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.
Well, since it was decided back in 1861 not to let us go in peace, I think we might stick around awhile (and of course, it is Southerners who have always served disproportionately in our nation's armed forces). But anyhow, as to your sentiments -- and speaking hypothetically -- I would imagine almost all Southerners would agree to the "no slaves" stipulation.
And naturally, it would be expected that the North not resume the slave-trade itself.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Oh come on! You'd be a lot happier with your own country! You could elect one of your own 'kind' as President, wouldn't have to pay any more taxes, dispense with that annoying Fourteenth amedment, and generally have the kind of country "y'all" envisioned way back in 1861. And you could re-instate all of those popular Jim Crow laws!
I think it's the perfect solution for everybody. You get the kind of country you want and the rest of us get the kind of country we want. There might be some initial shifting of population both ways, but that's all to the good. We've been two separate countries for some time now, might as well make it official.
As for Southerners in the military, well we did prove we could win one big war without you so I imagine we'll survive.
Oh come on! You'd be a lot happier with your own country! You could elect one of your own 'kind' as President, wouldn't have to pay any more taxes, dispense with that annoying Fourteenth amedment, and generally have the kind of country "y'all" envisioned way back in 1861. And you could re-instate all of those popular Jim Crow laws!
I think it's the perfect solution for everybody. You get the kind of country you want and the rest of us get the kind of country we want. There might be some initial shifting of population both ways, but that's all to the good. We've been two separate countries for some time now, might as well make it official.
As for Southerners in the military, well we did prove we could win one big war without you so I imagine we'll survive.
Boy it is evident that at some point in your past a southerner got DEEP under your skin because you are more bitter than ANY southerner I've ever met...
What on earth does any southerner have to be bitter about? They made war on the United States, were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and at the end of the day paid no price except the loss of their slaves. Ten years after the war it was business as usual, with the South still having far too much influence on the nation, as they had since the Revolution. They re-instituted the old way of life with sharecroppers instead of slaves and managed to keep the blacks as second class human beings through their Jim Crow laws for a hundred years.
Bitter? They should be celebrating the fact that they lost a war to people who weren't vindictive.
What on earth does any southerner have to be bitter about? They made war on the United States, were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and at the end of the day paid no price except the loss of their slaves.
Who said Southerners are bitter? As Rhett said, YOU are the one who seems bitter. Hell, I am not bitter and don't know any who are (although I like to challenge revisionist history such as you present on this thread and others).
At the end, Lee told his soldiers, in effect, we fought the good fight but the issue is settled. It is now your duty to go home and become good citizens of the re-united country. Most did just that. It wasn't the outcome of the war, but the vindictiveness of Reconstruction that caused the problems.
The Confederacy did not "make war" on the "United States." In fact, the whole way you phrase it is faulty. When the Southern states seceded, they had no desire whatsoever to seperate themselves from the basic prinicples of the DOI or the Constitution (the CSA constitution is almost a duplicate of the original...which in turn was mostly written by Southerners). On the contrary, they simply wanted to seperate themselves from a political connection with northern states who kept the name "United States" only by default. Secession may have been foolhardy, unwise, and/or rash action, but it wasn't treason (and this by the reluctant admission of certain northern officials) and it wasn't an attack upon the foundations of the United States as understood to exist at the time. It was Southern states against Northern states.
Quote:
Ten years after the war it was business as usual, with the South still having far too much influence on the nation, as they had since the Revolution. They re-instituted the old way of life with sharecroppers instead of slaves and managed to keep the blacks as second class human beings through their Jim Crow laws for a hundred years.
The only difference in de-jure (i.e. Jim Crow) laws in the South as opposed to de-facto in the North is that the former were just less hypocritical about it. To say otherwise is just more revisionist history (or fooling yourself).
Quote:
Bitter? They should be celebrating the fact that they lost a war to people who weren't vindictive.
In a certain sense you are right. Most northerners had no desire to keep this thing going (and for sure the veterans of each army had a tremendous respect for the other). Finally, a majority got sick and tired of the increasingly obvious fact the Radical Reconstructionists were just waving the bloody shirt (Waving the bloody shirt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and using blacks in the South as a tool to keep themselves in power.
Oh come on! You'd be a lot happier with your own country! You could elect one of your own 'kind' as President, wouldn't have to pay any more taxes, dispense with that annoying Fourteenth amedment, and generally have the kind of country "y'all" envisioned way back in 1861. And you could re-instate all of those popular Jim Crow laws!
Who is "our own kind?" LMAO. C'mon, get over it Angus, the days of playing that old "lynching" canard are long since past.
Today, it is in the South (generally defined as the 11 Old Confederate states plus Oklahoma and Kentucky) where blacks and whites express the most optomistic sentiments so far as race-relations are concerned. And too, where there are, per capita, the most blacks elected to public office. And the South today is the least segregated region.
*Just as an after-thought* Who gave Collin Powell the most support the year he announced to run for president? White Southerners...that's who.
Bottom line is, you really should get a grip or take anger-management classes when it comes to the South. Of course, maybe you might just like/revel in this type stuff. Who knows?
Quote:
As for Southerners in the military, well we did prove we could win one big war without you so I imagine we'll survive.
Welllll, I guess you have a point there. But then again, given the over 3-1 advantage in manpower and gawd knows how much more in resources, it sure took y'all a helluva of a long time to do it.
Who said Southerners are bitter? As Rhett said, YOU are the one who seems bitter. Hell, I am not bitter and don't know any who are (although I like to challenge revisionist history such as you present on this thread and others).
At the end, Lee told his soldiers, in effect, we fought the good fight but the issue is settled. It is now your duty to go home and become good citizens of the re-united country. Most did just that. It wasn't the outcome of the war, but the vindictiveness of Reconstruction that caused the problems.
The Confederacy did not "make war" on the "United States." In fact, the whole way you phrase it is faulty. When the Southern states seceded, they had no desire whatsoever to seperate themselves from the basic prinicples of the DOI or the Constitution (the CSA constitution is almost a duplicate of the original...which in turn was mostly written by Southerners). On the contrary, they simply wanted to seperate themselves from a political connection with northern states who kept the name "United States" only by default. Secession may have been foolhardy, unwise, and/or rash action, but it wasn't treason (and this by the reluctant admission of certain northern officials) and it wasn't an attack upon the foundations of the United States as understood to exist at the time. It was Southern states against Northern states.
The only difference in de-jure (i.e. Jim Crow) laws in the South as opposed to de-facto in the North is that the former were just less hypocritical about it. To say otherwise is just more revisionist history (or fooling yourself).
In a certain sense you are right. Most northerners had no desire to keep this thing going (and for sure the veterans of each army had a tremendous respect for the other). Finally, a majority got sick and tired of the increasingly obvious fact the Radical Reconstructionists were just waving the bloody shirt (Waving the bloody shirt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and using blacks in the South as a tool to keep themselves in power.
You're right. The South did not make war on the North. It was Canadians who fired on Fort Sumpter, thereby starting everything. And slavery? Never happened! It's just revisionist history by those damned Yankees!
It's your friend who brought up southern bitterness, not me.
The bottom line is the South attempted to destroy the United States for the worst reason imaginable - the right to buy and sell other human beings - and you still won't admit it. Instead you try and cloak this in some sort of nobility that it most certainly doesn't deserve.
However, I repeat. I'm with you as far as you guys having your own country. Having been stationed in the South for a blessedly short period of time while in the military, I can attest to the fact that you really are different and you probably should have your own country.
I'm on your side on this one.
The stuff about Colin Powell is amusing. Take a look at the electoral map from the 2008 election, and while you look at it keep in mind the fact that Barack Obama got about 95% of the black vote. Guess that didn't leave many white folks down there voting for him, did it?
As I said, we're two separate countries already. Not a single Repbublican member of the House of Representatives from anywhere in New England; Solid red color for the deep south; etc. etc.
it's amazing how dark and evil the heart of man or even nature can be. even if all or most practiced some form of slavery in the past, it's just so abhorrently cruel. you have to be a nasty or cruel hearted person to do that. to use another life that feels pain and thier life wasted in suffering and hardship without hope, without their own dreams, without thier own fulfillment for another's gain is just horribly sad and in essence defiles the sanctity or sacred meaning of life. to value and understand life is to know empathy deeply actually. modern slavery exists today and human trafficking is big business.
Not at all true. The black slaves were thought of by their owners and exploiters as sub-human, and as such, were seen in much the same way as horses and oxen, with a commensurate sense of cruelty associated with their treatment.
You're right. The South did not make war on the North. It was Canadians who fired on Fort Sumpter, thereby starting everything. And slavery? Never happened! It's just revisionist history by those damned Yankees!
*grins* Neat way of side-stepping. When all else fails, use irony and sarcasm and hope it fools somebody...
Quote:
It's your friend who brought up southern bitterness, not me.
Sorry, won't work. What Rhett said was that you (and I agree) seem more bitter than ANY Southerner ever does/has over the outcome of the War. Go back and read.
Quote:
The bottom line is the South attempted to destroy the United States for the worst reason imaginable - the right to buy and sell other human beings - and you still won't admit it. Instead you try and cloak this in some sort of nobility that it most certainly doesn't deserve.
That "destroy the United States" has already been addressed. And so far as buying and selling human beings? Did you not read the earlier links provided? If not, here is one for your reading enjoyment on this fine Saturday evening:
However, I repeat. I'm with you as far as you guys having your own country. Having been stationed in the South for a blessedly short period of time while in the military, I can attest to the fact that you really are different and you probably should have your own country.
My sincere respect for your service to our country. But why do you keep on with this "having our own country' stuff? We Southerners HAVE our own country. It is the United States of America.
Do YOU have a problem with that one? If so, please explain why?
Get over your ABM (angry black man) Angus. I don't know where you come from, but nobody -- least of all me -- is impressed nor intimidated by it.
Reb, no matter how much you dodge and weave, the south seceded from the union over the issue of slavery, and then attacked a federal installation to start a war. You guys thought slavery was important enough to secede from the Union and by attacking a U.S. Army Fort, the south knew that there could be only one response from the President.
I thought Grandstander gave a pretty good summary of the reasons for the Civil War earlier in this thread:
The only time such a war was threatened was in the 1830's and South Carolina triggering the nullification crisis. That was a dispute which centered on tariffs, which defined the industrial/agricultural divide. Immediately after President Jackson indicated that hee would use the military to assert Federal authority in South Carolina, the nullifiers backed down.
So, what is your evidence that the industrial/agricultural differences were sufficient to have triggered a war?
I think that your theory is predicated upon a misunderstanding of the actual cause of the Civil War. Slavery defined the sides in the war, but the cause of the eruption of the fighting was a threat to political power. The South departed the Union because they lost an election to the party which promised to end the expansion of slavery, which would gurantee that the Slave voting bloc would get more and more outnumbered as the Union continued to expand and create more new states. Where once a minority had been able to flex more political muscle than the majority, now that minority was going to be reduced to politcal impotency.
And that was worth a fight to the Southerners.
The threatened poltical power could only exist as long as there was an issue around which they were unified, and that issue was the support of slavery. It wasn't anti big government, it wasn't pro agriculture, it wasn't immigration or any of the other differences between North and South...it was slavery.
The US had been blessed with a well functioning two party system based on the commonality of interests and ideologies among their supporters. It was an issue based divide. The dispute over the political power which sprang from slavery altered that and replaced the functioning system with a dysfunctional, regionalized version of it which was unable to resolve disputes peacefully.
And war followed. A war over political power. A war over political power which was predicated upon slavery. No one was going to war over national railroads or high tariffs.
You want to believe the fiction you've grown up with, be my guest.
In fact, isn't it your Governor who thinks secession is still a pretty good idea?
After reading this, I see where you guys get your idea of history from.
One thing I can say with almost absolute certainty. Your country isn't the same one as mine. You have different social values, different views on race, and certainly different views on politics. I'm guessing we have virtually nothing in common on any social or political issues.
I read your websites. I take notice when you have your little secession rallies at your state capitol. And I support you. Go for it.
Last edited by Angus Podgorny; 10-24-2009 at 12:00 AM..
Reb, no matter how much you dodge and weave, the south seceded from the union over the issue of slavery, and then attacked a federal installation to start a war. You guys thought slavery was important enough to secede from the Union and go to war over. I'm wondering if any civilized group of people has ever gone to war over a worse reason?
Here's the thing, Angus, no matter how much you want to persist in your revisionist history, the existence of slavery in the South was dependent on the slave trade in the North. After all, somebody had to get them there, and not a single slave ship was ever chartered out of a Southern port. So can we start from there? Please justify the Northern slave trade.
Here you can read the whole appalling history of it:
You want to believe the fiction you've grown up with, be my guest. I find the new south not a hell of a lot different from the old south, when you were lynching black people for wanting to vote.
Sure I will be your guest. You can be mine as well. We will have a beer or two and and listen to some good music... country and blues. Meanwhile? Can you tell me the last year there was a lynching in the South?
Quote:
In fact, isn't it your state where the local sport is dragging a black man behind a pickup truck?
Seem like when it comes to the sport of dragging folks to death, we in Texas ain't particular. For instance:
A SLAUGHTER THAT NO ONE NOTICED (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/aslaught.htm - broken link)
Quote:
And isn't it your Governor who thinks secession is still a pretty good idea?
I thought it was you who thought it (secession) was a good idea. Which is it? You or the govs?
Quote:
One thing I can say with almost absolute certainty. Your country isn't the same one as mine. You have different social values, different views on race, and certainly different views on politics. I'm guessing we have virtually nothing in common on any social or political issues.
I read your websites. I take notice when you have your little secession rallies at your state capitol. And I support you. Go for it.
We appreciate it, Angus!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And slavery? Never happened! It's just revisionist history by those damned Yankees!
