Why not Richmond ?

[nikkayx333]

Originally Posted by Deeman804

They fought for slavery (yeah, yeah, and some other stuff too). Also, they lost. No one wants to be capitol of the losers. Still love Richmond, but for soo many other reasons.

Correction: They fought for states right...the right to slavery being one of them but none the less, for states rights. Read Lincolns quotes...he's been quoted as saying that he wanted to send African Americans back to Africa. Of course not many people know about it because you only hear about things from the Northern perspective. And btw, we may have lost but if you really pay attention, who actually won more #'s of battles? The South. Hm...

[richmondpics]

Do we really need to debate the Civil War in this thread?

[NowInCT]

Originally Posted by nikkayx333

Correction: They fought for states right...the right to slavery being one of them but none the less, for states rights. Read Lincolns quotes...he's been quoted as saying that he wanted to send African Americans back to Africa. Of course not many people know about it because you only hear about things from the Northern perspective. And btw, we may have lost but if you really pay attention, who actually won more #'s of battles? The South. Hm...

Please... Please stop saying the Civil War was about States Rights, and not slavery. It just makes you look ridiculous.

This is from Mississippi Declaration of Casues of Seccation:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

This, and others can be found here:
Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

These are not the views of Northerners giving you their opionion. These are the words of the Leadership of the Souther States at the time they seccessed.

The Texas one is even worse....

a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time

And the US won just about every battle in Vietnam... that didn't rurn out so well either.

[Deeman804]

Originally Posted by richmondpics

Do we really need to debate the Civil War in this thread?

No we really don't. My comment was not to be malicious against those who feel close to the confederacy. My point is that outsiders from most places do not feel comfortable in a place that honors those who fought for slavery. Whether you believe it was a big or small part, millions of slaves died and it was a part of the Civil War.

Earlier, I made an anology with the Richmond and Berlin. The Nazis too did not fight for solely for genocide but it did happen and it was an atrocity. Same is true for slavery, it did happen, it was an atrocity. War broke out and the South LOST. All reasons for an outsider not for feel comfortable, just as it was mentioned by Skratch who is not from Richmond. All which ties back to the original post "Why not Richmond?"

As Richmonders, we have been taught about the civil war from a skewed perspective and it is only natural for some folks to be offended when opposing views are brought up about the civil war.

[nikkayx333]

Originally Posted by NowInCT

Please... Please stop saying the Civil War was about States Rights, and not slavery. It just makes you look ridiculous.

This is from Mississippi Declaration of Casues of Seccation:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

This, and others can be found here:
Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

These are not the views of Northerners giving you their opionion. These are the words of the Leadership of the Souther States at the time they seccessed.

The Texas one is even worse....

a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time

And the US won just about every battle in Vietnam... that didn't rurn out so well either.

I'm just gonna agree to disagree because I don't see it that way. No point in arguing & it's not the topic of this post.

[Yankeerose00]

Are there really people who believe that slavery was not an issue in the Civil War? I mean, was it 100% about slavery? Of course not. Yes it was about "states' rights" but slavery was one of those rights being fought for. Ergo....the Civil War was about slavery among other things.

But anyway....

but you hear everything about charlotte & ATL,

okay, Atlanta is a huge city. One cannot compare Richmond to Atlanta. Maybe DC to Atlanta is a better comparison.
And I'm not being snarky, I'm really curious, what does Charlotte have that Richmond does not? Honestly, I just found Charlotte overrated and overcrowded. I didn't see one thing that the city had that Richmond didn't. A very nice city, but not the place it's made out to be.

[joe of the south]

I'm from Columbia, SC and now live in Richmond. It is a typical Southern city, average in many ways but better in many ways too compared with other cities. I couldn't imagine living in the hell hole cities of New Jersey or Connecticut or any place in the North East for that matter. The taxes here are reasonable. It is close to the mountains, coast, DC, and in my case SC where my family resides. If money and family weren't issues then I would probably desire to live in one of the Rocky Mountain states. I lived in the Milwaukee area for more than a decade. While I miss my friends and the fun parts of Milwaukee, I do not miss its myriad of problems and crazy tax structures. Richmond is what you make of it. Like most average cities, it has its above average surburban areas to live and play in.

[starkt]

Richmond sounds like a great place to live.

Green grass, four-season climate tilting to the warm side, smoker friendly, and not politically correct.

Then, just throw in the history, getting ten times as much house as you can get in California for the same money, and a decent amount of the arts and culture, and I'm there!

Now tell me where I'm going wrong.

[sls76]

Originally Posted by starkt

Richmond sounds like a great place to live.

Green grass, four-season climate tilting to the warm side, smoker friendly, and not politically correct.

Then, just throw in the history, getting ten times as much house as you can get in California for the same money, and a decent amount of the arts and culture, and I'm there!

Now tell me where I'm going wrong.

I'm not sure I'd consider it smoker friendly. I rarely see anyone smoking here.

Also, I'm not sure where you get the impression it's not PC. While it's not over-the-top PC like the left coast, it's not terribly conservative either.

I think you're correct on your other points although I'm not sure about real estate being 10x less expensive (hyperbole?). Real estate being cheap / expensive is certainly relative, though, and coming from CA or the NE, people tend to find it cheap.