A Dixie Poll

Is Dixie's Avatar Patriotic?

  • Total voters
    16
The problem with a distorted perspective is, it doesn't correspond to the historical perspective. To argue the Civil War was about slavery, is to argue the current Health Care Bill is about wellness. You can maintain the absurd notion that people who oppose HCR are advocates of sickness, but that is simply a distorted perspective which doesn't conform with the reality. You can maintain that Pro-choicer's are advocates of murder, and Pro-lifer's are opposed to murder... is that a fair assessment? If we had a war over it, and the Pro-lifer's won, could we portray Pro-choicer's as deplorable human beings who advocated murdering babies? Would that be a fair representation of their argument? Of course not, because historical perspective shows that Pro-choicer's are at issue with "personal freedom" and it really has little to do with their advocating murdering babies.

The same situation applies to the Civil War. Neither Southerners or Northerners were advocating for or against Civil Rights for black people. The issue of slavery was underlying the issue of state rights, property rights, and the encroachment of Federal powers. Those who fought for the Confederacy were fighting for the Constitution and were NOT traitors. The CSA wasn't the entity who made slaves "personal property" or endorsed and condoned slavery up until that point. This was done by the US Government and the US Supreme Court, not the CSA.
 
Socrtease said:
I don't know how many times I have pointed this out on this site. EVERY SINGLE document of secession had as its core reason the institution of slavery. The other thing I don't understand is why southerners choose the confederate battle flag as their standard?

This:
starbar.jpg


Is the national flag of the confederacy. It is also the flag properly knows as the "Stars and Bars". The flag that is represented on Dixie's avatar, with the stars on the St. Andrew's Cross is properly knows as the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia. The national flag of the confederacy was created because there was still a feeling, among many southerners, of allegiance to the US flag, so they wanted something that was "like" the US flag but different. It is called the "Stars and Bars" to differentiate it from the "Stars and Stripes"
Click to expand...

First of all, the articles of secession DO mention slavery because slavery was at the root of the issue regarding property rights. Right or wrong, the Supreme Court (OF THE US) had determined that slaves were personal property, and the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to arbitrarily take your personal property.

As for the battle flag, I use it because that is what was flying over my great-great uncles when they died in battle. Had they been CSA dignitaries I might fly the national flag instead, but they were just soldiers fighting in a war. Both were half Native American, and one was 1/4 black, neither of them ever owned a slave or knew anyone who owned a slave.

Let's go back to the issue of slavery and clarify one profound point... Had the US outlawed slavery at ANY point along the way, there would have been no slavery issue. Some of you want to act like slavery was something the CSA invented and promoted and the US was opposed to all along! That is just simply denying reality. It was condoned and allowed by everyone in the US Government from the Founding Fathers to Abe Lincoln, and upheld by the highest court in the land. To try and blame it off on the South as if it were the South's idea, is ludicrous.
 
and the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to arbitrarily take your personal property.
Click to expand...

There were probably a few routes they could've taken using their commerce clause power. But they decided to go through constitutional amendment.
 
Dixie said:
First of all, the articles of secession DO mention slavery because slavery was at the root of the issue regarding property rights. Right or wrong, the Supreme Court (OF THE US) had determined that slaves were personal property, and the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to arbitrarily take your personal property.

As for the battle flag, I use it because that is what was flying over my great-great uncles when they died in battle. Had they been CSA dignitaries I might fly the national flag instead, but they were just soldiers fighting in a war. Both were half Native American, and one was 1/4 black, neither of them ever owned a slave or knew anyone who owned a slave.

Let's go back to the issue of slavery and clarify one profound point... Had the US outlawed slavery at ANY point along the way, there would have been no slavery issue. Some of you want to act like slavery was something the CSA invented and promoted and the US was opposed to all along! That is just simply denying reality. It was condoned and allowed by everyone in the US Government from the Founding Fathers to Abe Lincoln, and upheld by the highest court in the land. To try and blame it off on the South as if it were the South's idea, is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

All the Neoconfederate spin in the world doesn't change these simple facts. Your relatives fought for the institution of slavery, for the right of white people to enslave black people, and presumably for the right of white men to rape black female slaves with frequency and impunity from the law. And your relatives tried to kill american soldiers who were fighting under the flag of the United States.

In short, your relatives fought for a cause that is nearly on a par with the cause that german Nazi soldiers fought for; i.e. the right to exterminate jews.

The Declarations of Secession clearly state that the South was mortified that the North was undermining the institution of slavery; i.e., outlawing slavery in new states that entered the union; not returning escaped slaves to their owners; overturning the statute that required the return of escaped slaves; and generally doing things that would rile up and incite the southern "darkies".

Were northerners purely enlightened people who were merely concerned with equality for blacks. Nope, only an idiot thinks that. Nobody needs a lecture that white northerners weren't as pure as the driven snow. But, you can't spin your way out of the fact that the South was completely terrified that the North was underming the institution of slavery and that if they didn't secede that slavery would ultimately be dismantled.


I get the distinct impression that you never read the Declarations of Secession because you apparently read confederate "history" from revisionist neoconfederate websites and have routinely claimed that the south wasn't fighting for slavery.

Here's a tip: the history of the south is completely whitewashed by the neoconferderate websites you frequent. It's shameful to fight on the side of slavery, which is why your neoconfederate buddies don't like to talk about what's actually in the Declarations of Secession. And which is why they use code words - which amount to nothing more than mental masturbation - like "property rights" and "states rights". No neoconfederate is ever going to be proud or comfortable admitting that they wanted black slaves, and they wanted a bevy of black females who could be routinely raped without fear of legal sanction.

That's what your disgraceful relatives fought for.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
for the right of white people to enslave black people, and presumably for the right of white men to rape black female slaves with frequency and impunity from the law.
Click to expand...
So you're just going to blissfully ignore all the black slave owners? Or the white slaves of the period?
 
Bittermark said:
There were probably a few routes they could've taken using their commerce clause power. But they decided to go through constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

No, actually there is NOTHING they could have used in the commerce clause to have TAKEN personal property without compensation. It would have been a complete affront to everything the Constitution stood for. The war was not fought over the issue of a Constitutional Amendment, had that been on the table, we could have all voted and been done with it, without the need for war. As I said, all along the way, from our founding to Lincoln, had the US Government taken measures to abolish slavery, outlaw it, not allow it to begin with... it wouldn't have been an issue. The FACT was, they didn't do that, they approved slavery, they legalized it, they condoned it, they allowed it to continue unabated for nearly a century, then they suddenly wanted to take what they had previously determined was legal property, away from the owner without compensation.

I drew the analogy once before... If today, the Feds said... we are going to outlaw internal combustion engines, and everyone who owns one, now has to turn it in to the government, because they will be illegal to own. What would be the general response of people who owned automobiles? Would people who didn't own an automobile, be more likely to or less likely to support such a measure? Would they simply be indifferent about it? What do you think the public response would be, if the government decided to confiscate everyone's vehicle without compensation? Even if such a thing were being done for the "public good" or because it was the "right thing to do" it would still infringe upon personal property rights of the individual! THAT is similar to what you had with slavery. Plantation owners had invested a LOT of money in purchasing slaves, they were property... not according to the plantation owner, not according to the South, but according to the Federal Government and the Supreme Court!
 
Cypress said:
All the Neoconfederate spin in the world doesn't change these simple facts. Your relatives fought for the institution of slavery, for the right of white people to enslave black people, and presumably for the right of white men to rape black female slaves with frequency and impunity from the law. And your relatives tried to kill american soldiers who were fighting under the flag of the United States.

In short, your relatives fought for a cause that is nearly on a par with the cause that german Nazi soldiers fought for; i.e. the right to exterminate jews.

The Declarations of Secession clearly state that the South was mortified that the North was undermining the institution of slavery; i.e., outlawing slavery in new states that entered the union; not returning escaped slaves to their owners; overturning the statute that required the return of escaped slaves; and generally doing things that would rile up and incite the southern "darkies".

Were northerners purely enlightened people who were merely concerned with equality for blacks. Nope, only an idiot thinks that. Nobody needs a lecture that white northerners weren't as pure as the driven snow. But, you can't spin your way out of the fact that the South was completely terrified that the North was underming the institution of slavery and that if they didn't secede that slavery would ultimately be dismantled.


I get the distinct impression that you never read the Declarations of Secession because you apparently read confederate "history" from revisionist neoconfederate websites and have routinely claimed that the south wasn't fighting for slavery.

Here's a tip: the history of the south is completely whitewashed by the neoconferderate websites you frequent. It's shameful to fight on the side of slavery, which is why your neoconfederate buddies don't like to talk about what's actually in the Declarations of Secession. And which is why they use code words - which amount to nothing more than mental masturbation - like "property rights" and "states rights". No neoconfederate is ever going to be proud or comfortable admitting that they wanted black slaves, and they wanted a bevy of black females who could be routinely raped without fear of legal sanction.

That's what your disgraceful relatives fought for.
Click to expand...

Neoconfederates are people who have hijacked the symbols of the Old South for purposes of promoting white supremacy. They were not in existence at the time of the Civil War, they are a relatively NEW (that's what "neo" means) group of racist radicals. My ancestors had NOTHING in common with these people, and you can falsely try to tie them together all you like, it is a viewpoint of abject ignorance. It is an even MORE ignorant view than one which portrays the Northerners as enlightened civil rights advocates!

I have read the articles of secession, and I have explained them over and over, you continue to ignore the fact that slavery had been made legal from the inception of the nation, and had been repeatedly upheld by the UNITED STATES courts and government, not the South! According to your own government, slaves were personal property... not something the Southerners decided... not something argued by the CSA, but the law of the land as determined by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the SUPREME COURT! There was a very REAL issue of Constitutionality, and whether the Federal government could TAKE your personal property without compensation. THAT was the bone of contention... THAT was the issue! It had absolutely nothing to do with the civil rights of black people, that wouldn't happen for another fucking goddamn century!

My forefathers were fighting because their homelands were being attacked by Union forces! They didn't get to "choose" which side to be on! They happened to live in the South, so they fought for the South! Rather than trying to envision some absurd war between racist and non-racist people, why don't you acknowledge it wasn't about racism, it was a regional thing and it had to do with states rights, property rights, and federal power? I'll tell you why, because you are a prejudiced bigot who has to make it about racism to justify your trashing and bashing of the South.

"I don't think the negro and white could ever live together in the same society because there are too many differences in the races." ...WHO said that? Hmmmmmmmmm??? If you guessed Abe Lincoln, you are correct!
 
If I had ancestors who faught for the South--most of my ancestors didn't arrive until the 20th Century, but I did have one who served as an American captain, and he lived out the postwar with metal in his body--I would say "fuck them" and refuse to honor them in any way, shape, or form, because I consider character and living rightly to be extremely important things.

I think its pathetic that any American citizen honors a fallen Confederate soldier.
 
Dixie said:
No, actually there is NOTHING they could have used in the commerce clause to have TAKEN personal property without compensation. It would have been a complete affront to everything the Constitution stood for.
Click to expand...

They could've put burdensome regulations or taxes on slaves until it was impractical to hold them.
 
T&A said:
If I had ancestors who faught for the South--most of my ancestors didn't arrive until the 20th Century, but I did have one who served as an American captain, and he lived out the postwar with metal in his body--I would say "fuck them" and refuse to honor them in any way, shape, or form, because I consider character and living rightly to be extremely important things.

I think its pathetic that any American citizen honors a fallen Confederate soldier.
Click to expand...

Well, here is the thing... what constituted "character" and "living rightly" in 1860, is not the same thing as it is today. You are talking about a completely different time in history, and what is "moral and just" today, simply wasn't viewed as such back then. Slaves were property people had invested in, whether that sounds deplorable by today's standard or not, that was the case. When people saw a slave, they did not view them as we view a black American citizen today... can that point possibly penetrate your bigoted head? When we see a black man, we see an American citizen, a human being with the same rights and privileges we enjoy as white people, only they have black skin. In 1860, people saw a slave and they didn't see this... they saw a slave... most likely, the personal property of a plantation owner. They didn't see a human being, they didn't see an American citizen, they didn't see someone who should have equal rights to white Americans. That was the way things were back then, whether you want to acknowledge the fact or not, and whether or not it is morally acceptable to have that viewpoint today!

Ironically, the more "enlightened and intellectual" people of the day, the "pinheads" of 1860, were EXTREMELY racist in their viewpoints, mostly because of the work published by a young theorist, Charles Darwin! Yes, because of Darwin's theories, many 'intellectuals' of the day, viewed black people as 'less evolved' humans! This is precisely why most abolitionists favored shipping these "inferior" creatures off to another place, instead of integrating them into white society. So you can go ahead and be ignorantly bigoted and proud of your ancestors while using the South as your scapegoat, the history shows how things really were.
 
Dixie said:
Well, here is the thing... what constituted "character" and "living rightly" in 1860, is not the same thing as it is today. You are talking about a completely different time in history, and what is "moral and just" today, simply wasn't viewed as such back then. Slaves were property people had invested in, whether that sounds deplorable by today's standard or not, that was the case. When people saw a slave, they did not view them as we view a black American citizen today... can that point possibly penetrate your bigoted head? When we see a black man, we see an American citizen, a human being with the same rights and privileges we enjoy as white people, only they have black skin. In 1860, people saw a slave and they didn't see this... they saw a slave... most likely, the personal property of a plantation owner. They didn't see a human being, they didn't see an American citizen, they didn't see someone who should have equal rights to white Americans. That was the way things were back then, whether you want to acknowledge the fact or not, and whether or not it is morally acceptable to have that viewpoint today!

Ironically, the more "enlightened and intellectual" people of the day, the "pinheads" of 1860, were EXTREMELY racist in their viewpoints, mostly because of the work published by a young theorist, Charles Darwin! Yes, because of Darwin's theories, many 'intellectuals' of the day, viewed black people as 'less evolved' humans! This is precisely why most abolitionists favored shipping these "inferior" creatures off to another place, instead of integrating them into white society. So you can go ahead and be ignorantly bigoted and proud of your ancestors while using the South as your scapegoat, the history shows how things really were.
Click to expand...

Whether you believe morality to be an evolved process or not, one aspect of character that has not changed at all since 1860 are the definitions of patriotism and of treason.
 
Dixie said:
Well, here is the thing... what constituted "character" and "living rightly" in 1860, is not the same thing as it is today. You are talking about a completely different time in history, and what is "moral and just" today, simply wasn't viewed as such back then. Slaves were property people had invested in, whether that sounds deplorable by today's standard or not, that was the case.

In 1860, people saw a slave and they didn't see this... they saw a slave... most likely, the personal property of a plantation owner. .
Click to expand...

Newsflash, my little NeoConfederate Einstein:

By 1860 the Northern states, and most of the western civilized world had outlawed slavery.. In most northern states and in much of the western civilized world, slavery was outlawed in the late 1700s, or the early 1800's. The United States - specifically the southern United States - was one of the last places in the civilized world that slavery was abolished. And it was abolished as a direct result of military action by the United States Army, not by southerners themselves.

So, your claim that "everybody was just fine with slavery in 1860!" is just more Neoconfederate bunk. Obviously, most of the civilized world - outside of the southern U.S. - had deemed the institution of slavery to be immoral, unneccessary, or just plain wrong - long before 1860. It didn't mean europeans or northern whites weren't still prejudiced against blacks. But, they weren't fighting for the institution of slavery like your family was.


I'm glad to see you finally have admitted that your relatives and the South were fighting for the institution of slavery....as is clearly indicated in the narrative of the Declarations of Secession. Because my recollection is that you spent a message board career claiming that the civil war wasn't about slavery. I guess your Neoconfederate websites glossed over or whitewashed that particular factoid of confederate history, didn't they?
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
No it's not. Lincoln didn't emancipate at the outset of the war and the only slaves he declared free were slaves he had no authority over. The war, for the north's part, was all about not letting the country divided. For southerners it was all about chasing the north back north. Secession is all about slavery.
Click to expand...

Everyone always simplifies the reasons for the war. It was about slavery...economics and slavery! The North had economies that were not as dependent on agriculture as the South was. It was easier for the North to take the higher moral ground, but the truth was they still had slaves during the Civil War on farms as well.

The leaders of southern states knew their economies were at stake and they resented the interference of the federal government and the false morality of many in the North. They had the Constitution on their side with regards to states rights and however morally objectionable you may find that...it is a fact. Remember, the North still had slavery before and during the Civil war. This is important to remember because the North was not abolishing slavery in their own states only restricting its expansion into new states. This communicated itself as extreme hubris to southerners.

Dixie's heritage is no more or less obectionable than those whose relatives fought for the North.

For southerner's the war WAS about states rights.
 
Dixie said:
Well, here is the thing... what constituted "character" and "living rightly" in 1860, is not the same thing as it is today. You are.
Click to expand...

It's always been living rightly, you piece of shit, we just had fucking conservatives to deal with. And we still do, forcing immoral, evil things on society like the worthless scum parasites they are.
 
Cypress said:
Newsflash, my little NeoConfederate Einstein:

By 1860 the Northern states, and most of the western civilized world had outlawed slavery.. In most northern states and in much of the western civilized world, slavery was outlawed in the late 1700s, or the early 1800's. The United States - specifically the southern United States - was one of the last places in the civilized world that slavery was abolished. And it was abolished as a direct result of military action by the United States Army, not by southerners themselves.

So, your claim that "everybody was just fine with slavery in 1860!" is just more Neoconfederate bunk. Obviously, most of the civilized world - outside of the southern U.S. - had deemed the institution of slavery to be immoral, unneccessary, or just plain wrong - long before 1860. It didn't mean europeans or northern whites weren't still prejudiced against blacks. But, they weren't fighting for the institution of slavery like your family was.


I'm glad to see you finally have admitted that your relatives and the South were fighting for the institution of slavery....as is clearly indicated in the narrative of the Declarations of Secession. Because my recollection is that you spent a message board career claiming that the civil war wasn't about slavery. I guess your Neoconfederate websites glossed over or whitewashed that particular factoid of confederate history, didn't they?
Click to expand...

You are just plain wrong on all counts, Prissy. Slavery was most certainly legal in the United States, until Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves at the end of the Civil War... where did you go to school? The US Army didn't free the slaves, the Congress did that following the Civil War and following Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed Southern slaves.

No, I didn't admit my relatives were fighting for the institution of slavery, I have repeatedly stated the exact opposite, but it doesn't surprise me you are so fucking ignorant and unable to comprehend plain English, that you somehow read that into something I said! It's about par for the fucking course for you, a habitual lying manipulative slimeball.

I never said "everyone was just fine with slavery" and it is SLANDER for you to paraphrase my comments in that way. Another slimeball tactic that you are accustomed to using, because you lack the basic human decency to be honest. It's beyond your fucking ability to do, apparently. You probably dream at night about what you are going to wake up lying about the next day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top