Topic: End of Democracy... anyone care??

[Rocking-M]

Paul, I think the best understanding of that era from a Slaves view point comes from the slaves themselves.
The WPA program of the 30's where out of work Jounalist interview the remaining living ex-slaves.
80% of those having favorable recollections. "Roots" is pure modern fiction.


For a modern consideration of Slavery, how about nobel prize winners.
Are you familiar with "Time on the Cross" by Fogel and Engerman?
http://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186

You mention Indians, the 5 Nations sided with the South.
Stand Watie, General in the Confederacy, Cherokee and the last General to surrender.

Tension you say, the South was saddled with slavery and sought to deal with it honorably as a whole.
First we were saddle with it by England and Virginia as well as Georgia sought to have the importation
of slaves stopped in the early 1700's I think it was.
The South tried to end importation of slaves with the first Articles of Confederation (the formation of the union).
Northern slave traders fought to continue the trade for at least 20 more years. It was a compromise with the
devil as far as I'm concerned. Brown University (up North) ring a bell with you, yep ol Brown was a slave trader.

you ended with,
"It may have been a different time as they say, but the enslavement of millions of africans for that massive cotton industry was horrible and inexcusible"

Frankly, I find it now more horrible or inexcusable than the millions of indenture servants, who by the way suffered a much higher
death rate than Slaves. Nor no more horrible than the Scots who were "Barbadosed" and died at a rate of 90%. Nope, I don't think either group needs special recognition from those times. That's the way it was. I do take extreme exception to any notion that the
North sought to end slavery in an honorable manner. They covered there asses, sold their slaves south, banned blacks from moving
into their states, and then waged a war for profit and passed it down to us under the smoke screen of "freeing slaves".

Thanks for the advice on how I might be considered racist. Frankly, to quote Rett, "I don't give a damn" if I am or not
by people who don't know me. You see I ain't running for office or nothing so I don't have to play politics with history.

[BobbyR]

Rust, your steeped in modern history. Sure I know of the Dixiecrats, you ever wonder why such a thing would come about
in the South, where prejudice was recognized as  being less than in the North prior to the Invasion and subsequent fix
from the invaders. (Read de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" for an unbiased view of that).
Racial tension was manufactured by the North to insure a need for government intervention.

A few other facts for you,
less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves. Do you think the other 90% fought to preserve an institution that
did not benefit them?
Free Blacks and Indians owned slaves within that 10%, so we've cut white ownership % down a bit more.

Lincoln said, "Let the South go, where would we get our revenues."
The South exported more cotton than the gnp of the North in 1860.

Several Northern States banned free negroes from moving into their States prior to the war.

Where Northern Officers anti-slavery...hardly.
The following quotes are from northern contemporaries of Lincoln.

from John Sherman, "I hear from all sources that nearly all of the officers in Buell's army, and that Buell himself, are pro-slavery in the last degree"

General Stanton to Secretary Stanton, 20 Sept. 1862, "I find a feeling prevailing among the officers and soldiers of prejudice against the
blacks"

I could go on. Suffice to say, the War of Northern Aggression was not fought to free blacks.

Did Lincoln deserve shooting?
From Gen. Donn Piatt on Lincoln, "Fictitious heroes are being reared to the memories of men whose real histories, when they come to be known, will make this bronze and marble the monuments of our ignorance and folly."

"With us when a leader dies, all good men go to lying about him, and, from the monument that covers his remains to the last echo of the rural press, in speeches, sermons, eulogies and reminiscences, we have naught but pious lies."

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, in a speech at Grand Rapids, 8 Sept. 1900, said that in 1864 "on every hand Lincoln was denounced as a tyrant, a shedder of blood, a foe to liberty, a would-be dictator, a founder of an empire--one orator saying, "We also have our emperor, Lincoln, who can tell stale jokes while the land is running red with the blood of brothers."

Should you like to examine the "real" Lincoln here are a couple good reads.

http://rexcurry.net/pledgeofallegiance-abraham-lincoln-nazism.html
(clearly shows he should have been shot as a war criminal)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/574028/posts



I disagree Bobby, this forced union will split again. Which States do it is up for grabs. As stated in the other article
we are no different than the Soviet Union prior to it's split up. As to Texas, isn't it interesting that a State which joined
the Union with the added emphasis that it could redraw at anytime was force back in less than 20 years later.
I would add that not only did NY and Texas state this right in their constitutions but also Virginia's clearly stated
the right to do so. This right, and inalienable right to self-government was understood by every State that voluntarily joined
the union. Some State's saw the need to make sure it was found in their constitutions as they joined because they
knew that down the road a few years clear rights would be clouded by men who seek power.

What I find most disheartening is that Southerners see the need to try and convince yankees of their patriotism by what is
in fact faux patriotism. Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting the government in unjust wars. Southerners need to examine their history themselves and not the yankee victors history.

I grew up in the deep south, so I understand the southern view of the "war of northern aggression" well. I agree that the war was all about economics and federal power, but to deny racial tension is a little silly and offensive to the people of this nation whose descendents were brought here in chains on boats. Do you really think there was no tension among the enslaved towards their 'masters?" Even among whites, virginia had the likes of john brown. History tells us that racial tension was also prominant in the north, and I believe is actually worse than the south in modern times. In any case, I don't think this was your point but couldn't help but comment.

The appalachains and west saw lots of collaboration between indentured whites, natives, and runaway slaves. Not all whites were racist slave owners, but the slave owner power structure sure as hell was white.

On a side note, I stole a book from my high school history class which I still have, entitled "slavery defended," which was a collection of essays which would blow lots of people's minds to read. You don't strike me as a racist, RM, so i'd advise you to be careful in how you describe parts of that history. It may have been a different time as they say, but the enslavement of millions of africans for that massive cotton industry was horrible and inexcusible, regardless of lincoln and the north's stated motives.

"Roots" by alex haley offers another view of pre-war south, and is a brilliant book.

+1 Paul,

I will take these in order.
Robert, I really don't think the majority of Southerners are faking their loyalty to their Country. I think it may be the part of the Southern culture to be loyal to your Country whether it be the CSA or USA. I saw these men in action and I lived with them under very hostile conditions. They held nothing back.

I do not see the USA breaking up. What I would like to see is the States push back a bit more and say no. Let the Fed
 sue the States and have the Supreme court sort it out according to the Constitution as written. Or have the States sue the Fed, this would be much less disruptive. We need a United States if we are to maintain our postion in the World. The only reason the States United was to protect ourselves from England and the rest of Europe.

Racism is the North is a fact, when I was a kid on the 1950s, the South exported huge numbers of Blacks to the North. It was viewed as an invasion. I lived in an integrated neighborhood of single family homes, and had been that way as far back as anyone could remember. They fled the area when the influx began before the Whites did. Things have calmed a bit, but I now it is still there.

Having said all that I would be proud to ride with you anytime and share a bit of Sourmash. Oh yeah, one of my Doctors was the Great Grandson of General Lee. He was named Robert E Lee. We kidded about during family gatherings, almost every guy in his family was named Robert E Lee, so everyone had to have a nickname.  



  

[Rocking-M]

I think reaction in combat and patriotism are two completely different things.
The first we term, valour, bravery or just dog gone stubbornness.

My comment on faux patriotism was to point out that what the government says is patriotism is
not patriotism. Patriotism is a love of one's country, and to me that is what ones sees under the stars
in the sky. The root of the word is, "lover of the land" as I understand it in Latin. (I'm no latin scholar mind you)
The point is, it is not, lover of the government and in our case the now Centralized Federal Government which
has grown beyond all constitutional boundaries (this growth starts with Lincoln was my point there).
So, to state that the government is wrong, way f'in wrong, is not un-patriotic, in fact I think it is the
highest form of Patriotism since it is stated generally with the intent that the central government has brought harm to
the country. AND, it has. The highest form of military patriotism I have personally been aware of is those who
renounce orders that are detrimental to the country by resigning their commissions or suffering court martial.



Good story there Bobby, is your middle name Lee? 

You know the invite is always open for you to ride, heck, I'll even let you sleep in the barn. (Bluegrass Tune) 

[BobbyR]

I think reaction in combat and patriotism are two completely different things.
The first we term, valour, bravery or just dog gone stubbornness.

My comment on faux patriotism was to point out that what the government says is patriotism is
not patriotism. Patriotism is a love of one's country, and to me that is what ones sees under the stars
in the sky. The root of the word is, "lover of the land" as I understand it in Latin. (I'm no latin scholar mind you)
The point is, it is not, lover of the government and in our case the now Centralized Federal Government which
has grown beyond all constitutional boundaries (this growth starts with Lincoln was my point there).
So, to state that the government is wrong, way f'in wrong, is not un-patriotic, in fact I think it is the
highest form of Patriotism since it is stated generally with the intent that the central government has brought harm to
the country. AND, it has. The highest form of military patriotism I have personally been aware of is those who
renounce orders that are detrimental to the country by resigning their commissions or suffering court martial.



Good story there Bobby, is your middle name Lee? 

You know the invite is always open for you to ride, heck, I'll even let you sleep in the barn. (Bluegrass Tune) 

I do believe that in the US that criticizing the Government was the reason for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights was written to protect the citizen from the Government. Just need to get back to basics....peacefully.

I gotta differ those Southern boys were proud to be American to the core, and they were proud to be Southerners. You can be both.

Nope middle initial is L. Thanks for the barn offer, I will stay in a Motel with my Glock under the pillow. 


 

[socalenduro]

democracy is a myth

[paulages]

RM, i wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, nor was i calling you a racist. on the contrary, i stated that i didn't believe you to be so based on your words. that said, to defend southern autonomy against the arguably equally racist northern states does not require defense of a horrible institution. it's plain silly to claim that blacks enjoyed their lot in life, just because it got worse when they were suddenly turned out on the world with relatively no rights, the same class structure existed, and the "massa" was no longer putting food on the table.

the gyst of Roots simply described the generations of africans being brought to this country in chains and forced into labor. no other book has done as much to provide this insight to so many people. the indentured servitude of poor europeans does nothing to diminish the plight of these people, but rather creates common bonds that transcend race. i honestly can't understand how you could criticize Roots unless you have some other bone to pick, such as pretending slavery wasn't all that bad. how would you feel if tomorrow you were plucked up, taken to a foreign country, forced to speak their language and only their language, forced to worship their religion and no other, and work incessantly for only shelter and food. come on man, NOONE can really defend that in america today. i know it was a different time and all, but even if you forgive the idiocy of pretending that people couldn't know that it was wrong to think that other people were animals and property, we are no longer in that time. we have the blessing of hindsight.

speaking of the indian nations, have you forgotten stonewall jackson's campaign to eradicate the indians? it was pretty much his presidential legacy.

after the civil war ended, there was a brief boom of black participation in representative government, until jim crow set in. do you have some defense of that as well? i love many things about the south, and know that the victor always writes the history books, but to be unable to admit to horrible ghosts of the south's past is just wrong. do you think the murders in the civil rights movement of the 50s was simply defense against the northern aggressors as well? think those blacks were happy with their lot in life? just got a little too uppity? c'mon man, where i grew up men got dragged behind pickups for dating a white woman. grundy county, tennessee, 15 minutes from where i lived, still has a half-mile stain in a country road from where the sheriff's son was murdered for this reason. in the 80s.

no, being southern doesn't mean being a racist. no, the civil war was wasn't about some idealistic cause... when are they ever? they're always about power and money. but the south has a black (pun not intended) stain on its past, and i dare say you couldn't look many a black man in the face and say that them folks were darn happy with their lot in life before them yankees came along and made 'em work in them cottonfields fer money.

actually, in the south racism works like this: you could probably have that conversation face to face with plenty of people, then you'd walk away and they'd say, "#$%*ing cracker oughta get his head kicked in." and the redneck mutters "#$%*ing got uppity." and then they smile at each other and go fishing. in the north, you'd just get shot. which is better? hard to say. i say the southern version is better, but that still does not make any defense its past.

by the way, in 1849 Oregon passed a law making it illegal to be black and reside in the territory.

[paulages]

it's kind of like the perverted uncle that keeps showing up at weddings and family reunions and groping the bridesmaid's breasts... you can love him, consider him family, continually forgive him...but you can't really excuse his actions.

[CycleRanger]

Just to try to get things back on track here.
I think this is brilliant.  If a corporation is a "person" then why can't a corporation run for office?

[paulages]

Just to try to get things back on track here.
I think this is brilliant.  If a corporation is a "person" then why can't a corporation run for office?

...or get married? would a merger be marriage? perhaps even a same sex marriage? if a corporation puts another out of business is it murder?

[paulages]

Just to try to get things back on track here.
I think this is brilliant.  If a corporation is a "person" then why can't a corporation run for office?

by the way, that is precisely what Mussolini did in fascist italy. elected representatives were replaced by representatives of the largest corporations each district. our system has simply learned to do this unofficially.

[Rocking-M]

in the north, you'd just get shot. which is better? hard to say. i say the southern version is better, but that still does not make any defense its past.

by the way, in 1849 Oregon passed a law making it illegal to be black and reside in the territory.

several points, STONEWALL JACKSON never was president and never declared war on the Indians. Your thinking of
Andrew Jackson. A president I would consider no better than Lincoln. But even this does not negate the fact that
the five great Indian Nations sided with the Confederacy.

see, this is where you fellows always go wrong, this never was a discussion of slavery then nor now. Sure slavery is a wart, as where many facets of  northern and southern life in general in those days. But as George Washington Carver said, "I thank God I was a slave".
See, your using modern Black agitation of slavery to say you know how the slaves thought. As I said, read the words from their mouths if you want to know. You'll find that in the Slave Narratives here; http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/
So don't give me the hind sight bull #$%* on slavery. We cannot look back and decide from our vantage point what would be best in that
day. It just doesn't work like that. And no, hind sight is not 20-20. If it were we'd not be in the screwed up Republick we find ourselves in today. If you'd like an interesting fact about the wart of slavery. Here it is from the Nobel Prize winning book I posted earlier. "Slaves recieved 90% of their labor back in compensation". So just who are the slaves now? Do you get back 90% of your labours?

But again, the discussion is about the killing of the constitution and the democratic republic.
We started down that road with Lincoln and that is clear if you took the time to read the factual actions
that Lincoln took to kill the constitution and wage his bloody war. Actions that would have had
him shot in any war trial. BTW, the reason they had to release Jefferson Davis was that it was clear
that he had not violated the constitution nor the union by secession. It was realized that in a trail
the case would show that the South was Right. So my point remains, unless a true reckoning of the
past is done, we'll never fix the situation we are in today. That means we have to forget all the sensationalism
and smoke screens. Then take a hard look at how we ended up where we are and fix the sickness not the
symptom.

[Retro Rocket]

So don't give me the hind sight bull #$%* on slavery. We cannot look back and decide from our vantage point what would be best in that
day

Sorry but i have to chime in here, That is the most ignorant statement i have ever read.....
Of course we can look back and say that it was wrong and provide commentary on why it was. You must be in denial if you think "slaves" liked being stolen from their country chained like dogs, shipped to another country and then forced to work after being sold like a bloody home appliance to work for next to nothing for the gain of some greedy rich prick, where's the choice in that, i suppose Auschwitz wasn't as bad as we know it was just because its in the past......

Mick

[Rocking-M]

So don't give me the hind sight bull #$%* on slavery. We cannot look back and decide from our vantage point what would be best in that
day

Sorry but i have to chime in here, That is the most ignorant statement i have ever read.....
Of course we can look back and say that it was wrong and provide commentary on why it was. You must be in denial if you think "slaves" liked being stolen from their country chained like dogs, shipped to another country and then forced to work after being sold like a bloody home appliance to work for next to nothing for the gain of some greedy rich prick, where's the choice in that, i suppose Auschwitz wasn't as bad as we know it was just because its in the past......

Mick

Oh sure Mick, wonder how you'd have made it in that day, oh wait, you'd have been one of the bloody criminals shipped off to
the penal colony. Look here nit wit, you don't know what you'd have done in that day so get real. HTFU I think is how you put it.
We all like to think we'd have been better at what went down than we probably would have been. I'd like to think I wouldn't have
been an Indian killing som beach, or a slave owner, wouldn't have started no aboriginal indoctrination orphanages, etc....
but,

That said, you didn't read the facts either, slaves in the uS received 90% of their labor back in kind was the Economics study
done by damn yankees none the less. Yankees who, like you, set out to prove how bad slavery was and had their minds changed by
facts, unlike you. These folks who were slave owners sought to treat their slaves as persons in their care who worked for them.
It was found that slaves received the same health care as their owners, and, get this, used the same doctors. And to equate a southern planter as some greedy rich prick shows how little you know of the economic climate of that day. Money wasn't
what a southern land owner could claim to have. Land was the wealth of that day, not liquid assets.
And that was the case in most cases. Sure there were bad slave owners, sure atrocities happened, but to compare it to Auschwitz
is about as about as stupid a statement as can be made. The fact there are bad parents or bad slave owners does not make either
institution bad in and of itself. Would I want to be a slave owner, hell no.  But to look back and condemn those people saddled with slavery I will not. They were saddled with it by the British first, the federal government second, and by the times. What was the best way to get out of it, I don't know. You don't either. So get real and quit showing your ignorance.

Start a slavery thread if you like, no I want take part, this discussion was about the loss of the democratic republic we have here.
Slavery always inters the discussion when Mr. Lincolns War comes up because most Americans are indoctrinated to believe that war
was about slavery. And that is how we end up in this endless (emotional folks coming into it without facts discussion of slavery).

BTW, in case you didn't read it George Washington Carver was a slave. Those were his words, I suspect you'd like to call him an Uncle Tom. I've a black friend at the sawmill who flies a Battle Flag and has arms as big as a ham. Call him a Tom sometime, but let
me be around to see the result please.

[BobbyR]

Well, here is what I know for sure:

The Civil War was between 1861 to 1865.

Over 620,000 Americans died in the war, with disease killing twice as many as those lost in battle.

50,000 survivors returned home as amputees.

Slavery Ended.

They took Robert E Lee's property and made it into Arlington National Cemetery.

All of this happened about 145 years ago. In the scheme of things all of this don't mean Sh!t. We have bigger problems facing all 50 States. We need to clean up Government, get our economy back on track and get people in all 50 States back to work and living decently. We have two wars to end. We need to tell Pakistan to give up Bin Laden and his top guys or we will pay them a visit.

What is happening today is more important to us all than who did what to whom 145 years ago. All of them are dead and dust at this point.

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive; he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be put the past.

- Robert E Lee    January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870

  Colonel US Army 1829–61
  General CSA      1861–65
  President Washington and Lee University

AMEN 

[OldSchool_IsCool]

You cannot battle emotion with rational thought. It's all they have... don't waste your breath.

You CAN battle rational thought with emotion, though.  That is the populist way.  And, why politicians are never short of breath.

Mankind are not rational animals.  Mankind are rationalizing animals.

Individually, people are pretty smart.  But in a group they are as dumb as cattle.  Ever watch a line of people walking through double doors?  Never mind that you can double the throughput by opening the 2nd door, everyone will line up and follow the leader through just one.

[Bob Wessner]

Let's rein this discussion in a bit, or the thread will be locked.

[Retro Rocket]

Well Rocking M you have excelled yourself in the ignorance stakes mate, its a pity small minded idiots like yourself have to reduce your argument to name calling to justify your bull#$%*. And about your convict jibe, it just goes to show how ignorant you are mate, my linage can be traced back hundreds of years to farmers in England and my Father immigrated here in the 50's. I would also like to let you know that if you had said that to me anywhere but on here i would have torn you a new arse you maggot. Yes i am pissed off and have every right to be, you are just another ignorant internet hero. Now, who gives a #$%* if the slaves were compensated, that fixes nothing look up the definition of slave mate, there's nothing good about it at all, its like comparing it to some poor bastard that has spent half his life in prison and compensated on his release for being illegally incarcerated, how do you compensate for their loss of freedom. Auschwitz was NOT a direct comparison so go back and read it as it was written . Actually that will do for this thread, i shouldn't lower myself to your level just to get my point across...
Sorry Bob but i hate ignorant clowns like this bloke and the only reason they get away with crap like this is because they can hide behind the internet......

Mick

[Rocking-M]

All of this happened about 145 years ago. In the scheme of things all of this don't mean Sh!t. We have bigger problems facing all 50 States. We need to clean up Government, get our economy back on track and get people in all 50 States back to work and living decently. We have two wars to end.

and that is where you miss it Bobby, none of the things you mention will happen unless a thorough reckoning of the where with all that brought us to this point are addressed.


you quote Gen'l Lee perhaps these are more to our discussion.

Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.

"If the Constitution and the Union established by our forefathers" were "restored" then there will be no truer supporters of that union and that Constitution than the Southern people. Every brave people who considered their rights attacked and their Constitutional liberties invaded, would have done as we did. Our conduct was not caused by any insurrectionary spirit nor can it be termed rebellion, for our construction of the Constitution under which we lived and acted was the same from its adoption and for eighty years we have been taught and educated by the founders of the Republic and their written declaration which controlled our consciences and actions."

"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know where it is today."

General Robert E. Lee

And President Jefferson Davis

"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."

"Obstacles may retard, but they cannot long prevent the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice, and sustained by a virtuous people ."

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."

"The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena." Jefferson Davis, address to the Mississippi legislature - 16 years after the wars end.

"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."  Jefferson Davis


so I'll add, unless States Rights are understood within the framework of our Constitutional Democratic Republic then nothing will change.

[Rocking-M]

Sorry Bob
Mick

Ditto!

Mick, my come backs were in the spirit of your initial post. Perhaps I shouldn't have been drug down that road.
My apologies.

[BobbyR]

Granted Rob. It is 2010 and this is where we are. We cannot turn the World backward. We can only do all we can to improve things as they are today. I wish a lot of stuff in my lifetime never happened, but it did. I really don;t care what happened back then. We are all in this boat together.

[Brown Bomber]

This thread started out as an interesting discussion about the United States current political state of affairs, but has become a pissin match tween tha nawth an tha south. The crooks that are currently running this country are banking on the people not staying focused, but maybe we should put slavery back under a microscope, if the socialists have their way we'll all be slaves to the government.

lock it

[BeSeeingYou]

Just to try to get things back on track here.
I think this is brilliant.  If a corporation is a "person" then why can't a corporation run for office?

An interesting take on the Supreme Court decision.  In the Dred Scott decision of 1857 the Court decided that people were property and this helped to ignite the Civil War a few years later.  Now 153 years later they decide property is people. 

[paulages]

"Slaves recieved 90% of their labor back in compensation". So just who are the slaves now? Do you get back 90% of your labours?

is anyone forcing you by threat of death to do labor? give me a #$%*ing break. i'll use the term wage slavery to describe modern labor standards, but come the #$%* on. i'll ask you again: would you give up your freedom, be whipped, and FORCED to work with zero rights, be declared 1/5th a person, eventually be declared property by the supreme court (dred scott decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) instead of your wage compensation? are you #$%*ing kidding me? that's some serious apologist bull#$%*. take your the blinders off your southern pride, man. also, the reason there were blacks fighting for the confederacy is because they were promised freedom. anyone with half a pea-brained mind can see through the idiotic claims that any significant amount of blacks were content with slavery.

my black/irish-german/indian shopmate from georgia just called you a racist fool. not my words, mind you. i seriously dare you do tell your barrel-armed black friend that his ancestors were happy in chains.

i won't continue in this argument, because it's foolish to argue with those who condemn themselves with their own words. you've said it all yourself.

my mistake on the stonewall jackson/andrew jackson mis-type.

[BeSeeingYou]

Rust, your steeped in modern history. Sure I know of the Dixiecrats, you ever wonder why such a thing would come about
in the South, where prejudice was recognized as  being less than in the North prior to the Invasion and subsequent fix
from the invaders. (Read de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" for an unbiased view of that).
Racial tension was manufactured by the North to insure a need for government intervention.

A few other facts for you,
less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves. Do you think the other 90% fought to preserve an institution that
did not benefit them?
Free Blacks and Indians owned slaves within that 10%, so we've cut white ownership % down a bit more.

Lincoln said, "Let the South go, where would we get our revenues."
The South exported more cotton than the gnp of the North in 1860.

Several Northern States banned free negroes from moving into their States prior to the war.

Where Northern Officers anti-slavery...hardly.
The following quotes are from northern contemporaries of Lincoln.

from John Sherman, "I hear from all sources that nearly all of the officers in Buell's army, and that Buell himself, are pro-slavery in the last degree"

General Stanton to Secretary Stanton, 20 Sept. 1862, "I find a feeling prevailing among the officers and soldiers of prejudice against the
blacks"

I could go on. Suffice to say, the War of Northern Aggression was not fought to free blacks.

Did Lincoln deserve shooting?
From Gen. Donn Piatt on Lincoln, "Fictitious heroes are being reared to the memories of men whose real histories, when they come to be known, will make this bronze and marble the monuments of our ignorance and folly."

"With us when a leader dies, all good men go to lying about him, and, from the monument that covers his remains to the last echo of the rural press, in speeches, sermons, eulogies and reminiscences, we have naught but pious lies."

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, in a speech at Grand Rapids, 8 Sept. 1900, said that in 1864 "on every hand Lincoln was denounced as a tyrant, a shedder of blood, a foe to liberty, a would-be dictator, a founder of an empire--one orator saying, "We also have our emperor, Lincoln, who can tell stale jokes while the land is running red with the blood of brothers."

Should you like to examine the "real" Lincoln here are a couple good reads.

http://rexcurry.net/pledgeofallegiance-abraham-lincoln-nazism.html
(clearly shows he should have been shot as a war criminal)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/574028/posts



I disagree Bobby, this forced union will split again. Which States do it is up for grabs. As stated in the other article
we are no different than the Soviet Union prior to it's split up. As to Texas, isn't it interesting that a State which joined
the Union with the added emphasis that it could redraw at anytime was force back in less than 20 years later.
I would add that not only did NY and Texas state this right in their constitutions but also Virginia's clearly stated
the right to do so. This right, and inalienable right to self-government was understood by every State that voluntarily joined
the union. Some State's saw the need to make sure it was found in their constitutions as they joined because they
knew that down the road a few years clear rights would be clouded by men who seek power.

What I find most disheartening is that Southerners see the need to try and convince yankees of their patriotism by what is
in fact faux patriotism. Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting the government in unjust wars. Southerners need to examine their history themselves and not the yankee victors history.

   Like I said before I have not questioned anyone's patriotism or tried to tar someone with the sins of the past. It isn't about whether racism is worse here or there.  It's everywhere to one degree or another.  But what I will not ignore is the defense, rationalization, or romanticism of a socioeconomic system based on slavery.  And yes, that is what it was.  The confederacy had a total population of around 9 million with 4 million of that total being slaves.  It does not matter that only 10% where slave owners.  The whole political and wealth structure was controlled by that 10% and a far larger percentage benefited from it.  You try and rationalize it by implying they were happy to be slaves.  It's just indefensible.  Today I don't hold anyone in the South responsible or answerable for this sordid chapter in our history but wave the stars and bars in my face and you will get an earful.
     The rest of your rationale seems to be that "the Yankees made us do it".   Dubious quotes from TR who was all of 7 years old when the war ended and supposedly said this 35 years later or the few other quotes you state.  So what, a few quotes out of context prove your rationale.  The website you link is ridiculous and once again Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies claims another victim.

[paulages]

by the way, i hope there's no need to lock this thread due to the heated discussions.. i certainly don't think RM is a bad guy because i disagree with some of what he says, and i hope it remains possible to have open discussion without feeling like it has degenerated beyond something useful.

you'd be hard pressed to catch me arguing in favor of centralized state power, which was the end result of the civil war. the concentrated wealth of pre-war south was on the backbone of free labor, much as cheap manufacturing exists on the backbone of international sweatshop labor today.