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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: If it were to ever happen again, what states do you think would join the new CSA?
FlORIDA 27 20.15%
GEORGIA 96 71.64%
ALABAMA 116 86.57%
MISSISSIPPI 116 86.57%
SOUTH CAROLINA 108 80.60%
NORTH CAROLINA 61 45.52%
TENNESSEE 78 58.21%
ARKANSAS 79 58.96%
LOUISIANA 85 63.43%
TEXAS 50 37.31%
OKLAHOMA 38 28.36%
MISSOURI 27 20.15%
KENTUCKY 55 41.04%
WEST VIRGINIA 46 34.33%
VIRGINIA 38 28.36%
MARYLAND 11 8.21%
DELAWARE 7 5.22%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 08-16-2010, 05:32 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 394,030 times
Reputation: 248
Exclamation bring it on!

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.P View Post
This makes me wanna . Thats also true with me to b/c if there ever was another war I would back up dixie and my home state Missouri in a heartbeat. Oh and by the way TexasReb
And you'd lose again. I grew up across the street from a black man whose great-grandaddy and 9 of his relatives escaped slavery in Missouri to enlist in the 2nd Kansas Colored. Only 3 survived but only one was killed. The others died from disease. Anyway, they kicked your skinny white asses up and down Mizzou, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Cowards that you were some of your finest wretches went over to Lawrence and burned it down while killing everyone they could. Bring it on, secesh. I'd be happy to fight with the 2 Kansas Colored and hand you your butts again!

Oh and by the way Texas secesh...same goes for you.

 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
2,601 posts, read 1,728,395 times
Reputation: 1492
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego View Post
And you'd lose again. I grew up across the street from a black man whose great-grandaddy and 9 of his relatives escaped slavery in Missouri to enlist in the 2nd Kansas Colored. Only 3 survived but only one was killed. The others died from disease. Anyway, they kicked your skinny white asses up and down Mizzou, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Cowards that you were some of your finest wretches went over to Lawrence and burned it down while killing everyone they could. Bring it on, secesh. I'd be happy to fight with the 2 Kansas Colored and hand you your butts again!

Oh and by the way Texas secesh...same goes for you.
And with that kind of attitude I'd be on the opposite side as you.

Though I REALLY hope there isn't another civil war, it's not impossible.
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:24 PM
 
2,397 posts, read 1,894,559 times
Reputation: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
So how do you know the "true" story? It's obvious that it was told from a Confederate perspective though...so how can we be so sure it's accurate?

The victors' perspective is sure to make it sound like they're "the good guys", but the losers' perspective is just as sure to make it sound like they were being conquered by tyrannous monsters. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

How constitutional the secession of Southern states was depends on your perspective. A quote from the American Civil War Wiki article: Secondly the South argued that each state had the right to secede—leave the Union—at any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a "perpetual union".[59] Historian James McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations:
While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.[60]

I find it ironic that the Confederates were talking about the "injustices" of Northern soldiers while they had been raping and killing blacks for decades. But I suppose it was different because to them, blacks were merely tools rather than people.
I've studied the history thoroughly on the "Civil War" and the events leading up to it and beyond.

Seriously, everything that I have stated is well-documented. The union army was full of monsters, that cannot be denied.

While I'm not denying a role of slavery in the "Civil War", it was a states' rights issue, as it was not a federal area of control under the Constitution. As such, the South was correct in regard to not wanting to be bullied and taking an inferior role in the direction of slavery in the new territories, or within their respective states, for slaves, whether you admit it or not, were property.

Slavery was not the only issue for secession and eventually the war, but so was economic intimidation, including unfair tarrifs, and abridges to the Constitution.

In reality, the South was attempting to hold onto the true intent of the Founding Fathers.

Slavery would have died a death, in all likelihood by the end of the 1800s, much like it did in Brazil, when it became less feasible, economically speaking.

As far as "injustices" of blacks go, you're bought the entire Hollywood script. Most slaves were not beaten, given that they were property, and that beating them would make them run away, thereby ruining the investment of the slavemaster.

You should also know that only about 3% of southern whites owned slaves. Most did not. Most southern farmers were Yeoman farmers. Poor dirt farmers who worked on small areas of land and worked hard to squeak out a living.
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:27 PM
 
Location: pine tree monotony
2,366 posts, read 3,795,883 times
Reputation: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlotteNCRepublican View Post
This is a very weird thread.

But, I doubt any state out side of Alabama, and Mississippi would secede. Mianly because you have HUGE Cities in Texas, and Georgia that'd stop them from seceding, same with NC, SC, FL, and VA.

Louisiana would split in half, the Northern half would join Bama and Mississippi, but Nawlins and Southern LA wouldn't leave.

Arkansas and Tennessee thrive off Northern states. Oklahoma would stick with Texas.
North La would be better off sticking with Texas and Ok. At least the northwest would rather have that (If this were to occur at all, I hope it doesn't)
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:30 PM
 
2,397 posts, read 1,894,559 times
Reputation: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego View Post
I have and you're mixing truth and lies. The Constitution was ambiguous. That was the problem. What documents of the "times" have you read? Be specific.
The Constitution was not ambiguous.

Any power not delegated to the federal government, of which slavery was not, was a power delegated to the STATES. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:31 PM
 
2,397 posts, read 1,894,559 times
Reputation: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego View Post
And you'd lose again. I grew up across the street from a black man whose great-grandaddy and 9 of his relatives escaped slavery in Missouri to enlist in the 2nd Kansas Colored. Only 3 survived but only one was killed. The others died from disease. Anyway, they kicked your skinny white asses up and down Mizzou, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Cowards that you were some of your finest wretches went over to Lawrence and burned it down while killing everyone they could. Bring it on, secesh. I'd be happy to fight with the 2 Kansas Colored and hand you your butts again!

Oh and by the way Texas secesh...same goes for you.
This sounds very racial towards white people.
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:41 PM
 
5,005 posts, read 4,003,691 times
Reputation: 4287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
This sounds very racial towards white people.
You've been sounding very "racial" towards everyone else, ever since you started posting on City-Data..
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:43 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 394,030 times
Reputation: 248
Default can't teach an old dog new tricks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
And with that kind of attitude I'd be on the opposite side as you.

Though I REALLY hope there isn't another civil war, it's not impossible.

Like I said.
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:46 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 394,030 times
Reputation: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
I've studied the history thoroughly on the "Civil War" and the events leading up to it and beyond.

Seriously, everything that I have stated is well-documented. The union army was full of monsters, that cannot be denied.

While I'm not denying a role of slavery in the "Civil War", it was a states' rights issue, as it was not a federal area of control under the Constitution. As such, the South was correct in regard to not wanting to be bullied and taking an inferior role in the direction of slavery in the new territories, or within their respective states, for slaves, whether you admit it or not, were property.

Slavery was not the only issue for secession and eventually the war, but so was economic intimidation, including unfair tarrifs, and abridges to the Constitution.

In reality, the South was attempting to hold onto the true intent of the Founding Fathers.

Slavery would have died a death, in all likelihood by the end of the 1800s, much like it did in Brazil, when it became less feasible, economically speaking.

As far as "injustices" of blacks go, you're bought the entire Hollywood script. Most slaves were not beaten, given that they were property, and that beating them would make them run away, thereby ruining the investment of the slavemaster.

You should also know that only about 3% of southern whites owned slaves. Most did not. Most southern farmers were Yeoman farmers. Poor dirt farmers who worked on small areas of land and worked hard to squeak out a living.

Exactly what have you studied? Be specific. You can't even put a proper sentence together.
 
Old 08-16-2010, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
2,601 posts, read 1,728,395 times
Reputation: 1492
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego View Post
Like I said.
I'm not the one being whiney here, bud.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top