Posted on 03/03/2008 10:37:49 AM PST by Rebeleye
They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the so-called "Confederate States of America" both said it was. They will tell you that great-great grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders - not grunts - who decide whether and why a war is waged. They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Well, Mr. Pitts and whoever else believes this can kiss my white southern a$$. Nuff said.
Take care,
Ruck
Re: your post and my 299 - GMTA. Excellent post my friend.
Was’nt aware we have friends up there,
You are right... it was a tax on imports that caused the problem. Export taxes are unconstitutional. The import taxes were protectionist for Northern mills and resulted indirectly on a perceived disproportionate impact on the South’s economy. Enforcing these tariffs was resisted by the South and became a major issue leading to secession. I stand corrected...
I live “up here”, but I am a Mississippi boy born and bred. American by birth, Southern by the Grace of God.
And if somebody has a problem with that, tough.
Ruck
Must have been assigned the “Foward Observer” job , take care , from South Alabama..ROLL TIDE
Must have been assigned the “Foward Observer” job , take care , from South Alabama..ROLL TIDE
The South started the war, as did Germany and Japan. The South could no more control where the war went than could Germany and Japan. If bombing the cities of those two countries was an proportionate response to their war, why wouldn't it be a proportionate response to the confederacy's war
If you don't see the difference between the Confederats and those who DELIBERATELY KILLED over 12 Million unarmed people by the most inhumane deans they couLd dream up, there is no sense in my trying to explain it to you. But I will give you a gentle hint:
The South DID NOT, AS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY OR BY ORDERS OF THEIR SUPERIORS, DELIBERATELY AND COLD-BLOODEDLY starve, gas and shoot over 12,000,000 unarmed men, women and children, like the Germans and the Japanese did.
Dp upi thonk that if some southerner had bought a ;arge, en=closed piece of land in the middle of Washington City, ans started stocking it with the necessities for fighting a war agains the Union, that the Federal Govenm,ent would have waited very long before it fired the first shot? I don't.
Tjat's what happened, and that is why the South fired the first shots. Whether you like it or not.
May we have citation to the sources for this information?
Yep. I stand corrected. But in doing a quick search I found a lot of information concerning Lincoln's continuing interest in Black resettlement..
By the way, I have read just as many documents on one side as I have on the other -- and don't believe most of either of them.
“Soutnerners and everyone else need to be about leading a redeemed life and a part of that is leaving the past behind and moving forward in the present, toward positive ends.”
General Lee would agree with you about redemption. Still, there is no harm in southern heritage, is there? You seem to think there is and that it is something for which one should seek redemption.
I know you meant well, but you show profound ignorance of what southern heritage is, and what it means to those who respect it, otherwise you wouldn’t have made such a statement in the context of this thread.
You, like many “yankees” that show up on threads like these to proclaim Lee, Davis, and Jackson traitors simply are too comfortable with your self-proclaimed superiority. You think we southerners pine for “the cause” and want slavery to return. You think that we are somehow less American than you, when by measures relevant to the republic, like military service prevalence, we southerners are MORE American.
So, when you are pointing out the need for redemption, make sure you’ve got your glass house in order.
Sorry to be so tough on you, but frankly, you need it.
You can that if you want to -- but don't say that you're basing it on anything I said. That would be a lie.
You see, I DID NOT say that all Yankees were law-breakers. I wasn't talking about ALL Yankees. I was talking about the law-breaking Yankee slave-traders.
1st of all, Freemantle was of the old breed of upper class British aristocracy. If one foreigner could be found to support the South’s “peculiar institution” it would be a British aristocrat of the 19th century. Even though slavery had been abolished throughout the British Empire in the 1830s, in many colonial outposts the exploitation of natives came awful close to it in some regards.
And even as a coal miner in West Virginia you are not the property of another man.
Just think about this: Imagine another man owning you, able to treat you in any way he sees fit, a man who can sleep with your daughters, whip you, murder you, degrade you and you have no recourse at all. Just imagine that. I don’t imagine it is easy being a coal miner, but at least when they go home and not be at the mercy of another man.
That's very true and not widely known.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
I am sure they were all from north of the Mason Dixon line
it sounds like you are more concerned with the slaveowner’s property rights than with the inherent right to life and liberty of the enslaved.
that you can talk about it as a “property rights” issue befuddles me.
Freepers seem to have a curious moral blindness when it touches too close to home. If we had been talking about slavery in an Arab country, there would be no arguments here. But it happened here-—and in the south. And no one critizes the south!
You start out saying that slaves couldn't be killed at their owner's discretion. Then you seem to be saying that slaves weren't killed because it wasn't in their owner's self-interest.
Those are two separate and contradictory views of the rights of slaves and slaveowners. One is that slaves had a right to life. The other is that slaveowners had a right to do whatever they wanted to with a slave but were restrained by the owner's material interest (or perhaps goodwill).
Which is true? They can't both be.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trades of the old days weren't "involuntary servitude" because a player could quit the sport. A slave couldn't just stop chopping cotton.
I think Major League Baseball's changed its way of dealing with players over the years. I doubt a slave could ever have declared himself or herself a "free agent" as players can now, but even in the old days, ball players still had more rights than slaves.
The Blacks in Africa kidnapped them, the Arabs bought then from the Blacks and sold them to the Yankee skippers, who very humanely packed them like sardines below decks in their ship. Then gave them a free luxury vacation cruise to the sunny climes below the Mason-Dixon line, and sold them off to kindly plantation owners, who turned them over to mostly Yankeee overseers, who treated them like dogs. So see, it's all the fault of the Damyankees.
And that's no worse than the tripe kids are fed up on in today's government asylums --- uh, schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.