Posted on 11/20/2018 1:49:02 PM PST by Mariner
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith smilingly posed for a photo in 2014 while wearing a Confederate cap and holding a rifle, then put the image on her Facebook page with the words "Mississippi history at its best!"
That image, taken at a Mississippi museum, resurfaced Tuesday as AT&T, Leidos and Walmart joined two other companies, Union Pacific and Boston Scientific, in asking Hyde-Smith, a Republican, to return campaign contributions because of controversy over her recent jest about being willing to attend a public "hanging."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
And just WHY do you think I provided that link under the photo in my comment ?
The Founding Fathers won their war against Britain. They South lost it’s war against the North.
Damn Zachary Taylor. He had defeated the Mexican Army and was in Mexico City in 1848. He should have stayed and we could have annexed the whole country and some one hundred and sixty odd years later Mexico would today be a state(or states) on the order of New Mexico or Arizona.
As I stated The Founders won their war against the English Crown. The South lost the war they started.The bought only death and destruction on themselves and some 700,000 Americans.
I would say you need to do a little more research. None of what happened is crystal clear.
I guess she’ll have the White vote locked up . . .
Hopefully, she will still win.
So you’re saying she is basically Mississippi’s Connie Morella?
I think that you mean all Republican politicians. Dems can seem to do or say anything.
Hopefully, she will still win.
She will. McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP won’t be running a fifth column campaign against her.
I do have a dog in this fight. I have an ancestor who fought for The Army of The Potomac. All due respect friend but the matter is simple. The South launched a violent war of secession to preserve an economy based on the use of slave labor. They enshrined that fact in their Constitution. It's popular to say slavery was dying out before the war began. If that was the case then why did the South go to war over it? And here's a question for you:If the South had won the war would they have freed the slaves?
And also:
As I stated The Founders won their war against the English Crown. The South lost the war they started.The bought only death and destruction on themselves and some 700,000 Americans.
So was the CSA evil because they started a war to preserve slavery or because they started a war and lost?
I propose the second line of reasoning is nonsensical—Would the Confederate cause have become just if 700k died and they emerged victorious? Also, if the blame lies on Lee and Davis, why not also on Lincoln, who could have opted to let the CSA go its own way and spared bloodshed entirely? Would the morality of the American Revolution be different if we had lost?—in fact, from a moral standpoint that willful separation is probably worse because we separated ourselves from an anointed monarch instead of a mutually agreed-upon Republic (unless one were to contend that Charles Stuart (“Bonnie Prince Charlie”) was the real divine-right monarch of England... but that’s an entire other rabbit hole).
So it really comes down to the CSA’s explicit legal protection of slavery (and some other issues if you know your history... but we’ll just say it’s slavery). Would they have abolished it eventually had ?—I would say yes, considering that the rest of the hemisphere was also by the 1880s. Why did the South go to war over it?—the economy simply wasn’t ready for such a drastic shift (make $15/hr wages mandatory effective now, and you’ll see we can’t weather such a shift today either—but that one was an order of magnitude larger).
Were they right to do it? Probably not (and this would be true even if they won). However, they felt their cause of self-determination to be just—and this was recognized by the magnanimity of Lincoln, when he welcomed them back as fellow Americans, humbled but without need to be further humiliated.
Perhaps if Lincoln’s magnanimity had been fostered better in Reconstruction and beyond, maybe we could have prevented an additional 90 years of virtual African-American enslavement in the Jim Crow era and by the modern Democrat Party.
Perhaps you would do well to find some of that magnanimity that allows us to look at every person, slave or free, who lived and died under the Stars and Stripes or the Stars and Bars to be seen as what they really are: a fellow American.
Please, stop with the bs, ok? Slavery is evil and the South undertook the most destructive and costliest war in our history to preserve it. I believe I asked you a question: If the South had won the war would they have freed the slaves? I take people as they come and understand that God made us in His image and likeness and that one should never judge another too harshly, if at all because one can never know the trials and tribulations someone else is going through. But to the poltroon’s of the Old South, I’m sorry, they sought to keep an entire race enslaved for money. But they have gone to their maker a long time ago. They have received His divine judgment.
“Posing in a confederate hat makes her a democrat, actually.”
Southern democrats in the 19th Century were states rights conservative. Not a damn thing liberal about them. Lincoln’s Republican Party were big government liberals, dominated by Northeast liberal republicans. The SCV, which I belong, are far and away republicans. Today’s pro abortion, anti-God, pro homosexual democrats have absolutely nothing in common with democrats of the 19th Century. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wearing a Confederate soldiers cap. Its honoring his memory. Getting back to the senate race, McDaniel supports Hyde-Smith 100%. The first thing he said after the race was there is no way in hell some far left liberal like Espy can be allowed to represent Mississippi in the US Senate. The only way democrats can win this race is to label Hyde-Smith as a racist and hopefully run her out of the race. She has to be destroyed. Espy has no chance if republicans come out and vote. They damn sure won’t vote for Espy, who believes in murdering babies right through all 9 months.
You asked me a speculative question and I gave you an educated guess for an answer. Nobody can do better than that.
I take people as they come [...] But to the poltroon’s of the Old South, I’m sorry, they sought to keep an entire race enslaved for money.
If you want to talk BS, you should remember the phrase “Everything before the word ‘but’ is BS.” As you wisely point out (then unwisely negate), we don’t know exactly what someone else is going through. Most of the Southern whites owned no slaves, largely because they were too poor to own any even if they wanted them. Many fought because they were loyal citizens of their State as well as loyal citizens of the nation they perceived was betraying them (Lee was a loyal son of Virginia first, so he rejected an officer commission in the Union Army at the beginning of the war).
And yes, all have gone to their judgment already... but I won’t presume to know how it went for any or all of them.
This is the whole problem (and why you are wrong). You’re not wrong to say that maintaining a slavery-driven economy was the single primary motivation to go to war, and that such a motive is an evil one... but that alone is a half-truth (that is to say, a cleverly-dressed falsehood). The full set of motivations are far more complex than this and draw in other political motives pertaining to the rights of states in addition to any multitude of personal motives among the individual Confederate soldiers, thus your explanation is grossly oversimplified.
If you are so convinced that you are right that slavery is the only issue, why not go to the logical conclusion and condemn the Founding Fathers for creating such a wretched compromise in framing the Constitution in the first place—declaring the African slave as 3/5 of a man for the sake of counting population, but for the sake of his rights as a citizen counting him as no man at all? And then when you do, I will be curious to see if you condemn the Fathers if the slave states more for desiring the slaves be pawns to gain a greater apportionment of representation in the House and Electoral College... or the Fathers of the free states more for initially not wishing to count the slaves at all before finally using the slaves as pawns in settling on the compromise to ensure the Constitution would be ratified.
No... you asked me a SPECULATIVE question because it depends on a hypothetical condition (the Confederacy winning the war) that we know to be false. Any answer is SPECULATION... that is to say, an EDUCATED GUESS. A direct question would be one inquiring on something that is based in reality and can actually be known. However, since you didn’t understand my answer the first time, I will explain it again in more detail:
Given the nature of protection of the institution of slavery in Article IV, Section 2, Number 3 of the CSA Constitution, namely “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due. and Article I, Section 9, No. 4, namely “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”, I would have to say that no, the CSA would not have abolished slavery at the immediate end of the war.
That said, there is also no reason to believe that slavery would have continued in perpetuity; it is reasonable to think that it would have naturally ended within a generation or two. It is important to note that no new slaves could be imported from outside the CSA, except from slaveholding territories of the USA, and the Confederate Congress could even restrict that (CSA Constitution, Article I, Sec. 9, Nn 1-2). The last nation in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery was Brazil in 1888–and so there is no reason to think that slavery in a hypothetical postwar Confederate States of America would not have had a similar natural decline... and so yes, the CSA would have amended their Constitution to abolish slavery at some point after the end of the war, though it is impossible to guess exactly when.
The Confederate Constitution clearly laid out that they were defending slavery [...]
Yes, it did. Not merely defending, but asserting, as it also made provisions for expansion and creation of future slaveholding states.
[...] and that was the reason for secession.
No, it didn’t. No reason for secession is stated there (perhaps you have conflated it with another document, or perhaps I missed something in the text?); in fact, I see no reference to secession at all, and only two passing references to the United States.
Your powers of bs are extraordinary. [...] You make all the convoluted arguments of a Lost Causer
The use of ad hominem is the mark of someone whose argument lacks strength. It really doesn’t suit you.
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.