PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Which side would you fight on if the Civil war was fought today?


Pages : [1] 2

RNR
02-22-2011, 09:47 AM
After moving to the south I see several Confederate flags displayed. So I started wondering just how many people still side with the south?

Donger
02-22-2011, 09:48 AM
The Union.

chiefsnorth
02-22-2011, 09:48 AM
The war was fought over a myriad of conditions which do not exist today and make no sense in our modern political context.

Bill Parcells
02-22-2011, 09:50 AM
The union. had the confederacy won the usa as we know it now would have never existed.

Jaric
02-22-2011, 10:05 AM
I'm far more concerned for the well being of my friends and family than I am for protecting some politican's self intrests.

I would not participate and would probably leave the country altogether.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 10:07 AM
Based on where I live now, I'd probably be sympathetic with Quantrill's Raiders so sign me up for the South.

Rooster
02-22-2011, 10:09 AM
Where did I live at the time of the war? That would probably have the most to do with it.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:10 AM
The war was fought over a myriad of conditions which do not exist today and make no sense in our modern political context.

Oh I think you have to look at underlying fundamentals as opposed to current events. They boil down to the same: loss of divided sovereignty which our Constitution was based on due to over centralization of power at the federal level which has led to a loss of liberty and a crushing of the idea that the Union was a voluntary pact between sovereign states and individuals. It was Lincoln that crushed this ideal which was our Founders genius.

blaise
02-22-2011, 10:13 AM
Unless a person lived in that time I don't know how they could say. I lived most of my life in NY state, so I probably would have fought for the Union. Had I lived in Virginia I don't know if my state allegiance would make me want to defend the state.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:15 AM
The union. had the confederacy won the usa as we know it now would have never existed.

"usa as we know it now would have never existed"—instead if would have existed more like it was intended with a weaker central govt. The south would have come back into the union as both sides needed each other long term. Secession, however, would have been one of our last remaining checks and balances on an overbearing Federal govt giving to us courtesy of Lincoln. The union would have held as it was supposed is a more likely outcome.

Earthling
02-22-2011, 10:16 AM
I'm still not sure how much of the Civil War was about States Rights and how much was Slavery issues, so truthfully I would be a bit conflicted in that regard as I am pro-states rights and anti-slavery. Which side had the better grub?

An interesting aside, the last surviving spouse of a Civil War Veteran died not that long ago. Less than 20 years ago I'm quite certain.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:17 AM
Unless a person lived in that time I don't know how they could say. I lived most of my life in NY state, so I probably would have fought for the Union. Had I lived in Virginia I don't know if my state allegiance would make me want to defend the state.

Are you Robert E. Lee incarnate? You sound like what he went through with his thought process. He was torn.

blaise
02-22-2011, 10:17 AM
I'm still not sure how much of the Civil War was about States Rights and how much was Slavery issues, so truthfully I would be a bit conflicted in that regard as I am pro-states rights and anti-slavery. Which side had the better grub?

An interesting aside, the last surviving spouse of a Civil War Veteran died not that long ago. Less than 20 years ago I'm quite certain.

Well, since they say the southern soldiers were eating peanuts for their meals, I think the North was, on the whole, better fed.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 10:18 AM
Oh I think you have to look at underlying fundamentals as opposed to current events. They boil down to the same: loss of divided sovereignty which our Constitution was based on due to over centralization of power at the federal level which has led to a loss of liberty and a crushing of the idea that the Union was a voluntary pact between sovereign states and individuals. It was Lincoln that crushed this ideal which was our Founders genius.

I'm a bit torn on this. I think you're right that Lincoln crushed the original concept of our founders. But I also recognize that the United States probably wouldn't have achieved the levels of economic success and military power we have achieved under a more strict allegiance to the Founder's ideal. Changes of some type had to come for us to achieve this level of success, but it would have been better if they had come through the amendment process rather than civil war and a living constitution.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:20 AM
I'm still not sure how much of the Civil War was about States Rights and how much was Slavery issues, so truthfully I would be a bit conflicted in that regard as I am pro-states rights and anti-slavery. Which side had the better grub?

An interesting aside, the last surviving spouse of a Civil War Veteran died not that long ago. Less than 20 years ago I'm quite certain.

They really left peacefully but they couldn't really leave over the tariff issue; they had to do it over state's rights which the original Constitution granted them which unfortunately protected slavery. I think slavery would have died out anyway since most nations during that time did get rid of it with the stroke of a pen. It was just a matter of when.

Earthling
02-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Well, since they say the southern soldiers were eating peanuts for their meals, I think the North was, on the whole, better fed.

Of course the next question would have to be..'salted or unsalted'? :D

patteeu
02-22-2011, 10:21 AM
As of now, it's 7-4 Union, but I think my Southern confederates and I can take them because we've got MOhillbilly and WVChiefFan on our side and there's no doubt we'd look sharper because we've got BucEyedPea to iron our uniforms.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:22 AM
I'm a bit torn on this. I think you're right that Lincoln crushed the original concept of our founders. But I also recognize that the United States probably wouldn't have achieved the levels of economic success and military power we have achieved under a more strict allegiance to the Founder's ideal. Changes of some type had to come for us to achieve this level of success, but it would have been better if they had come through the amendment process rather than civil war and a living constitution.

Your pov is based on the idea that a highly centralized govt is vital for economic success. That's hardly the case when freedom is more the case. Sure govt greases the wheels but I think if you look at the 19th century's depressions you can't otherwise be led to think it was due to freedom but more so than govt....particularly due to the Federalists/Whigs wing which was Lincoln's wing. Their ancestor is Hamilton who was hardly a free-trader but a mercantilist aka govt business partnership model particularly the banking industry. I do think the south needed to remain in the union to succeed economically which is why it would have been a powerful incentive for them to return but it would be with a crushing central govt which is more and more what we are today. The balance between limited govt-decentralization-liberty is just gone.

Brock
02-22-2011, 10:23 AM
As of now, it's 7-4 Union, but I think my Southern confederates and I can take them because we've got MOhillbilly and WVChiefFan on our side and there's no doubt we'd look sharper because we've got BucEyedPea to iron our uniforms.

Bwana is going to fight with one arm behind his back to make if fair for you guys.

Cave Johnson
02-22-2011, 10:24 AM
Whatever side Patteeu is opposing. He's been asking for a minnie ball upside the head for a long time. ;)

RNR
02-22-2011, 10:24 AM
Bwana is going to fight with one arm behind his back to make if fair for you guys.

If we start this again the south will end up 0-2~

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:26 AM
Well, since they say the southern soldiers were eating peanuts for their meals, I think the North was, on the whole, better fed.

With a side of hardtack.

blaise
02-22-2011, 10:26 AM
Of course the next question would have to be..'salted or unsalted'? :D

When I was a little kid we had to learn a song the soldiers from Georgia sang during the Civil War. It was called Goober Peas, and it was all about them eating peanuts all day.

AndChiefs
02-22-2011, 10:27 AM
I'm still not sure how much of the Civil War was about States Rights and how much was Slavery issues, so truthfully I would be a bit conflicted in that regard as I am pro-states rights and anti-slavery. Which side had the better grub?

An interesting aside, the last surviving spouse of a Civil War Veteran died not that long ago. Less than 20 years ago I'm quite certain.

Doubtful...The war ended in 1865.

Let's say that the spouse died in 1981 (exactly 20 years ago). If she got married at 14, on the last day of the Civil War, that would make her 130 in 1981. Unless of course she got married at 14 when the Civil War vet turned 70 about 40 years after the war. I'd hesitate to call it a spouse of a Civil War vet at that point though since she wouldn't of even been alive while he was fighting so she wouldn't really understand what was going on.

Donger
02-22-2011, 10:27 AM
As of now, it's 7-4 Union, but I think my Southern confederates and I can take them because we've got MOhillbilly and WVChiefFan on our side and there's no doubt we'd look sharper because we've got BucEyedPea to iron our uniforms.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:28 AM
If we start this again the south will end up 0-2~

Of course because govt is force. It would be no different than what the Gaddafi's in the world would do. Unless the military sided with the people. We can hope for that!

Donger
02-22-2011, 10:29 AM
Doubtful...The war ended in 1865.

Let's say that the spouse died in 1981 (exactly 20 years ago). If she got married at 14, on the last day of the Civil War, that would make her 130 in 1981. Unless of course she got married at 14 when the Civil War vet turned 70 about 40 years after the war. I'd hesitate to call it a spouse of a Civil War vet at that point though since she wouldn't of even been alive while he was fighting so she wouldn't really understand what was going on.

It's kind of cheating, but...

http://www.csacurrency.com/csatriv.htm

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:29 AM
I would have probably fought in a unit formed from the local populace, and depending on where I lived, that would have determined which side I fought on. That's the way it went down for almost everybody.

It was a different time. Most people never traveled more than a few miles from their birthplace. A voyage I can make by car in a few hours would have taken them weeks. A voyage I can make by plane in a few hours would have taken them months. Most were uneducated or poorly educated. They were not sophisticated. They were not concerned with the political agendas of people from other regions of the country. They didn't have anything close to the level of access to information that we have today. They viewed their home states the way we view the country today. They rarely interacted with people from other areas.

Attempting to judge people who lived in another time without taking things like this into account is ridiculous. All the people who say I WOULD HAVE NEVER DONE THIS or I WOULD HAVE NEVER FOUGHT AGAINST THEM are fools. Had you lived then, you would be a completely different person, and have no way of knowing how all these various factors would have influenced your life.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 10:30 AM
Your pov is based on the idea that a highly centralized govt is vital for economic success. That's hardly the case when freedom is more the case. Sure govt greases the wheels but I think if you look at the 19th century's depressions you can't otherwise be led to think it was due to freedom but more so than govt....particularly due to the Federalists/Whigs wing which was Lincoln's wing. Their ancestor is Hamilton who was hardly a free-trader but a mercantilist aka govt business partnership model particularly the banking industry. I do think the south needed to remain in the union to succeed economically which is why it would have been a powerful incentive for them to return but it would be with a crushing central govt which is more and more what we are today. The balance between limited govt-decentralization-liberty is just gone.

No, not a highly centralized government, just effective coordination and cooperation.

Do you suggest that our country would have been just as successful if the constitution had been adhered to strictly as it has existed at each moment of our history?

AndChiefs
02-22-2011, 10:30 AM
It's kind of cheating, but...

http://www.csacurrency.com/csatriv.htm

Yep I just looked it up.

http://www.confederate-rose.org/widow-Alberta_Martin.htm

She died in 2004. Definitely cheating in my mind.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:32 AM
I would have probably fought in a unit formed from the local populace, and depending on where I lived, that would have determined which side I fought on. That's the way it went down for almost everybody.



Yeah that's very true. Very few southerners were large plantation owners and Johnny reb mainly fought to defend his home. Can't blame a guy for THAT! Although in the North the war wasn't favored by all, many saw the union as voluntary and some later fought to save the union—the purpose Lincoln gave it. Some fought for pay. There were drafts and there were draft protests who Lincoln shot upon as well as jailed congressmen opposed and shut down press critical of the war.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 10:34 AM
I would have probably fought in a unit formed from the local populace, and depending on where I lived, that would have determined which side I fought on. That's the way it went down for almost everybody.

It was a different time. Most people never traveled more than a few miles from their birthplace. A voyage I can make by car in a few hours would have taken them weeks. A voyage I can make by plane in a few hours would have taken them months. Most were uneducated or poorly educated. They were not sophisticated. They were not concerned with the political agendas of people from other regions of the country. They didn't have anything close to the level of access to information that we have today. They viewed their home states the way we view the country today. They rarely interacted with people from other areas.

Attempting to judge people who lived in another time without taking things like this into account is ridiculous. All the people who say I WOULD HAVE NEVER DONE THIS or I WOULD HAVE NEVER FOUGHT AGAINST THEM are fools. Had you lived then, you would be a completely different person, and have no way of knowing how all these various factors would have influenced your life.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So which side you got?*

___________
* FWIW, I agree with what you wrote.

Earthling
02-22-2011, 10:34 AM
When I was a little kid we had to learn a song the soldiers from Georgia sang during the Civil War. It was called Goober Peas, and it was all about them eating peanuts all day.

Interesting! While traveling in Charlotte, NC I noticed that quite a few of the houses there had black trim around their exterior windows and doors, which I found unusual. A lady told me that it was called confederate-green color and its history went back to the time Atlanta was under seige by Sherman and they ran out of every color paint except for black so they called it confederate green. Anyway, I found the story interesting but cannot confirm that it is true.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:34 AM
Whatever side Patteeu is opposing. He's been asking for a minnie ball upside the head for a long time. ;)

He would be a *gasp* INSURGENT!!! ::shake:

RNR
02-22-2011, 10:36 AM
I would have probably fought in a unit formed from the local populace, and depending on where I lived, that would have determined which side I fought on. That's the way it went down for almost everybody.

It was a different time. Most people never traveled more than a few miles from their birthplace. A voyage I can make by car in a few hours would have taken them weeks. A voyage I can make by plane in a few hours would have taken them months. Most were uneducated or poorly educated. They were not sophisticated. They were not concerned with the political agendas of people from other regions of the country. They didn't have anything close to the level of access to information that we have today. They viewed their home states the way we view the country today. They rarely interacted with people from other areas.

Attempting to judge people who lived in another time without taking things like this into account is ridiculous. All the people who say I WOULD HAVE NEVER DONE THIS or I WOULD HAVE NEVER FOUGHT AGAINST THEM are fools. Had you lived then, you would be a completely different person, and have no way of knowing how all these various factors would have influenced your life.

The only reason I asked was the large amount of confederate flags I see where I live now. I would see one occasionally back in Kansas. I was just curious if there are people still loyal to the south~

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:37 AM
Being from Missouri it's hard to say. As a border state, so much would have depended on your exact location and how your family felt about things.

Of course, I'm sure if a bunch of shitbag Kansans burned out my farm and stole all my stuff, I'd have probably gone the Josie Wales route.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 10:37 AM
Bwana is going to fight with one arm behind his back to make if fair for you guys.

Most of us would die of the shits before we fired a shot.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 10:38 AM
Of course, I'm sure if a bunch of shitbag Kansans burned out my farm and stole all my stuff, I'd have probably gone the Josie Wales route.


Happened in my family.

RNR
02-22-2011, 10:38 AM
I also made it public, had I not there may have been more voting~

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:40 AM
Happened in my family.

I think I'll just go ahead and pick the South on that basis. Besides, I wouldn't want to spoil Wickedson's opinion of me. :D

RNR
02-22-2011, 10:42 AM
Being from Missouri it's hard to say. As a border state, so much would have depended on your exact location and how your family felt about things.

Of course, I'm sure if a bunch of shitbag Kansans burned out my farm and stole all my stuff, I'd have probably gone the Josie Wales route.

They were just getting even with the baby killing, raping inbred rebel Quantrill and his cowardice followers~

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:42 AM
The only reason I asked was the large amount of confederate flags I see where I live now. I would see one occasionally back in Kansas. I was just curious if there are people still loyal to the south~

I'm from the nawth. Grew up a supporter of the Union side. Slowly I changed my mind, not because I live in the south, as if FL would be like the true south, but gradually beginning with the movie Gangs of New York in 2002 which I found out after seeing it that it was based on true events. That got me looking for more about Lincoln which I eventually found from excerpts of DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln Unmasked pertaining to the Southern War for Independence as well as news paper articles from that time. He's a very whitewashed president who was backed by corporate interests seeking a hi tariff ( on the south) for public works projects like the RRs. The economic side of the fight leading up to the actual war are neglected in the narrative.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:42 AM
The only reason I asked was the large amount of confederate flags I see where I live now. I would see one occasionally back in Kansas. I was just curious if there are people still loyal to the south~

Different world down there, isn't it?

Out of curiousity, do you find the people to be friendly, or only friendly on the surface?

Some of the nastiest pricks I've ever known were from the Deep South. If you weren't one of them, you sucked, at that was the end of it.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 10:44 AM
I think I'll just go ahead and pick the South on that basis. Besides, I wouldn't want to spoil Wickedson's opinion of me. :D

We're going to be teammates! Pick up your uniform from BEP and report to MOhillbilly for your assignment. :grouphug:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/02/article-0-02A5EC6A000005DC-519_468x286.jpg

Union appliances now live in fear.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:45 AM
They were just getting even with the baby killing, raping inbred rebel Quantrill and his cowardice followers~

The bushwhackers didn't kill children or rape women. Neither did the jayhawkers. It just wasn't done. Now, they'd blow a guy's head off while he was holding his wife and his children were watching, burn out the house and left them abandoned and completely screwed, but they wouldn't physically harm them.

RNR
02-22-2011, 10:47 AM
Different world down there, isn't it?

Out of curiousity, do you find the people to be friendly, or only friendly on the surface?

Some of the nastiest pricks I've ever known were from the Deep South. If you weren't one of them, you sucked, at that was the end of it.

There is a "south thing" for sure. I dont get it much and I think it is because I speak with a bit of a draw. I guess because of my accent I may blend in more than someone from New York or Boston~

Easy 6
02-22-2011, 10:47 AM
I'd try to stay out of it, unless a band of redlegs burnt my farm & killed my family. Then, i'd probably come across Bloody Bill Andersons group & offer to join them, but just as we were about to surrender, we found out that the Union wanted to massacre us, sadly, only myself & a teenage kid would escape.

I would henceforth go on a bloody rampage, taking in indians & down on their luck pioneers along the way. Eventually i'd find my own personal Eden somewhere way out west, settling in with my charges & making peace with the local tribes using words of iron.

That'd almost make a good movie.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:47 AM
We're going to be teammates! Pick up your uniform from BEP and report to MOhillbilly for your assignment. :grouphug:
Union appliances now live in fear.

I want to order frazzle around and be douche how I do it. Get me my grub frazzle!

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:48 AM
I want to order frazzle around and be douche how I do it. Get me my grub frazzle!

Shut up, woman. Go bake something! :D

luv
02-22-2011, 10:48 AM
Taking out the slavery issue altogether, would it then just be an issue of wanting federal government control or each state fending for themselves? I'd have to say the north in that case. Considering the issue of slavery as well, again, I'd say north. Is there anything I'm not considering that I should be before making my decision?

chiefsnorth
02-22-2011, 10:49 AM
Frazods post would end the thread if it were not "if it were fought today". Of course back then you have fought for whomever your neighbors and family did. If it were today nobody would show up. Everyone would be at home sucking down soda and French fries, and if they did have to run so far as the enemy's line they'd have to stop and puke halfway.

luv
02-22-2011, 10:49 AM
Shut up, woman. Go bake something! :D

Cake or pie?

SNR
02-22-2011, 10:49 AM
I've never been in a former Confederate state for more than 1 week at a time, so I guess I'd fight for the Union.

If I fought. If a Civil War broke out today I'd get the hell out of this country

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 10:50 AM
I went with the South as well based on family history from my father's side that fought with the CSA. Gotta stick with family.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:50 AM
Cake or pie?

Cheesecake, please. :thumb:

RNR
02-22-2011, 10:51 AM
The bushwhackers didn't kill children or rape women. Neither did the jayhawkers. It just wasn't done. Now, they'd blow a guy's head off while he was holding his wife and his children were watching, burn out the house and left them abandoned and completely screwed, but they wouldn't physically harm them.

I was just trying to get a rise out you :D Historians say many of the crimes committed by the Red Legs were people posing as Red Legs the same is said about Quantrill and his riders. The truth is somewhere in the middle~

luv
02-22-2011, 10:52 AM
Cheesecake, please. :thumb:

A man after my own heart.

blaise
02-22-2011, 10:52 AM
Different world down there, isn't it?

Out of curiousity, do you find the people to be friendly, or only friendly on the surface?

Some of the nastiest pricks I've ever known were from the Deep South. If you weren't one of them, you sucked, at that was the end of it.

Just my opinion, but I think people are generally the same in all areas of the country. The idea that Southerners are more friendly, or more racist than a New Yorker or someone from any other part of the country is false. Just different accents.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:54 AM
Cheesecake, please. :thumb:

Speaking of which, I just had a bite of !

Oh and for you....baked hardtack! YUM!


http://www.survivaltopics.com/images/hardtack-is-good-survival-food-298.jpg

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 10:56 AM
I'd like to clarify....fighting today means just fighting the central govt to me as slavery is long gone.

On second thought, scrap the slavery point, as we have tax and regulatory slavery today.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 10:59 AM
I was just trying to get a rise out you :D Historians say many of the crimes committed by the Red Legs were people posing as Red Legs the same is said about Quantrill and his riders. The truth is somewhere in the middle~

Oh, I know. The primary motivation for both sides was thievery, plain and simple. Quantrill lived in Lawrence and participated in/led Kansas raids into Missouri before getting run out of town. After that, he switched sides, and harbored a deep hatred for Lawrence thereafter.

But in truth, the only side Quantrill was ever on was his own.

Bill Parcells
02-22-2011, 11:01 AM
As of now, it's 7-4 Union, but I think my Southern confederates and I can take them because we've got MOhillbilly and WVChiefFan on our side and there's no doubt we'd look sharper because we've got BucEyedPea to iron our uniforms.

ROFL

Dude, are you still on confederate dial up out in your hometown of pigsknuckle? you still cant see videos? or did you upgrade?

Frazod
02-22-2011, 11:02 AM
Just my opinion, but I think people are generally the same in all areas of the country. The idea that Southerners are more friendly, or more racist than a New Yorker or someone from any other part of the country is false. Just different accents.

I'm basing my comments on people I served with in the military. By and large I found southerners, specifically white southerners, to be generally unfriendly towards northerners (and for their purposes, Missouri was definitely in the north).

Donger
02-22-2011, 11:02 AM
I hope the South "rises again" so it can get stomped again.

Rebel scum.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 11:05 AM
I hope the South "rises again" so it can get stomped again.

Rebel scum.

Well, I guess this answers the question as to whether or not Donger fired on Fort Sumter. LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 11:07 AM
I hope the South "rises again" so it can get stomped again.

Rebel scum.

I'd say like a True Brit ... but Britain was going to intervene on the side of the south.
So instead I'll just sing: "Tory, Tory Hallelujah!"

patteeu
02-22-2011, 11:08 AM
ROFL

Dude, are you still on confederate dial up out in your hometown of pigsknuckle? you still cant see videos? or did you upgrade?

I now have a line-of-sight microwave broadband connection (~ 1 Mbps) and last week my phone company called to tell me I'm eligible for DSL (~ 1.5 Mbps)!

I can now watch videos, although if they're HD or if my family are hogging bandwidth, I have to let them load before watching them if I want a smooth experience.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 11:10 AM
I'm from the nawth. Grew up a supporter of the Union side. Slowly I changed my mind, not because I live in the south, as if FL would be like the true south, but gradually beginning with the movie Gangs of New York in 2002 which I found out after seeing it that it was based on true events. That got me looking for more about Lincoln which I eventually found from excerpts of DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln Unmasked pertaining to the Southern War for Independence as well as news paper articles from that time. He's a very whitewashed president who was backed by corporate interests seeking a hi tariff ( on the south) for public works projects like the RRs. The economic side of the fight leading up to the actual war are neglected in the narrative.

gangs of new york is kinda sorta based on truth. Ive never read anything that said bill cutting was a confederate sympathiser & was based on hard facts.
The South was Right was the first book i can think of that went against all the shit you learned in school.

Anyway i voted the south for fun. Dont care either way.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 11:11 AM
I'm basing my comments on people I served with in the military. By and large I found southerners, specifically white southerners, to be generally unfriendly towards northerners (and for their purposes, Missouri was definitely in the north).

I used to go to Civil War renactments and visit the rebel bivouacks. They'd be so suspicious of the northern tourists. Then again they were acting out as if from that time.

Southerners to this day, from my experience in GA ( from working there) and SC from visiting my cousin who married one still have some grudges against the north. There's some legit feelings, imo, as the north has had this telling others in the south what to do. In fact there's a bumper sticker here, that says " If they do things so much better in the nawth, go back there."

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 11:12 AM
Oh, I know. The primary motivation for both sides was thievery, plain and simple. Quantrill lived in Lawrence and participated in/led Kansas raids into Missouri before getting run out of town. After that, he switched sides, and harbored a deep hatred for Lawrence thereafter.

But in truth, the only side Quantrill was ever on was his own.

Lawerance was burned because Osceola was burned.
Eye for an eye. Teeth for tooth.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 11:16 AM
gangs of new york is kinda sorta based on truth. Ive never read anything that said bill cutting was a confederate sympathiser & was based on hard facts.
The South was Right was the first book i can think of that went against all the shit you learned in school.

Anyway i voted the south for fun. Dont care either way.

When a movie claims to be based on something....including a book, it doesn't mean it's all true but the general events are. I mean it's Hollywood and they need drama in a movie. I read the blog comments after the movie on imdb and there were some scholarly history people discussing what was true and what wasn't. That led me to look for more.

I actually wrote an email to author diLorenzo who wrote me back telling me that there was quite a bit of truth to the movie. He mentioned what wasn't true as well but I can hardly remember. The shooting of the draft protestors was true. If I recall correctly, I believe he was consulted for the movie. He'd be a good source as his bag is to bring out points that we're never taught in the school versions of history.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 11:18 AM
When a movie claims to be based on something....including a book, it doesn't mean it's all true but the general events are. I mean it's Hollywood and they need drama in a movie. I read the blog comments after the movie on imdb and there were some scholarly history people discussing what was true and what wasn't. That led me to look for more.

I actually wrote an email to author diLorenzo who wrote me back telling me that there was quite a bit of truth to the movie. He mentioned what wasn't true as well but I can hardly remember. The shooting of the draft protestors was true. If I recall correctly, I believe he was consulted for the movie. He'd be a good source as his bag is to bring out points that we're never taught in the school versions of history.

i want you off my team.

kcfanXIII
02-22-2011, 11:22 AM
Chalk me up as a confederate bushwhacker. I think the people would be better represented at the state level. As opposed to one giant entity that is supposed to take into account what people from NYC, San Francisco, and Dallas actually want from their government. I am anti slavery though...

Bill Parcells
02-22-2011, 11:24 AM
I now have a line-of-sight microwave broadband connection (~ 1 Mbps) and last week my phone company called to tell me I'm not eligible for DSL (~ 1.5 Mbps)!

I can now watch videos, although if they're HD or if my family are hogging bandwidth, I have to let them load before watching them if I want a smooth experience.

Thats alright! you're getting there! I still cant get fios in my area yet. we still have telephone poles in my neighborhood.

FishingRod
02-22-2011, 11:25 AM
If you have never seen it Please watch the mocumentary CSA Confederate States of America. It shows the history of our country from when the Confederates won the war up to the present. Absolutely hilarious if you are not thin skinned and PC.

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 11:27 AM
My father's ancestors were in Austria at the time, so I'll have to go with the ancestors on my mother's side and don the gray.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 11:28 AM
Thats alright! you're getting there! I still cant get fios in my area yet. we still have telephone poles in my neighborhood.

Ooops, I had a typo in my post. I meant to say that the phone company called me to tell me I AM eligible to get DSL now. I'm thinking about switching, but my local LOS wireless carrier is telling me they're about to boost capacity to 2 Mbps so I'll stick with them to see if it happens.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 11:30 AM
If you have never seen it Please watch the mocumentary CSA Confederate States of America. It shows the history of our country from when the Confederates won the war up to the present. Absolutely hilarious if you are not thin skinned and PC.

:thumb:

FishingRod
02-22-2011, 11:30 AM
Oh I voted for the North I figure the evil of Slavery trumps the transgressions of the North. I’m sure I had ancestors on both sides but My Great Great Grandfather bought his way into this country by taking the place of a Rich Northern guy back in the day when you could pay someone to go fight for you.

WV
02-22-2011, 11:33 AM
I chose South, but could have went either way. My hometown (as was the whole state I guess) was originally part of Virginia and changed hands numerous times. I've always sympathized with the South though. Something about raising an Army against your own just never set right with me.

I'm only 15 minutes from Antietam and a little over an hour from Gettysburg, so the Civil War has always been part of life around here.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 11:33 AM
I figured, this planet is full of confederate Baptists...

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 11:39 AM
I figured, this planet is full of confederate Baptists...

I'm not a Baptist and never have been.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 11:40 AM
I figured, this planet is full of confederate Baptists...

According to this book, there were 5 times as many Jews fighting for the North as for the South. It's almost like you've been bought off by some of that Iscariot silver.

http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/e107_images/custom/Sarna_bookcover.jpg

luv
02-22-2011, 11:58 AM
I figured, this planet is full of confederate Baptists...I am a Baptist, and I chose the North.
Posted via Mobile Device

Jaric
02-22-2011, 12:07 PM
According to this book, there were 5 times as many Jews fighting for the North as for the South. It's almost like you've been bought off by some of that Iscariot silver.

http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/e107_images/custom/Sarna_bookcover.jpg

http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/94866/oh_snap_flowchart_sm_medium.jpg

RNR
02-22-2011, 12:12 PM
I hope the South "rises again" so it can get stomped again.

Rebel scum.

More beating around the bush by Donger~

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 12:14 PM
More beating around the bush by Donger~

Perhaps he is underestimating MO.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 12:27 PM
According to this book, there were 5 times as many Jews fighting for the North as for the South. It's almost like you've been bought off by some of that Iscariot silver.

http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/e107_images/custom/Sarna_bookcover.jpg


Actually, there is no way any American could have any problem with Judaism...

prior to 1948...

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 12:27 PM
More beating around the bush by Donger~


It is so obvious, even the most blinded here see through it...

Frazod
02-22-2011, 12:34 PM
You know, every day you go without taking your meds just means one more day until your recovery is complete.

RNR
02-22-2011, 12:42 PM
It is so obvious, even the most blinded here see through it...

I am not sure what you mean by this post. I was joking because Donger was very clear with how he feels about the south..."I hope the South "rises again" so it can get stomped again.

Rebel scum"

I don't think a person can be more clear than that~

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
LaDairis is in a tough spot here. The CSA won't accept him since he insulted them and called them all Baptist's, and he can't go to the Union since they are too many Jews on that side. Guess he will just have to leave the country.

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 01:08 PM
LaDairis is in a tough spot here. The CSA won't accept him since he insulted them and called them all Baptist's, and he can't go to the Union since they are too many Jews on that side. Guess he will just have to leave the country.

Go West. Join the Indian Wars that will soon heat up.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 01:09 PM
I am not sure what you mean by this post. I was joking because Donger was very clear with how he feels about the south..."I hope the South "rises again" so it can get stomped again.

Rebel scum"

I don't think a person can be more clear than that~



Do you believe the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was an "accident?"

Garcia Bronco
02-22-2011, 01:09 PM
South. The War of Northern Aggression. Like Thomas Jefferson I believe in State Rights. but slavery has to go.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 01:10 PM
You know, every day you go without taking your meds just means one more day until your recovery is complete.



You have the option to


1. engage me in debate
2. document where I am wrong


or you can continue to chicken out in that regard and just hurl insults and then duck back under the sheet when called out....

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 01:11 PM
South. The War of Northern Aggression. Like Thomas Jefferson I believe in State Rights. but slavery has to go.


The "War of Northern Aggression," never mind the South starting it by "unaggressively" attacking Ft. Sumter...

Garcia Bronco
02-22-2011, 01:12 PM
I'm from the nawth. Grew up a supporter of the Union side. Slowly I changed my mind, not because I live in the south, as if FL would be like the true south, but gradually beginning with the movie Gangs of New York in 2002 which I found out after seeing it that it was based on true events. That got me looking for more about Lincoln which I eventually found from excerpts of DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln Unmasked pertaining to the Southern War for Independence as well as news paper articles from that time. He's a very whitewashed president who was backed by corporate interests seeking a hi tariff ( on the south) for public works projects like the RRs. The economic side of the fight leading up to the actual war are neglected in the narrative.

Many don't understand the Tariff of 1828. The first shots fired.

Garcia Bronco
02-22-2011, 01:13 PM
The "War of Northern Aggression," never mind the South starting it by "unaggressively" attacking Ft. Sumter...

the first shots of that war was fired in 1828. The industrial North was trying to put the agricultural South out of business.

RNR
02-22-2011, 01:15 PM
Do you believe the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was an "accident?"

:spock:

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 01:21 PM
Donger does, even though Donger doesn't think any of these people are "lying" even though they say Israel is lying and Donger believes Israel....



http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm

This is the group that Israeli supporter Ahron Jay Cristol calls "conspiracy theorists"



* "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk



* "Accidents don't occur through repeated attacks by surface vessels and aircraft. It obviously was a decision made pretty high up on the Israeli side, because it involved combined forces. The ship was flying an American flag. My judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior official gave the go ahead. I personally did not accept the Israeli explanation."
-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Recorded interview, www.ussliberty.org



* "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."
-- CIA Director Richard Helms in his book A Look Over my Shoulder



* "It was no accident."
-- CIA Director Richard Helms in interview for Navy Times, 6/26/2002. Asked to say more, Helms remarked that he did not want to spend the rest of his life testifying in court about the attack.



* "To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that the Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway, either through confusion in Command and Control or through deliberate disregard of instructions on the part of subordinates."
-- CIA Deputy Director Admiral Rufus Taylor



* That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency
-- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings



* Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident
-- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings



* "I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American."
-- Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff writing for Americans for Middle East Understanding, June 8, 1997



* "To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."
-- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14



* "To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway."
-- Admiral Rufus Taylor, Deputy CIA director, as quoted by CIA director Admiral Rufus Taylor in A Look Over My Shoulder.



* Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate
-- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings



* "That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"
-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson



* "Inconceivable that it was an accident � 3 strafing passes, 3 torpedo boats. Set forth facts. Punish Israelis responsible"
-- Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson, in Minutes of NSC Special Committee Meeting, 9 June 1967



* "A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]."
-- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. Dr. Tordella expressed the view that the attack was deliberate and that the Israeli government attempted to cover it up to authors James Ennes and James Bamford and to Congressman George Mahon (D-Texas), and in an internal memorandum for the record. He noted "a nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept (redacted)" in the margin of the official Israeli excuse for the attack as noted in the NSA Gerhard report 1982)



* "The attack was clearly deliberate."
-- General Marshall Carter, former director, National Security Agency, in a telephone interview with James Ennes



* "The attack was deliberate"
-- Lucius Battle, former presidential advisor, as keynote speaker for 1982 USS Liberty reunion.



* "My immediate reaction was it was not an accident. It had to be a deliberate attack."
-- Lucius Battle, in BBC Documentary "Dead in the Water".

patteeu
02-22-2011, 01:28 PM
Why not start a USS Liberty thread, LaDairis? The civil war involved a few ironclads, but the USS Liberty wasn't one of them.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 01:29 PM
The "War of Northern Aggression," never mind the South starting it by "unaggressively" attacking Ft. Sumter...

Yes, how dare they not want a foreign power occupying a fortress right in the middle of a harbor in one of their major cities.

The Confederates did give them ample opportunity to leave, you know. The fortune cookie slip you get your history lessons from may have omitted that little factoid.

War was inevitable at that point, and had been for years. Fighting had already been going on in Kansas and Missouri since 1855. If it hadn't started there, it could have been a skirmish somewhere a couple of days later; anything, really. One spark was all that was needed.

The Mad Crapper
02-22-2011, 01:30 PM
We have hindsight so it's pointless to choose sides since the war was unnecessary.

Donger
02-22-2011, 01:31 PM
Yes, how dare they not want a foreign power occupying a fortress right in the middle of a harbor in one of their major cities.

The Confederates did give them ample opportunity to leave, you know. The fortune cookie slip you get your history lessons from may have omitted that little factoid.

War was inevitable at that point, and had been for years. Fighting had already been going on in Kansas and Missouri since 1855. If it hadn't started there, it could have been a skirmish somewhere a couple of days later; anything, really. One spark was all that was needed.

Foreign power?

Rausch
02-22-2011, 01:33 PM
Depends.

WTF would we be fighting it over?...

patteeu
02-22-2011, 01:34 PM
We have hindsight so it's pointless to choose sides since the war was unnecessary.

Dude, even with hindsight you seem to have picked the side that lost! No worries, we'll make it right this time with Frazod the Merciless Refrigerator Killer on our side.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 01:35 PM
Foreign power?

Yes, Donger, a foreign power. Once the southern states seceded and formed a new country, they certainly would have considered armed forces from another country occupying that fort a foreign power.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 01:37 PM
Yes, how dare they not want a foreign power occupying a fortress right in the middle of a harbor in one of their major cities.

The Confederates did give them ample opportunity to leave, you know. The fortune cookie slip you get your history lessons from may have omitted that little factoid.

War was inevitable at that point, and had been for years. Fighting had already been going on in Kansas and Missouri since 1855. If it hadn't started there, it could have been a skirmish somewhere a couple of days later; anything, really. One spark was all that was needed.



And off pushing treason against the US your ancestors went...

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 01:37 PM
Yes, Donger, a foreign power. Once the southern states seceded and formed a new country, they certainly would have considered armed forces from another country occupying that fort a foreign power.

He's still British inside.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 01:38 PM
Why not start a USS Liberty thread, LaDairis? The civil war involved a few ironclads, but the USS Liberty wasn't one of them.


There were also a few subs, too, but not very good ones...

Donger
02-22-2011, 01:38 PM
Yes, Donger, a foreign power. Once the southern states seceded and formed a new country, they certainly would have considered armed forces from another country occupying that fort a foreign power.

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were referring to Ft. Sumter.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 01:40 PM
And off pushing treason against the US your ancestors went...

Actually, I had ancestors that fought on both sides. I don't believe any of them were at Ft. Sumter.

I'm just trying to dispassionately explain historical events to a chimp. So why don't you grab another banana and shut the fuck up?

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 01:40 PM
DAMN I GAVE THAT L.D. GUY POS REP. SOMEONE TCB ON THAT FOR ME. THANKS.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 01:41 PM
And off pushing treason against the US your ancestors went...

How is the South's decision to split ties with the Federal govt treason when what the original patriots like Washington, Adams, Paul Revere and company did wasn't considered treason but acts of freedom? It's no different than our original War for American Independence. Furthermore, the Framers at the original Convention discussed the use of force should a state want to leave this new union and they decided to drop the idea. I mean if you want to call it treason, then you can say that about the original Convention which was a runaway convention because the Articles of Confederation were written in perpetuity and could only be amended with all consenting.

googlegoogle
02-22-2011, 01:41 PM
Quit bustin the unions

Frazod
02-22-2011, 01:43 PM
Dude, even with hindsight you seem to have picked the side that lost! No worries, we'll make it right this time with Frazod the Merciless Refrigerator Killer on our side.

The refrigerator lived. It was just a flesh wound.

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 01:45 PM
The refrigerator lived. It was just a flesh wound.

Yeah, but the "Merciless Refrigerator Wounder" does not have the same dramatic effect. :D

The Mad Crapper
02-22-2011, 01:59 PM
Dude, even with hindsight you seem to have picked the side that lost! No worries, we'll make it right this time with Frazod the Merciless Refrigerator Killer on our side.

I think history has shown (to anybody who actually delves into it) the Union did a horrible injustice to the people of the confederate states.

The war was not faught for any noble cause such as "freeing the slaves". Lincoln only declared the slaves "emancipated" two years into the war, and that was only to foment an insurrection in the south, as the confederates were giving him a greater fight than he anticipated. Slaves were an afterthought and were treated like shit by the union occupiers after Lee surrendered.

Jaric
02-22-2011, 02:01 PM
Dude, even with hindsight you seem to have picked the side that lost! No worries, we'll make it right this time with Frazod the Merciless Refrigerator Killer on our side.

Oh shit, Frazod is on the south side?

Well, I don't want to get banned, so I suppose I should change my vote then.

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 02:14 PM
Foreign power?

In my opinion, yes.

But I see that's been settled.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 02:18 PM
I think history has shown (to anybody who actually delves into it) the Union did a horrible injustice to the people of the confederate states.

The war was not faught for any noble cause such as "freeing the slaves". Lincoln only declared the slaves "emancipated" two years into the war, and that was only to foment an insurrection in the south, as the confederates were giving him a greater fight than he anticipated. Slaves were an afterthought and were treated like shit by the union occupiers after Lee surrendered.

South Carolina damn near seceded in 28'.

Donger
02-22-2011, 02:19 PM
In my opinion, yes.

But I see that's been settled.

Yep, I made a mistake.

Well, not really. A mistake per se, kind of.

The Mad Crapper
02-22-2011, 02:20 PM
South Carolina damn near seceded in 28'.

What does that have to do with the the north invading the south?

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 02:21 PM
Yep, I made a mistake.

Well, not really. A mistake per se, kind of.

You're awesome. :D

Bambi
02-22-2011, 02:29 PM
The North obviously, they had nicer form-fitting uniforms.

Bambi
02-22-2011, 02:30 PM
Depends.

WTF would we be fighting it over?...

Nowadays it would probably be fighting the South to make them leave.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 02:31 PM
What does that have to do with the the north invading the south?

That the seeds were sown and it was gonna happen in due time.

Donger
02-22-2011, 02:33 PM
My memory is a little fuzzy, but is it really an "invasion" if your former countrymen just happen to be still in a fort that was previously part of one country?

The Mad Crapper
02-22-2011, 02:33 PM
That the seeds were sown and it was gonna happen in due time.

That doesn't make it right.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 02:38 PM
My memory is a little fuzzy, but is it really an "invasion" if your former countrymen just happen to be still in a fort that was previously part of one country?

Well, the south did offer to buy out or pay for federal govt installations in the south.

teedubya
02-22-2011, 02:38 PM
It's not north and south anymore... it's central bankers and their shadow govt... versus the useless eaters.

RNR
02-22-2011, 02:46 PM
Depends.

WTF would we be fighting it over?...

The same issues of the time. As I have stated I recently moved to the south and noticed the Confederate flag is still proudly displayed by many. It just inspired some curiosity on the subject for me. It is simple for me as all other issues aside a bunch of rich pricks had a sweet deal going with free labor. They felt they could and should be able to own a person the same as a plow or any other piece of equipment. I really could give two shits in a bucket about anything else. Anyone who feels they are entitled to own another person needs a bullet in the head~

Frazod
02-22-2011, 02:51 PM
I think history has shown (to anybody who actually delves into it) the Union did a horrible injustice to the people of the confederate states.

The war was not faught for any noble cause such as "freeing the slaves". Lincoln only declared the slaves "emancipated" two years into the war, and that was only to foment an insurrection in the south, as the confederates were giving him a greater fight than he anticipated. Slaves were an afterthought and were treated like shit by the union occupiers after Lee surrendered.

Well said. And of course, all sorts of laws were enacted in the years after the Civil War which basically allowed authorities to throw black men in prison for pretty much any excuse. Once found guilty and legally encarcerated, they were used as labor in the same places and generally under the same conditions as slaves had been used. None of this truly ended until the advent of mechanized vehicles made mass manual labor inefficient and impractical. Which would have happened anyway, with or without the Civil War.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 02:58 PM
My memory is a little fuzzy, but is it really an "invasion" if your former countrymen just happen to be still in a fort that was previously part of one country?

I don't believe I used the word "invasion" in connection with Union troops in Ft. Sumter. It would be an "occupation." Much like British troops continuing to occupy Fort Ticonderoga during the Revolution. Clearly the American troops found their continued occupation of the fort to be annoying at best, and much like their southern counterparts decades later, took steps to rectify the situation.

The Mad Crapper
02-22-2011, 03:09 PM
Well said. And of course, all sorts of laws were enacted in the years after the Civil War which basically allowed authorities to throw black men in prison for pretty much any excuse. Once found guilty and legally encarcerated, they were used as labor in the same places and generally under the same conditions as slaves had been used. None of this truly ended until the advent of mechanized vehicles made mass manual labor inefficient and impractical. Which would have happened anyway, with or without the Civil War.

True. :thumb:

Slavery ended in Brazil in 1890, without a single shot being fired.

oldandslow
02-22-2011, 03:14 PM
Neither...however, it would be interesting to wonder what would have happened had the Sioux, Apache, Cheyenne, Kiowa, Oklahoma Cherokee and Choctaw et al had decided to form a united front and drive most folks back across the Mississippi River and/or across the Rocky Mountains.

The Sioux had their 1862 uprising, but 1 segment of one tribe does not equal an Army...

Tecumseh, was born about 40 years too early, imho.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 03:23 PM
Neither...however, it would be interesting to wonder what would have happened had the Sioux, Apache, Cheyenne, Kiowa, Oklahoma Cherokee and Choctaw et al had decided to form a united front and drive most folks back across the Mississippi River and/or across the Rocky Mountains.

The Sioux had their 1862 uprising, but 1 segment of one tribe does not equal an Army...

Tecumseh, was born about 40 years too early, imho.

mangas coloradas & cochise kept things pretty hot out west around the same time.

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 03:24 PM
Yep, I made a mistake.

Well, not really. A mistake per se, kind of.

For all intents and purposes.

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 03:27 PM
exactly

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 03:27 PM
The same issues of the time. As I have stated I recently moved to the south and noticed the Confederate flag is still proudly displayed by many. It just inspired some curiosity on the subject for me. It is simple for me as all other issues aside a bunch of rich pricks had a sweet deal going with free labor. They felt they could and should be able to own a person the same as a plow or any other piece of equipment. I really could give two shits in a bucket about anything else. Anyone who feels they are entitled to own another person needs a bullet in the head~

My (b.1913)Grandmas Grandma told her that when they left virginia after the war the slaves followed them for miles because they didnt have anywhere else to go and noone to take care of them.

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 03:29 PM
Tecumseh, was born about 40 years too early, imho.

And how much too early was he taken down?

mikey23545
02-22-2011, 03:33 PM
As of now, it's 7-4 Union, but I think my Southern confederates and I can take them because we've got MOhillbilly and WVChiefFan on our side and there's no doubt we'd look sharper because we've got BucEyedPea to iron our uniforms.

So you want Honey to take the wrinkles out of your khakis?

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 03:37 PM
So you want Honey to take the wrinkles out of your khakis?

Honey doesn't work on wrinkles. It sticks to the iron.

RNR
02-22-2011, 03:38 PM
My (b.1913)Grandmas Grandma told her that when they left virginia after the war the slaves followed them for miles because they didnt have anywhere else to go and noone to take care of them.

:rolleyes: That makes owning someone right~

ForeverChiefs58
02-22-2011, 03:40 PM
Honey doesn't work on wrinkles. It sticks to the iron.

I lol at that

ROFL :thumb:

patteeu
02-22-2011, 03:43 PM
Honey doesn't work on wrinkles. It sticks to the iron.

LOL, now that's the spirit.

MOhillbilly
02-22-2011, 03:47 PM
:rolleyes: That makes owning someone right~

absolutely not. just passing a story along.

oldandslow
02-22-2011, 03:47 PM
And how much too early was he taken down?

1813...

jettio
02-22-2011, 04:00 PM
Oh I think you have to look at underlying fundamentals as opposed to current events. They boil down to the same: loss of divided sovereignty which our Constitution was based on due to over centralization of power at the federal level which has led to a loss of liberty and a crushing of the idea that the Union was a voluntary pact between sovereign states and individuals. It was Lincoln that crushed this ideal which was our Founders genius.

What part of the Constitution provides that states could secede if they did not like the President that won the election?

You should use a different word for Constitution when you are writing about the imaginary version you have boiling in your head.

If I recall correctly, the Southern states started secession meetings as soon as Lincoln got elected, not because they expected Lincoln to abolish slavery in the south, but only because they would have no chance of extending slavery to the west with a Republican president and Republican majorities in Congress.

They basically calculated that they could unilaterally withdraw from the Union and that nobody would want to fight about it, even if they tried to commandeer federal and military property.

If they had any sense they should have tried negotiating for secession instead of just doing it and then getting beligerent about it.

BigRedChief
02-22-2011, 04:03 PM
Based on where I live now, I'd probably be sympathetic with Quantrill's Raiders so sign me up for the South.Racist!:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
02-22-2011, 04:18 PM
What part of the Constitution provides that states could secede if they did not like the President that won the election?

You should use a different word for Constitution when you are writing about the imaginary version you have boiling in your head.
I didn't say that. I said what was debated at the original Constitutional Convention regarding the use of force to keep a state from leaving the Union. Since it's a document of "specific and enumerated" powers they would have written in the use of force as a specifically enumerated power but they scrapped it. So my position is based on nothing being there for using force to keep the union together. Otherwise it would read something like:

No state may ever secede from the Union for any reason; should any state attempts to secede, the Federal Government shall invade such State with sufficient military force to suppress the attempted secession.

If the Constitution was written to say this, you know full well it would have never been ratified.

It makes perfect sense they would chose to not provide for a use of such force after fighting a war based on the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....

If I recall correctly, the Southern states started secession meetings as soon as Lincoln got elected, not because they expected Lincoln to abolish slavery in the south, but only because they would have no chance of extending slavery to the west with a Republican president and Republican majorities in Congress.

They basically calculated that they could unilaterally withdraw from the Union and that nobody would want to fight about it, even if they tried to commandeer federal and military property.

If they had any sense they should have tried negotiating for secession instead of just doing it and then getting beligerent about it.
Ummmm! It was a long time coming....even if Lincoln's election appeared to be sudden. You left a lot out. Furthermore, it was Lincoln that got belligerent about it not the south. They left peacefully even offering to pay for federal property in the south and even paying their share of the Federal debt but Lincoln refused to discuss it with them. Not exactly a rebellion or uprising but Lincoln promised an invasion if they refused to pay the newly doubled tariff. As far as Sumter goes there was no reason for Lincoln to re suppply. His ships never even approached the fort. His plan was to get the South to fire first because he did not want a peaceful solution to the crisis. This is a classic move by govts. No one was even killed or wounded as I understand either.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

LiveSteam
02-22-2011, 04:36 PM
I would shoot as many elephants & donkeys as I could.
Their is no right side anymore.

pr_capone
02-22-2011, 04:42 PM
An interesting aside, the last surviving spouse of a Civil War Veteran died not that long ago. Less than 20 years ago I'm quite certain.

Seeing as the Civil War ended in 1865, that would certainly be an impressive feat. That would have put them at a minimum of 140 years of age.

LiveSteam
02-22-2011, 04:54 PM
Last update: May 31, 2004 at 6:05 PM

Last widow of Civil War veteran dies at age 97

MONTGOMERY, ALA. -- Alberta Martin, the last widow of a Civil War veteran, died Monday, ending an unlikely ascent from sharecropper's daughter to the belle of 21st century Confederate history buffs who paraded her across the South. She was 97.

Martin died at a nursing home in Enterprise, Ala., of complications from a heart attack she suffered May 7, said her caretaker, Dr. Kenneth Chancey.

Her May-December marriage in the 1920s to Civil War veteran William Jasper Martin and her longevity made her a celebrated final link to the old Confederacy. After living in obscurity for most of her life, in her final years the Sons of Confederate Veterans took her to conventions and rallies, often with a small Confederate battle flag waving in her hand and her clothes the colors of the rebel banner.

I believe their was a difference in age of 40 + years.
kinda like the Anna Nichole Smith marriage

pr_capone
02-22-2011, 05:00 PM
Last update: May 31, 2004 at 6:05 PM

Last widow of Civil War veteran dies at age 97

MONTGOMERY, ALA. -- Alberta Martin, the last widow of a Civil War veteran, died Monday, ending an unlikely ascent from sharecropper's daughter to the belle of 21st century Confederate history buffs who paraded her across the South. She was 97.

Martin died at a nursing home in Enterprise, Ala., of complications from a heart attack she suffered May 7, said her caretaker, Dr. Kenneth Chancey.

Her May-December marriage in the 1920s to Civil War veteran William Jasper Martin and her longevity made her a celebrated final link to the old Confederacy. After living in obscurity for most of her life, in her final years the Sons of Confederate Veterans took her to conventions and rallies, often with a small Confederate battle flag waving in her hand and her clothes the colors of the rebel banner.

I stand corrected. That means she was born in 1907 which would have put her in her mid teens to early 20's. He would have been in his mid 60's when they got married.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-22-2011, 05:04 PM
Given where I am from, it literally could have depended on the street where I grew up.

LiveSteam
02-22-2011, 05:06 PM
I heard the story of this couple years ago on the nightly news. So I knew google would pull up something. I think the marriage was more to settle or win a land dispute if I remember right??

I did find out the hard way. DONT RUN YOUR MOUTH ABOUT DIXIE LAND IN SOUTHERN MISSOURI. YOU WILL GET YOUR ASS KICKED. They dnt take kindly to yanks or northerners talking about or their opinions on the civil war ,south of Springfield. I thought they were all joking. I WAS WRONG!

jettio
02-22-2011, 05:11 PM
I didn't say that. I said what was debated at the original Constitutional Convention regarding the use of force to keep a state from leaving the Union. Since it's a document of "specific and enumerated" powers they would have written in the use of force as a specifically enumerated power t but they scrapped it.

It makes perfect sense they would chose to not provide for a use of such force after fighting a war based on the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence:






Ummmm! It was a long time coming....even if Lincoln's election appeared to be sudden. You left a lot out. Furthermore, it was Lincoln that got belligerent about it not the south. They left peacefully even offering to pay for federal property in the south. Not exactly a rebellion or uprising.

I suppose Slovenia and Croatia left all peaceably and sh*t and that went over well. Hardly anybody died there.

And why did patteeu and Dick Cheney not let Kurdistan declare its Independence after they lied to start that invasion of Iraq?

I think one thing that you have forgotten about the American Revolution is that there was a war following the Declaration of Independence for some strange reason.

History is littered with corpses whenever folks tried to tell the people in charge of a certain spot of land that they are not in charge of that land anymore.

In Libya today, unarmed people are getting shot because they want new leadership.

On planet Earth, it is quite rare for someone to leave "peacably" and take the land with them. When you do that, you have to "eject" the co-owners.

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 05:16 PM
1813...

That sounds like exactly the right time. Not too early at all.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 05:20 PM
I am a Baptist, and I chose the North.
Posted via Mobile Device


LOL!!!

but your ancestors chose...??

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 05:24 PM
Nat Turner was a Baptist pastor, you fucking idiot.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 05:24 PM
Well said. And of course, all sorts of laws were enacted in the years after the Civil War which basically allowed authorities to throw black men in prison for pretty much any excuse. Once found guilty and legally encarcerated, they were used as labor in the same places and generally under the same conditions as slaves had been used. None of this truly ended until the advent of mechanized vehicles made mass manual labor inefficient and impractical. Which would have happened anyway, with or without the Civil War.


Actually, the ending of the Civil War was handled very poorly by the GOP, especially after Lincoln was assassinated and his replacement from TN just re-installed all the traitors...

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 05:27 PM
Nat Turner was a Baptist pastor, you ****ing idiot.


I have never understood that, how a black could see Baptists as anything but those who actually fell for the BS that slavery was A-OK with God and especially Jesus.

Needless to say, the top of the Confederacy was mostly Baptist, and most of the slaveowners were Baptist.

Slaveowner money into Baptist pastor pocket.

buys

Baptist pastor singing the virtues of slavery in the name of God and Jesus...

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 05:31 PM
I have never understood a ****ing thing, but that doesn't stop me from posting anyway.

You don't say.

VAChief
02-22-2011, 06:14 PM
Seeing as the Civil War ended in 1865, that would certainly be an impressive feat. That would have put them at a minimum of 140 years of age.

If he was from the south it could have been his granddaughter.

Frazod
02-22-2011, 06:36 PM
I have never understood that, how a black could see Baptists as anything but those who actually fell for the BS that slavery was A-OK with God and especially Jesus.

Needless to say, the top of the Confederacy was mostly Baptist, and most of the slaveowners were Baptist.

Slaveowner money into Baptist pastor pocket.

buys

Baptist pastor singing the virtues of slavery in the name of God and Jesus...

So, what religion are you?

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 06:43 PM
So, what religion are you?


I'm not. I just try to make sure fraud gets outed, regardless of source...

LiveSteam
02-22-2011, 06:46 PM
I'm not. I just try to make sure fraud gets outed, regardless of source...

THAT IS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 06:50 PM
THAT IS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK


and what "fraud" do you accuse me of, specifically???

Frazod
02-22-2011, 06:53 PM
I'm not. I just try to make sure fraud gets outed, regardless of source...

Not at all? What were you raised as?

You did finally guess one thing right about me - I am a Southern Baptist. But I haven't been to church in years, and outside of the occasional wedding and funeral, have no plans to ever go again. Not a fan of organized religion, whether the religious are wearing turbans, yamakas or Bass Pro ball caps. It's all about control, and I think for myself.

LaDairis
02-22-2011, 06:55 PM
I was raised in a non-religious family that celebrated Christmas without ever explaining why...

Rain Man
02-22-2011, 10:27 PM
If I fight for the North, do I have to give up my slaves? Even if they're not black?

RNR
02-23-2011, 05:25 AM
If I fight for the North, do I have to give up my slaves? Even if they're not black?

(Crowd chanting in the back ground FREE DaFace)

Pioli Zombie
02-23-2011, 06:00 AM
Well since slavery had already been abolished by the founding fathers, as the brilliant Michelle Bachmann taught us, there was no need for the civil war.

Jenson71
02-23-2011, 07:27 AM
Always been a Union boy, geographically and more. I'll stand with Lincoln.

MOhillbilly
02-24-2011, 09:02 AM
http://cropdusters.bandcamp.com/track/quantrill

one of my favorite songs in the past 15 years.

RNR
02-24-2011, 09:20 AM
So for those who side with the south do you favor slavery? I think it is a fair question because not wanting to end it was one of the issues~

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 10:21 AM
So for those who side with the south do you favor slavery? I think it is a fair question because not wanting to end it was one of the issues~

Oh, of course. I'm sure we're all fine with it.

Direckshun
02-24-2011, 10:23 AM
I think it's a perfect snapshot of this forum that the Union can't get 60% approval.

WV
02-24-2011, 10:52 AM
So for those who side with the south do you favor slavery? I think it is a fair question because not wanting to end it was one of the issues~
You do realize there were slave owners on the North also.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:04 AM
Yes, but...

1. some of that was "indentured servitude," or paying off the cost of the voyage of white Europeans by serving your master for five years
2. the enslavement of blacks in the North, small as it was, eventually was outlawed and pretty much stomped out way before the Civil War
3. the issue of slavery was the issue surrounding the formation of the Confederacy. There already had been blood about Kansas-Nebraska etc...


At the time of the Civil War, there was no "legal" slavery in the North, although some in Indiana and a few other places likely were still practicing it "illegally."

mnchiefsguy
02-24-2011, 11:11 AM
Yes, but...

1. some of that was "indentured servitude," or paying off the cost of the voyage of white Europeans by serving your master for five years
2. the enslavement of blacks in the North, small as it was, eventually was outlawed and pretty much stomped out way before the Civil War
3. the issue of slavery was the issue surrounding the formation of the Confederacy. There already had been blood about Kansas-Nebraska etc...


At the time of the Civil War, there was no "legal" slavery in the North, although some in Indiana and a few other places likely were still practicing it "illegally."

This is complete BS . Slavery was legal in slave states in the North, including Missouri and Kentucky. Slaves in Missouri were actually among the last to be freed, since Lincoln exempted union slave states in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Slavery was not the reason the South seceded from the union.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:15 AM
Sorry if I don't consider Missouri and Kentucky to be truly "Northern" states, nor Indiana.

Those are really Bible Belt Confederate states... with way too many who, after, the Civil War, starting wearing those sheets over their heads, the pointy heads... with the two eye holes...


Slavery was the reason for the formation of the Confederacy, a dispute that was tearing the country apart.

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 11:19 AM
Sorry if I don't consider Missouri and Kentucky to be truly "Northern" states, nor Indiana.

Of course you don't. Including Indiana would be really inconvenient for your bullshit views, wouldn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan

The Indiana Klan was a branch of the Ku Klux Klan, a secret society in the United States that practiced racism and terrorism against minority ethnic and religious groups. The Indiana Klan rose to prominence beginning in the years after World War I when rising levels of eastern and southern European immigration began to increase. They continued to rise in power under the leadership of Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson who led the Indiana Klan to break away from the national organization in 1923. The organization reached its highest point of power during the years that followed, and by 1925 over half the members of the Indiana General Assembly, the Governor of Indiana, and many other high ranking members of the government were all members of the Klan. Scandal erupted that year when Stephenson was accused and convicted for the rape and murder of Madge Oberholtzer. When the governor refused to pardon Stephenson, he began to expose many of his fellow conspirators in the Klan, destroying their reputations and effectively destroying much of the Klan's power.

mnchiefsguy
02-24-2011, 11:23 AM
Sorry if I don't consider Missouri and Kentucky to be truly "Northern" states, nor Indiana.

Those are really Bible Belt Confederate states... with way too many who, after, the Civil War, starting wearing those sheets over their heads, the pointy heads... with the two eye holes...


Slavery was the reason for the formation of the Confederacy, a dispute that was tearing the country apart.

Indiana was not a Union State? Seriously? 210,000 Union troops came from Indiana. While the southern part of Indiana did have some Southern support, they was really no chance at all of Indiana ever leaving the Union.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:32 AM
Indiana was not a Union State? Seriously? 210,000 Union troops came from Indiana. While the southern part of Indiana did have some Southern support, they was really no chance at all of Indiana ever leaving the Union.


I agree with that. The industrial northern part of the state was clearly "Union."

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:36 AM
That the "demographic" in southern Indiana has more in common with a Tennessean than a New Yorker is pretty hard to dispute... and that was the point.


The Union Army was actually sent after the Civil War to Indiana... and Indiana was hardly a bastion of abolitionists.

from wiki...


The Civil War era showed the extent of Southern influence on Indiana. Much of southern and central Indiana had strong ties to the South. Many of the region's early settlers had come from the Confederate state of Virginia and from Kentucky. Indiana and Kentucky always had a special friendship, and the Hoosiers were influenced by the actions of the Kentucky government, which attempted to stay neutral in the beginning stages of the war.[2] Governor Morton wrote to President Abraham Lincoln that no other free state was so populated with southerners, and they kept Morton from being as forceful against secession as he wanted to be.[28]

Indiana Senator Jesse D. Bright had been a leader among the Indiana Democratic Party for several years prior to the outbreak of the war. In 1862, Bright was expelled from the United States Senate on allegations of disloyalty. He had written a letter to "His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederation", in which Bright offered the services of a friend to sell the South firearms. As of 2009, he was the last senator to be expelled from the Senate.[29] Bright was replaced with a pro-Union Democrat, former governor Joseph A. Wright.[2]

patteeu
02-24-2011, 11:39 AM
So for those who side with the south do you favor slavery? I think it is a fair question because not wanting to end it was one of the issues~

:spock: Really?

For those who side with the North, do you believe women should continue to be denied the vote?

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 11:45 AM
You do realize there were slave owners on the North also.

And southern blacks who had slaves.

RedNeck I don't favor slavery of any kind including the slavery of big govt by concentrating central power—a modern form of slavery.

I do favor state's rights under the Tenth Amendment though. If the union was forged by allowing slavery and leaving state's alone on it, then it's not simply about slavery but more. I would work hard to abolish slavery in my state though. No need to slaughter 618000 men because of this issue, is there?

I mean leaving the union peacefully over the issue of state's rights which did mean slaves back then, plus other issues isn't committing a greater wrong than slaughtering 618000 men over the issue. It was not the greater good for the greater number especially when saving the union was why Lincoln aggressed—not slavery—in his own words. Lincoln worked up to his dying day trying to figure a way to deport the slaves, despite claims to the contrary. Slavery under the banner of state's rights was the south's reason for leaving—peacefully. Lincoln's aggression may have saved the union geographically but it destroyed it philosophically. We live with this problem to this day.

RNR
02-24-2011, 11:46 AM
:spock: Really?

For those who side with the North, do you believe women should continue to be denied the vote?

No, and it is pretty simple when I am asked a question I just answer it. Or you can not answer and ask a question or point out there were slave owners in the north also. I would think anyone asked that would say yes or no~

RNR
02-24-2011, 11:47 AM
And southern blacks who had slaves.

RedNeck I don't favor slavery of any kind including the slavery of big govt by concentrating central power—a modern form of slavery.

I do favor state's rights under the Tenth Amendment though. If the union was forged by allowing slavery and leaving state's alone on it, then it's not simply about slavery but more. I would work hard to abolish slavery in my state though. No need to slaughter 618000 men because of this issue, is there?

I mean leaving the union peacefully over the issue of state's rights which did mean slaves back then, plus other issues isn't committing a greater wrong than slaughtering 618000 men over the issue. It was not the greater good for the greater number especially when saving the union was why Lincoln aggressed—not slavery—in his own words. Lincoln worked up to his dying day trying to figure a way to deport the slaves, despite claims to the contrary. Slavery under the banner of state's rights was the south's reason for leaving—peacefully. Lincoln's aggression may have saved the union geographically but it destroyed it philosophically. We live with this problem to this day.

A very good answer without deflecting~

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 11:48 AM
Yeah, yeah. Shelby County, Indiana, was certainly pro-Confederacy, and ultimately the war cost them their economy. One cavalry regiment for the Union included a number of citizens of Winston County, Alabama, a county which resisted the Confederacy, and which to this day is derided by outsiders as "The Freestate of Winston."

I wonder (just for the hell of it) how many of those Union cavalrymen from Alabama were Baptists.

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 11:48 AM
:spock: Really?

For those who side with the North, do you believe women should continue to be denied the vote?

I hadn't considered that. Is it too late to switch my allegiance to the Union?

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 11:48 AM
RedNeck the logical extension of your answer can be taken to mean if you defend the south or your home that you support slavery. Many have used such questions that way. That's why I felt more than a yes or no was needed to answer. Maybe you didn't but I took it that way. Johnny Reb fought to defend his home since only the few had slaves.

Thank you for your acknowledgment though.

Count Zarth
02-24-2011, 11:52 AM
The South. Havin' slaves would be balla as shit.

Frazod
02-24-2011, 11:55 AM
No, and it is pretty simple when I am asked a question I just answer it. Or you can not answer and ask a question or point out there were slave owners in the north also. I would think anyone asked that would say yes or no~

You do realize that the vast majority of white southerners didn't own slaves, right? Most of them were poor; slaves were expensive.

Most of them fought because they felt their country was being invaded by a foreign power, and also because, as in all wars, the rich rook the poor into dying for their financial interests.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 11:57 AM
The South. Havin' slaves would be balla as shit.

What does this word mean?

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:58 AM
In Centennial Park in Nashville, there is a memorial for the Confederate Soldiers who died in the Battle of Nashville, a small one with just their names.

Within two hundred yards is a much bigger memorial, for some rich slaveowner southerner from the railroad business, and the memorial never reminds us... who built the railroad... and who paid the $300 to get out of the fight...


Poor misled fools get dead and a small token memorial. The slime who profited off the reason of their death, he got life and a much larger memorial filled with filtered BS.

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 11:58 AM
What does this word mean?

The bee's knees.

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 12:00 PM
In Centennial Park in Nashville, there is a memorial for the Confederate Soldiers who died in the Battle of Nashville, a small one with just their names.

Within two hundred yards is a much bigger memorial, for some rich slaveowner southerner from the railroad business, and the memorial never reminds us... who built the railroad... and who paid the $300 to get out of the fight...


Poor misled fools get dead and a small token memorial. The slime who profited off the reason of their death, he got life and a much larger memorial filled with filtered BS.

Relax. They're all dead now and you can't even remember the railroad guy's name.

You're free to go look it up now.

RNR
02-24-2011, 12:05 PM
RedNeck the logical extension of your answer can be taken to mean if you defend the south or your home that you support slavery. Many have used such questions that way. That's why I felt more than a yes or no was needed to answer. Maybe you didn't but I took it that way. Johnny Reb fought to defend his home since only the few had slaves.

Thank you for your acknowledgment though.

I understand the many factors. I was just wanting a yes or no answer. I have talked to some here that fly the flag and they are not bashful about their dislike of blacks~

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 12:08 PM
I understand the many factors. I was just wanting a yes or no answer. I have talked to some here that fly the flag and they are not bashful about their dislike of blacks~

Well here's a question for you, then. The heading on this thread says "Which side...if the Civil War was fought today?"

Did you actually mean if the war started today? I'm thinking that slavery isn't much of an issue today, even if the states' rights questions still are.

Jenson71
02-24-2011, 12:10 PM
I would work hard to abolish slavery in my state though. No need to slaughter 618000 men because of this issue, is there?

Most southerners didn't though. It was a 'necessary evil' at best.

gblowfish
02-24-2011, 12:16 PM
Depends.

Would I be allowed to burn Lawrence again?

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:19 PM
Most southerners didn't though. It was a 'necessary evil' at best.

Just like you're own version of slavery you advocate today—socialism—because it's necessary without acknowledging that it is also evil.
Tax slaves to the state.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:20 PM
Poor misled fools get dead and a small token memorial. The slime who profited off the reason of their death, he got life and a much larger memorial filled with filtered BS.

Well, then that would also apply to many in the nawth who paid their way out of Lincoln's draft.

patteeu
02-24-2011, 12:21 PM
No, and it is pretty simple when I am asked a question I just answer it. Or you can not answer and ask a question or point out there were slave owners in the north also. I would think anyone asked that would say yes or no~

Maybe you didn't realize how insulting that question was.

Which of the 18 people who chose the south do you think might not only be racist, but racist enough to support slavery? I think you should single them out by name and ask them specifically. From my seat, I can't imagine any of the 18 taking that position, so I wouldn't even ask the question unless I was intending to insult or saying it in jest.

RNR
02-24-2011, 12:21 PM
Well here's a question for you, then. The heading on this thread says "Which side...if the Civil War was fought today?"

Did you actually mean if the war started today? I'm thinking that slavery isn't much of an issue today, even if the states' rights questions still are.

I intented it as things stood at the time. My thread is flawed~

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:23 PM
I understand the many factors. I was just wanting a yes or no answer. I have talked to some here that fly the flag and they are not bashful about their dislike of blacks~

Well, in a free country people have a right to be a bigot. I know that sounds harsh or uncivil but they do. They just can't harm those they don't like. I mean we all dislike certain people and for various reasons. Try visiting Southie or Charlestown in Boston. Plenty of anti-black bigots. That being said, many in the south also fly that flag for other reasons.

RNR
02-24-2011, 12:23 PM
Maybe you didn't realize how insulting that question was.

Which of the 18 people who chose the south do you think might not only be racist, but racist enough to support slavery? I think you should single them out by name an ask them specifically.

LMAO whatever pat. I would have to go look who voted for what as I have paid little attention. Also I really don't know many people here on a personal level~

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:26 PM
I intented it as things stood at the time. My thread is flawed~

I think it's a great thread. We can hammer out the details as we go.

Jenson71
02-24-2011, 12:26 PM
Just like you're own version of slavery you advocate today—socialism—because it's necessary without acknowledging that it is also evil.
Tax slaves to the state.

Your subtle way of understating things is impressive.

patteeu
02-24-2011, 12:27 PM
I understand the many factors. I was just wanting a yes or no answer. I have talked to some here that fly the flag and they are not bashful about their dislike of blacks~

And you think that they'd reinstitute slavery?

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:31 PM
Your subtle way of understating things is impressive.

Thank you. :p

jettio
02-24-2011, 12:33 PM
This is complete BS . Slavery was legal in slave states in the North, including Missouri and Kentucky. Slaves in Missouri were actually among the last to be freed, since Lincoln exempted union slave states in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Slavery was not the reason the South seceded from the union.

Slavery was the reason.

As soon as Lincoln became the first Republican president the southern states started scheduling their secession conventions, they did not even wait for him to be inaugaurated.

Their realization that Lincoln's veto and the Republican gains in Congress would never authorize slavery's expansion in the west was why they tried to take their ball and go home.

Practically speaking, there was never a contemporary indication that Lincoln or enough Republicans would try to abolish slavery, by law or by amendment to the Constitution, in the southern states where it was established.

If slavery was not the reason for secession, what was?

RNR
02-24-2011, 12:34 PM
And you think that they'd reinstitute slavery?

The impression I got from a couple guys was nothing less than disdain. I see the flag a lot and have no idea what most think as I only can speak to those I have met and talked to. That was the reason for this thread. I wondered how many have an allegiance to the Confederacy and their reasons behind it~

Frazod
02-24-2011, 12:35 PM
Depends.

Would I be allowed to burn Lawrence again?

I'm in. :fire:

RNR
02-24-2011, 12:36 PM
I'm in. :fire:

LMAO~

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:36 PM
Slavery was the reason.
The reason was an overbearing Federal govt with state's rights invoked by the south to protect what they perceived as their interests, which of course included slavery. But slavery was NOT the only reason and it certainly was NOT the reason for Lincoln's aggression turning it into war by mis-labeling it a rebellion.

Practically speaking, there was never a contemporary indication that Lincoln or enough Republicans would try to abolish slavery, by law or by amendment to the Constitution, in the southern states where it was established.
Which gives credence to the secession not really being about slavery but the tariff.

If slavery was not the reason for secession, what was?

See above.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:38 PM
The impression I got from a couple guys was nothing less than disdain. I see the flag a lot and have no idea what most think as I only can speak to those I have met and talked to. That was the reason for this thread. I wondered how many have an allegiance to the Confederacy and their reasons behind it~

I just love being a renegade against overbearing Federal power and BIG govt (including Hamiltonianism which is what Lincoln was fighting for).
Too many see Lincoln as the Progressive he was NOT.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 12:40 PM
Oh get real BEP.

The only "dispute" between N-S was slavery. If you want to defend "the right of the South to practice slavery" then do so.

And "Lincoln's aggression" was not what attacked Ft Sumter...

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 12:42 PM
Oh get real BEP.

The only "dispute" between N-S was slavery. If you want to defend "the right of the South to practice slavery" then do so.

And "Lincoln's aggression" was not what attacked Ft Sumter...

Nope

You need to get real. Lincoln was a proto-NeoCon. Now you're on that side 'eh? :shake:

You need to read more alternative viewpoints instead of the state historians. The winners get to write the history books.
Particularly communication by Lincoln about setting things up at Sumter.

BTW what is wrong with leaving the union peacefully?

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 12:47 PM
Lincoln was not a neo-con.

Lincoln was handed a country that voted against slavery. Your side lost at the ballot box. Your side was so in love with the practice of slavery that your side left the union because of slavery. If you want to make that a "libertarian" issue, the "right" to practice slavery, then never wonder why Ron Paul can't get to 10% in NH...

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 01:00 PM
Lincoln was not a neo-con.
You left out my adjective "proto". BTW AEI is still defending the Civil War.

Lincoln was handed a country that voted against slavery.

My idea? I don't support slavery. State's rights under our Constitution doesn't gaurantee that a state won't do something oppressive or wrong at times. And Lincoln was not handed a country that voted against slavery. He was put in power by corporatists ( formerly the Federalists and the Whigs )who wanted a high tariff for subsidies for RRs. He also did NOT win a majority of the popular vote. ( See next)

Your side lost at the ballot box.
Lincoln won a plurality of the popular vote. In fact, Lincoln's victory marked the lowest popular vote percentage victory US history.

Per the newspapers of that time, most people saw the union as a voluntary arrangement. I have links up to those from earlier somewhere on this forum. Your side was breaking it's contract regarding the Constitution. So even if there was a majority, the union was voluntary and majority rule doesn't matter.

Your side was so in love with the practice of slavery that your side left the union because of slavery. If you want to make that a "libertarian" issue, the "right" to practice slavery, then never wonder why Ron Paul can't get to 10% in NH...
They left the union over more than one issue. There's nothing wrong with leaving a voluntary union. That puts Ft Sumter in territorial waters of a state that left the union. You're on the side that slaughtered more than half a million to be right. Who is guilty of the greater wrong?

mnchiefsguy
02-24-2011, 01:07 PM
Lincoln was not a neo-con.

Lincoln was handed a country that voted against slavery. Your side lost at the ballot box. Your side was so in love with the practice of slavery that your side left the union because of slavery. If you want to make that a "libertarian" issue, the "right" to practice slavery, then never wonder why Ron Paul can't get to 10% in NH...

Then why did Lincoln not include the Union states in the Emancipation Proclamation? If the Union had voted against slavery, why did Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Indiana get to keep their slaves till after the war ended? Your statement makes no sense. Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, nothing more, nothing less. If preserving the Union meant keeping slavery, Lincoln made it abundantly clear he was wiling to do that, as he stated in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "

blaise
02-24-2011, 01:14 PM
Then why did Lincoln not include the Union states in the Emancipation Proclamation? If the Union had voted against slavery, why did Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Indiana get to keep their slaves till after the war ended? Your statement makes no sense. Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, nothing more, nothing less. If preserving the Union meant keeping slavery, Lincoln made it abundantly clear he was wiling to do that, as he stated in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "


I think it had something to do with Zionists bombing one of the battleships.

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 01:14 PM
The impression I got from a couple guys was nothing less than disdain. I see the flag a lot and have no idea what most think as I only can speak to those I have met and talked to. That was the reason for this thread. I wondered how many have an allegiance to the Confederacy and their reasons behind it~

Okay, then. Do I favor slavery? Hell, no. Am I opposed to the abolition of a Constitutionally protected practice without amending the Constitution? Hell, yes.

But sitting on my stump sucking on a corncob pipe early in 1861, I think to myself that some day slavery may well just peter out on its own, while on the other hand power usurped by the federal government will only snowball until the government become so powerful and disdainful of everyone's rights that we'll need another bloody revolution anyway.

So I collect whatever arms I can find, saddle up my horse and ride to town to enlist for the Confederacy.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 01:15 PM
On May 18, 1864, Lincoln directly ordered General John Dix:

"You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers."

All telegraph communication in the North was censored as well.


"Lincoln and the First Shot"

•Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by reprovisioning Fort Sumter.~ Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861,

•The Jersey City American Statesman wrote that "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South."

•Lincoln's personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter.

•After Fort Sumter Lincoln wrote to his naval commander Gustavus Fox thanking him for his assistance in drawing the first shot.

•Jefferson Davis held that the Union fleet invaded Confederate waters amounted to a declaration of war

• Lincoln followed Ft. Sumter with an invasion on the South.


D'Souza, defends Lincoln. You know what ideology D'Souza adheres to?
D'Souza thinks Lincoln "was simply the greatest practitioner of democratic statesmanship that America and the world have yet produced


From: AEI still fighting the Civil War (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo39.html)

Reaper16
02-24-2011, 01:16 PM
In the War of Northern Aggression, I'm going with the Aggressors. UNION.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 01:23 PM
I think it had something to do with Zionists bombing one of the battleships.

That's not the reason why. Go look at sites and groups like The Claremont Institute and AEI and see why they idolize Lincoln. Read D'Souza on Lincoln and what he advocates today. These are statists of the Republican kind.


Did you know Karl Marx wrote Lincoln and was one of Lincoln's admirers?


Karl Marx himself wrote Lincoln on January 28, 1865 to say, "Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority."

In the same letter Marx assured Lincoln that the European communist movement was with him:

"From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class," the father of totalitarian communism wrote. (This and other of Marx's writings can be found at www.marxists.org.)

Many of the dubious theories of the causes of the War to Prevent Southern Independence that have become accepted dogma among modern "Lincoln scholars" were dreamed up by Karl Marx. For example, despite the fact that in his first inaugural address Lincoln promised to invade any state that refused to collect the newly-doubled Morrill Tariff, and kept his promise, Lincoln scholars adamantly — and sometimes violently — deny that tariffs had anything at all to do with the war. In a recent issue of North and South magazine, historian William C. Davis threw a fit over my suggestion that the tariff was important and smugly denounced the idea as an "old chestnut." This was Karl Marx's position as well.

In an October 20, 1861 article entitled "On the North American Civil War," Marx wrote, "Naturally in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place."

As is true of almost everything Marx ever wrote about economics, this statement is patently false.The Morrill Tariff passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, before Lincoln's election and before any state had seceded. It passed the U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration. (Abe vigorously lobbied for the bill, telling a Pittsburgh, Pa. audience two weeks before his inauguration that no other issue — none — was more important.)

blaise
02-24-2011, 01:29 PM
That's not the reason why. Go look at sites and groups like The Claremont Institute and AEI and see why they idolize Lincoln. Read D'Souza on Lincoln and what he advocates today. These are statists of the Republican kind.


Did you know Karl Marx wrote Lincoln and was one of Lincoln's admirers?

Hm, interesting. Still....

Just to clarify, are we talking about Karl Marx the communist or the one from New Rochelle?

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 01:30 PM
Hm, interesting. Still....

Just to clarify, are we talking about Karl Marx the communist or the one from New Rochelle?

There's another?

patteeu
02-24-2011, 01:33 PM
That's not the reason why.

Psst, psst. He's making a joke.

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 01:36 PM
A quick google search shows a lot of references to material published from New Rochelle, but on the subject of the same Karl Marx we all know and love.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 01:37 PM
Anyone ever hear of compensated emancipation?

This was the method of ending slavery in countries where slavery was legal which involved paying the owner of a slave. Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery, without slaughtering their fellow citizens, did so through some form of compensated emancipation. Slave owners in the north received compensation using different gradual emancipation schemes.

Even Lincoln on April 16, 1862, used it to free slaves in the District of Columbia —the only place in the United States where the federal government provided compensation to the District's 900-odd slaveholders.

It simply is not true that killing one another was a solution to ending slavery or that the tariff was not a reason for the south leaving or that Lincoln was some sort of Progressive emancipator who wanted to end slavery by fighting a war.

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 01:44 PM
Anyone ever hear of compensated emancipation?

This was the method of ending slavery in countries where slavery was legal which involved paying the owner of a slave. Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery, without slaughtering their fellow citizens, did so through some form of compensated emancipation. Slave owners in the north received compensation using different gradual emancipation schemes.

Even Lincoln on April 16, 1862, President Lincoln used it to free slaves in the District of Columbia —the only place in the United States where the federal government provided compensation to the District's 900-odd slaveholders.

It simply is not true that killing one another was a solution to ending slavery or that the tariff was not a reason for the south leaving or that Lincoln was some sort of Progressive emancipator who wanted to end slavery by fighting a war.

Would have been a damned sight more affordable than the war, is my guess.

patteeu
02-24-2011, 02:08 PM
Anyone ever hear of compensated emancipation?

This was the method of ending slavery in countries where slavery was legal which involved paying the owner of a slave. Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery, without slaughtering their fellow citizens, did so through some form of compensated emancipation. Slave owners in the north received compensation using different gradual emancipation schemes.

Even Lincoln on April 16, 1862, used it to free slaves in the District of Columbia —the only place in the United States where the federal government provided compensation to the District's 900-odd slaveholders.

It simply is not true that killing one another was a solution to ending slavery or that the tariff was not a reason for the south leaving or that Lincoln was some sort of Progressive emancipator who wanted to end slavery by fighting a war.

I'm with you all the way on this topic, honey.

SNR
02-24-2011, 02:08 PM
I'm with you all the way on this topic, honey.BANNED

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 02:12 PM
BANNED

Going "all the way" with patteeu? :shake:

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 02:54 PM
"Then why did Lincoln not include the Union states in the Emancipation Proclamation? "


Lincoln's platform was about CONTAINING slavery, not ending it. Lincoln was aware that the issue had shed blood in the US, and it was touchy on both sides. Lincoln won on a platform to CONTAIN slavery, which he tried to do...

and when one finds oneself in WAR, one should not be too choosy about accepting "allies."

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 02:58 PM
Anyone ever hear of compensated emancipation?

This was the method of ending slavery in countries where slavery was legal which involved paying the owner of a slave. Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery, without slaughtering their fellow citizens, did so through some form of compensated emancipation. Slave owners in the north received compensation using different gradual emancipation schemes.

Even Lincoln on April 16, 1862, used it to free slaves in the District of Columbia —the only place in the United States where the federal government provided compensation to the District's 900-odd slaveholders.

It simply is not true that killing one another was a solution to ending slavery or that the tariff was not a reason for the south leaving or that Lincoln was some sort of Progressive emancipator who wanted to end slavery by fighting a war.



The evil warmonger Lincoln fighting a corporatist war against just honorable Confederacy...

Let's set a few things straight.

1. the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter BEFORE any attempt was made to "emancipate."
2. hence, the Confederacy attacked first without even that which they feared would happen to justify it

Lincoln did not start a war. He did not "ban" the practices of the Confederate States. He simply STOPPED spreading the right to own slaves to the territories, which was his platform, whether you like how he won or not...

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 02:59 PM
The evil warmonger Lincoln fighting a corporatist war against just honorable Confederacy...

Let's set a few things straight.

1. the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter BEFORE any attempt was made to "emancipate."
2. hence, the Confederacy attacked first without even that which they feared would happen to justify it

Lincoln did not start a war. He did not "ban" the practices of the Confederate States. He simply STOPPED spreading the right to own slaves, which was his platform, whether you like how he won or not...

Nope

go bowe
02-24-2011, 02:59 PM
Yep, I made a mistake.

Well, not really. A mistake per se, kind of.ok, honey...

RNR
02-24-2011, 03:03 PM
Okay, then. Do I favor slavery? Hell, no. Am I opposed to the abolition of a Constitutionally protected practice without amending the Constitution? Hell, yes.

But sitting on my stump sucking on a corncob pipe early in 1861, I think to myself that some day slavery may well just peter out on its own, while on the other hand power usurped by the federal government will only snowball until the government become so powerful and disdainful of everyone's rights that we'll need another bloody revolution anyway.

So I collect whatever arms I can find, saddle up my horse and ride to town to enlist for the Confederacy.

This is what I was looking for. I understand there was much more to the war than slavery. I just asked the question because of those I have encountered in my limited travel who fly the flag of Confederacy have been rather simple minded assholes who hate blacks. I agree 100% about the federal government being out of control and I view them as nothing less than elitist pig ****ers and criminals.

One poster was offended by the question and thought I was calling out all who voted south as racist. That is not the case as I told him less a few I couldn't tell you how anyone voted without looking. As I have said of most of those I have met that fly the flag of Confederacy use it as a statement of white superiority. For anyone to say Lincoln freed the slaves and granted equal rights is a fool.

I have been in race riots where we fought for no other reason than color. I went to school in a poor white neighborhood and when integration started in our school the blacks hated us and were very aggressive. I did not hate blacks, hell I had never knew a black person. It was at that point I became aware of the bullshit they still endured for the simple reason they were not white. I treated blacks the same as I treated whites or anyone else. They were assholes to me and tried to bully me so I went to fighting them the same as any other asshole who had it coming.

I have not changed all these year later, I simply treat people how they treat me. They had every reason to be pissed and those who side with the north have no reason to feel proud about this issue as mistreatment continued until my lifetime. I just wanted the reasons behind a persons support~

ClevelandBronco
02-24-2011, 03:09 PM
Oh, and then I get my philosophizin' ass shot off in a losing effort to protect a wealthy man's right to own another man.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 03:09 PM
"For anyone to say Lincoln freed the slaves and granted equal rights is a fool."


Just remember what happened to Lincoln...

Lincoln was not given the opportunity to re-make the country after the Civil War. Instead, that duty fell to his VP from TN... who essentially re-packaged the Confederate practices as employment.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2011, 03:34 PM
"For anyone to say Lincoln freed the slaves and granted equal rights is a fool."


Just remember what happened to Lincoln...

Lincoln was not given the opportunity to re-make the country after the Civil War. Instead, that duty fell to his VP from TN... who essentially re-packaged the Confederate practices as employment.

I'll say this in the man's favor, he was going to have a policy of mercy toward the south on their war debt.
Some claim, this is why he was shot. Bankers had invested in both sides and wanted to collect. His VP was going
to carry out the same policy which was why he was impeached.
Mercantilism aka corporatism has an unholy alliance with big banking interests and they profit from war.

The thing is when a president is assassinated they get romanticized later.

Geesh, you sound like a Left-wing Progressive standing on a high moral horse.

SNR
02-24-2011, 03:40 PM
Going "all the way" with patteeu? :shake:
To be honest, I thought it was silly for him to get banned because he called you "honey."

I mean, it's not an outrage or anything. It's just funny, that's all.

Jenson71
02-24-2011, 03:41 PM
Anyone ever hear of compensated emancipation?

This was the method of ending slavery in countries where slavery was legal which involved paying the owner of a slave. Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery, without slaughtering their fellow citizens, did so through some form of compensated emancipation. Slave owners in the north received compensation using different gradual emancipation schemes.

Even Lincoln on April 16, 1862, used it to free slaves in the District of Columbia —the only place in the United States where the federal government provided compensation to the District's 900-odd slaveholders.

It simply is not true that killing one another was a solution to ending slavery or that the tariff was not a reason for the south leaving or that Lincoln was some sort of Progressive emancipator who wanted to end slavery by fighting a war.

There didn't have to be a fight for states rights. See Canada.