Author Topic: Question about the south (Read 4362 times)

oneace · « **Reply #15 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:00:07 AM »

If you go by oxford you can get one at rebel rags.Man that place rock's!

KgB · « **Reply #16 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:06:19 AM »

Amount of churches is impressive.Seems like they dont have anything better to do but built another church.Plus for only $99 you can have bible tatooed in your brain.

Brenjen · « **Reply #17 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:21:05 AM »

The "war of northern aggression" wasn't really about slavery; it was about states rights. Slavery was turned into a central issue by Lincoln to encourage enlistment into the Union Army (the federals were getting their tulips kicked early on). General Lee was quoted as saying when asked about the slavery issue that he wished the south had freed the slaves & then fired on fort sumter.

Lets not forget boys & girls; the north had slaves too. It's funny how no one ever brings up how terrible the Dutch or the Portugese or the Spaniards or the English Etc. Etc. Etc. are, they held slaves too. But only the United States (the south inparticular) gets the black eye. And no country on earth has done so much to make up for, apologize for, & basically bend over backwards & jump through hoops for the wrongs of slavery.

Too many people think the movie "roots" was an accurate portrayal of slavery in America, it wasn't. No one is going to pay $1500 for a slave (when a good horse went for $50) & then proceed to maim & cripple them. They would just sell them off & get their money back if they were a problem.

It was decided, by the federal govt., that the union was more important than states rights & would be enforced by the military. When in actuality the states voluntarily joined the union & had every right to succeed whenever they chose too. The federal govt. caused the war by threatening to occupy Virginia with 50,000 federal troops to preempt the state legislature from voting for succesion. Virginia was the lynch-pin of the whole controversy, when they threatened to occupy them ( Virginia was still an obedient memberof the union at that time remember) they pushed people over the edge & one of those people was General Robert E. Lee.

The secretary of war tried to tap Gen. Lee as commander of the occupation force that was going to be sent into Virginia (Lee was a General in the federal army at that time) & Lee refused saying "My loyalties lie with my heart; & that's in Virginia" He resigned his commission & was placed in charge of the Army of the Confederacy shortly thereafter.

We shouldn't trivialize any aspect of that war, those were all American soldiers who were killed & remain so today. Slavery was wrong & slavery was abolished, the Confederate States of America lost the war, the reconstructed South was & still is a shadow of it's former self & we feel the economic effects of that war here today. There will never be another war between the states, even though the states still have a right to succeed from the union if they so choose, and if they do, I will be on the side of states rights & against central federal control over individual states internal affairs.

KgB · « **Reply #18 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:38:05 AM »

Did Lincoln free slaves so they could fight for him?

BGBMAW · « **Reply #19 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:05:19 AM »

lol..got ya on the "northern Cali Ghey thing"..

when my mom moved to Florida the Hicks down there said..."werent you scared raising your children around San Fransico..they would turn ghey?!!..this lady said this with a straight face..

I think anytime you get into a "country " setting..racism is abundant..its about education...even though most stereotypes are based on some truth

Brenjen · « **Reply #20 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:08:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by KgB
Did Lincoln free slaves so they could fight for him?

During the Civil War, Lincoln decided, to declare that slaves in the seceding states were free. The emancipation proclamation didn’t apply to slaves in the states that remained within the Union. So it didn’t really “free the slaves.” It had little effect on slaves in the Confederacy, since they were beyond Lincoln’s authority. Politicians of the day remarked that Lincoln had freed the slaves he couldn’t help, & did nothing for the slaves he could help.

Lincoln admitted that Congress had no constitutional power to touch slavery by legislation; but he argued that he, as commander in chief of the armed forces putting down what he defined as an insurrection, could punish the rebellious states populations by stripping them of their property, even if that property happened to be slaves. In the case of insurrection, he contended, this could be done without the peacetime niceties of “due process of law.”

Legally, slaves were the property of other men; that is what slavery means, wrong as it is; and under the Constitution, nobody could be deprived of his property without “due process of law” — that is, a court proceeding had to prove to a jury that a slaveowner had somehow forfeited his property.

“Due process of law” didn’t mean a legislative act. Congress had no power to pass a law making slavery illegal in "obedient union states". Lincoln acknowledged this in his first inaugural address and even said he would support an amendment to the Constitution protecting slavery where it already existed.

So did he free the slaves to fight for the north? It isn't that simple really. The question is, did he free them at all, or did the south free them by the consequences of their actions. It's too complex an issue to rehash nearly 150 years after the fact in the AH forums. I just get aggravated by people who look down their nose at the South & Southerners. Southern soldiers fought & often won when they were outnumbered, didn't have food, ammuniton, or even shoes on their feet. They were the epitome of American bravery & fidelity to duty.

midnight Target · « **Reply #21 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:01:32 PM »

State's Rights or Protection of the right to hold slaves. Kinda disingenuous to call it just "State's Rights" when the root cause was the "peculiar institution" of slavery and its impact on the economy of the deep South.

Brenjen · « **Reply #22 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:10:09 PM »

Thats the point. The slavery issue was not the "root cause". It was a by product of a bigger issue & became a "hot button" topic that was pounced on after the first shots were fired to tug at peoples hearts & make them "feel" for the cause.

Remember, there were union states that held slaves, not just the Confederate States. The only place Lincolns proclamation was intended to affect was the successionist states.

From where I'm looking at it THAt is disingenuous.

lukster · « **Reply #23 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:11:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
State's Rights or Protection of the right to hold slaves. Kinda disingenuous to call it just "State's Rights" when the root cause was the "peculiar institution" of slavery and its impact on the economy of the deep South.

Disingenuous to call it just about "States Rights" today I'll agree. Back then however the right of the state to maintain it's sovereignty was a very real and defining issue even if the motivation centered on slavery.

midnight Target · « **Reply #24 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:12:16 PM »

It was the root cause of the war. Lincoln's proclamation had nothing to do with the root cause of the war.

Brenjen · « **Reply #25 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:14:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
It was the root cause of the war.

No it wasn't.

Goth · « **Reply #26 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:44:13 PM »

Actually, I could be wrong, but I think it was...as a result of the Dred Scott case. Course, I'm a dumb southerner, so what do I know.

Toad · « **Reply #27 on:** May 15, 2006, 03:16:30 PM »

Well, we've never had THIS discussion before....

midnight Target · « **Reply #28 on:** May 15, 2006, 03:51:20 PM »

as long as we all agree that I'm right I'm willing to drop it .... again.

Brenjen · « **Reply #29 on:** May 15, 2006, 03:55:48 PM »

It's about time we did then. Remarks like these get under my skin.

"you like the coloreds eatn outside too"

"Is there more to a Confederate flag then keeping your slaves"

"In addition to being alcoholic racists" (which may be true I don't know his family but it is a Southern stereotype)

"Seems like they dont have anything better to do but built another church.Plus for only $99 you can have bible tatooed in your brain. "
(too bad they didn't "built" some schools where you live)

"the Hicks down there said"

"anytime you get into a "country " setting..racism is abundant..its about education"

Racism is far more rampant in the urban industrial north & far worse among the black population than the suburban (or urban for that matter)white population in the south. And do forgive us as a people for having a large majority of folks who want to exercise their freedom to assemble & worship in the manner of their choosing, I personally would use the money they spent on those fancy buildings to buy food & clothes & educations for the poor, but that's just me.

We have weapon factories now, nuclear weapons & one of the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world

All that in the hands of racist, alcoholic, uneducated, redneck hicks! Whatever will the rest of the country do!