Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
Well I declare! What a video!
If the south rises again, the North will just slap it back down. < /troll > XD
Ahhh, I see what you did there. :D
Also, that’s a terrific idea.
Especially if you film it. It would be INTERNET GOLD!
“If the south rises again, the North will just slap it back down.”
Heh. With what? ;)
Especially East Tennesseans, who were largely loyal to the Union. ^_^
Shh, I’m just stirring up trouble. :D
“Shh, I’m just stirring up trouble. :D”
They might catch on to the cunning plan.... ;)
Spitballs?
Since when do we read whole threads before posting? ;)
“Spitballs?”
Yep. ;)
My “heh, with what” was intended as a joke, considering the sizable number of Southerners in the military, the location of many major bases and shipyards, and military industry. Couple that with the strict gun control and other liberal policies we sneakingly got them to adopt.... ;)
You see, the South did win, after all. ;)
So war it was after all? And the South started it? Well you can't very well complain when things don't turn out quite like you had expected, can you?
Who owns Federal Property?
The government. Or if you want to get right down to it the people of the United States. That would be all the people, North as well as South. So what would give the people of South Carolina the right to just take it without compensating all the owners? Isn't their share of the property worth something?
Lincoln maintained a fort within the territory of South Carolina, a State that considered itself seceded and no longer part of the United States, thus this was a foreign military facility. That would normally be considered justified.
“The government. “
False.
“Or if you want to get right down to it the people of the United States. That would be all the people, North as well as South.”
The people of South Carolina took back only the property they had originally ceded the Federal government.
I know your agenda here: “South bad guys, North shining knights in armor”, but that isn’t true. Neither side was the “good guys”. Lincoln fought to preserve what was supposed to be a freely entered into Federation at gun point. That’s exactly what that fort was - a loaded gun pointing at a major economic center of the nascent Confederacy.
Perhaps if he HAD withdrawn, an accommodation could have been reached, but frankly, both sides were spoiling for a fight.
Hahaha, true true.
Yes, but the northerners didn’t rebel, did they? They took it like sheep.
I am a northerner btw.
If that is truly the case and slavery was illegal under the original constitution then why was the 13th amendment to the constitution necessary? Thats the amendment that prohibits slavery.
I do admire very much about Walter Williams very much-— not the least of which being the way he succeeds where all other men fail, that is, keeping his wife in line.
I probably shouldn’t have said Walter Williams sees all human behavior through an economic lens-— that was stretching it. However, I do think he too often misappropriates the public choice economics of Buchanan and Tullock to reduce his analyses of politics to purely economic incentivizing, much as Thomas Dilorenzo does, particularly in his analysis of Lincoln. I think public choice economics, and Williams’ notion of self-ownership taken from Locke are both too narrow to encompass the richness of the human action as it relates to Lincoln; Williams cannot distinguish between the principled Lincoln and the willy nilly FDR in their relative expansions of government because of this. Lincoln expanded government because he had to, FDR because he wanted to— two very different things.
To say slavery was the most important cause of the War may be hard to say with utter metaphysical certainty without at least an angel’s knowledge of causation. But we can certainly look at the ordinances of secession and the Confederate Constitution to see that the governments that formed the Confederacy saw the right to keep and bear slaves as a positive good, in fact a great thing well worth fighting for, and the their primary cause.
I also disagree that the 1861 generation was the “greatest generation” of the South, but then I tend to be skeptical of the whole idea of “greatest generations”. Robert E. Lee knew that slavery was not worth seceding over and considered fighting for the Union, but ended up fighting for the South becuase it was his home. I believe he would have better served his country by fighting for it rather than his geographic home, and that his choice was emblematic of the South in general, or at least its leaders. The fact that the South, by and large, is our most patriotic region— that its men and women have fought for the US in such great numbers, so shortly after the Civil War up to and including the the WOT-— this impresses the hell out of me, anyway.
Civilization and culture doesn’t proceed in a straight forward or even backward line, its two step forward, six back, eight sideways. What you say about Hollywood and its dulling, leveling effect no doubt has some merit. But the fact that Jim Crow is dead and the South is yet still known as “the Bible belt” has to count for something as well. Similarly, the United States, imo, while afflicted by a Hollywood, has yet to be conquered by it-— John Wilkes Booth and Rosie O'Donnell notwithstanding.
I think the Confederate government embodied its founding principles quite well.
In my study of local history I've become familiar with Confederate Congressman Tibbs of the southeastern corner of East Tennessee. He was a true triple threat embodying three fundamentals of the Confederacy. He was a typical legislator, making laws for the benefit of the great Southern nation. Secondly he was a slave trader, using his legislative travels to Richmond to help introduce the glorious benefits of slavery to a region that was largely unfamiliar with the cornerstone of the Confederacy. Thirdly, he was an abuser of the local Unionist population, always willing to lend a needed hand to the imprisonment and extortion of "Lincolnites".
With such liberty loving statesmen as Confederate Congressman Tibbs, was the final fate of the Confederacy ever in doubt?
It's time to update your calender, it's no longer the 1860's.
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.