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.
Where do you get the idea that 'half the country' was excluded from choosing the leader? Did you take all of your history courses from Jefferson Davis Junior College?
Every state 'participated'. Had Lincoln been on the ballot in the Southern states, he would have received even more votes.
The British government eventually offered concessions that would have given the Colonies representation in the government but that didn't change the fact they wanted independence and a government that represented them. The South may have participated, but they had no power and were not represented by the government by 1860. The North was crippling their economy in order to force a market for their products, and the South shouldered the burden of the majority of federal taxes. If people have no way to control their government and stop others from destroying their economy, why shouldn't they form a better government?
Yes, that's true. Another major reason for secession was the fear that the federal government, dominated by Northern urban interests, would make laws and take actions that were detrimental to Southern agrarian interests. When a President is elected to head the country, it's nice when every region gets a chance to vote on that President. It's disturbing when half the country selects a President, and the other half is excluded from that process. The nation didn't vote for Lincoln. The North did. Lincoln wasn't even on the ballots in Southern states. If the North could impose the President of their choice on the South, what else might they impose? It's a legitimate question.
Yep. Jefferson in the 1820's was saying the country should be split so the Northern industrialists would not destroy the rural, agrarian, South. Jefferson saw all the horrors of the industrial revolution (people who talk about slavery really should read about what was going on in the Northern cities, neither was good at all) and the undue influence and power of rich industrialists and wanted none of it. He believed an agrarian country would tend to be more free. He was correct. To this day the most urban dominated states are the least free. Furthermore, these urban areas dominate and many people elsewhere suffer because of it.
It did however play a major role. A major reason for secession in the first place was due to fear that Lincoln would outlaw slavery.
No, it was taxation (the South paid the most federal taxes despite having a lower population), lack of representation (the North could ram things through and the South was helpless), economics (industrialism versus an agrarian economy), and a president (lincoln) who wanted to create a larger and more pwoerful federal government. Lincoln himself acted like a dictator many times, unconstitutionally imprisoning and executing people who disagreed with him, for instance, and declaring habeas corpus suspended when he had no such power. He even tried to have Chief Justice Taney arrested when he tried to protect habeas corpus from lincoln.
How come you aren't moving to Arkansas instead of Alaska? There aren't any confederate monuments in Alaska. I don't care what you say because if I ever go to the South and see a confederate monument I will probably throw an egg at it or maybe a tomato like the one that hit Sarah Palin
How come you aren't moving to Arkansas instead of Alaska? There aren't any confederate monuments in Alaska. I don't care what you say because if I ever go to the South and see a confederate monument I will probably throw an egg at it or maybe a tomato like the one that hit Sarah Palin
Wonderfully mature...stay in CA if you can't resist doing childish acts of vandalism, those sorts of things don't fly in the Eastern states.
Alaska has taken a stand against the feds on more than one occasion and very nearly seceded in the early 1980's with what Carter did to the state, had some major concessions not been made in the giant federal lands bill things might be very different today.
nah, keep 'em up. I'm a yankee in North Carolina. I despise what the confederacy stood for, but the monuments are an interesting bit of history and I don't get rankled about it. And I agree with liberalvoice. They can serve as a reminder of our past mistakes.
Confederate flags, on the other hand....I'm a little pickier about those.
nah, keep 'em up. I'm a yankee in North Carolina. I despise what the confederacy stood for, but the monuments are an interesting bit of history and I don't get rankled about it. And I agree with liberalvoice. They can serve as a reminder of our past mistakes.
Confederate flags, on the other hand....I'm a little pickier about those.
Me too. Now I want to see a confederate flag just so I can tear it up. Lucky for confederate rebels that there aren't any confederate flags in California.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,758,986 times
Reputation: 3587
You are going to have a hell of a time tearing down Stone Mountain. Confederate monuments and cemeterys are fine. The Confederate battle flag is NOT. It should be removed from ALL state flags and public properties. If it is a Confederate memorial, the REAL Confederate flag should be flown lower than the USA flag
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,758,986 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81
nah, keep 'em up. I'm a yankee in North Carolina. I despise what the confederacy stood for, but the monuments are an interesting bit of history and I don't get rankled about it. And I agree with liberalvoice. They can serve as a reminder of our past mistakes.
Confederate flags, on the other hand....I'm a little pickier about those.
True. Most people do not know it but the "confederate flag" they think of with the St Andrews Cross is NOT the REAL confederate flag. It was a battle flag used by the Confederate Army in the Civil War. This was because the REAL Confederate flag looked too much like the union banner on the battlefields of the Civil War.
Forrest was named leader by others because he was such a hero to Southerners but had no real role himself in the Klan. Initially the KLan had legitimate reasons for its existence (lots of nasty things being done by carpetbaggers). They soon turned into a violent terrorist group. When that happened Forrest actively opposed the Klan. In his later years he actively promoted improving relations between Whites and Blacks. Forrest was no racist KKK member.
I notice no defense of his ante-bellum occupation, nor of the war crimes he committed at Fort Pillow.
And nothing changes the fact that he was the first Imperial Wizard of the KKK. An altogether despicable human being, so it's not surprising that he's a hero of the 'old South'.
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.
