Destino Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 You liberals admit that you are Republicans at heart!You think republicans at the time of the civil war were conservative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Please speak for your self! I am proud of my southern heritage.Just as I am ashamed of slavery. I am speaking for myself (my former self), and for other confederate apologist like I used to be. I didn't say it was everyone from the South. As a side note, why are you personally ashamed of Slavery? You don't own any slaves, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 You think republicans at the time of the civil war were conservative? They made Jefferson role over in his grave. But here's my point. States Rights may be laughed at and pushed aside by those that believe in a strong central government to the point that slavery HAD to be the reason for the war. Not the right of the states to maintain slavery. It was a huge sticking point for the south, ever since the creation of the colonies and the formation of the Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I am speaking for myself (my former self), and for other confederate apologist like I used to be.I didn't say it was everyone from the South. As a side note, why are you personally ashamed of Slavery? You don't own any slaves, do you? Well, I'm certainly not proud of it! There are lots of things about humanity I am not proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well, I'm certainly not proud of it! There are lots of things about humanity I am not proud of. You don't have to be proud of it either. You didn't do it. History is history, especially when it happened long before we were born. We can face it realistically and try to account for it in our public policy without feeling personal guilt over it. As a white guy, I can acknowledge the reality that people like me have it pretty damn good, better than black guys, for historical reasons. I can accept that we need to take into account what happened in the past and try to deal with it honestly, without feeling personal guilt myself about slavery. I never owned a slave, but I sure benefit from not being the decendant of slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 They made Jefferson role over in his grave. But here's my point. States Rights may be laughed at and pushed aside by those that believe in a strong central government to the point that slavery HAD to be the reason for the war. Not the right of the states to maintain slavery. It was a huge sticking point for the south, ever since the creation of the colonies and the formation of the Republic. Your cart is way before your horse, IMO. The Confederacy did not embrace slavery because of a deep seated abstract loyalty to States Rights. They embraced States Rights because of a deep seated desire to keep their slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I admit I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but I wanted to respond to what I have read so far. Without a doubt, slavery was the ultimate motivator for the conflict. It was a prime issue before the conflict, it was the reason why politicians and legislates in the South said they were seceding, and, post-war/Reconstruction, up until the 60s and the civil rights movement, race relations was one of the prime issues in the South, as exemplified by Jim Crow laws. Henry, as it is, has provided ample proof of this position, as verified by the words of the people, from the 1860s, who were intimately involved with this conflict. You don't secede over a mere tariff or trade dispute. As Henry stated earlier, what is the point of twisting the position of the original Confederates? Though the North was called the "aggressors" in the conflict, it was the South who seceded and ultimately fired the first shots. Now, I know a lot of people want to romanticize the South, due to heritage or an attraction to some Southern ideals. But do this: read about some of the massacres that happened after the war, and tell me if you still feel the same way about the "noble South." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 But here's my point. States Rights may be laughed at and pushed aside by those that believe in a strong central government to the point that slavery HAD to be the reason for the war. Not the right of the states to maintain slavery. It was a huge sticking point for the south, ever since the creation of the colonies and the formation of the Republic. GF, what did the Republicans do that so strengthened the central government that you felt secession was justified? Just curious. I wonder, if it was ALL just about the rights of individual states, why South Carolina would state in their Declaration of Causes that an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. Odd that South Carolina was unhappy that individual states were disregarding the will of the central government. But I guess that's only bad if those states are hostile to ... uh ... ... slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Southerners were all for states rights when it came to protecting the institution of slavery. When it came to issues that were interfering with slavery, not so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Southerners were all for states rights when it came to protecting the institution of slavery. When it came to issues that were interfering with slavery, not so much.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_rule Peter, I am quite surprised that you would try and get away with using Wikipedia as a valid source! http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/878207/why_wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source.html Not saying this is invalid, but anyone, can have anything they want added to that site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 The south was very prosperous at trading with other countries and teh nrthern states didnt like this one bit that is why the North blocked a lot of shipping channels that the europeans used to trade with the south Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desioreo87 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 The US would get rid of 90% of its racism. I ****ing hate the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 The US would get rid of 90% of its racism.I ****ing hate the south. If you think 90% of the racism is in the South you must live in Europe (Or someplace other than the United States). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 The US would get rid of 90% of its racism.I ****ing hate the south. cool. the south ****ing hates you. go back to maryland where you belong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 cool. the south ****ing hates you. go back to maryland where you belong hey hey hey, Maryland doesnt want him either. and, Maryland was a neutral site because Lincoln abused his power to keep it that way, not because they wanted to be... The Maryland Legislature rejected secession in 1861, and Governor Thomas Hicks voted against it. As a result of the Union Army's heavy presence in the state and the suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln, several Maryland state legislators, as well as the mayor and police chief of Baltimore, who supported secession, were arrested and imprisoned by Union authorities. With Virginia having seceded, Union troops had to go through Maryland to reach the national capital at Washington DC. Had Maryland also joined the Confederacy, Washington DC would have been totally surrounded. Maryland contributed troops to both the Union (60,000), and the Confederate (25,000) armies.Maryland was not affected by the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, since it had not seceded; only States in rebellion fell under the Proclamation's jurisdiction. Maryland adopted a new state constitution in 1864, which prohibited slavery and thus emancipated all slaves in the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 this thread turned douche real quick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 If you think 90% of the racism is in the South you must live in Europe (Or someplace other than the United States). I don't think "90% of the racism is in the South," but it's pretty shocking how many people are openly and unabashedly racist in the South. My fiance is from the South and has family in the Carolinas and Louisiana. I grew up in D.C. and had never really been to the deep South until I met my fiance. I've got to admit that my trips down South were pretty eye-opening experiences. I never heard so many people, from so many different areas and backgrounds, using racial epithets in my entire life. These weren't people saying the "n word" in private (as bad as that is), they were using the "n word" in public with no fear of anyone hearing/judging. It stunned the crap out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 The US would get rid of 90% of its racism.I ****ing hate the south. Of all the great posts that have been made in this thread you had to come up with this.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.