Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
“Never argue with a woman.”
—unknown
Wow.
Nice reversal. What happened to you mentor, Madison?
Dropped him like a hot potato, you did.
First of all, I don't know where this kind of talk comes from, since nobody on Free Republic posts anything remotely resembling what you're saying, i.e., "hang the entire South"!
I've posted here before: half my extended family are southerners, the other half eastern, northern and westerners, and I certainly don't want to see any of the "hanged".
Second, it's important to remember that the number of slave-holding families declined as you traveled north from Deep South (circa 50%) to Border States (i.e., Delaware at 3%).
Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee fell roughly in the middle, at about 25%.
Indeed, that's what made them so reluctant to declare secession, since they had more families not invested in slaves than slave-holders.
Third, in all three Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee, families which did not own slaves were concentrated in the Appalachian Mountain regions, and that explains their efforts to secede from the Confederacy.
Therefore, in other areas of those same states, slave-holding families might be just as numerous as the Deep South.
AuntB: "If your family has been in this country for more than a few generations, I could find a ‘Trailer trash Southerner in YOUR backgrounds, too!"
I don't even know what that means.
Some poor people live in trailers, right?
So do retired people on vacation, right?
Am I supposed to know and care about which is which?
What if I don't, is that a crime?
And why would you call anyone "trash" -- is there "black trash", or "yellow trash", "brown trash" what about "Catholic trash" or I don't know, "Mormon trash" or "Presbyterian trash"??
So what exactly is your problem, lady, that you want to be calling some people "trash"?
Did you ever think, if you'd just quit calling them "trash" they might be less reluctant to vote with Conservatives?
I'm just saying, not everybody has that problem.
;-)
LOL, what are you talking about?
I'm sitting right here, channeling Madison.
Madison tells me he thinks your argument stinks! ;-)
So what's your problem with that?
ROFLOL
There is at least as much evidence to support the thesis that the Civil War was a states’ rights issue as there is to prop up this PC notion that it was all about slavery. Will the coming war be about guns? Abortion? Homosexuality? No, it will be about an out-of-control federal government ignoring the will of the people and the rights of states to make their own decisions on those matters. Just like Civil War I was about the rights of states to chart their own economic courses and to leave a Union they no longer found beneficial.
You now claim that Virginia could claim to secede, but it would have no effect on the actual contract with the USA.
Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions.
Just silliness on your part now, from what was an originally thoughtful, albeit heavily slanted, position.
Your “rotflol” usage is a clear signal of your de-evolution. (You did not have any of that in your original post.)
Fine, you don’t like the south.
You’ve now written thousands of words to that effect.
We’d be much obliged, then, if you would keep your ate-up yankee ass the hell out of it.
In other words, you agree 100% that it was all about slavery, and nothing else of any importance.
Thanks for your support, FRiend. ;-)
You’re channeling Madison while Triple is channeling Yoda LOL.
You’re missing the point - no one here is saying that they don’t like the south. A few are discussing American history, and a few are interjecting noise. Which are you?
Right, all posts are just objective discussion.
Gotcha. No demonizing of the south going on, no sir.
Thank God
Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions.
The difference being that the first case involved secession by mutual consent with the remaining states and the second case involves a unilateral declaration of secession, which has no bearing as long as existing laws aren't broken.
You must not have been following - According to Madison, Virginia has the right to secede, when the rights of its citizens are denied/infringed.
- Virginia does not have the right to petition the FedGov to secede, but the right to secede.
BJ has backed away from Madison’s doctrine.
I am not doing any silly channeling.
(Is BJ serious about channeling? I thought he was joking.)
I’m sorry, what conclusion am I supposed to draw from your post? That Texans are nothing but a bunch of backward, racist rednecks, so stupid that they can’t even run a business and need the help of an enlightened, intelligent Yankee to show them the way?
Pretty much proves the contempt some Northerners have for the South.
Anyone would expect that lawful efforts at secession would be preceded and accompanied by many months or years of negotiations to establish dispositions of property, laws and financial obligations.
But Virginia's declaration of secession included none of that.
On the one hand Virginia refused Lincoln's offer to hand over Fort Sumter in exchange for Virginia's promise not to secede.
On the other hand, they used the occasion of the Confederacy's assault on Fort Sumter as their excuse to claim, somehow, "oppression" had occurred, enough to constitutionally justify their secession.
That's why I say it wasn't really lawful, and no serious court would buy it.
Triple: "Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions."
My original point follows Madison, whose language on "rights" is as follows:
Madison said lawful secession required conditions of mutual consent or, in effect, a material breach of contract.
And, for sake of argument, I can grant that Virginia at least made a pretense of constitutional legality, which is more than the original seceding states did.
So I'm pointing out that: whatever alleged legality Virginia claimed in declaring unilateral secession, it utterly lost, in effect, by simultaneously declaring war on the United States!
So Virginia's secession (legal or not) was doomed from the moment they declared it.
Therefore the legalities of Virginia's secession, in your word, are "moot".
Triple: "Just silliness on your part now..."
More serious than any defense of Confederate declarations of secession I've seen.
I think only South Carolina lacked a strong Unionist population. Every other Confederate state was represented in the Union army. And while the Southern Unionists were primarily located in the hill country, this isn't 100% the case. I believe Sullivan County, Tennessee (in the Unionist stronghold of East Tennessee) was solidly pro-Confederate while Jones County Mississippi (in the Deep South) was solidly pro-Union. My own Unionist ancestors were not from the hill country.
Again, thanks for your wonderful, timely, and much needed post.
"And for saving the company in 6 months"
Also, if you weren't exactly embraced by that Texas town, it might help for you to look inward a bit and ask yourself why. From what you write, it seems you're somewhat into self-congratulation; could it be that you presented yourself as the sophisticated Northern corporate savior to those people, even unconsciously? Because that does seem to be your attitude. It's entirely possible that they picked up on it and didn't like it one bit.
Do you know for a fact that the Chinese engineers were ignored because of their ethnicity? You say that, but in the next breath you say it was because they used computers. Which was it?
Did you have proof that the workstations were racially segregated as a result of company policy? If so, that's illegal, so why didn't you report it to the authorities? Or is it possible that the workers were self-segregating, as people tend to do?
Finally, I find it interesting that you find it necessary to mention your black wife, as if you think her skin color had something to do with your treatment. It sounds to me as though you went down there presupposing Southerners to be racist. It's my opinion that your attitude had more to do with your reception than your wife's race.
As for corruption, according to a 2011 report from nakedlaw.com, four of the six most corrupt cities in the country are northern cities---Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
I love the South and its people (especially since I'm related to a lot of them), can't say much good about slave-holders though.
Do you know any of those folks?
humblegunner: "We’d be much obliged, then, if you would keep your ate-up yankee ass the hell out of it."
But don't you worry, if you ever come here, you'll be warmly welcomed!
Just as warm as the last time we had a bunch of you folks up this way, back when Massa Lee was in charge.
You remember, right? Little town with a big shoe store, a seminary, a cemetery, Pickett's boys put on a big show there...
;-)
LOL
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.