Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
ATLANTA — In a cultural war that has pitted Old South against new, defenders of the Confederate legacy have opened a fresh front in their campaign to polish an image tarnished, they said, by people who do not respect Southern values.
With the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States in 2011, efforts are under way in statehouses, small towns and counties across the South to push for proclamations or legislation promoting Confederate history.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
bump
Why do you think I owe you any personal explanation?
If you are going for the cheap personal attack, use Yardsticks, he at least didn’t hesitate to get down in the mud.
Sigh yourself.
If you want to comment on my stream of posts, read them first. That way you don’t look clueless.
As to your suggestion as I should go research, it is laughable. The last argument of a losing side.
Besides, no matter what facts I brought forth, they would be dismissed or demeaned by people so personally invested in defending a failed slave regime. After 680 or so posts no one has yet to bring forth what was noble about the CSA. You are no exception.
SO tell me professor, what was noble?
Democrats nominate Carter in 1976 and they win every Southern state but Virginia. Even in 1980, Carter comes closer to beating Reagan in Southern states than in Northern ones. In 2004 the Democrats nominate Kerry, win New Hampshire, and lose every Southern state (and a lot of others besides).
If Southerners think a party is strongly dominated by Northerners they'll vote against it. But the same holds true of Northerners if they think a party is too Southern. Belonging and feeling left out have as much to do with it as issues or philosophy.
People are usually voting against someone or something. To get back to where we started, it's by no means certain that Northerners would vote as they did in 2008 if the South were another country, and by no means certain that Southerners would vote for the things they do now if they didn't have an easy target like the "Yankees" to vote against.
That is a dangerous standard.
I guess you would be approving of four million enslaved blacks rising up and killing their owners.
Would you consider that brave?
I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder when you approve of murder.
I've done a bit of Internet research on Sam Watkins. First, he lived in Maury County, a county where slavery had a prominent role. The 1860 US Census showed that the county contained 17,848 free citizens and 14,656 slaves. It's hard to believe that Sam was not aware of the slavery issues. In the Feburary 1861 election in Tennessee where the mere calling of a secession election was rejected 64-36, Maury County supported the convention by almost 5-1. So Sam's home area was a typical slavery county wild for secession. In the June 27, 1861 rubber stamp election to confirm the legislature's illegal secession, Maury County supported secession 2731 to 78! Those 78 must have been some brave patriots! But it seems Sam didn't wait for legalities in his haste to get at the Yankees who were not even his state's "legal" enemies yet as he joined the "Bigby Grays" of Mt. Pleasant in May of that year.
There's something else I found that indicates Sam might have been VERY aware of slavery at the start of the war. A SCV biography of Watkins states that he was a store clerk before the war. The 1860 Federal census lists a 21 year old SB or SR Watkins in Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee as a store clerk living in the household of FH Watkins. The census slave schedule of 1860 shows FH Watkins as owning 109 Slaves! Surely States Rights Sam couldn't be the son of a man who owned over 100 slaves! Then again, when Watkins wrote his Civil War account as an aging man, slavery didn't have the best of reputations so I cannot fault him for not mentioning it in his account of the olden days.
“In Dixie. the term habeas corpus too often meant release to the survivors of the victim’s corpse after homicide by the hands of the rebels.”
From what I can comprehend of your sentence, it merits the following response:
Under siege, guilt is often presumed rather than innocence. The Republic is dead thanks to the misdeeds of Radical Republicans and their successors (not to mention the disgusting Russians, who have taken full advantage of the situation). You are equating good with evil.
Stalin and Hitler would have been proud of such reasoning justifying murder. I think Stalin and Hitler would have felt right at home in Jeff Davis's 19th century police state.
first
I asked you a question , are you really Irish or American?
Now obviously I have read your comment unlike the other poster as I have never noticed you on here before, hence the question and yes obviously I have read your posts otherwise I wouldn’t have come to the conclusion that you have no concept of what you are talking about?
not a civil war if I am pedantic and it was not about slavery as others have pointed out and if you actually did some research into what you are talking about .
No you do not owe me an explanation I asked you a question it is that simple really.
However I do find it ironic that you replied with no answers and yet you asked about the explanation.
Others have given you a lot to go on about your short comings on this subject so I await and will reply when you look into it.
Probably in a few years as i have gone over this war for 10 years and still I find new facts.
good luck
I’ll answer this as you cannot even answer if you really are Irish
What was noble?
Well fighting in what you believe in is noble, . Now would you agree.
What did most agree on and believe on?
Well fighting to get rid of an army coming into your town and state and saying what you can fly, sing, think, and who you should belong to.
think about it as that now answers your question even if it flies in the face of your view or what or why the war was over.
Now I look forward to your answer
Please stop with the Neo as well as the left wing loons like to use that as well, don’t put yourself down to their level hey, you’re better than that I trust
“’Under siege, guilt is often presumed rather than innocence.’
‘Stalin and Hitler would have been proud of such reasoning justifying murder. I think Stalin and Hitler would have felt right at home in Jeff Davis’s 19th century police state.’”
No; it was supposed to be a republic. Hitler and Stalin were Leftists. Do not equate selective killing of accused bridge-burners in a small state under siege with the Leftist democide of 100 million innocents (Stalin and WWII combined).
Whoa pardner, that's a pretty big cow flop you just stepped in. The ONLY reason the South voted for Goldwater was his opposition to civil rights.
Seriously, you do realize that most of the NY Democrats elected down here in the South were conservative, don't you? That Robert Taft, upon his election to the Senate formed a conservative coalition with Southern Dems to fight FDR. That act infuriated the Northern GOP leadership and they did everything in their power to keep him from ever getting the GOP nomination.
Didn't know Adlai Stevens was a conservative, but he musta been cuz them Southrons voted fer him...twice! /lmao
Or take a look at the 1940 Presidential election (FDR's third term) and tell me the South wasn't addicted to the federal teat provided by the Democrats and their southron cronies.
Of course everything changed in 1968 when dem old confederates could vote their true conscious for a real conservative...George Wallace.
And then it wasn't too many years gone by before the South could again show us their true colors once again and vote en mass for...Jimmah Carter.
Leading us to a Southron split decision for Bill Clinton and (gasp) Barry Obama.
Contrast that with a solid SIXTY year stretch of solid Republican support from the state of Kansas, Nebraska, North & South Dakota (1964 being the one exception), and you can see where the conservative heart of this country rests.
Wasn’t Lincoln under siege also when he imprisoned suspected bridge burners? How do you compare Lincoln’s imprisonment of the suspected with Davis’s hanging of the suspected?
How true. Ignorance cannot be eradicated.
Who cares? I was responding to an assertion that the South only started voting GOP because the Republican candidates were big spenders. That was absurd to begin with, since Landon, Dewey, and Wilkie and almost the entire GOP during the FDR/Truman era was for big spending and they didn't lure the South into the GOP. Now you chime in and tell us that the South switched to the GOP over civil rights issues, not spending. Thanks!
Didn't know Adlai Stevens was a conservative, but he musta been cuz them Southrons voted fer him...twice! /lmao
I was referring to the Dems elected to the U.S. Senate and House from the South, hence my reference to Taft forming a conservative coalition with the Dixiecrats. Most (not all, of course) of them were conservative Democrats. And it's Adlai Stevenson, not Stevens. And he had to pick a Southern running mate each time to keep the South from defecting, and half of the South did. If Eisenhower had been a conservative, all of the South would have.
Or take a look at the 1940 Presidential election (FDR's third term) and tell me the South wasn't addicted to the federal teat provided by the Democrats and their southron cronies.
FDR's opponent that year was Wendell Wilkie, who ran on a platform of maintaining all of FDR's programs (though he promised to make them more "efficient"). He went on to become a leader in the New York state Liberal Party, and hoped to create a new national liberal party (I guess he felt the Dems weren't liberal enough). So this is the guy the Southern states should have voted for to prove their conservatism?
Of course everything changed in 1968 when dem old confederates could vote their true conscious for a real conservative...George Wallace.
Five states did, the rest voted for Nixon except for Texas, where Wallace drew enough votes from Nixon to throw the state to Humphrey (Nixon would have won Texas in a one-on-one race). Meanwhile, Humphrey's only stronghold was in Yankeedom.
And then it wasn't too many years gone by before the South could again show us their true colors once again and vote en mass for...Jimmah Carter.
Uh, yeah, Carter ran as a conservative and fooled a lot of people. He lost the white vote in the South, though. But he did well enough that combined with the black vote he carried the area.
Leading us to a Southron split decision for Bill Clinton and (gasp) Barry Obama.
In all of those elections your darling North went almost unanimously for Clinton and Obama. But let's look at them a little more closely. Other than Arkansas, which Clinton won because it was his home state, most of Clinton's wins in the South were because Perot split the vote. That's also why Clinton won Montana in 1992. Or didn't you know that? Only a fool would look at Clinton's win in Montana that year and conclude that Montana was a "big spendin' liberal state suckin' at the big guv'mint teat". It was a fluke caused by Perot, and so were nearly all of Clinton's Dixie wins. Even with Perot in the race, screwing things up, Clinton lost most Southern states each time, even as he cruised to victory up North in a cakewalk. As for Obama, you're a laugh riot. Obama won the three Southern states where transplanted Yankees are changing the political culture. That's Virginia, where they refer to the liberal infested Northern part of the state as "Occupied Virginia" because of all the transplanted Yankees there, North Carolina, where Raleigh-Durham is now a branch of New England, and Florida, where the southern corner is a branch of New York & New Jersey. This is likewise happening in Colorado, where it's being "Californicated" and thus turning blue.
Meanwhile, last time I checked, Obama won every state across the North from Maine to Iowa. Or didn't you notice?
Contrast that with a solid SIXTY year stretch of solid Republican support from the state of Kansas, Nebraska, North & South Dakota (1964 being the one exception), and you can see where the conservative heart of this country rests.
Excellent! I'll write the RNC this evening and tell them that all they have to do is concentrate on those four tiny electoral vote states and they're a sure bet to beat Obama in 2012!
The Republican Party have apparently found it necessary to do what they once accused the Soviet Union of doing: Rewriting history. No one, of course, has taken the worshipping of Abraham Lincoln to greater extremes than the Republican Party “Union Forever”
Consider the one principle of the Declaration of Independence that Thomas Jefferson is most noted for, the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever governments become destructive of liberty it is the duty of citizens to abolish that government and replace it with a new one.
In his First Inaugural Address he declared, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union . . . let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” He was championing the right of free speech here, but also the right of secession.
In a letter to James Madison in 1816 Jefferson reiterated his support of the right of secession by saying, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.”
Thanks again!
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.