that anyone who supports the institutions and symbols of the confederacy is evil. Well I support some of the ideals of the confederacy, I fly the flags of the confederacy so I guess you see me as evil. I believe in power residing in the states, I believe in local control and I am obviously conservative. I also believe secession is legal, and can be used as a last resort against federal tyranny. Rebellion/secession is not always wrong, and if things keep going the way they are in this nation the day may come when it needs to be considered an option again as it was in 1775 and 1860.
Very good response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top