(July 8, 2013 at 11:21 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Over a century has passed and people in the south STILL wail about the confederacy. Most of them don't even know what the fuck the confederacy stands for or what they would do if their state suddenly lost all political and economic connection to the rest of the union but they still wave the flag around like a bunch of dumbasses because they just wanna keep up the idea, no matter how little meaning the idea has anymore.

It's the 21st century. The south needs to get the fuck over it already.

I agree with the most part what you are saying. Before the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's the "Confederate flag" which was never a flag to represent the Confederacy was largely forgotten and rarely ever shown.

A few racist retards started waving it around in protest and it's become symbolic of Southern racism.

The South will get over it when the rest of the country quits continually denigrating us and insulting us over, and over, and over, and over with the BS southern stereotypes.

Min is the worst offender on this particular forum. And I've already blown up at him a couple times. I generally like the guy, but he still thinks its awesome and a good move to continually insult Southerners.

Read the title of this thread real quick.



Not helpful.

He's retarded and he has children with his own sister? And people think this is amusing, good natured fun to ridicule the Southern people? I mean holy fuck.

And don't even anyone accuse me of picking out a lone case. Deliverance? Forrest Gump? Sling Blade? Joe Dirt? Larry the Cable Guy? Did you know he isn't even Southern? His name is Daniel Whitney. He's from Nebraska. He's built a career on making fun of Southerners.

Who else can we insult like this today?

I can only think of two types of people in PC modern America.

Southerners and Atheists.

It's politically incorrect and insensitive to make fun of anyone else.

(July 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm)festive1 Wrote: Everywhere was decidedly racist during this time period, England, US, Canada. Yes, Southerners fought for their freedom... Freedom from federal government overriding state's rights. But that included their freedom to own and trade slaves, or more accurately, the freedom of the richest of them to own and trade slaves. Slavery didn't need to be mentioned explicitly by soldiers as a reason for fighting, as Southern culture was intrinsically linked and based on the institution. It wouldn't make sense if an average white Confederate soldier mentioned fighting to preserve slavery, as most Confederate soldiers didn't even own slaves. Most Southerners didn't own slaves, and the majority of slave owners owned relatively few numbers of slaves. Slaves were concentrated on the plantations, which were owned by the relatively small, elite Southern society. It was an economic issue, however, the entire Southern economy was based on an unlimited supply of free labor. Religion straddled both sides of the issue. Some used religion to justify slavery (blacks bore the "mark of Cain"), while others used religion to condemn it. Many people in the North wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but most didn't carry the idea to blacks being equal to whites. That wouldn't become part of the agenda until quite some time later. There are a multitude of reasons leading to the Civil War, but a common thread to all of them is slavery in some shape or form.
Lincoln wanted to end slavery, but wanted to preserve the Union more. Hence why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves who were in areas of open rebellion, instead of simply abolishing slavery outright. The Civil War would have been very different if Lincoln had lost the border states. With slaves fleeing the South and seeking refuge in the North, many Northern areas experienced violence. In large part, this was because of job competition between freedmen who were willing to work for less than whites. Just because a majority of Northerners wanted to end slavery and thought it wrong to own another human being, that doesn't mean they wanted to compete against blacks for jobs.
The main point, going back to the OP, is the North grew up, developed, changed public perceptions and attitudes, the South did not. Due in large part because of it's heritage being so intrinsically linked to slavery and a system of deeply engrained, racial hierarchy.

How do you figure the Corwin Amendment into all that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

Lincoln's comment on it: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

I would think an American history in which the South agreed to rejoin the Union on those terms would have been one in which slavery would have been perpetuated much longer, perhaps even into the 20th century.

(July 8, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Lincoln's comment on it: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Another one of my very favorite quotes from the great emancipator: “Root, hog, or die.” ~ Lincoln’s suggestion to illiterate and propertyless ex-slaves, Feb. 3, 1865.

Quote: It wouldn't make sense if an average white Confederate soldier mentioned fighting to preserve slavery, as most Confederate soldiers didn't even own slaves. Most Southerners didn't own slaves, and the majority of slave owners owned relatively few numbers of slaves.

But Union soldiers did not spend a great deal of time talking about how they were fighting against it, either.

(July 8, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm)festive1 Wrote: Everywhere was decidedly racist during this time period, England, US, Canada. Yes, Southerners fought for their freedom... Freedom from federal government overriding state's rights. But that included their freedom to own and trade slaves, or more accurately, the freedom of the richest of them to own and trade slaves. Slavery didn't need to be mentioned explicitly by soldiers as a reason for fighting, as Southern culture was intrinsically linked and based on the institution. It wouldn't make sense if an average white Confederate soldier mentioned fighting to preserve slavery, as most Confederate soldiers didn't even own slaves. Most Southerners didn't own slaves, and the majority of slave owners owned relatively few numbers of slaves. Slaves were concentrated on the plantations, which were owned by the relatively small, elite Southern society. It was an economic issue, however, the entire Southern economy was based on an unlimited supply of free labor. Religion straddled both sides of the issue. Some used religion to justify slavery (blacks bore the "mark of Cain"), while others used religion to condemn it. Many people in the North wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but most didn't carry the idea to blacks being equal to whites. That wouldn't become part of the agenda until quite some time later. There are a multitude of reasons leading to the Civil War, but a common thread to all of them is slavery in some shape or form.
Lincoln wanted to end slavery, but wanted to preserve the Union more. Hence why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves who were in areas of open rebellion, instead of simply abolishing slavery outright. The Civil War would have been very different if Lincoln had lost the border states. With slaves fleeing the South and seeking refuge in the North, many Northern areas experienced violence. In large part, this was because of job competition between freedmen who were willing to work for less than whites. Just because a majority of Northerners wanted to end slavery and thought it wrong to own another human being, that doesn't mean they wanted to compete against blacks for jobs.
The main point, going back to the OP, is the North grew up, developed, changed public perceptions and attitudes, the South did not. Due in large part because of it's heritage being so intrinsically linked to slavery and a system of deeply engrained, racial hierarchy.

How do you figure the Corwin Amendment into all that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

Lincoln's comment on it: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

I would think an American history in which the South agreed to rejoin the Union on those terms would have been one in which slavery would have been perpetuated much longer, perhaps even into the 20th century.

There, I bolded it for you.

---

(July 8, 2013 at 7:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: It wouldn't make sense if an average white Confederate soldier mentioned fighting to preserve slavery, as most Confederate soldiers didn't even own slaves. Most Southerners didn't own slaves, and the majority of slave owners owned relatively few numbers of slaves.

But Union soldiers did not spend a great deal of time talking about how they were fighting against it, either.

Because largely, as they saw it, they were fighting to preserve the Union.

On another note I saw earlier the Dick Perry said he was not going to run for governor again.

Quote:Because largely, as they saw it, they were fighting to preserve the Union.

Precisely. Sad to say, neither side thought that slavery was worth fighting over.

http://thecivilwarandnorthwestwisconsin....or-troops/

Quote:Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

Lincoln's call for volunteers, April, 1861. No mention of slaves or slavery. In fact, Lincoln specifically declares:

Quote:I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

But to the South, slavery was the issue that broke the camel's back. It was dressed as state's rights and the "Southern way of life," but it was ultimately about slavery. The abolition movement was vocal, but relatively small. Much like the Occupy Wall Street crowd of today, many sympathizes, many critics, but still changed the tone. Political negotiations were made, and Lincoln rarely addressed slavery directly. Somewhere between the Confederate propaganda machine and the Union propaganda machine lies the murky, gray area of truth, and slavery was a large part of it. Once the South left, it needn't be mentioned, it could all be dressed as preserving the Union. But there were many congressmen and Lincoln really needed the support of the abolitionist movement. And simply because one doesn't think people should be kept and bought as slaves, does not mean one thinks all people are equal.

In Ken Burns' The Civil War there is a scene in which noted historian Shelby Foote relates the story of some union soldiers who later in the war captured a bedraggled rebel and, since it was obvious that he was not from the slave-holder class asked him "what are you fighting for?" The reb answered, "I'm fighting 'cause you're down here."

This book

http://blogs.roanoke.com/backcover/2011/...any-aytch/

written by Confederate private, Sam Watkins, explains that he thought the south had the right to secede and that he was fighting for his country. It has been many years since I read it but it is a great story of war from the eyes of a grunt. And the class nature of southern society is well understood and condemned.

Interesting thing about "root hog or die," is it basically means "fend for yourself or die."

It's worth noting that the idea of social reliance in the US was largely constricted to small communities, not the federally-available ones we now have today. It's worth noting, too, that there's not a lot the government could do. Suddenly we had millions of free people with nothing to start with, and we'd just finished an extremely brutal, bloody war in which half the country had tried to break away from the other half. I don't imagine the treasury's coffers were exactly bursting at that point. And whatever efforts could have been undertaken would've probably been piecemeal at best and ultimately a waste of resources. Buy a loaf of bread for everyone in the country to stave off hunger, it'll cost you millions of dollars and the only thing you accomplished was a single day of staving off starvation kind of thing.

Still, he could've said something less dickish...