Forums | MacLife

Reread what I said, Resedit.  Better yet, read what the Southern leaders leaving the Union at the time said were their reasons for seceding.   Here is Mississippi's Causes of Secession document from 1861.

Excerpt.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
   
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundat … causes.htm

For what the real revisionists, the neo-Confederates say to be true, the people who seceded from the Union, the ancestors they claim to revere, would have to be liars.  These primary historical documents tell the truth.  The Southern leaders left the Union mainly to continue slavery.  Their constitutions protected slavery in perpetuity. 

Texas slaveholders were a particularly interesting group.  Some of them withheld news of emancipation from the slaves, the origin of 'Juneteenth' celebrations.   Others took their uninformed slaves to Cuba and Brazil so that they could continue owning slaves.

VegasACF wrote:

Podesta wrote:

Kudos to ZDecker, among others.  These 'symbols of our heritage' that sprang up all over the South in the mid-50s just happend to occur right after the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Southern Manifesto to Congress, and the  "massive resistance" to desegregation movement.  (Massive resistance led to some cities and states shutting public institutions, from swimming pools to schools, to avoid desegregating them.)  Interesting, eh?

More interesting is how many Democrats were responsible for them.  But, of course, we can't talk about that.  Heh.

The political parties were different then than they are today. 

Just a tad disingenuous, Vegas.

bratboy wrote:

VegasACF wrote:

Podesta wrote:

Kudos to ZDecker, among others.  These 'symbols of our heritage' that sprang up all over the South in the mid-50s just happend to occur right after the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Southern Manifesto to Congress, and the  "massive resistance" to desegregation movement.  (Massive resistance led to some cities and states shutting public institutions, from swimming pools to schools, to avoid desegregating them.)  Interesting, eh?

More interesting is how many Democrats were responsible for them.  But, of course, we can't talk about that.  Heh.

The political parties were different then than they are today. 

Just a tad disingenuous, Vegas.

But why, then, are many of those very Democrats still in the party?  A certain West Virginia Senator, being just one of them... 

Disingenuous?  Only if you ignore history, brat.  I don't.

VegasACF wrote:

But why, then, are many of those very Democrats still in the party?  A certain West Virginia Senator, being just one of them... 

Disingenuous?  Only if you ignore history, brat.  I don't.

"Many?"

One ancient southern democrat?

VegasACF wrote:

bratboy wrote:

VegasACF wrote:

But why, then, are many of those very Democrats still in the party?  A certain West Virginia Senator, being just one of them... 

Disingenuous?  Only if you ignore history, brat.  I don't.

"Many?"

One ancient southern democrat?

Here, let me make it more clear for you:  I said "being just one"  The state and local governments of the Southern states are full of such people (as a 20-year resident of Tennessee I can attest to this).  Fritz Hollings is another, though, if you really want more. 

There's just no talking to you people.

"You people," as in people who don't feel the need to turn every discussion into a "democrats vs. republicans" type of argument?

My point was that there has been a large shift in the political parties in this country over time, despite the prevailing titles of "democrat" and "republican."  Note that I wasn't pointing any fingers here...you were.

VegasACF wrote:

bratboy wrote:

"You people," as in people who don't feel the need to turn every discussion into a "democrats vs. republicans" type of argument?

Sorry, I forgot.  That's only apropos around here if it's anti-Republican.  I'll try to remember that for next time.

Are you addressing me, or are you attempting to group me in with other posters here?

If I've done such a thing, I'd love to see you quote it.

bratboy wrote:

Are you addressing me, or are you attempting to group me in with other posters here?

If I've done such a thing, I'd love to see you quote it.

I don't see where I attribute anything directly to you.  That's one of my biggest pet peeves with the English language.  Unlike the romance languages we have only one form of the word "you" for singular and plural second person discourse.  It causes many misunderstandings that could simply be avoided.  Perhaps that is why the good people of the South say y'all, you all, y'uns and the like.  But I digress...

If the shoe fits, then wear it.  If it does not, please pass it down to someone whom it does.  I'm sure you won't have to pass it far.

VegasACF wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Are you addressing me, or are you attempting to group me in with other posters here?

If I've done such a thing, I'd love to see you quote it.

I don't see where I attribute anything directly to you.  That's one of my biggest pet peeves with the English language.  Unlike the romance languages we have only one form of the word "you" for singular and plural second person discourse.  It causes many misunderstandings that could simply be avoided.  Perhaps that is why the good people of the South say y'all, you all, y'uns and the like.  But I digress...

If the shoe fits, then wear it.  If it does not, please pass it down to someone whom it does.  I'm sure you won't have to pass it far.

Fine.

So do you acknowledge a shift, or not?

I'm quoting from wikipedia here, so feel free to comment on anything you feel is incorrect:

In 1924 at the Democratic national convention, a resolution denouncing the white-supremacist Ku Klux Klan was introduced, after considerable debate, the resolution failed by a single vote. This resolution later passed during the 1948 national convention as part of a larger resolution endorsing civil rights.
The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as more Democratic leaders voiced support for civil rights, upsetting the party's base of Southern Democrats. When Harry Truman's platform displayed support for civil rights and anti-segregation laws during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates split from the party and formed the "Dixiecrats", led by Strom Thurmond (who would later join the Republican party). Over the next few years, many white Democrats in the "Solid South" drifted away from the party. On the other hand, African-Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican party since its inception as the "anti-slavery party", shifted to the Democratic party due to its New Deal economic opportunities and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Republicans began their Southern strategy, which aimed to woo the conservative Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats took notice of the fact that 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act (an unusual departure from his previous support for such legislation), and in the 1964 election Goldwater's only electoral victories outside his home state of Arizona were in the states of the deep south.

The degree to which the Southern Democrats had abandoned the party became evident in the 1968 Presidential election when every former Confederate state except Texas voted for either Republican Richard Nixon or independent George Wallace, the latter a former Southern Democrat. Defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey's electoral votes came mainly from the Northern states, marking a dramatic shift from the 1948 election 20 years earlier, when the losing Republican candidate's electoral votes were mainly concentrated in the Northern states.

Well I can see that you don't actually want to discuss this in any meaningful way...

bratboy wrote:

Well I can see that you don't actually want to discuss this in any meaningful way...

Not tonight.  I've got a headache. 

And I'm pouring a cure for it as soon as I get done with this post. 

Meat:  Damn...  I knew that didn't feel right.  Sorry.  I've amended my notes.

G'night, folks.  Have fun beating whatever dead horse next makes itself known.

Why is there no mention of the South's 1865 plan of over 10 years to free the slaves and slowly integrate them into society?

The North's unthinking voting block demanded immediate release regardless of the economic or social consequenses, just out of spite.

Mars_Attacks wrote:

Why is there no mention of the South's 1865 plan of over 10 years to free the slaves and slowly integrate them into society?

The North's unthinking voting block demanded immediate release regardless of the economic or social consequenses, just out of spite.

"No mention" is right. I've never heard of it before. Ever. 

In 30 years I've heard plenty about the civil war, its causes, its consequences, its technology, its death rate, and the politics that brought the US into and out of the war.  I can't claim to be an expert, but they do teach quite a bit about it in schools.

That?  "No mention" is spot on.  I don't believe you.

Since we are going to demonize the South yet again and everyone supposedlly have extensively "studied" the stigma for "over 30 years" lets look at the facts....

What the South did not have was financial freedom. Southerners were economic and political slaves to the industrial demands of the north, just as blacks were slaves to theagricultural demands of the South. Growth potential was severely limited in the South, so long as the north continued to levy heavy tariffs on things that Southerners needed to purchase and heavy taxes on those things that Southerners produced. In the words of South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun in 1850, "The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ... The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue,". Unfair taxation drove Americans to war with Britain in 1775 and against each other in 1861.

Slavery was not an exclusively Southern institution.  Almost 400,000 slaves lived in Northern states at the start of the war. Many of those slaves were not freed until the 13th Amendment was passed. In fact, it is commonly accepted that the last slaves freed were in Delaware, a staunchly Union state. The 13th Amendment, passed after the war ended, was approved by Southern states who had already seen their capital assets stripped away without compensation and who were considered occupied enemy territory by the Northern States at that time.

The north had slavery at least until 1866, due to some holdouts like Union General Ulysses S. Grant who refused to give up his slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment. The slave

---

dont