[QUOTE=xrayzebra]And why exactly are southern whites so damn proud of their ancestors' being traitors to America in the first place? [/UNQUOTE]
Traitors in what sense. Much of the fight was about States Rights.
Yes, slavery was part of it. Many were not
so happy about Lincoln (The Federal Government) telling them
could not leave the union. As a matter of fact: "All slaves in the Confederacy were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which stipulated that slaves in Confederate-held areas, but not in border states or in Washington, D.C., were free. Slaves in the border states and Union-controlled parts of the South were freed by state action or by the Thirteenth Amendment, although slavery effectively ended in the U.S. in the spring of 1865." (Taken from
Wikipedia American Civil War. So I hardly find the Southerners
as traitors. They had a valid reason for going to war, in their
estimation.
This just further proves that one man's enemy/traitor/terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.
I'm going to say what many people on your side of the political spectrum always say to "liberals." If they didn't like America and/or its policies, then they could of just simply left for another country, nobody was forcing them to stay.
Some of them actually did go to Brazil, because of its grand commitment to states' rights... oops, actually it was because slavery was still legal there, until 1883.
There are still some of their descendants down there. They have a festival every year where they burn Abraham Lincoln in effigy.
Call it rationalizing if you will. I originally floated the idea that they were lariats rather than nooses for a few reasons. First of all, I read over 30 articles on the subject and noted things not covered in the mainstream. Second of all, the later events were said to have noting to do with the incident of the nooses. Now take into account those who got in trouble for the nooses were on the rodeo team. Initial calls for expulsion were reduced to suspension. Then the fact that we have a civil rights member calling for action to be taken, and then states attorney general said no crime was committed, even though it would be a definite hate crime in Louisiana if they were nooses! With the demand for justice, and none taken, either the Louisiana governor kept the race crime charges from happening, or... they were lassos!
It's not a lame rationalization! It makes perfect sense. If, with all the public attention now, they were nooses... Charges would be expected , right? Not past the statute of limitations now, is it?
The interpretation of some people does not cons ute fact.
As horrifying as we view it today, slavery was not illegal, and even acknowledged in our cons ution.
I don't have those answers, especially as you are twisting what I mean. I am not trying to place right or wrong on the issue of slavery. I am only defending the cons utional rights of the south, as acknowledged by the tenth amendment:
This amendment was brought into life, revived from the Articles of Confederation:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Cons ution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
The powers of the federal government were violating these agreements with the states, and the southern states rebelled. Those in the south are proud of their legal and proper rebellion.Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Actually, it is the north that were traitors to the cons ution and the south were the true patriots. Yes, slavery was an evil doing. Still, it was legal.
How can you believe such a thing? I used to think the south was wrong, until I learned more of the facts.
Yes... I wish the south won! Perhaps we would still have states rights, and a federal government less than 1/10th the size of what it is today. I am sick and tired of the degree of power congress exercises upon us. That power was never meant to be, and why we had a revolutionary war.
I just love how people jump into conclusions and think they know everything. Any idea how idiotic you are in my eyes?
I do rebel at times, but for selfless reasons. It is the liberals who are selfish. The Me, Me, Me at ude. What can the government do for them...
A swastika used by the Germans was specific in color and directional orientation, whereas the swastikas it came from in the Hindu traditions were either right handed or left handed, often had other symbols in the areas within, and generally of other colors. Comparing the swastika with the confederate flag is like comparing squares and rectangles. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is rarely a square.
There are only a limited number of confederate flag designs as with the German swastika. The Hindus had endless designs for their swastika as it is a pattern. Not a symbol. There was often text written in the four sections also. I should have also specified the battle flag rather than the confederate flag. That is what I meant anyway.
In some ways you are right. The swastika became a symbol of Germany which was of oppression. The battle flag was used by states that practiced oppression.
Many people still see the battle flag as a symbol of states rights, and of history. It is still part of the Mississippi flag as well.
The swastika was the symbol of an evil empire. The confederate flag was not. The people who flew the confederate flag in days past and today are not racists just because they fly it. I have never heard of someone using the specific German swastika in any use other than in Nazism. Have you?
If you are to apply the confederate flag to racism, then you must apply all symbols of the period and area as such also. Why isn't that done? My thought is that someone just picked it as a symbol to cry about.
Besides, the confederate flag is a sweet and simple piece of artwork!
Oh I almost forgot. It is a universal symbol for rebels. The south rebelled against the north! I'm pretty sure most people who appreciate it do so for their rebellious nature. Not because the south wanted to keep slavery. Myself, I can be rebellious, and I always liked the Battle Flag.
The good ole' it's part of our culture, most people didn't even own slaves excuse. I'm sure that most of the people in the German army during the days of Hitler didn't participate in the genocide against the Jews, they were only fighting for the Fatherland. So why can't they just where their swastika symbol in order to celebrate their heritage? Oh yeah, about the Confederate flag not being a racist symbol, the people who paraded the Confederate flag during the Civil Rights Movement would disagree with you.
And since were throwing around symbols
The confederate flag is the symbol of slavery. The Civil War was not fought about state's rights, it was fought on the spread of slavery to the territories (pre-statehood).
Much of the north had already relaxed or banned slavery (they werent agricultural). the South, being rural, was completely dependant on the slave trade and its economic impact. They already didnt like that Congress was based on population (which was much, much more disparate in those days than now between New England and Dixie) and with the election of a Pennsylvania Republican who was outwardly hostile to the expansion of slavery to the territories the Jim Crowes knew the end was nigh.
That flag, that confederate flag symbolizes the South's need for human resource in the form of bonded slavery. Its history, its relevant, it should not be forgotten, but its slavery and its sick. The fact that a two-bit state like redneck, southern baptist state like Mississippi still waves it with reverence tells you everything you need to know about where racism is in this country. Alive and well.
I dont bleed for the boys accused of this beating. You take the law in your hands, the law deals with you. But the trial should be fair. This was not.
Construing the facts as lassos instead of nooses speaks volumes about your preconceptions on the matter. You either dont care "them ######s" didnt get a fair and balanced trial/sentence, or your self delusional as to the moral superiority of your fellow American. Newsflash; we're a pretty ugly, maligned, delusional and embattled bunch. Nothing escapes my imagination as to how needy Americans are to think we know best in all things.
Humanity is desperately flawed and America is no exception.
Last edited by DarkReign; 10-10-2007 at 12:18 PM.
I cannot find a person espousing such views as anything but vile. There is no point in debating with you further. We have no common ground. If you are in any representative of the conservative movement today, then may it be utterly crushed and reduced to ashes!
Say what?! I havent read the thread entirely, but are those quotes accurate?!
I am all for state's rights, no question. But when the subject matter at issue are the lives of human beings being either a) human or b) property, the Fed has every right to impose its will. Civil Rights should be handled nationally, not on the state level.
And you wishing they won?! Why? For the political angle? Because the Fed stepped on the South? The South was wrong. Dead wrong. Morally wrong. Ethically wrong. Wrong.
They say, carefully choose your hill to die on...the south chose slavery and died. Good ing-riddance.
Well, we definitely disagree here.
Show me proof to the contrary. Evidence available shows them as lassos... school colors... members of the rodeo team... etc...
You just fantasizing this as you go? You don't know about me. I think I am one of the few people looking at the incident objectively, considering all possibilities. I simple don't see this incident as it was portrayed.
Why is it always, automatically a racist thing? What evidence? Statistics doesn't mean anything. Just because maybe 90% of the time, this would be a racist thing in Louisiana doesn't make it so 100% of the time. This looks like that 10% to me! All the incidents along this story clearly point to the black students as the perpetrators. I see the nooses and racism being used for justification.
I am fully aware of the evils we are capable of imposing on others. Give me some credit.
This thread is on par with the "Dan Rather's memo is real" thread.
Lassos? Seriously?
So why weren't black kids allowed to sit under the Lasso Tree?
Who hangs lassos from trees?
How often am I going to have to change my sig?
Why? Because I believe in states rights rather than an overbearing federal government?
You really take what I say wrong. I am opposed to slavery. I am opposed to the northern controlled congress imposing it's will over the rights of the southern states.
I'm sorry you wish to crush states rights. Are you a fascist?
When it comes to slavery, I have the view it would have ended in time anyway. I believe we would have better race relations today if the changes ending slavery in this country came more naturally, rather than through the force of legislation that lead to war.
do you and rush share the same pharmacist?
Why? You want some?
LOL...
I'll bet you think it's some real good !
If you led an uprising to have Oregon secede from the union for whatever reason, I believe it would be my duty as a citizen to shoot you dead if I came upon you.
LOL...
Bet you'd love it too!
I think war pretty much sucks, actually. But the territorial integrity of the United States is one of those things I am supposed to take seriously.
I agree for the most part. However, when the government is acting in an illegal manner, isn't it the right of the people to correct it if they can?
Great question. Wild Cobra, answer please
I guess that would depend on whether I agree that it is acting illegally. If I agree, I take my chances and join the rebels. If not, I sign up to slaughter the rebels.
The South had a problem in that demographics dictated that the North could elect a President by itself. Those same demographics meant that the North could control Congress and pass laws, binding upon the nation, by itself without considering what the South thought about them.
So, the South, inferior in population, needed a loosely-confederated United States where the central government had highly restricted power to govern the various states. They needed the old Articles of Confederation back.
Since, unfortunately, that form of government had been obsolete for over 70 years at that point, they took their chances by claiming that they had some unilateral right to secede, which nowhere was found in the Cons ution. Their actions could result in nothing but war, and war they got, and war effectively ended their way of life.
That their point of contention was predicated primarily upon maintaining a economic system of human bondage, and that their course of action, if successful, ultimately would have resulted in the splintering of the Union into individual states which would have made easy prey for the sphere of influence of the European powers, eviscerates any hope they could ever have of a moral high ground. Disagreement on this point I take as a matter of patriotism stemming from the core principles of why the nation exists in the first place.
Basically, I don't respect any southern partisan as a legitimate American.
Sometimes differences are too great to be worked out within the existing political framework, and sides must take up arms. If you rebel, you take your chances. If looking back on history, you side with the Confederate rebels, then you reject the Union.
I'm not into their heads. Just pointing out that there are certain facts that others are convienently ignoring.
Now that abortion has been legalized, I guess I should believe we would have better religious/secular relations if the changes ending abortion in this country came more naturally, rather than through the force of legislation or the courts.
A situation none of us really want now, is it?
Agreed.
They didn't need those articles in my opinion. The tenth amendment already spelled out states right to a satisfactory degree. The northern controlled states clearly violated this by overstepping their bounds. The federal government is cons utionally restricted. Through legal trickery, we have lost what it is meant to be, and the south losing the civil was the first major blow to states rights.
I don't completely agree with you. What makes it such that there must be a cons utional provision to succeed? Both sides acted poorly. Rather than trying to come to terms with each other, the North used blockades of trade. The south made the first mistake of attacking the fort. Was it fort Sumter? (spelling?)
Yes, and as wrong as we view slavery today, it was legal and their states right. This was being violated. And yes, I agree the slavery is wrong. It was a necessary evil in the beginning to keep slavery legal in order to form the cons ution in the first place! The northern states were reneging on a contract! They were using means of political force ideology rather than allowing for common ground over time.
Southern partisan? You mean southern slave owner?
We all have our views of who is and is not a patriot, or legitimate American. If it were up to me, those espousing socialism would considered illegitimate Americans.
Well, I do side with the rebels. Not because of slavery, but because of the tenth amendment!
Don't like the cons ution... change it by legal means. Not by violations of the cons ution, which the north clearly did!
wield cobra is toytally biutchslaping that librulk extyra stoiut thijs is funnyu too reed
Taking out my own patisan views on this, from what I understand Lincoln was no friend of blacks and even though he opposed slavery, he had no intention of ending it in the South and it was only when the South rebelled that Lincoln signed the 13th ammendment to end slavery in order to gain a moral high ground against the South in the eyes rest of the world. If this is true, then maybe the war wasn't based on slavery in the beginning, but I could be wrong. Also if this is true and it was about state rights and protecting themselves from an overbearing government, then specifically what rights were being violated by the government. History buffs help me out here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
