The war between North and South

BostonGlobe ^ | May 9, 2006 | PETER S. CANELLOS

[stainlessbanner]

WASHINGTON -- Back in the 2004 presidential primaries, when Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, suggested that Democrats should be competing for the votes of young men with Confederate flags on their pickups, politicians from both parties rushed to accuse him of repeating a vile Southern stereotype: the redneck with antiquated views on race. < SNIP >

''Howard Dean knows about as much about the South as a hog knows about Sunday," quipped Georgia Senator Zell Miller, the conservative Democrat who supported President Bush. ''Sure, we drive pickups, but on the back of those pickups, you see a lot of American flags. It's the most patriotic region in the country. And you see hard-working individuals that want to instill values in their children, and you see a very, very strong work ethic in the South. He doesn't understand the South." < SNIP >

Many Southerners express outrage at Northern depictions of Confederate-loving Southerners, even as they accede to the idea that the flag has a place in their regional heritage. Only those inside the Southern family circle can truly understand the region's complicated relationship with its own history.< SNIP >

[Radix]

"And where in the Constitution is that to be found?"

She could tear you a new one with that question.

Are you suggesting that bearing false witness and stealing are constitutionally protected? What other inference could one make?

[MamaTexan]

MT* If it has no metal and no alloy, it's not a 'coin', it's air.
NS* But it's still money, which the Congress is tasked with regulating.

ROFLMAO!

Are you saying Congress has the legitimate authority to regulate air??

-----

That tears it.

Good day to you, sir.

[MamaTexan]

She could tear you a new one with that question.

LOL!

Thank you, Hon. :-)

[MamaTexan]

No you've given your opinion

And the opinion of George Tucker, Joseph Story, Blackstone, Madison and a host of others who dedicated their lives to the study of law and the construction of the Constitution.

Logic would dictate they would have a much better idea of the original intent than you..

----

and want the rest of us to accept it as fact.

Fine. Remain ignorant.

That, too, is an unenumerated right.

Again, good day.

[usmcobra]

There's nothing I'd like better than to explain it to you the "hard way". There's nothng worse than a traitor to his own people. A Scalawag. Lower than dirt.

Funny you should say that...

"Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis"

What sort of Marine would place the motto of a nation that fought against The United States Marine Corps before the motto that binds us as brothers?

[usmcobra]

You better guess again

Johnson never joined the Republican party and his bios always list him as a democrat. He and Lincoln were elected as the National Union ticket.

As for Reconstruction Johnson allowed those democrats that were confederate leaders to return to office and write the so called black codes which prevented blacks from voting and even removed those blacks elected to office from them.

In short instead of reforming the south during reconstruction, Johnson allowed those that had brought about secession in the first place to return to office while congress was in recess and he left the decision of how to cope with emancipation completely in the hands of white Southerners.

One of Johnson most notable accomplishment is that He was the first president whose Veto was ever overridden by congress, and the bill that overrode his Veto was The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established Negroes as American citizens and forbade discrimination against them.

Do I need to remind you of what Johnson told Thomas C. Fletcher, the governor of Missouri: "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men."

Democrat through and through.

[ReignOfError]

For most Confederates, any "real reconstructing" was just vengeance and "punishing the South." A large proportion of those who'd fought against the United States were adamantly opposed to racial equality or suffrage for Blacks

I'm not arguing that the ex-Confederates were the champions of civil rights and the Yankee Republicans its opponents; that's farcical. What I am arguing is that the occupying Union troops during Reconstruction were focused on the wrong priorities. They cared more about hurting Southern whites than about helping Southern blacks, and scarcely gave a moment's thought to building a consensus that might survive more than a day after they left.

By way of an analogy, let's look at Iraq. The Sunnis oppressed the Shi'a for decades. Suppose we handed all power to the Shi'a, kicked the s--- out of the Sunnis, and then left abruptly. It's a recipe for chaos. It's why we can't abruptly pull out of Iraq today, and why the Union shouldn't have abruptly pulled out of the South in 1877.

What are we doing in Iraq? Bringing Iraqis in. Cooperating. Building friendships and partnerships. Bringing in local partners who know local concerns. What did the Union do in 1866? None of the above.

Most Northerners were also opposed to racial equality, but it's wrong and a cop-out to assume that the problems with Reconstruction were all the fault of the Republicans. If the ex-Confederates had things their way, it certainly wouldn't have meant that racial equality would have come about any sooner.

Are you so utterly consumed with Democrat-Republican partisanship than you can't see the universe through any other lens? Even when we're talking about a century and a half ago, when the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives?

After the war, Democrats were irrelevant. Disenfranchised. Couldn't vote, had no seats in Congress, might as well talk to the wall. The debate over how to handle Reconstruction was entirely among Republicans, as they were the only party with any real power.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you suggesting that bearing false witness and stealing are constitutionally protected? What other inference could one make?

How about the fact that they are not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere? Now if I'm a southern supporter then I immediately point to the 10th Amendment and state that since they are not mentioned then they are not foribidden, so you have it backwards.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you saying Congress has the legitimate authority to regulate air??

No, although I'm amused that you could come to that conclusion. Not surprised, mind. Just amused.

[Non-Sequitur]

Logic would dictate they would have a much better idea of the original intent than you..

Alas none of those men sat on the Supreme Court when it ruled that paper money did not violate the Constitution. The fact that you disagree with their decision doesn't make paper money illegal.

[Non-Sequitur]

Arent you even a little bit embarassed by the fact that your sainted Jefferson Davis printed paper money, too? That he ignored his own constitution in ways that Lincoln would never have dreamed of? You don't have any time to condemn or defend him?

[MamaTexan]

1. Jefferson Davis was not my saint, so it's not up to me to condemn or defend him

2. My heritage doesn't embarrass me in the least

There are a certain group of freepers around who it obviously is impossible to discuss anything with, as there entire argument consists of 'your wrong and I'm right because I say so'.

These posters source nothing, and discount those FReepers who DO observe form and post material for everyones consumption.

Please do not post to me again sir as you ARE one of those Freepers.

Well, not a true FReeper...more like a Republican troll.

[usmcobra]

After the war, Democrats were irrelevant. Disenfranchised. Couldn't vote, had no seats in Congress, might as well talk to the wall. The debate over how to handle Reconstruction was entirely among Republicans, as they were the only party with any real power.

You really don't believe that do you? it's almost as comical and deluded as The U-boats stand watie says the confederates captured with pleasure boats.

[Non-Sequitur]

1. Jefferson Davis was not my saint, so it's not up to me to condemn or defend him.

Certainly not to condemn him.

There are a certain group of freepers around who it obviously is impossible to discuss anything with, as there entire argument consists of 'your wrong and I'm right because I say so'.

So I see.

Please do not post to me again sir as you ARE one of those Freepers.

Sorry madam, you don't get away scott free. If I see you posting something I believe to be wrong then I will post it and my evidence. And if that makes you uncomfortable then so be it.

[usmcobra]

Your conclusions about this map are all wrong, with the exception of Arizona, Goldwater's home state all the rest he carried,(Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina,) were voting against LBJ to show that democrats would do anything to stop Civil Rights even vote for a republican.

LBJ, the politician's politician, had already seen the writing on the wall and was moving to put an end to the civil rights abuses by democrats in the south, not because he wanted to but because he knew that if he didn't Republicans would sooner or later. In many ways he actually saved the democrats power base in the congress by doing so.(a fact probibly lost on those that are screaming for a protest vote against republicans on immigration).

I remember this election well, especially Chet Huntley chain smoking like chimney on the election night coverage.

[usmcobra]

My heritage doesn't embarrass me in the least.

Not even the slightest little bit, knowing that because of the color of their skin, those that created your heritage enslaved, beat, whipped, raped, killed, and denied those other human beings the very rights you hold so dear today and created for us today a climate in which the children's children of those they abused are now filled with hate and anger fueled by the very party that sanctioned the abuse of their forefathers.

I've been accused of painting the democrats with a broad bunch, that some how it is wrong for me to do so while they paint republicans with a larger bunch of racism for daring to think the history of the south should be taught as it was.

There is a reason why Democrats want to destroy the heritage and symbols of the south, They want to bury their their crimes against those they want to vote for them once and for all time to come.

[TexConfederate1861]

Or it could just be Neo-Yankees like yourself, who re-write history for their own purposes.

Ever wonder why Chamberlain, Grant, and many other prominent Union soldiers gave honor to the Confederates?

Obviously, they saw a certain truth and honor in the Confederate cause. (not slavery)

[TexConfederate1861]

Some of us prefer other titles. That term is meant in everyway as an insult.

[MamaTexan]

then I will post it and my evidence

As you have yet to post any 'evidence' (text along with the source where it was taken) other than your own words, your argument borders on the ridiculous

And if that makes you uncomfortable then so be it.

Uncomfortable? No. Just disgusted that people are so sure government always operates in accordance of the law without having a clue as to what the law even says.

You don't agree with me? Fine.

Please do not post to me again.

[P8riot]

Depends on who you talk to