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: 
 
Unread 08-15-2011, 05:47 PM
 
9,630 posts, read 9,959,528 times
Reputation: 4758
Default To reply...

DesertKid and EscortRider?

To be honest? I think Stan has either gone off the deep end on all this, or is just attempting to play an elaborate "pulling our legs" type game!

LOL Y'all gotta know Stan a bit. He periodically pops up, rants a bit, makes a racial issue -- historical or social -- out of everything. Note for instance that this thread has nothing to do with racial issues in the South or anywhere else in a contemporary sense.

BUT? He brings something up that any person with an ounce of decency in them will agree was deplorable (if it really happened the way he described it). Hell, as a teacher (to mostly minority kids for the past decade) -- and working in the public area sector for years before that -- I have done my share of defending -- in some form or fashion -- sometime even physically -- the bullied and/or unwarrantely harrased kids/people. It might be black on white or black on white and all other color schemes possible. But main thing is -- as I am sure we all have stories about things like this -- it is a struggling effort that he is determined to make as to a connection to the theme of the thread.

However, Stan -- by extension of his core belief that the South was evil-incarnate and slavery was the alpha and omega? -- goes into ABM mode when confronted with any evidence alternative to his single-minded outlook.

It is impossible to reason with this person and engage in civil conversation. I have tried before (the history is out there), yet he almost never reciprocates nor provides any empirical evidence of his own, in spite of the said numerous invitations and opportunites to do so. To me, the fact that some of the obviously astute, knowledeable, and intelligent posters who also take a pro-North position distance themselves from him is quite telling...

And the "sniveling coward" remark? *snorts in contempt* When applied personally, labels like that are meaningless unless the name-caller has the guts to do it face to face, not over a computer. Usually it just means the latter are frustrated, know you have bested them, and choose the safe option of insulting from a distance...

But the paradox is? Stan really can (rhyme just being happenstance! LOL) be a reasonable and civil poster to engage with on most other issues. He just goes nuts on this one. Go figure...

Anyway, time to get off line and go have a bite and hit the sack. And from here on out, may only have limited to no time on the computer! Work week started today and the summers gone! G'night y'all!

Last edited by TexasReb; 08-15-2011 at 06:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 08-16-2011, 07:51 AM
 
481 posts, read 167,870 times
Reputation: 272
Well you can certainly see the emotion this still brings up in people today.

I think in this case it shows how a lot of people intertwine racism in the Civil Rights era with the origins of the civil war. The unfortunate thing is that racism is really everywhere so it can be a dangerous comparison. That being said, in the Southern Collegiate culture, CSA "sympathies" get out of hand and serve as a boorish excuse for racist behavior.

Desertkid, no matter how hard you try to turn your part of Arizona into an extension of the South it is not. Even if there were some Confederate influences 150+ very few in the South would ever consider Arizona at all Southern. I understand why TexasReb has the position he does with the lineage he has et al. I don't really know how being a paleo-conservative ties into this also, I'm a conservative and I'm certainly on the Northern side of this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 09:48 AM
Status: "Here goes nothing." (set 8 hours ago)
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
2,406 posts, read 1,551,693 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29 View Post
Well you can certainly see the emotion this still brings up in people today.

I think in this case it shows how a lot of people intertwine racism in the Civil Rights era with the origins of the civil war. The unfortunate thing is that racism is really everywhere so it can be a dangerous comparison. That being said, in the Southern Collegiate culture, CSA "sympathies" get out of hand and serve as a boorish excuse for racist behavior.

Desertkid, no matter how hard you try to turn your part of Arizona into an extension of the South it is not. Even if there were some Confederate influences 150+ very few in the South would ever consider Arizona at all Southern. I understand why TexasReb has the position he does with the lineage he has et al. I don't really know how being a paleo-conservative ties into this also, I'm a conservative and I'm certainly on the Northern side of this issue.
I'm not trying to turn Arizona into a southern state, I'm just saying that during a time in the Old West there was a STRONG influence in politics and culture. Arizona is definately not in the South, but it sure was in the Confederate States. Being a paleo-Conservative is to quite literally by an "Old Conservative", by that yes it is a right wing position. But paelo-Conservatism puts emphasis on tradition, State's Rights, family, region, and anti-Federalism (if you go back far enough). Paleo-Conservatism is what back then and today had been the main brand of Conservatism in the South. I consider myself a paleo-Conservative because my beliefs are as they are, and they took awhile to develope, and that's why I sympathize with the CSA because they exerted State's Rights by seceding and were wrongfully put down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 10:48 AM
 
481 posts, read 167,870 times
Reputation: 272
Wrongfully put down?

We can argue till we're blue in the face about the causes, but I would certainly hope you find the outcome of the civil war to be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

The South would be worse off if they had won.

Either way here is a New York times article written by a Southerner



"ON Dec. 20, 1860, 169 men — politicians and people of property — met in the ballroom of St. Andrew’s Hall in Charleston, S.C. After hours of debate, they issued the 158-word “Ordinance of Secession,” which repealed the consent of South Carolina to the Constitution and declared the state to be an independent country. Four days later, the same group drafted a seven-page “Declaration of the Immediate Causes,” explaining why they had decided to split the Union.

The authors of these papers flattered themselves that they’d conjured up a second American Revolution. Instead, the Secession Convention was the beginning of the Civil War, which killed some 620,000 Americans; an equivalent war today would send home more than six million body bags.

The next five years will include an all-you-can-eat special of national remembrance. Yet even after 150 years full of grief and pride and anger, we greet the sesquicentennial wondering, why did the South secede?

I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.

South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states ... have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”

Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”

Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”


Several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” Lincoln’s election to the White House meant, for South Carolina, that “the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 02:41 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 375,129 times
Reputation: 247
Thumbs up excellent work as usual

Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29 View Post
Wrongfully put down?

We can argue till we're blue in the face about the causes, but I would certainly hope you find the outcome of the civil war to be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

The South would be worse off if they had won.

Either way here is a New York times article written by a Southerner



"ON Dec. 20, 1860, 169 men — politicians and people of property — met in the ballroom of St. Andrew’s Hall in Charleston, S.C. After hours of debate, they issued the 158-word “Ordinance of Secession,” which repealed the consent of South Carolina to the Constitution and declared the state to be an independent country. Four days later, the same group drafted a seven-page “Declaration of the Immediate Causes,” explaining why they had decided to split the Union.

The authors of these papers flattered themselves that they’d conjured up a second American Revolution. Instead, the Secession Convention was the beginning of the Civil War, which killed some 620,000 Americans; an equivalent war today would send home more than six million body bags.

The next five years will include an all-you-can-eat special of national remembrance. Yet even after 150 years full of grief and pride and anger, we greet the sesquicentennial wondering, why did the South secede?

I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.

South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states ... have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”

Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”

Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”


Several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” Lincoln’s election to the White House meant, for South Carolina, that “the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms."

Great work as usual, empirical evidence even.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 02:45 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 375,129 times
Reputation: 247
Thumbs up great work

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Why then do the Federalist papers, continually evoke three separate groups in them? The Federal Government, the States and the people? It is repeatedly stated throughout those papers that the power of the government is derived by the people, not the states. That the Federal government derives its power from ones that the people surrender and the State governments submit to this authority.

From Federalist #51:
The Federalist #51



From Federalist #46:
The Federalist #46



From Federalist #45:
The Federalist #45
Great work! I was hoping that someone would refer to the Federalist Papers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 03:36 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 375,129 times
Reputation: 247
Default you brought it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
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.
You're the one who brought Arizona up with the 38th, er, 34th parallel stuff. I also lived in rural Arizona and knew some of the folks there, who would cheer everything you say. I can tell you more horror stories. Wanna hear some more? You're only 20 and you've got this all figured out? You are his clone. All your arguments are his arguments, taken from the same source material. You haven't got an independent thought in your head. Your 'arguments' give encouragement to racist folks, who now can say 'yeah, I knew I was right'. You need to go to ASU or the UA and learn to think and research for yourself. And yes, I'm still glad that the guy who got shot and burned was done in. It's what the Old West would call justice. Fortunately, he didn't live long enough to read your 'material'. That would have only encouraged him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 05:42 PM
Status: "Here goes nothing." (set 8 hours ago)
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
2,406 posts, read 1,551,693 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29 View Post
Wrongfully put down?

We can argue till we're blue in the face about the causes, but I would certainly hope you find the outcome of the civil war to be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

The South would be worse off if they had won.

Either way here is a New York times article written by a Southerner



"ON Dec. 20, 1860, 169 men — politicians and people of property — met in the ballroom of St. Andrew’s Hall in Charleston, S.C. After hours of debate, they issued the 158-word “Ordinance of Secession,” which repealed the consent of South Carolina to the Constitution and declared the state to be an independent country. Four days later, the same group drafted a seven-page “Declaration of the Immediate Causes,” explaining why they had decided to split the Union.

The authors of these papers flattered themselves that they’d conjured up a second American Revolution. Instead, the Secession Convention was the beginning of the Civil War, which killed some 620,000 Americans; an equivalent war today would send home more than six million body bags.

The next five years will include an all-you-can-eat special of national remembrance. Yet even after 150 years full of grief and pride and anger, we greet the sesquicentennial wondering, why did the South secede?

I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.

South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states ... have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”

Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”

Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”

Several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” Lincoln’s election to the White House meant, for South Carolina, that “the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms."
Maybe it's my personal biases, but the NYT is like the MSNBC of newspapers, it parrots for the pro-Democrat side of issues and is basically a cheerleader for the current administration, I don't even care for Fox news so please don't call me out on that. But let me ask you this, how many states were in the CSA, I'll tell you, 11 (unofficially 13). You listed a mere PARAGRAPH from only FOUR of the seceding state's Declarations of Secession. Why doesn't South Carolina state anything about slavery being permanent forever? Why not Georgia or Alabama? Texas and Mississippi give *slight* hints towards what they think should permanently be done with blacks, but I suggest you put up the WHOLE FRICKING DOCUMENT AND NOT QUOTE A SINGLE PARAGRAPH FROM THE DOCUMENT AND TAKING THE WORD OF A TRIPE NEWSPAPER!

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego View Post
You're the one who brought Arizona up with the 38th, er, 34th parallel stuff. I also lived in rural Arizona and knew some of the folks there, who would cheer everything you say. I can tell you more horror stories. Wanna hear some more? You're only 20 and you've got this all figured out? You are his clone. All your arguments are his arguments, taken from the same source material. You haven't got an independent thought in your head. Your 'arguments' give encouragement to racist folks, who now can say 'yeah, I knew I was right'. You need to go to ASU or the UA and learn to think and research for yourself. And yes, I'm still glad that the guy who got shot and burned was done in. It's what the Old West would call justice. Fortunately, he didn't live long enough to read your 'material'. That would have only encouraged him.
I do have an independent thought in my body, perhaps a few do have some differing views from him, but outside of the Civil War we haven't discussed too much else. And I do know a thing or two about the Old West, the county I live in was argueably the most violent county in the Arizona Territory until the 1900s, who'dathunk that little Mormonville USA a little more than a hundred years ago would have murder, indian raids, grave robbery, cattle rustling, and more executions per capita than the rest of the territory, even the Wham Paymaster Robbery is still talked about some here. But since you percieve all my views as racist, and you have nothing to back it up and percieve my sympathies with the South as somehow with a racist tinge to them, I don't see how we're going to have this discussion in a civil manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 05:47 PM
 
9,630 posts, read 9,959,528 times
Reputation: 4758
Like I mentioned last night -- and will again tonite! LOL -- I have only very limited time during the workweek to read and reply to posts, so have have to wait until the weekend to write detailed rejoinders However, I usually try to scan and mark some down for future reference as to replies, and this one leapt out at me. So, in the interest of being brief, will just make a few remarks and give a few links...on some days I.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29 View Post
Wrongfully put down? We can argue till we're blue in the face about the causes, but I would certainly hope you find the outcome of the civil war to be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

The South would be worse off if they had won.
How do you know all this? As it is, things might or might not have been better or worse. Or, better in some ways and worse than in others. Who knows? It is alternative history.

Same as if the British had won the American Revolution. And if they had? You would probably have never even noticed it because you would have no point of reference to know positive or negative otherwise. You'd be reading about how jolly jim dandy it was that King George III had saved the British Empire, and most people of the "American Colonies of Great Britain" would have grown up just accepting it and never giving a second thought to what might have been otherwise.

People who argued different would be dismissed as radical "neo-Patriots", and the winners version of both the war, its causes, and the positive consequences of the outcome, would be taken as gospel and taught in every public school in the country (excuse me, latter day colonies! LOL).

Point is, you provide nothing at all as to why things are better with a northern victory in terms of the course of history the country took. Like I mentioned, we simply can't know. But you saying it as if you believe it should be accepted as an unagruable truth beyond argument is not an argrument at all. In fact, it indicates a misplaced smug arrogance sans a foundation to adopt such...

The only think I know for certain is that both sides were proud to be Americans, and both sides believed they had the constitution and principles of the founding fathers on their side.


Quote:
Either way here is a New York times article written by a Southerner
Ok, so you provided the opinion of a Southerner who adopts a pro-Northern position. Is that supposed to blow the world away? (Just out of curiosity, given some of this persons remarks, it is interesting, don't you think, he conveniently does not mention the declaration of causes of those majority of states which never brought up slavery at all? And makes no mention (unless I missed something) of the OTHER causes, by those which did? Cherry-picking hysteria, it seems. And speaking of hysteria...how about this great letter/article) by a NORTHERNER? I mean, if you want to parade out your Southerner, how about here is one from a very astute Northerner!

**********************************************

Flying it draws supporters and critics

THE CONFEDERTE FLAG: History -v- Hysteria

For the average non-Southerner the continued affection residents of Dixie display toward the controversial Battle Flag can be baffling. If African-Americans are so incensed by the banner, why not just fold it up and put it away? Greta Van Susteren of Fox News called for just that and defined the issue a "no-brainer". Why indeed? The war has been over for 137 years. Certain unsavory groups of a racist stripe seem unduly attached to the symbol as well. No one in the print or electronic media seems willing to come forward and offer a counterpoint. Is there another point of view after all?
Newspapers however, have developed the habit of concluding all flag related stories the same way. The throwaway line for the other point of view is usually something like "flag defenders say the banner stands for heritage". But what does that mean? If such an understanding can be developed is it still not overshadowed by prevailing negative opinions? Can a symbol so emotionally charged ever be mutually understood?

Therein lies the problem. The very same symbol means completely different things to different people. Perhaps the best place to start is there. Many hate groups have gravitated toward the historical flag. But it is also true these very same groups also use other symbols that are loved and cherished by millions of people. The pinnacle of the Ku Klux Klan was in the 1920s. They boasted over a million members with national leadership in Ohio and Illinois. Yet the most careful photographic scrutiny of the era will fail to reveal a single Confederate flag. One will however find the American flag and the Christian cross in profusion. These symbols are mainstays even today for hate groups. The difference is that patriotic Americans and Christians already have a context for these symbols. The icons cannot be co-opted because they already mean something else. This is also precisely why Southerners continue to love the Battle flag in the face of so much bad publicity. The flag already has meaning and context.

In fact, what the shamrock is to the Irish or the Star of David is to Jews, the Battle Flag is to most Southerners. There is enough historical baggage to encumber any of these symbols, but there is more to admire. The Confederate flag embodies religion, ethnic heritage, early-American revolutionary ideology and ultimately familial sacrifice on the battlefield. The circumstances that gave it birth are the touchstone of the regions identity, no different than the potato famine for the Irish or the holocaust for the Jew. To examine the flag, in historical and ethnic context should permit all but the most rabid flag-haters an opportunity to understand what is behind the vague explanation of "heritage".

While the Battle flag did not make its appearance in its recognizable form until 1862, some of the design elements date to antiquity. The "X" is the cross of St. Andrew. It was the fisherman Andrew who introduced his brother Simon Peter to Jesus in Galilee 2000 years ago. When the disciple Andrew was himself martyred years later he asked not to be crucified on the same type of cross Christ died upon. His last request was honored and he was put to death on a cross on the shape of the "X". Andrew later became the patron saint of Scotland and the Scottish flag today is the white St. Andrews cross on a blue field. When Scottish immigrants settled in Northern Ireland in the 1600s the cross was retained on their new flag, albeit a red St. Andrews cross on a white field. When the New World opened up landless Scots and Ulster-Scots lefts their homes and most of them settled in the South, preserving their old culture in the isolated rural and frontier environment

Grady McWhiney explains in his book Cracker Culture, that fully 75% of the early South was populated by these Celts. Most sold themselves into indentured servitude (the earliest form of American slavery) because they could not afford the cost of passage. This explains why only 6% of the African slaves brought to the New World ended up in the American colonies. The lowland English of Saxon descent by contrast settled the Northeastern colonies. This imbued those colonies with such an English character they are still known as New England. Urban, commercial and materialistic by nature these Yankee descendants could not have been more different than their Southern countrymen. Many historians believe the longstanding historical animosities between Saxon and Celt did not bode well for the new country. With this historical perspective the St. Andrews cross seems almost destined to be raised again as ancient rivals clashed on new battlefields.

From this Celtic stock, the ingredients that made the unique Southern stew were gradually introduced. The American Revolution unleashed Celtic hatred of the redcoat. Southerners penned the Declaration of Independence, chased the British through the Carolina's and defeated them at Yorktown. But they were dismayed when New England immediately sought renewed trade with England and failed to support the French in their own revolution. Another Virginian later crafted the Constitution, a document as sacred to Southerners as their Bibles. Law, they believed finally checkmated tyranny. The red, white and blue 13-starred banner was their new cherished flag. These same features would later become a permanent part of the Battle flag.

But all was not well with the new republic. Mistrust between the regions manifested even before the revolution was over. The unwieldy Articles of Confederation preceded the constitution. Two of the former colonies (N.C and R.I.) had to be coerced into approving the latter document after wrangling that included northern insistence they be allowed to continue the slave trade another 20 years. Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions in 1796 asserting their belief that political divorce was an explicit right. Massachusetts threatened on three separate occasions to secede, a right affirmed by all the New England states at the 1818 Hartford convention. The abolitionists were champions of secession and would burn copies of the constitution at their rallies. Their vicious attacks upon all things Southern occurring as it did in the midst of Northern political and economic ascendancy animated Southern secessionists years before the average Southerner could consider such a possibility.

Meanwhile Low Church Protestantism had taken root in the South in the early 1800's and like kudzu has flourished until the present day. Sociological studies conducted by John Shelton Reed of the University of North Carolina scientifically prove that the South is still the nations most religious region. Southerners are more likely to belong, attend and contribute to their churches than Americans from any other section. Calvinism is the main strain of religious thought and this connection to Scotland and the St. Andrews cross is no coincidence. The religious revivals that swept the Confederate armies during the war further ingrained faith as a fixture of Southern character. During the same era north of the Mason-Dixon transcendentalism, as expounded by Thoreau and Emerson, the taproot of modern secular humanism, was displacing puritanical religion as the dominant philosophical belief. The nation was also fracturing along spiritual lines.

By 1860 the United States was in reality two countries living miserably under one flag. When war broke out, Dixie's' original banner so resembled the old American forebear that a new flag was needed to prevent confusion on the field of battle. The blue St. Andrews cross, trimmed in white on a red field appeared above the defending Confederate army. Thirteen stars appeared on those bars representing the eleven seceding states and revolutionary precedent. These fighting units were all recruited from the same communities, with lifelong friends and close relatives among the casualties of every battle. As they buried their dead friends and relatives the names of those battles were painted or stitched on their flags. At Appomattox a Union observer wrote, they were stoic as they stacked their arms but wept bitterly when they had to furl their flags.

Then, as now the flag symbolizes for Southerners not hate but love; love of heritage, love of faith, love of constitutional protections, love of family and community. If the 1860 census is to be believed 95% of the slaves were owned by just 5% of the population. The modern insistence that the conflict was to resolve the issue of slavery is at best overstated and at worst revisionist. But the current argument does deserve one more look.

The vitriolic, almost irrational antipathy toward the flag is a recent phenomenon. Credible research reveals its origins to be in the 1980's revived by a financially strained and scandal plagued NAACP. Current President, Kwaise Mfume has turned the issue into a fundraising juggernaut. Egged on by a liberal media irritated at the lingering conservatism in the South, the flag fight has generated much heat but little light. South Carolina relocated the flag from its capital dome to a place of historical significance after they decided it flew in a position of false sovereignty. Governor Hodges became the second governor in a row whose broken promises to "leave the flag alone" scuttled their reelection bids. Former Governor Barnes of Georgia finessed a backroom flag deal that for now has changed the flag but sank his rising political star as outraged citizens sent him to retirement in the 2002 elections. In Mississippi, however, the thing was put to an old fashioned democratic vote. By a 2 to 1 margin and outspent 10 to 1 they voted to keep the state flag, which features the Battle flag. In fact, three times more African-Americans voted to keep the flag than voted for President Bush. Mississippians speak for all Southerners when they say "It's our symbol, its our heritage and therefore our choice".

In the end what people choose to believe about the flag is just that, a choice. One can accept the interpretation of entire states, Southern rock and country bands, NASCAR fans, Kappa Alpha fraternities, thousands of reenactors and a century of thoughtful historians. People can also embrace the interpretation of a few pathetic racists and an opportunistic civil rights organization well amplified by a sympathetic media. Like all choices its says less about the object than it does about the person Perhaps only the Irishman can define the shamrock, or a Jew explain the Star of David. Are not Southerners entitled to the same latitude?

**********************************************

Finally, here is a link you might want to look over as concerns slavery in the United States. Pay special attention to those sub-links concerning Northern profits off slavery, Emancipation in the North, and Denying the Past. Here is the main article (sub-links on the left):

Slavery in the North

OK, time to eat and watch TV and read and hit the sack. May or may not be back on here until the weekend. The initial workweek after summer vacation is always hell! LOL Everyone -- friend and "foe" alike! -- have a good evening...Good night, y'all!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 08-16-2011, 06:27 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 375,129 times
Reputation: 247
Default to the point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
Maybe it's my personal biases, but the NYT is like the MSNBC of newspapers, it parrots for the pro-Democrat side of issues and is basically a cheerleader for the current administration, I don't even care for Fox news so please don't call me out on that. But let me ask you this, how many states were in the CSA, I'll tell you, 11 (unofficially 13). You listed a mere PARAGRAPH from only FOUR of the seceding state's Declarations of Secession. Why doesn't South Carolina state anything about slavery being permanent forever? Why not Georgia or Alabama? Texas and Mississippi give *slight* hints towards what they think should permanently be done with blacks, but I suggest you put up the WHOLE FRICKING DOCUMENT AND NOT QUOTE A SINGLE PARAGRAPH FROM THE DOCUMENT AND TAKING THE WORD OF A TRIPE NEWSPAPER!



I do have an independent thought in my body, perhaps a few do have some differing views from him, but outside of the Civil War we haven't discussed too much else. And I do know a thing or two about the Old West, the county I live in was argueably the most violent county in the Arizona Territory until the 1900s, who'dathunk that little Mormonville USA a little more than a hundred years ago would have murder, indian raids, grave robbery, cattle rustling, and more executions per capita than the rest of the territory, even the Wham Paymaster Robbery is still talked about some here. But since you percieve all my views as racist, and you have nothing to back it up and percieve my sympathies with the South as somehow with a racist tinge to them, I don't see how we're going to have this discussion in a civil manner.

You're defending slavery, which as a Christian I take as a moral issue. I'm thinking about the folks that one way or another were taken by force and packed into slave ships. When brought to the African shore they all were stripped by rough white men. Every nook and cranny was examined, even the women. Many women were raped by the crew on the way over. Both men and women committed suicide by jumping into the sea. When they reached the shores of the U.S. they were stripped and examined again to see how they could work and breed. Even the most benevolent slavery was enforced by the whip and lash. Families were continually torn apart at the owners' whim. But even after the War, whites found that the blacks were still the most efficient workers. An old black gent lived across from me when I was growing up. His great grand-dad and 9 others from the same slave-owner fled Missouri in 1863 and enlisted in the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry. They fought like hell for their freedom and that of the other 4 million slaves. Sadly, only 2 came back. Three were killed and the others died of disease. They were the true heroes but nobody knows or cares. I have better hopes for you. The Civil War was about black people. It's not about stupid whites on both sides. It's about black people. Immerse yourself in black history for a year or two. It will make you a better American and a better man.
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 $74,000 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. The time now is 08:48 AM.

© 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