Southern pride rallies 'round flag

The Washington Times ^ | June 27, 2004 | Robert Stacy McCain

[stand watie]

in point of fact, SC TOURISM is UP ever since the boycott.

a friend of mine in CHALLSTON wrote a letter to the naaLcp begging them to make it PERMANENT!

free dixie,sw

[CurlyBill]

AMEN!!!!!

[CurlyBill]

One other point to be made here is the fact that much (if not most) of this anti-Confederate flag issue is being driven by the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of this country who PROFIT from this controversy. They keep this issue alive so that they can keep the dollars rolling in. You'll notice that instead of trying to fully resolve the issue, they will instigate timely "flare ups" in order to keep things going. Sadly, many others here in America have apparenty bought into it and drink from the cup of unjustified guilt.

[stand watie]

!!!!!

[stand watie]

TRUE!

i knew jesse in the 60s-he was a $$$$$$$-hungry creep then too.

Dr King DISPISED him, as he was ONLY for jesse.

free dixie,sw

[Colt .45]

** What's wrong with that?

Its like solicitation of murder, against the law and wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[cyborg]

How's it different from the American Revolution when the colonists fought againt the British?

[Colt .45]

From the Southern point of view, we were fighting for our freedom and way of life. For you Yankees it was all about forcing the Southern States to remain in the Union. NOT what the Founders envisioned old chum!

[Colt .45]

I haven't seen any of your postings defend the Southern Cause of States Rights.

My view of slavery is what was the truth of the time. As for the rhetorical question "Is slavery right?" The answer is no, but I DO believe in a State's right of self-determination. Don't forget that in the Treaty of Paris in 1783, King George III RECOGNIZED THE 13 COLONIES AS SOVERIEGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES! Even the Founders still held that to be the case when the Constitution was ratified. They only united for specific reasons, and they didn't give away their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution.

I didn't assume anything, your postings show how you feel about why the South fought. You come across with the elitist superior attitude - SMARMY! You bought the Yankee teachings hook-line and sinker. I didn't say you were a Southern Hater either, I DID say that you were a smarmy-assed Yankee, and until you prove different that view won't change.

[cyborg]

I DID say that you were a smarmy-assed Yankee, and until you prove different that view won't change.

** I see no good deed/action goes unpunished. Your mind is made up about me because I live in New York and you assume things about my education based upon where I live. I assure my view of the South/Southerners aren't the same as your view of 'yankees'. Have a good evening.

[cyborg]

A man that I wish would come up North but probably won't *LOL*

http://www.confederate-rose.org/Violations/Edgerton-MarchAcrossDixie.htm

[GOPcapitalist]

That goes both ways. One might also point out that whole sections of the confederacy might have seceded if the Davis regime had not imposed martial law and arrested all pro-Union citizens that they could find.

Quoth the Non-Sequitur, "Squack! Tu Quoque! Tu Quoque!"

[GOPcapitalist]

Well, here for example is the text of the South Carolina ordinance of secession. This ordinance states that South Carolina is seceding from the Union, that it is doing so to protect its rights upon which the federal government is (or, rather, threatened to) infringing, and that those rights were the right to hold slaves. Furthermore, the state was particularly annoyed at the northern states' attempts to subvert the Fugitive Slave Act. Read it for yourself. Oddly enough there doesn't seem to be anything in there about "taxes" or "economic control", excepting taxes on slaves. Either the secession convention didn't consider these factors as important as slavery, or you're engaging in revisionist history.

So many errors, so little time. Where to begin?

1. That link isn't the ordinance of secession for South Carolina or any other state. The ordinance of secession was a specific legal document enacted by their convention to sever the ties with the federal government. What you linked to was a separately adopted Declaration of Causes representing the opinions of the convention's legislative body as to secession but containing no legal provisions. Put another way, think of the Secession Ordinance as the law and the Declaration of Causes as one of those fluffy resolutions that nowadays are used by legislative bodies to denounce things by another branch that they don't like and to commend the winner of the super bowl.

2. Next, even if we presume for a moment that what you linked to were the SC Ordinance (and it is not), it is still representative of only one single state's convention. If you recall, twelve state governments, a rump government in a thirteenth state (Kentucky), a territorial government (Arizona), and the governments of about half a dozen indian tribes located in present day Oklahoma all adopted one or more secession documents of various forms. In total there are about 20 such documents including four states that issued both an Ordinance and adopted a Declaration of Causes to express the opinions of its convention and, in some cases, urge popular approval of the Ordinance. Citing one out of twenty as conclusive evidence of your case is shoddy and unrepresentative by any measure. But what of the makeup of the remainder? Well, only five of those documents make any substantial mention of slavery in any form - 4 Declarations from TX, SC, MS, and GA and a Declaration from the Cherokees, which mentions slavery only briefly. The rest are silent. And what of economic issues? Well, the same Georgia Declaration that cites slavery also contains several lengthy paragraphs denouncing the tariff hikes, northern federal subsidies, and economic centralization under the Republican Party. Others, such as Texas', also list economic concerns among slavery and many others including frontier defenses, deprivation of federal protection and the sort. The bottom line of it all though is this: Unlike the Declaration of Independence, there is no one single defining document or doctrine of the CSA's formation that makes a singular statement of its founding cause or causes. Instead you have about 20 such documents, all of them different, and in excess of 200 or more significant speeches by southern leaders on all sorts of issues ranging from slavery to taxes to subsidies to the homestead bill to constitutional theories of federalism making up the volume of literature on "causes" of secession.

3. Your alleged dilemma against your adversary is false for the above stated reasons among others. You would be best to refrain from such tactics under the watchful eye of FR readers and posters as they will ultimately weaken your argument on other points where something you say happens to contain some validity.

[GOPcapitalist]

One doesn't meet many Confederate bolsheviks.

Given Karl Marx's adoration for Lincoln and his own contribution to the northern cause by way of propagandizing for it in the newspapers of Europe and, later, the northeast, that is of little surprise.

[Non-Sequitur]

I see that "Tu Crammit" boy is back.

[IrishCatholic]

I enjoyed reading your posts. I see you roused the whole Klan. I made the mistake of getting involved in these threads before. Then I realized that there is just no way to reason with them at all. They are as fanatical as Muslim extremists. Seriously, they are.
I have an interest in civil war history just as I do in all history. To these neo-confederates, though, it is an all consuming obsession. The number of postings on the unveiling of the confederate constitution should be a guide. The fact the Southern economy was based on slavery doesn't matter to them. The fact the Southern leaders stated at the onset of the war that slavery was the reason for the breach doesn't matter to them. The fact that slavery is inherently evil and corrupting doesn't matter to them. The fact that most of the Southern generals had fought in the Mexican war- a truly national war- making them traitors to their country later, doesn't matter to them. They will twist all to make it fit their view and any people that don't agree becomes "damnyankees" regardless of their origin.
Hate and ignorance intertwined. It gives good insight to fanaticism though. Just thought you should know that you can either argue with them till the cows come home or just blow them off and move on, you can't make them think.

[stainlessbanner]

Please enlighten us with your muslim extremist + confederate comparison.