Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: 4 in 10 Southerners Still Side With Confederacy
aolnews ^ | Apr 13, 2011 – 7:10 AM | lauren frayer

Posted on 05/03/2011 9:29:20 AM PDT by OL Hickory

A century and a half after the opening shots of the U.S. Civil War, nearly four in 10 Southerners say they still sympathize with the Confederacy.

(Excerpt) Read more at aolnews.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2011polls; civil; dixie; north; south; thesouthwasright; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-437 next last
To: rokkitapps
The north on the other hand, had a vigorous press throughout the war.

Were you trying to be sarcastic, or do you really believe that? Lincoln put over ten thousand civilians in jail without trial for opposing his war. He shut down every single opposition newspaper, putting many of the editors in jail. He jailed opposition politicians and even deported one of them (who then got reelected while in exile).

Lincoln's America was a horror show. The Union was a military dictatorship during and after the war. Lincoln's only foreign ally was the Tsar (who offered to send him troops). Keep in mind the Union was not being invaded. It's ports were not blockaded. It faced no existential threat, nor any threat at all except the loss of tax revenue from the South. Yet Lincoln used marshal law against his own civilians and did so for purely political reasons.

41 posted on 05/03/2011 10:24:07 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge
I eagerly await the justification of slavery.

You may be waiting a while since no one here's trying to justify slavery. It was a world problem that we inherited under britain. It was southern because of climate, but the heinous slave trade was conducted almost entirely by the north - throughout the americas and throughout the war. No one held a moral high ground.

Perhaps justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands - not to "free" the slaves, but to "enslave" the southern states to the north. remember, for years of war, the south was invited back with slavery in tact - the catch being they had to kiss the feet of the northern states in perpetuity.
42 posted on 05/03/2011 10:24:50 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

I should first tell you my late mother-in-law was a proud member of the Daughters of the Republic. Their family exemplified an early example of American penchant for the conspiracy theories, commenting for years that Appomattox never happened. My ex-wife exemplifies southern pride. Personally, I am a transplanted northerner who appreciates more and more the states right fight that the south projected during the Civil War. I only give this as a background for a recent conversation I had with my kids.

My Son and Daughter and I were watching Pickett’s charge during the movie Gettysburg. My Son is studying the Civil War in his middle school history class. We discussed the different aspects of the charge, but my 13 year old Daughter’s final comment on it was “Things would have be a lot different for us if Stonewall hadn’t been shot at Chancellorsville.” The “us” rolled off her tongue like she was talking about something that happened last week to her volleyball team.

The south will never die.


43 posted on 05/03/2011 10:29:50 AM PDT by Til I am the last man standing (It's the internet Senators; We can see what you are doing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
If the contract doesn't specify, then all the parties have to agree to end it, just like all the parties had to agree to the contract in the first place. Basic law, which is based on basic common sense.

Have you ever actually studied law? If a contract doesn't specify its termination conditions and has no apparent implied termination conditions then it is an "at will" contract and either party may terminate it at will. Haven't you ever been employed? That is a contract but one doesn't need the employer's permission to end it.

44 posted on 05/03/2011 10:32:22 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rokkitapps; Jemian
If you like freedom, the south would not have been that great. It was a military dictatorship during the war - no freedom of the press or speech. The north on the other hand, had a vigorous press throughout the war.

No, it did not.

Executive Order - Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors

May 18, 1864

Major-General John A. Dix,

Commanding at New York:

Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.

A. LINCOLN.

45 posted on 05/03/2011 10:33:26 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

Horray for the Bonny Blue Flag..


46 posted on 05/03/2011 10:37:15 AM PDT by JSDude1 (December 18, 2010 the Day the radical homosexual left declared WAR on the US Military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rokkitapps

Come on it’s not like they weren’t under a bit of pressure. The south was dealing with an invasion. Not normal..


47 posted on 05/03/2011 10:41:03 AM PDT by JSDude1 (December 18, 2010 the Day the radical homosexual left declared WAR on the US Military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19

I absolutely agree that we, as a nation, inherited slavery from Britain, absolutely agree that the federal government essentially enslaved the South following the Civil War with it’s intrusion on states rights and absolutely agree
that the North greatly economically benefited from slavery.

I would add that there were(still are) Northern hypocrites regarding the issue of slavery.

However, my disgust over keeping a people, based on race, enslaved is a human rights issue and not a Southern bashing/pro North issue.


48 posted on 05/03/2011 10:50:38 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

great thread, best I’ve seen here—surprised.


49 posted on 05/03/2011 10:52:07 AM PDT by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



I’m Floored
That You Haven’t Donated Yet!


Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

Lazamataz! We miss you.

50 posted on 05/03/2011 10:54:58 AM PDT by TheOldLady (Almost as evil as the Freeper Criminal Mastermind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

If this is a question of what was feared in the Federalist Papers, that the Federal Govt would become too big, too powerful and far too overreaching, then you bet I’m a States Rights gal.


51 posted on 05/03/2011 10:59:46 AM PDT by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg

Wait ‘till the haters show up.


52 posted on 05/03/2011 11:02:12 AM PDT by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rokkitapps
If you like freedom, the south would not have been that great. It was a military dictatorship during the war - no freedom of the press or speech. The north on the other hand, had a vigorous press throughout the war.

I assume you were being sarcastic. Here are some online references for you:

Link 1, pages 393 and 394

Link 1, pages 328 ff

You will notice in the first link, all Democrat newspapers being excluded from a state by a Union commander. How many papers might that have been? And before Lincoln's 1864 election too.

The best review of Northern treatment of the press during the war is "Lincoln and the Press" by Robert S. Harper, copyright 1951. Some say 300 Northern papers were suppressed or destroyed during the war. I've found documentation for over 100 myself. At that point I stopped counting. Some references such as Richard Franklin Bensel's book, "Yankee Leviation" correctly note that the Union used suspension of the writ and marshal law to "close down dissident newspapers or influence their editorial policy."

In contrast, Bensel notes only two papers suppressed or destroyed in the South. I've seen reference to maybe two or three additional Southern newspapers in the old wartime newspapers (my hobby), nowhere near what happened in the North.

53 posted on 05/03/2011 11:05:27 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge
However, my disgust over keeping a people, based on race, enslaved is a human rights issue and not a Southern bashing/pro North issue.

Fair enough. Unfortunately there are many who cannot discuss the events of those days without distorting the discussion with the emotions of slavery.

The unfortunate truth (from a sympathetic northerner) is Lincoln destroyed the separation of powers between the fed and the states inherent with the constitutional compact, and usurped the powers separated into the legislative and judiciary branches all into the executive. Effectively, the original constitution is a now just a figment of historians, kept around to keep us at ease like the old Roman Senate during the rule of the Caesars.

Now we all sleep comfortably knowing we're protected by our constitution while our federal government takes 1/2 of the fruits of our labor directly to ruin our agriculture and education, support the killing of tens of millions of babies, control our access to health care, etc. etc. How far we've come when such things were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
54 posted on 05/03/2011 11:09:39 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

Yeah but oneside does not get to change the contract however it wishes, like is happening now and was happening then.


55 posted on 05/03/2011 11:13:50 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wilderness Conservative

“About half the yankees would join the south today if they could”

Back in the 1980’s it seemed that about half of the Yankees *did*.


56 posted on 05/03/2011 11:24:26 AM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge

“I eagerly await the justification of slavery.”

In the context of the time it was not slavery that needed to be justified, but the far more radical proposition of abolition. Slavery had been a facet of every human culture for millennia and it was accepted as a norm until the late 18th century.

The Civil War was not started over slavery and as proof of that is the fact that slavery was not abolished in the Northern states until December of 1865 - several months after the end of the war.


57 posted on 05/03/2011 11:36:35 AM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
In the context of the time it was not slavery that needed to be justified, but the far more radical proposition of abolition.

I have to disagree. Slavery was under pressure all over the western world and several perfectly valid justifications for abolition were widely held, even in the South. For instance, it is often overlooked that the Dred Scott decision overturned a southern court's decision to free DS.

The tough issue of the day was what to do with the negros. No one, North or South, thought that this alien African population would or should ever be integrated into American society. So what do you do with them after freeing them? The South looked to the western territories as the answer to the question, states like Illinois were willing to go to war to kill that idea.

58 posted on 05/03/2011 11:48:14 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Wilderness Conservative
About half the yankees would join the south today if they could

I did.

59 posted on 05/03/2011 11:49:58 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Democrat Party is Communist. The Republican Party is Socialist. The Tea Party is Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rokkitapps

“The north on the other hand, had a vigorous press throughout the war.”

True, if you don’t include the papers shut down by lincoln.


60 posted on 05/03/2011 12:10:20 PM PDT by Sporke (USS-Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-437 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson