"Unreconstructed" Lincoln-haters win out in Virginia

[Okla-homey]

Predictable, but still lamentable.


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) Virginia lawmakers meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol killed legislation creating a commission to oversee the state's participation in the national commemoration of the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth.

The House Rules Committee rejected Sen. Henry L. Marsh III's bill on a voice vote Wednesday. The Senate had passed the bill unanimously. Marsh, (D-Richmond,) said several states have established panels to work with the federal Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which is coordinating three years of events surrounding the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth on Feb. 12, 2009.

"Lincoln is regarded by many as the most outstanding president of all time," said Marsh, who noted that the 16th president's parents both were born in Virginia.

Robert Lamb of Richmond, a lawyer and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, told the committee that supporters of a Virginia celebration of Lincoln's birth suffer from "historical myopia and amnesia." [Yee Haw!]

"He sent armies into Virginia to lay waste to our land," said Lamb. [its called war you redneck bastage, and the South started it!] Lamb said Marsh's bill should be amended to replace the Lincoln commemoration with a June 3, 2008, celebration of the 200th birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. [Yeah, right. That'll work out great! While you're at it, can you require all government buildings to fly the rebel flag too?]

http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/8920/2005023126092510705_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005023126092510705)

[royalfan5]

Man, I'm glad my family was busy fighting the various Wars of German Unification at this time, since it kept me from getting a complex about Yankee's and what not.

[FaninAma]

Dear Homey,

Are you generally a fan of dictatorial leaders who suspend civil rights, shut down newspapers, arrest Supreme Court justices, institute an illegal draft, use the military to kill thousands of civilians, and approve the execution of dozens of indiginous people of the country(ie native Americans)...or are you just a fan of Lincoln specifically?

And the stooping to name calling of those who disagree with you? You're better than that.

Sincerely,
Your favorite Redneck Lincoln-Hater.

[JohnnyMack]

Apparently the notion of accountability is lost on the south.

[FaninAma]

Apparently the notion of accountability is lost on the south.

Apparently the notion of accountabilty means that whoever is in power can interpret the Constitution any way he or she sees fit and has the authority to use military force and suspend civil rights to attain whatever cause said person in power has deemed "nobel".

Then you probably agree with the way the BATF/FBI handled both Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege. I bet you disagree vehemently with Nixon being forced out of office because, after all, the crimes he was accused of could be justified that he committed them for the good of the nation's security and that he was trying to insure that the "right" side prevailed in the Vietnam War.

In other words, the ruthless, unbridled use of Federal power and authority is justified as long as you agree with the cause. Right?

[JohnnyMack]

The South did nothing wrong. They were innocent victims. Oh woe is me.

[FaninAma]

The South did nothing wrong. They were innocent victims. Oh woe is me.

So you do agree that as long as you agree the cause is just and worthy then the means matter not. Which also means the Consitution is worthless and can be treated like the Pirates' Code....more as a set of "guidelines" rather than principles established as the bedrock foundation of our country.

Since Lincoln, presidents and the Courts have used the Constitution to wipe their collective asses. They use it when it's convenient and supports their causes and they ignore it when it doesn't.....situational Constitutionality. Sort of like situational ethics.

The "benign" dicator type of government probably holds great appeal to those who support Lincoln.

But what happens when you decide that you disagree with the premise that the cause is just or noble? With a dictator there is no recourse.

There were many in the North that disagreed with Lincoln but he silenced his critics usually through unconstituional means.

[NormanPride]

Lincoln cheats at chess, too.

[KABOOKIE]

The South did nothing wrong. They were innocent victims. Oh woe is me.


Just like them indians on the plains. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What's so wrong about Jeff Davis Day? I celebrated it for many years while growing up, was even a state/school holiday...

And I would submit that the "north" could be considered at fault for the war of seccession. They were trying to end the south's means of economy without providing an alternative means for developing their agriculture and economy, providing the "north" with a competetive advantage. Just sayin'...There are other interpretation other than the one mentioned above...

[jk the sooner fan]

I'm in total agreement with the way the FBI handled the Waco incident......and I'd be on board with the BATF's handling of it, except for the initial raid

[royalfan5]

What's so wrong about Jeff Davis Day? I celebrated it for many years while growing up, was even a state/school holiday...
Sends the wrong message to kids. You shouldn't glorify someone who lost, teaches the kids that coming is second is okay, or being good at a minor sport is as good as being good at football. Celebrating Jeff Davis Day helps create future aggies. If you okay with that fine, but I'm not.

[FaninAma]

I'm in total agreement with the way the FBI handled the Waco incident......and I'd be on board with the BATF's handling of it, except for the initial raid

I'm always a fan of the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to law enforcement, too. Especially when 14 year old kids and mothers of infants end up getting shot through the head and 26 children end up being incinerated.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Sends the wrong message to kids. You shouldn't glorify someone who lost, teaches the kids that coming is second is okay, or being good at a minor sport is as good as being good at football. Celebrating Jeff Davis Day helps create future aggies. If you okay with that fine, but I'm not.

Heh! spek to you!

[jk the sooner fan]

I'm always a fan of the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to law enforcement, too. Especially when 14 year old kids and mothers of infants end up getting shot through the head and 26 children end up being incinerated.

i'm generally for law enforcement going after law breakers......

tell me, what kind of investigative plan would you have executed?

[JohnnyMack]

Lincoln cheats at chess, too.

Hello, honest Abe?

Heh.

[JohnnyMack]

i'm generally for law enforcement going after law breakers......

tell me, what kind of investigative plan would you have executed?

Much like the south would have given up slaves eventually, he believes they would have just given up their weapons eventually.

[jk the sooner fan]

law enforcement agents execute warrants on houses with women and children EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country

**** happens......its unfortunate but its a fact of life

[FaninAma]

law enforcement agents execute warrants on houses with women and children EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country

**** happens......its unfortunate but its a fact of life

No **** happens when a person or group of people(or a government) that have been given a lot of power get arrogant and believe the ends justify the means. The arrogance in these two events included ignoring the usual practices and safeguards in dealing with a hostage situation.

Specifically what were the desired ends of both of these situations? Were there other means available to accomplish the ends other than confrontation and provoking a deadly hostage situation?

JM, are you saying slavery would have never ended in this country without Lincoln's war? Were there no other means to end slavery(which wasn't the reason Lincoln went to war, BTW)?

[jk the sooner fan]

No **** happens when a person or froup of people who have been given a lot of power get arrogant and think the ends justify the means. This arrogance in these two events included ignoring the usual practices and safeguards in dealing with a hostage situation



do you even know what prompted that investigation?

or did you just fast forward to the initial search warrant/raid?

again i ask - what type of investigative plan would you have executed? i'd love to hear it

[KABOOKIE]

law enforcement agents execute warrants on houses with women and children EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country

**** happens......its unfortunate but its a fact of life


**** happens at my job too. They usually send people to jail for it though.

[Okieflyer]

:pop:

:hot:

[jk the sooner fan]

**** happens at my job too. They usually send people to jail for it though.

great

exactly what law did the ATF agents violate executing a federally mandated search warrant?

[FaninAma]

do you even know what prompted that investigation?

or did you just fast forward to the initial search warrant/raid?

again i ask - what type of investigative plan would you have executed? i'd love to hear it

Surely you aren't going to press this issue when the shotcomings of the BATF have been pointed out on numerous occasions.

1.Koresh and his inner circle could have been arrested on numerous occasions while they were away from the compound.

2.The leader of the BATF force that raided the compound knew that Koresh had been tipped off and he knew, or supposedly knew that they had a big cache of weapons at the compound, and should have anticipated what would happen when an armed fanatic knew he was about to be attacked.
3.In the Ruby Ridge fiasco, the BATF/FBI never even considered using intermediaries to accomplish the goal of bringing the father of the family in to face charges. Who shot first in this raid?

Innocent people died. The FBI/BATF should share a lot of the responsibility for that because they completely mishandled both situations.

I assume the FBI/BATF were seeking arrests for the illegal weapons possession. What were the ends to be accomplished? Were there no other means to accomplish them?

The ends justify the means.

[jk the sooner fan]

sure they could have been arrested off the compound but the grenades and automatic weapons in the compound would have still been unreachable because of the defense he put up

anybody can sit and sharpshoot/monday morning quarterback a failed raid......a 5th grader can do it

the FBI didnt move in until there was a hostage situation

the koreshians set that place on fire.....the responsibility for their deaths lies solely at the hands of the adults that lived in that building

[FaninAma]

sure they could have been arrested off the compound but the grenades and automatic weapons in the compound would have still been unreachable because of the defense he put up

anybody can sit and sharpshoot/monday morning quarterback a failed raid......a 5th grader can do it



So it was easier to get through Koresh's defenses while he and his henchmen were at the compound?

And yes I agree, a 5th grader could probably have handled the situation better.

[jk the sooner fan]

i clearly stated in my first post that i had no problems with the BATF except for the raid itself

why you continue to ignore that is obvious

[JohnnyMack]

We're approaching "Tin-Foil Hat" time I fear.

[KABOOKIE]

great

exactly what law did the ATF agents violate executing a federally mandated search warrant?


My response was about your statement execution of warrants that “**** happens.” In the Waco case there’s plenty of evidence that ATF agents fired first and they shot and killed unarmed children. Ruby Ridge as well. But, I guess that’s OK as long as cops get those criminals in the end. **** happens.

[FaninAma]

the koreshians set that place on fire.....the responsibility for their deaths lies solely at the hands of the adults that lived in that building

I knew Koresh was wanting to have an excuse to execute an apocolyptic finish to the standoff. The FBI profilers knew it. You probably knew it. The only ones who didn't know it were Janet Reno and the FBI task force commanders.

The reason they share part of the responsibility is that they should have known Koresh and his fellow lunatics would do this and they should have sent in a massive, overwhelming force to save the 26 children who burnt to death.

If they weren't prepared for the probable consequences they never should have initiated the assualt with the tanks.

[jk the sooner fan]

In the Waco case there’s plenty of evidence that ATF agents fired first and they shot and killed unarmed children.

link?

the children were sent into back rooms while the men took up defensive positions. many children were later released, before the others died in the fire started by Koresh and his henchmen.

"who fired first" is in dispute...

[jk the sooner fan]

they werent tanks, they were armored recovery vehicles

[JohnnyMack]

JM, are you saying slavery would have never ended in this country without Lincoln's war? Were there no other means to end slavery(which wasn't the reason Lincoln went to war, BTW)?

You said in an earlier diatribe that the South would have relented in terms of slavery given time. I say that's bull****. Blacks were never going to be equal in most southerners eyes. Here's some pictures that took place AFTER slavery ended:

A lynching
http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/lynching.jpg

The Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment
http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/images/event_tuskegee.jpg

The Little Rock Nine
http://amcop.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/little%20rock%20nine-751046.JPG

I could go on and on in regards to how intolerant, bigoted, hateful and outright evil whites were in their treatment of blacks but I don't know why I should waste my time. You've got yourself convinced that the South is the most put upon group of people this planet has ever seen. You're just certain that everyone misunderstands the South and that no one south of the Mason/Dixon line ever did anything wrong.

[KABOOKIE]

From Ruby Ridge:
A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms.

**** happens.

[FaninAma]

link?

the children were sent into back rooms while the men took up defensive positions. many children were later released, before the others died in the fire started by Koresh and his henchmen.

"who fired first" is in dispute...

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

This changed when professional film-makers Dan Gifford and Amy Sommer produced their Emmy Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Award) winning documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco:_The_Rules_of_Engagement) [12] (http://www.waco93.com/). This film presents a history of the Branch Davidian movement and most important, a critical examination of the conduct of law enforcement leading up to the raid, and through the aftermath of the fire. The film features footage of the Congressional hearings on Waco, and juxtaposition of official government spokespeople with footage and evidence often directly contradicting them. The documentary also shows infra-red footage demonstrating that the FBI likely used incendiary devices to start the fire which consumed the building and did indeed fire on, and kill, Branch Davidians attempting to flee the fire.

[FaninAma]

Johnny Mack,

Your rebuttal and attempts to make the assertion that those who disapprove of Lincoln's actions are supporters of racsim and slavery is weak, laughable, simplistic and basically stupid.

Besides, all of the atrocities in the the pictures you posted happened after the Civil War. All of the meaningful civil right's changes have been instituted constituionally and through the legislative process and I am willing to contend they would have happened a lot sooner if the country hadn't had to first heal the tremendous wounds and divisions left by Lincoln's war.

Civil rights for one group weren't suspended in order to achieve civil rights for another group. The Constitutionally dilineated routes of addressing grievances was used in the Civil Right's legislation of the 60's.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Johnny Mack fails to remember what has happened...

Much of the Jim Crow laws and the racial intolerance happened if I remember my history correctly AFTER the civil war was ended and the Northern carpetbaggers came down and passed offensive and confiscatory laws in the south. Many of the embedded racial attitudes were in response to the overbearing and heavy-handedness of the Northern minders, er carpet baggers. Sadly to say, many of those were Republicans, hence the rise and dominance of the Democratic Party in the South.

This is not to say that the blacks were in a Utopia, but it has been shown that prior to Northern interference, the black population was more integrated and in more leadership positions than after the carpetbagger backlashes.

[jk the sooner fan]

i think you proved his point......it happened after the civil war, which means the intolerance was never removed.....something that would have to happen for slavery to just 'end on its own'

[Scott D]

Johnny Mack fails to remember what has happened...

Much of the Jim Crow laws and the racial intolerance happened if I remember my history correctly AFTER the civil war was ended and the Northern carpetbaggers came down and passed offensive and confiscatory laws in the south. Many of the embedded racial attitudes were in response to the overbearing and heavy-handedness of the Northern minders, er carpet baggers. Sadly to say, many of those were Republicans, hence the rise and dominance of the Democratic Party in the South.

This is not to say that the blacks were in a Utopia, but it has been shown that prior to Northern interference, the black population was more integrated and in more leadership positions than after the carpetbagger backlashes.

Now I want you to work European Immigration into that picture (mainly Irish/German), and how that changes the borders of the picture you paint.

[Octavian]

No, JM's point of those pictures was exactly that those things did happen after the end of the civil war.


It took the South a full century to come around on racial issues even after they lost (and when they did it was because the US Fed Govt forced them).


They were able to do so because the North (including Lincoln) allowed them to excercise broad legislative powers in regards to "states' rights" even after they lost the war.


The Jim Crow South was slavery lite.

[Octavian]

ahh...JK beat me to it


by seven minutes

[FaninAma]

No, JM's point of those pictures was exactly that those things did happen after the end of the civil war.


It took the South a full century to come around on racial issues even after they lost (and when they did it was because the US Fed Govt forced them).


They were able to do so because the North (including Lincoln) allowed them to excercise broad legislative powers in regards to "states' rights" even after they lost the war.


The Jim Crow South was slavery lite.

THA is correct. Many individual states had moved to outlaw slavery even before the Civil War began. Slavery was on it's way out and if the end had come as the result of a grassroots change by the citizens themselves instead of at the end of a bayonett there would not have been the tremendous, bitter backlash by the South.

And even if you buy the notion that Lincoln conducted the Civil War soley to end slavery(which he did not) how do you justify Lincoln's total disregard for the Constitution and civil liberties? Again, it is dangerous to support the notion that the ends justify the means.

How did women gain the right to vote? Was there a war fought to achieve that goal?

[KABOOKIE]

i think you proved his point......it happened after the civil war, which means the intolerance was never removed.....something that would have to happen for slavery to just 'end on its own'


The Civil War would have never happened had the South not declared their independence and attacked Federal troops. When the South separated from the Union and attacked, it gave all the power to Lincoln and the North to destroy the South. I think it’s not much of stretch to say that with the next 50 years Slavery would have ended much like it did in other countries through international disapproval, technology advances, etc…. Keeping slaves was expensive. If a little machinery could have replaced thousands of people, well……..

[Okla-homey]

The Civil War would have never happened had the South not declared their independence and attacked Federal troops. When the South separated from the Union and attacked, it gave all the power to Lincoln and the North to destroy the South. I think it’s not much of stretch to say that with the next 50 years Slavery would have ended much like it did in other countries through international disapproval, technology advances, etc…. Keeping slaves was expensive. If a little machinery could have replaced thousands of people, well……..

Absotively!

Similarly, I'm generally opposed to Courts telling folks what's in their child's best interest, but here's the dealio...when folks saddlle up for the court house and file for divorce, that invites the Court in to decide or rule on issues which ordinarily would be the exclusive province of the parents. It can also enforce its orders up to and including jailing for noncompliance.

When the South fired that first shot in April of 1861, they invited the full might and majesty of the Federal government to roll in and break them down like a flippin' shotgun. Therefore, IMHO, the South's actions led to today's status quo so lamented by Lincoln-haters.

[JohnnyMack]

Johnny Mack fails to remember what has happened...

Much of the Jim Crow laws and the racial intolerance happened if I remember my history correctly AFTER the civil war was ended and the Northern carpetbaggers came down and passed offensive and confiscatory laws in the south. Many of the embedded racial attitudes were in response to the overbearing and heavy-handedness of the Northern minders, er carpet baggers. Sadly to say, many of those were Republicans, hence the rise and dominance of the Democratic Party in the South.

This is not to say that the blacks were in a Utopia, but it has been shown that prior to Northern interference, the black population was more integrated and in more leadership positions than after the carpetbagger backlashes.

Ahhh, I see! So it's STILL the north's fault!

[Octavian]

Slavery was on it's way out and if the end had come as the result of a grassroots change by the citizens themselves instead of at the end of a bayonett there would not have been the tremendous, bitter backlash by the South.


that's difficult to believe considering the racial atmosphere which flourished for 300 years before the war and more than 100 after it


And even if you buy the notion that Lincoln conducted the Civil War soley to end slavery...


hopefully, no one past the fifth grade believes that.



...how do you justify Lincoln's total disregard for the Constitution and civil liberties? Again, it is dangerous to support the notion that the ends justify the means.


good point. Many of the people who support Lincoln in retrospect will denounce Dubya with fire and brimstone for doing the same (...while not touching the subject of FDR).


But at the time...like now....a president did believe that the ends justified the means if that resulted in the preservation of his nation.


Half of his country broke away from him...what else could he do? He either had to devise a plan to save the US or let it implode.


My assertion is that, had Lincoln really been a tyrant...he could've sought much greaters powers for himself than he did. He could've been an American Caesar had he pushed hard enough.



Lincoln probably earns too much historical credit for what went down....he was the man who was driving the boat when it all went down.

Had it not been him, it would've been someone else...and if it would've been a personality type like a TR, Nixon, etc.....the American executive could've been a king-like postition much earlier, and there's not telling what sort've historical outcome that would've produced in the 20th C.

[FaninAma]

Absotively!

Similarly, I'm generally opposed to Courts telling folks what's in their child's best interest, but here's the dealio...when folks saddlle up for the court house and file for divorce, that invites the Court in to decide or rule on issues which ordinarily would be the exclusive province of the parents. It can also enforce its orders up to and including jailing for noncompliance.

When the South fired that first shot in April of 1861, they invited the full might and majesty of the Federal government to roll in and break them down like a flippin' shotgun. Therefore, IMHO, the South's actions led to today's status quo so lamented by Lincoln-haters.

Homey, you make a valid and legitimate point if you asume that the states did not have the right to secede. Do you think if the South had not fired on Ft. Sumner and simply ignored any edicts from Lincoln that the Civil War still would have happened?

And if, as many at the time thought, that the states did have the right to secede from the Union, was it an illegal act for a state that had seceded to kick out the military force of a foreign government?

[jk the sooner fan]

is secession a right written into the constitution?

[Okla-homey]

is secession a right written into the constitution?

It was a point of debate because the Constitution was, and still is, silent on it.

However, most reasonable people agree the Civil War settled the matter once and for all. The war and its eventual outcome stands for the proposition that the Consitution is a binding contract of indefinite length between states which freely enter it. Like any contract, a party can breach it, but if they do they're liable for damages to the other contracting parties. In freely becoming a party to that contract, states give up a large degree of their inherent sovereignty.

Frankly, the South is just danged lucky the North didn't force them to sign a treaty wherein they were required to make reparations to the states who remained loyal. Interestingly, that was considered, but not adopted mostly because legally, the South never left the Union because the United States government never formally recognized the Confederate States. Pretty neat trick huh?

[Okla-homey]

was it an illegal act for a state that had seceded to kick out the military force of a foreign government?

Yes, just as it would be if Korea or Germany woke up one morning and started shooting at American forces that were stationed there in accordance with treaties negotiated between the US and those countries.

Its one thing for a seceded state (although I submit it is illegal to secede) to say, "Yankee Go Home!" It's another thing entirely to try and force them out at the point of a bayonet and expropriate US property. That tends to cause problems.

[jk the sooner fan]

so it wasnt specifically written into the constitution

so the southern states trampled all over the constitution....and now they're bitching about how Lincoln trampled all over it to save the union

BRILLIANT!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

i think you proved his point......it happened after the civil war, which means the intolerance was never removed.....something that would have to happen for slavery to just 'end on its own'

While I don't think it was a utopia - as I said, I think before the carpetbagger backlashes, people were more tolerant of black/former slaves than afterward. The carpetbaggers stole money, stole power or at least usurped it and basically rubbed the Southerners nose in it. That created a backlash and anyone associated with the carpetbaggers (I think tarred comes to mind as carpetbaggers were frequently tarred and feathered, perhaps this was intolerance - I personally don't know - perhaps a historian can weigh in).

Many former slaves were during the inbetween years share croppers and some even had land. Former slave owners lived side by side without animosity with the former slaves, certainly not in all cases.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Jim Crow laws were passed as a result of the northern white carpetbaggers and people telling and dictating to the sourthern states what and how to do things, not necessarily out of a racial hatred. That could have played a part and there could have been institutionalized racism, perhaps again a scholar could weigh in.

[jk the sooner fan]

could it be they were more tolerable during slavery simply because they had no rights and no freedom?

seriously.....do you not see that?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Frankly, the South is just danged lucky the North didn't force them to sign a treaty wherein they were required to make reparations to the states who remained loyal. Interestingly, that was considered, but not adopted mostly because legally, the South never left the Union because the United States government never formally recognized the Confederate States. Pretty neat trick huh?

But the North did reap its pound of flesh out of the south. They confiscated land, property and dictated legislation and laws. Some Southerners would argue they did pay reparations.

[SoonerProphet]

John Locke might have argued that secession is a right of the governed. The government should be the servant of the people, not the other way around.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

could it be they were more tolerable during slavery simply because they had no rights and no freedom?

seriously.....do you not see that?

I think the former slaves were probably still in shock of not being owned and not being told what to do. I also think that they had gone without an identity for so long that many look to their former owners for guidance and help afterwards. Instutionalized removal of ones identity can be very destructive. I would find it hard to not understand who I am without knowing where I came from.

I believe many former slaves took on the last names of the former owners after being freed. It indeed was interesting times in the South and certainly there were many opinions and emotions on all sides.

[jk the sooner fan]

very true!

just seems alot of what happened to them after slavery was ended, was nothing more than attempts to further suppress them......which can be, in itself, a form of slavery

[TheHumanAlphabet]

John Locke might have argued that secession is a right of the governed. The government should be the servant of the people, not the other way around.

I would agree with that, if you have free will to join the union, the same should apply the other way around.

This whole thing was mostly about a lack of voice - the South decided that they had no other recourse than to secede because they felt they weren't being heard. I am sure rabble-rousing played a part and people in government over-reacted on both sides to the point there was no compromise.

[C&CDean]

You know what I always find funny? People who think the "north" is all righteous, and the "south" is all racist. Actually, I don't find it funny at all. I find it pathetically narrow-minded and ignorant.

Way too many of you have taken your POS history textbooks from the 4th grade and have swallowed it all, hook, line, and stinker. You especially swallowed the part about Darwin. And you're the same people who make fun of christians for believing in a Bible.

Anybody who has a dissenting opinion about oh, let's say Abraham Lincoln, is automatically labeled a racist, ignorant, or worse. All I know for sure about ol' Abe is that during his reign of terror, hundreds of thousands of Americans were slaughtered. And I know for sure that many of them were innocent civilians. And I know for sure that most of those innocent civilians happened to live south of the Mason-Dixon. And I know for sure their properties were seized, their homes, businesses, and farms were burned to the ground, their women were raped and brutalized, and much more. And I know for sure that the "northern" dudes doing all the killing weren't shouting "Freedom to the Slaves!!" as their battle cry.

So give the whole racist thing a rest. Besides, the only time I've ever personally been close to a brutal racist attack (other than the typical weekend fights in the Army) I was in Roxbury, Mass. A white chick ran outta gas, went and got some gas, and some brothers took the can away, poured it all over her, and lit her on fire. You know, for being on their side of the "combat zone?" And last time I checked, Massachussetts is pretty far north.

[jk the sooner fan]

New Jersey is one of the most racist states I've ever lived in, second only to Alabama

[SicEmBaylor]

I would agree with that, if you have free will to join the union, the same should apply the other way around.

This whole thing was mostly about a lack of voice - the South decided that they had no other recourse than to secede because they felt they weren't being heard. I am sure rabble-rousing played a part and people in government over-reacted on both sides to the point there was no compromise.

I agree with both of you.
Let me put this another way...

If the South had been using the powers of the Federal government to FORCE slavery or other policies on the North that benefited only the south at the expense of the other states and if the North decided that, as a result, their only option was to leave the union then I would still be standing here supporting their right to do so.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Now I want you to work European Immigration into that picture (mainly Irish/German), and how that changes the borders of the picture you paint.

I am not sure what you mean.

My family immigrated from Prussia in the 1850s / 1860s and was part of the westward expansion and an original settler in central Wisconsin. I can't remember if a family member fought in the war of seccession or not. But I think there was a family member or two in the Wisconsin regiment. If they were there, I don't think were there fighting slavery, probably supporting the government that provided a new life for them. I do know my Wisconsin relatives fled forced conscription in Germany to come to America.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me ask you all this...
A foundational principle is that a government is only just if it has the consent of the governed. Put aside the question of the war, the question of slavery, the question of tariffs, etc.

If not for the strength of the states then what buffer exists between the people and a tyrannical centralized government? Furthermore, the Founding Fathers absolutely believed that the people have the right to dissolve a government or alter their political situation when it doesn't serve their interests. Do people not have a right to dissolve a political unity if it no longer serves their interests?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I agree with both of you.
Let me put this another way...

If the South had been using the powers of the Federal government to FORCE slavery or other policies on the North that benefited only the south at the expense of the other states and if the North decided that, as a result, their only option was to leave the union then I would still be standing here supporting their right to do so.

The one thing people haven't hit on in this thread and you just reminded me. Back then, the Federal government was seen as a WEAK central power with States Rights trumping the Federal government. The central government was there to print money, provide for interstate commerce and such, but beyond that, the general opinion was that the States had greater power. Point, many states had organized militias, the U.S. had little in the way of an Army and had even less of a Navy.

[jk the sooner fan]

and yet with all of those horrible flaws, we've grown into whats considered the greatest nation....

hard to believe everybody wants to move here from other countries when things are so jacked up....

[SoonerBorn68]

Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do no give a damn.

I'm glad I fit (fought) against 'er (her)
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done.

I hates the Yankee nation
And eveything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too.

I hates the glorious union
'Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
And fit (fought) it all I could.

I rode with Robert E. Lee
For three years there about
Got wounded in four places
And I starved at Pint (Point) Lookout.

I coutch (caught) the roomatism (rheumatism)
Campin' in the snow
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some mo'. (more.)

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.

They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.

I can't take up my musket
And fight 'em down no mo' (more)
But I ain't a-goin' to love 'em (them)
Now that is serten sho. (certain sure.)

And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstructed
And I do not give a damn.

Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now that's just what I am
And for this Yankee nation
I do no give a damn.

I'm glad I fought against 'er (her)
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done.

I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done...

http://imagoodoldrebel.ytmnd.com/

[TheHumanAlphabet]

and yet with all of those horrible flaws, we've grown into whats considered the greatest nation....

hard to believe everybody wants to move here from other countries when things are so jacked up....

Bingo that! I travel around, a lot, even to the supposed social leaders of the world. I always am happy to be an American and am always happy to come home. Haven't found a spot that would be a better place to have loyalty to.

[Scott D]

I am not sure what you mean.

My family immigrated from Prussia in the 1850s / 1860s and was part of the westward expansion and an original settler in central Wisconsin. I can't remember if a family member fought in the war of seccession or not. But I think there was a family member or two in the Wisconsin regiment. If they were there, I don't think were there fighting slavery, probably supporting the government that provided a new life for them. I do know my Wisconsin relatives fled forced conscription in Germany to come to America.

Well since I am referring to a post civil war South in this matter. There were a lot of immigrants whom also flooded into some of these southern states. For example there was a huge Irish increase in the census population of New Orleans specifically, but Louisiana in general. Now, in some regards, there were some blacks who had it a bit easier in Louisiana (New Orleans in particular) because their families had been long rooted in the area, and at some point had gained their freedom (prior to Civ. War). Others obviously gained that 'freedom' after the war was over. So now you have two large groups of people whom have moved into a different spectrum for themselves (one being an immigrant, the other being given more control over his own life and future). This clash of 'new blood' into a 'free' society created more resentment which helped lead to Jim Crow laws.

[Scott D]

You know what I always find funny? People who think the "north" is all righteous, and the "south" is all racist. Actually, I don't find it funny at all. I find it pathetically narrow-minded and ignorant.

Way too many of you have taken your POS history textbooks from the 4th grade and have swallowed it all, hook, line, and stinker. You especially swallowed the part about Darwin. And you're the same people who make fun of christians for believing in a Bible.

Anybody who has a dissenting opinion about oh, let's say Abraham Lincoln, is automatically labeled a racist, ignorant, or worse. All I know for sure about ol' Abe is that during his reign of terror, hundreds of thousands of Americans were slaughtered. And I know for sure that many of them were innocent civilians. And I know for sure that most of those innocent civilians happened to live south of the Mason-Dixon. And I know for sure their properties were seized, their homes, businesses, and farms were burned to the ground, their women were raped and brutalized, and much more. And I know for sure that the "northern" dudes doing all the killing weren't shouting "Freedom to the Slaves!!" as their battle cry.

So give the whole racist thing a rest. Besides, the only time I've ever personally been close to a brutal racist attack (other than the typical weekend fights in the Army) I was in Roxbury, Mass. A white chick ran outta gas, went and got some gas, and some brothers took the can away, poured it all over her, and lit her on fire. You know, for being on their side of the "combat zone?" And last time I checked, Massachussetts is pretty far north.

Dean, I could go on with instances of things I've seen and they pretty much are racist matters going both ways. I generally go with what Malcolm X had to say in regards to racism when he said "Give me an Alabama racist over a New York racist any day. The Alabama racist will be racist to your face, the New York one will smile, shake your hand, and call you a N***er once your back is turned."

[Octavian]

You know what I always find funny? People who think the "north" is all righteous, and the "south" is all racist. Actually, I don't find it funny at all. I find it pathetically narrow-minded and ignorant.

Way too many of you have taken your POS history textbooks from the 4th grade and have swallowed it all, hook, line, and stinker.


There were even riots in Northern urban areas which whites began in retaliation for the influx of a black industrial labor force.


Massive anti-war protests occurred in multiple Northern cities railing against "Lincoln's war" and demanding that their sons not be forced to fight for blacks' freedoms.


Southern slaves were often treated more humanely in their workplaces than Northern industrial workers - whether they were black or white. That was simply the nature of unregulated industrialized capitalism.


But that doesn't mean that slavery was some romantic institution or was somehow preferred by blacks -there wouldn't have been a massive influx of blacks to the North if that had been so -or that the South wasn't completely wrong in their economic system. They were.


My issue with Lincoln's legacy isn't slavery or issues of race. The way in which he dealt with the fallout between Federalism vs. Confederalism is....it would've happened at some point regardless of which man occupied the White House and Lincoln did a masterful job of preventing the dissolution of the country.


The EU is having the same dilemma right now. How much autonomy should their "states" have? Naturally, Britain and France disagree. The coalescence of numerous political entities under a larger umbrella is tricky.


It took a war for the U.S. to resolve its problems in regards to the issue....and the reason there is still a U.S.A. today is, in large part, due to Lincoln's leadership at the moment of crisis.