U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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: 
 
Old 08-12-2011, 12:15 AM
 
580 posts, read 250,686 times
Reputation: 374

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
I find your paragraph above very interesting; can you tell me what years you were in South Carolina? I had no idea so many southerners still had the attitude you are describing. I have some family who live in the south (and they always have) but I have not encountered that attitude much. My family is pretty much urban. Could that make a difference? My famility members are in Little Rock, Baton Rouge, Mobile, and Georgia (none in South Carollina).

This is sort of a side issue and some may consider it off-topic to the thread, but I am the OP and I have an elastic view of on/off-topic. That doesn't mean I think I "own" the thread; I am just pleading for some tolerance for these side issues, as I find them fascinating. I wouldn't mind starting a new thread if some "strict constructionists" of on-topicness object to this here. (In some other forums on- versus off-topic has been a fierce and emotional issue, much to my mystification).


I think the issue is fascinating as well, which may be in part why I was drawn to the South originally out of high school. I went to school in SC two years ago so rather recently.

As far as how widespread this attitude is spread in the South I'd say it is most likely contained in the three most insular and stereotypically Southern states in Alabama, Mississippi, and SC. South Carolina, being the first to secede is probably the most defensive and insular, and the native Southerners are becoming even more insular as non natives retire along the coast. I will add on to this later but I'm afraid its time for me to get some sleep too. Also, my views are also more explicit to the college culture than the state in general, though I believe the two are linked.



And to Texas, I realized that I was wrong quickly lump in your arguments with those of college students I met in SC. While their arguments tend be wrapped up in a racially tinged, unfactual delusion of gradeur (I'll explain more on this latter if you like) your arguments have merit, and while I may not agree with all of what you say, it seems to come out of a passion for your region and civil war history rather than petty regionalism and boorish antics, something I can truly respect. I can appreciate the fact that you present your opinion in a way that strives to promote a friendly discourse and I apologize for my uncouthness in my first post. We may agree to disagree but if we can present our arguments in a civil and jovial manner I think everyone wins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2011, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
9,319 posts, read 7,269,587 times
Reputation: 16450
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29 View Post
I think the issue is fascinating as well, which may be in part why I was drawn to the South originally out of high school. I went to school in SC two years ago so rather recently.

As far as how widespread this attitude is spread in the South I'd say it is most likely contained in the three most insular and stereotypically Southern states in Alabama, Mississippi, and SC. South Carolina, being the first to secede is probably the most defensive and insular, and the native Southerners are becoming even more insular as non natives retire along the coast. I will add on to this later but I'm afraid its time for me to get some sleep too. Also, my views are also more explicit to the college culture than the state in general, though I believe the two are linked.
Yes, please do flesh this out more later; I will be very interested in what you have to say. Thanks for your response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2011, 10:17 AM
 
580 posts, read 250,686 times
Reputation: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Yes, please do flesh this out more later; I will be very interested in what you have to say. Thanks for your response.
Well, my preface to this is that I'm really going to focus on SC, while I've heard about similar attitudes are big in AL and MS, I've never been to MS and have not traveled too much in AL.

While I'm sure the large movements of older folks from Ohio to South Carolina has caused the Midwest vs. Southerner tension to flare up even more, SC has been the Southern state that I believe has the most insular culture in the South. Even a good friend of mine's, who is from Texas, mom, who is from Mississippi, remarked she thought that South Carolinians were way too caught up in the events of the past.

I was somewhat blindsided when I arrived in SC by the suspicion of people from Ohio. My family never traveled to SC for vacations, usually to Oregon, California, or Florida, so I really had no knowledge of the situation besides the fact I knew many people who go to Hilton Head.

It was not long before I realized the cold shoulder was simply based on being from Ohio. With few exceptions it seemed like I had to prove to a lot of people thry could trust me or I wasn't a threat to their way of life.

Since most Midwesterners don't dress like Guidos, and actually similar to Southerners, I wear croakies, fishing shirts (I do actually fish haha), plain khaki shorts and the like, many Southerners seemed to assume I was from somewhere else since I wasn't walking around with an Ohio State shirt and cargo shorts and tended to be nice to me until I told them I was from Cincinnati, at which point things either slowly or abruptly dilineated.

This point was greatly evident during rush and within the Greek System (I am Greek myself at IU so I bear no prejudice against "frat guys" or the like) which seemed to be a hotbed for misguided Southern pride and exceptionalism. In fact some fraternities refused to accept anyone who wasn't from a deep South state. NC and VA were too northern for them. They wouldn't even talk to you if you were from a Union state and would be snide and condescending if for some reason they did. The term Yankee was thrown around callously and I have grown to hate that word with a burning passion. The Southern Exceptionalism has grown to even more extremes with the recent dominance of the SEC conference and the decline of the Big Ten, the powerful MW conference. Some feel that football is the South getting revenge on the North and perpetual attach it to the civil war At points I felt somewhat embarassed about where I was from due to the reactions I often got, but I wasn't going to lie about where I was from, by the end my time down there my embarassment began to become redirected into an emerging senese of Midwestern pride.

Thus, I think this is fostering a bit of in anti-SEC backlash in all of the Big Ten/Midwestern schools, developing in a particularly intriguing way in schools with large Greek systems, mainly IU, Miami of OH, Illinois, and Mizzou. Due largely to the advent of college websites which often turn into pissing matches between the Mdiwest and South, with the NE often chiming in on the MW's behalf, though we don't particularly like most of the NE either .

The funny thing is the differnces between Greek kids is pretty small between the three MW schools I mentioned and Southern schools, besides regional influences, both dress "preppy", can be obnoxious/snobby, and tend to be somewhat racist, though this is more extreme in the Southern chapters. However, in this reaction I think more MW pride is brewing, I in fact have ordered a belt that has the IU logo, Big Ten logo, my fraternity shield, as well as the Union cavalry guidon flown by Union cavalry regiments in the war, as a way to assert my pride as a Midwesterner against the overwhelming annoyance of the SEC.

I think there is a good documentary, though I have never seen nothing more than a trailer for it but I hope to see the whole thing soon, that dicusses Greek culture at the University of Alabama and its control of campus while tying it in with themes that carry from the civil war even antebellum period. I believe its called Bama Girl

While it seems silly football and sports can bring back this ugly division we all should've left back in the past, its alive and well in colleges more than it ever has been with the SEC dominating.

If I rambled on about Greek life too much I apologize, I know some people on CD don't like it, but in my experience I am Greek at Indiana and knew many Greeks in SC so I felt it was particularly pertinent. I'm happy to expand upon any point, but I felt this was a good synopsis for now
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2011, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
9,319 posts, read 7,269,587 times
Reputation: 16450
Thank you, CincyIU29. That is fascinating. At your leisure, please tell a little about attitudes toward the Civil War itself. Did you see any Confederate flags displayed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2011, 01:39 PM
Status: "The Union forever! Down with the traitors." (set 18 days ago)
 
13,669 posts, read 17,522,791 times
Reputation: 11856
Quote:
Here is, as we at least seem to agree, we are going to come to an impasse. Have you ever read the British side of the American Revolution? I did once, in a Western Civilizations course. It didn't convert me to a Tory, I hasten to add! LOL...but it gave me a perspective on history I had never thought of before. It really brought home that the winners write the history. Actaully King George was very accomodating toward the colonists. They (colonists) were VERY much more rebellious in ultimate intent than were the the fire-eaters of the Lower South. Can you imagine if the British had won? We would now be living in the, say, United Colonies of Great Britain and reading how jolly dandy it was that King George had had the cojones to put down a bunch of upstart rebels who had the audacity to dump perfectly good tea into the Boston Harbor! LOL

What I am saying here, is that the DOI was the South's justification as well. And such was spoken of in many of the justifications for secession. To add, the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America, featured a likeness of George Washington
I actually think the Revolution is better if studied from the British, rather than the American perspective, lol.

Quote:
Again, this is where it will all come go logger-heads with us. If Massachussetts and Texas were no longer permitted by the central government to govern themsleves? What "rights"? would be violated? The whole purpose of the federation was to ally with one another out of practical considerations...and that the said central government would protect the same. Simply that and nothing more.
Well, we are now arguing what to me is part of the beauty in the construct of the Constitution, at least if you agree with Madison. As the people formed the national government, they granted it certain powers while simultaneously reserving several key rights that the national government was sworn to defend. The States then submitted their sovereignty to that national government (yes, I know you don't agree with that statement, but it is as far as I can tell, how it was actually framed). The national government, empowered by the people, served to check the power of the States within the national governments sphere of influence.

The state of TX or MA could no longer pass a law that would strip away the rights of citizens that were guaranteed in the Constitution. MA, could not decide that it wanted to restrict the freedom of the press. TX could not ban the right to assemble. In that way, they lost their right as a truly sovereign entity and submitted to the greater authority of the national government.


Quote:
I never said Southern ports...I said the disproportiate percentage of taxes paid by the Southern states. But ok, I won't quibble too much on that one. I will, however, bring up this one by Horace Greely (a staunch Union man):

New York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860, “the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.” If the Southern states wished to depart, “they have a clear right to do so.” And, if tyrannical government justified the Revolution of 1776, “we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Million of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”

I will have to dig it out, but Lincoln told Greeley, when the latter just asked why not let the "erring sisters go in peace", replied, cynically, something like "then where will we get our tax money"? (the Southern states paid about 75% of that coming in to the national treasury).

So my always counter-reply is, what was the WAS the reason for Lincoln to invade the South? Can you really say with all candor that it was all about some altruistic desire to keep the union together in a way which respects the whole concept of union?
Well, Greeley was a newsman and a permanent gadfly. He started out starkly against the war, but rapidly switched his stance once the war began and was became an adamanet supporter of freeing the slaves. Greely was against war, period. However, he later found justification in it for ending slavery.

There is only one letter that I am aware of that Lincoln wrote to Greeley and that elegantly laid out his intent and goal for the war and also prepped the North for the Emancipation Proclamation. Here is the letter:


Quote:
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
I would love to see a source where Lincoln openly stated anything about taxes or tarriffs.
Quote:
It goes without saying, I don't accept the basics of your argument here as given from your outlook. If there is anything the DOI advanced, it was that government derives its just powers from the consent of the government. No way around that one. It was Lincoln's policies that repudiated the said truism.

The only way I reply to that is, really, going back to "government derives its powers from the consent of the governened." Reason being, we will be forever entangled in which side had "morality" on its side. To me, the ultimate justification is that the people of the South -- right or wrong, rash or foohardy or not --wished to seperate themselves from a political connection from the northern states. And offered to do so in the most peaceful and conciliatory way possible. Lincoln rejected this, and had to use subterfuge to start a war that was never necessary.
Well, we will forever disagree on this one. I would simply proffer that each side had its own justification for the war. We can discuss what those were, what motivated them to do it, etc. However, we will never reach a consensus on which was "right", perhaps they both were. The best we can hope for is to respect each others positions as long as they remain factual and understand that sometimes even the best of brothers disagree and come to blows, only to eventually put the past behind them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2011, 01:47 PM
 
580 posts, read 250,686 times
Reputation: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Thank you, CincyIU29. That is fascinating. At your leisure, please tell a little about attitudes toward the Civil War itself. Did you see any Confederate flags displayed?



The answer to that is a resounding yes. It migh as have been the second state flag. I say that in jest haha but I'm sure you get the point.

It was rather visible, wether it was hanging in dorm windows, on people's belts, or on shirts dubbed "Confederate hereos of SC" and the like.

Every once in a while you would see the Stars and Bars or secession flag, but those people were in the extreme minority. The CSA navy jack/battleflag was a pervasive presence in SC. They even flew it on top of the state capital until rather recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2011, 09:47 PM
Status: " On and off line interchangeably" (set 5 days ago)
 
9,823 posts, read 11,308,206 times
Reputation: 5054
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I actually think the Revolution is better if studied from the British, rather than the American perspective, lol.
LOL It was back when I when I was an undergrad the first time around (before I flunked out for partying too much back in the 70's! and grades went to sh*t! LOL). Anyway, in that Western Civilizations class, the professor told us, just out of the blue, "today I am going to give you the British side of what we call the American Revolution." Hell, I was totally taken aback initially! Gawdamighty, it had never even occured to me that the British even had a side! To the extent I had thought about it at all (which was never!), I guess, hell, I had just always assumed that the British side was covered by the American side...which I had naturally grown up reading.

What followed was facinating. The British side made very good sense form their point of view and interests and such. They honestly did have some very good arguments and, actually, in lots of ways, the Colonists were the ones who refused to be open to compromise....

Like I mentioned earlier, it didn't convert me into a "tory" by any means..but it DID give me an appreciation and understanding of the fact that history is not an objective science. Rather, that it is shaped by events and imperfect human beings and unique cultures and interests of their own that make them subject to...well, subjective interpretations depending upon who is recording the said history, later.

As this applied to the War Between the States? For many years, because the winners do write the history, I had just grown up accepting -- by a sorta of social osmosis -- that while my ancestors and the South at large were a brave people who fought to the bitter end against overwhelming odds? And that yes, it is something to be proud of? There was still always the ever present subtle qualifiier that that indicated they were still "wrong"... and ultimately it was all about slavery as a moral issue.

Oh sure, the history books I grew up on (Texas) were naturally much more symathetic to the Southern side than is case in, say, Kansas or New York (and as a teacher I have read the latter...which makes it the South was evil incarnate and that the North was on a righteous crusade to "free the slaves"). But what -- by that college cataylst -- I gradually came to realize was that -- all these years -- I was essentially hearing the South's side from the Northern side. It dawned on me that I had never -- even being a Southern boy -- really read the South's side from the Southern side.

So I started to do so. Starting with Jefferson Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Goverment" (which, by the way, is laborous and tiring reading! LOL). After that, I read more and more...and everything I had already believed about the nature of the original nation and consitution convinced me that the South had the best constitutional arguments on its side. That the Southern side had been, in effect, censored all these many years. That is was not a morality play, but a conflict that involved so many more reasons than could be possibly part of such a sophomoric play. I guess that is when I became not only a native Southerner, but a Southern partisan (which, in my definition, also means being a proud American and citizen of the United States our forefathers originally intended it to be)!

Quote:
Well, we are now arguing what to me is part of the beauty in the construct of the Constitution, at least if you agree with Madison. As the people formed the national government, they granted it certain powers while simultaneously reserving several key rights that the national government was sworn to defend. The States then submitted their sovereignty to that national government (yes, I know you don't agree with that statement, but it is as far as I can tell, how it was actually framed).
Well, as you allude to, this is the one you and I are going to be impossibly stuck on. LOL At the constitutional convention, it was the states that were represented, not any people at large. If that had been the case, then none of the representatives would have been there representing anything but a large mass of folks and no state consideration of any importance...

Quote:
The national government, empowered by the people, served to check the power of the States within the national governments sphere of influence.
This is related to the above but -- IMHO -- needs a sorta "seperate" attention. Hell, NJ, you know good and well that the main thrust of the Constituion in terms of balances, gave the overwhelming bulk to the states checking the power of the feds, not the other way around. One cannot cannot erase the 10th ammendment and its intent. Even a federalist like Madison accepted it.

Quote:
The state of TX or MA could no longer pass a law that would strip away the rights of citizens that were guaranteed in the Constitution. MA, could not decide that it wanted to restrict the freedom of the press. TX could not ban the right to assemble. In that way, they lost their right as a truly sovereign entity and submitted to the greater authority of the national government.
Well of course you are right on this so far as it goes. All states submitted to the powers specifically granted the federal government. However, those NOT specifically granted to the feds remained, by default, the rights of the states and people, respectively, to consider, vote, decide, rule, upon. That is all I am saying.

Quote:
Well, Greeley was a newsman and a permanent gadfly. He started out starkly against the war, but rapidly switched his stance once the war began and was became an adamanet supporter of freeing the slaves. Greely was against war, period. However, he later found justification in it for ending slavery.
LOL Well, I don't think Greely can be dismissed as simply a minor historical figure. His opinon reflected that of most northerners of the time before Lincoln contrived an incident to justify his already decided course.

Sorry, NJ, ol' buddy. While I can grudingly respect Lincoln as a man of iron will and, yes, perhaps even a truly good-hearted human being, and harboring no personal animosity toward the Southern people? I stop short of hating the man -- in the historical sense -- because he seemed a decent human being in terms of treating his adversaries with respect and consideration.

However? I do not in the least understand his "deification" on the part of many northern apologists. On the contrary, I deplore and despise what he did and believe his rationale for doing so had no justification whatsover. Either contitutionally nor morally. He deliberately started on a war that was never necessary and meant the subjegation and conquering and total war (including innocent women and children) on a people who had never done the North any wrong.

Quote:
There is only one letter that I am aware of that Lincoln wrote to Greeley and that elegantly laid out his intent and goal for the war and also prepped the North for the Emancipation Proclamation. Here is the letter:
I would love to see a source where Lincoln openly stated anything about taxes or tarriffs.
Yeah, that is the most "famous" letter, so I will need to go back and find the one I am referring to (the tarrif consideration).

Quote:
Well, we will forever disagree on this one. I would simply proffer that each side had its own justification for the war. We can discuss what those were, what motivated them to do it, etc. However, we will never reach a consensus on which was "right", perhaps they both were. The best we can hope for is to respect each others positions as long as they remain factual and understand that sometimes even the best of brothers disagree and come to blows, only to eventually put the past behind them.
You said it very well here, my northern friend! Nothing in the least to disagree with at all!

Last edited by TexasReb; 08-12-2011 at 10:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 02:01 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 427,718 times
Reputation: 249
Thumbs down hah!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
And it's this sort of oversimplication of history that makes these history debates more tedious.
hah I lived in Phoenix from 1966-1979 and south of Van Buren it was like the South. South of the SR it was like Mississippi. I was working at the Thrifty Drug on 7th Ave & Osborn when someone like you began harrassing a young black couple. I followed him into the Safeway next door and read him the riot act and told him never to come back. A few weeks later I read in the AZ Republic that he'd been found at the bottom of a well near Prescott. Some one had shot him and set him on fire. It made my day! He deserved what he got like a lot of you sniveling, cowardly little Confederate wannabes. I worked in a lot of those neighborhoods helping those families and as more and more Midwesterners moved to Phoenix things changed. It didn't hurt that the Phoenix Suns came to town with a number of popular black players. Your attempt to be a little Texas Reb clone is obvious. Also obvious is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
9,319 posts, read 7,269,587 times
Reputation: 16450
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego View Post
hah I lived in Phoenix from 1966-1979 and south of Van Buren it was like the South. South of the SR it was like Mississippi. I was working at the Thrifty Drug on 7th Ave & Osborn when someone like you began harrassing a young black couple. I followed him into the Safeway next door and read him the riot act and told him never to come back. A few weeks later I read in the AZ Republic that he'd been found at the bottom of a well near Prescott. Some one had shot him and set him on fire. It made my day! He deserved what he got like a lot of you sniveling, cowardly little Confederate wannabes. I worked in a lot of those neighborhoods helping those families and as more and more Midwesterners moved to Phoenix things changed. It didn't hurt that the Phoenix Suns came to town with a number of popular black players. Your attempt to be a little Texas Reb clone is obvious. Also obvious is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I am not even a Confederate sympathizer, and I, too, am disgusted at the thought of anyone "harrassing a young black couple", but I find your post over the top. When you equate the poster to whom you were responding to the guy who harrassed the black couple ("someone like you"), where is your justification for that? Do you believe that all Confederate sympathizers are ipso facto the type who would personally exhibit racist characteristics? There is a lot of name-calling in your post ("sniveling, cowardly" for one) - not a good example of the tolerance which you are ostensibly advocating, and not conducive to any sort of constructive discussion of the Civil War period of our history.

However, I am not entirely unsympathetic to what seems to be your underlying point - I am just turned off by the overwrought quality of the way you expressed it. When I read a poster referring to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" I find it very jarring and actually shocking. That this period of our history can remain so emotionally fraught after this many years - as evidenced by your post and also by those of some members of the opposite side - is amazing and disheartening to me.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised; after all many Muslims still refer to Europeans as "Crusaders" and look how much longer ago that was! It's not that there weren't legitimate grievances, but that the emotional intensity still trumps more rational approaches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
2,680 posts, read 2,008,463 times
Reputation: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego View Post
hah I lived in Phoenix from 1966-1979 and south of Van Buren it was like the South. South of the SR it was like Mississippi. I was working at the Thrifty Drug on 7th Ave & Osborn when someone like you began harrassing a young black couple. I followed him into the Safeway next door and read him the riot act and told him never to come back. A few weeks later I read in the AZ Republic that he'd been found at the bottom of a well near Prescott. Some one had shot him and set him on fire. It made my day! He deserved what he got like a lot of you sniveling, cowardly little Confederate wannabes. I worked in a lot of those neighborhoods helping those families and as more and more Midwesterners moved to Phoenix things changed. It didn't hurt that the Phoenix Suns came to town with a number of popular black players. Your attempt to be a little Texas Reb clone is obvious. Also obvious is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I live 2 hours East of Phoenix, I'm closer to New Mexico than anywhere else in this state, I rarely ever go to Phoenix. I'd argue myself that from the 1870's-1960's that Cochise and Pima county had strong southern influences (the region was populated by ex-Texans outside of the local hispanics who had been there since the days of the Spanish empire). But "someone like me" harrassing a black couple? C'mon now, where I live I will admit that blacks are not all that common, but the blacks I do know I have no qualms with and have had no trouble with, I have never harrassed anybody, ever, and I don't intend to.

Now I know that jerkasses are not the best people on Earth, that guy that gave those folks a bad time was not in the right, but you should not take joy in the killing of others, even if the guy was a jerkass. But comparing that guy to me and TexasReb as "snivelling coward Confederate wannabees"? Come now, my paleo-Conservative beliefs and some of my family heritage lands me in the pro-southern camp, so what? Do I deserve to be shot and set on fire then dumped in a well upstate because of that?

Now, TexasReb and I are friends, my beliefs and his may show alot of parallels, but we grew up in two entirely different environments and over 3 decades apart. But since YOU interpret me as a clone of him, should I be ruled that I don't know what I'm talking about? No I shouldn't. The guy who says that people like me deserve to be set on fire and thrown down a well doesn't know what the Hell he's talking about.
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 $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

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