A Dixie Poll

Is Dixie's Avatar Patriotic?

  • Total voters
    16
Topspin said:
as if blacks owning slaves is even a valid point. funny for capt, shamefully ignorant of damo
Click to expand...
How is it ignorant to actually post about actual and factual history? Ignorance is purposefully ignoring parts of history to maintain what you want to believe, rather than what actually happened.
 
Topspin said:
as if blacks owning slaves is even a valid point. funny for capt, shamefully ignorant of damo
Click to expand...

wow, I totally missed this nonsense. I had no idea Damo and Capt were Neoconfederates who apparently troll confederate apologist websites.

This black slave owner shit is always prominently blabbed about on the Stormfront website, the David Duke website, and other neoconfederate websites.

Black slave owners. A totally insignificant, and only mildly interesting little obscure historical factoid that the Klansmen routinely bring up when they are running cover, being the wingmen, and distracting for the neoconfederates. You're right man, its a sick joke to even bring this shit up. .
 
You sure know a LOT about Neoconfederate websites and white supremacy websites. I mean... MORE than the typical person might know... I mean, an unusual amount for someone who isn't a racist. Normally, you wouldn't expect a real non-racist person to know actual names of websites and what they argue and all... being that they would never have a need to know those things.... but here you are, with a rather substantial list.... odd for someone who isn't racist to the core, in my opinion.
 
Know your enemies. It's import an to see what the Klan/tea baggers are up to. I ca see a high school educated person being proud of learning that stupid factoid or a cousin kisser who went to one of those joke schools in bama. But a graduate of a co university it's disgusting. What a cry for help.
 
Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...
The truth of the matter is State Rights was not a rallying cry until AFTER the war was fought, you very rarely ever heard this mentioned in southern news papers or among southern political leaders. It was post war revisionism.
 
Socrtease said:
The truth of the matter is State Rights was not a rallying cry until AFTER the war was fought, you very rarely ever heard this mentioned in southern news papers or among southern political leaders. It was post war revisionism.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, most of the secession articles mention states rights directly, as well as the 10th Amendment. It is revisionist to claim otherwise.
 
Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

The South had 70 years to do something about modernizing its economy, and refused to do so. Beginning with the Jeffersonians, they combated Hamilton's attempts to grow the nation's industrial and financial markets. And then it just continued unabated...
 
T&A said:
The South had 70 years to do something about modernizing its economy, and refused to do so. Beginning with the Jeffersonians, they combated Hamilton's attempts to grow the nation's industrial and financial markets. And then it just continued unabated...
Click to expand...

Hold on a sec... "The South" was part of the United States of America. It was not their responsibility to change the law of the land, that was the US Government, Congress, and the Supreme Court. There was no way to "modernize the economy" in the South. It was agricultural because that is where stuff grows well! If cotton grew in Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania would have had slaves picking their cotton. The Northern states certainly didn't refuse to use cotton picked by slaves, they gladly accepted the cotton and wove it into fabric in their textile mills and made great profits from exporting it to Europe. Cotton was the TOP US export product, that is how it became known as "King Cotton" and this didn't just benefit Southern economy, it benefited the entire nation. We didn't grow cotton because we couldn't do anything else, or because we didn't 'grow the nations industrial and financial markets' ...we grew cotton because it was a HUGE money making crop for ALL of America.
 
Dixie said:
Hold on a sec... "The South" was part of the United States of America. It was not their responsibility to change the law of the land, that was the US Government, Congress, and the Supreme Court. There was no way to "modernize the economy" in the South. It was agricultural because that is where stuff grows well! If cotton grew in Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania would have had slaves picking their cotton. The Northern states certainly didn't refuse to use cotton picked by slaves, they gladly accepted the cotton and wove it into fabric in their textile mills and made great profits from exporting it to Europe. Cotton was the TOP US export product, that is how it became known as "King Cotton" and this didn't just benefit Southern economy, it benefited the entire nation. We didn't grow cotton because we couldn't do anything else, or because we didn't 'grow the nations industrial and financial markets' ...we grew cotton because it was a HUGE money making crop for ALL of America.
Click to expand...

Sure it was your responsibility to support industrial growth and modernization. Look what happened to your economy after the war. :)
 
T&A said:
Sure it was your responsibility to support industrial growth and modernization. Look what happened to your economy after the war. :)
Click to expand...

Cotton produced more revenue for the South and America in general, than ANY industrialization of the time. In fact nothing else came even remotely close to cotton, and the closest 'industrialized' product to cotton, was textiles made from cotton! So please do tell me, what magical "industrialization" were we to just pull out of our ass to replace cotton?
 
Dixie said:
Cotton produced more revenue for the South and America in general, than ANY industrialization of the time. In fact nothing else came even remotely close to cotton, and the closest 'industrialized' product to cotton, was textiles made from cotton! So please do tell me, what magical "industrialization" were we to just pull out of our ass to replace cotton?
Click to expand...

The fact that the Northern economies all took off after the war, thanks to their own industrial might proves that cotton was actually slowing them down. The South had 70 years to build up its industrial base, during which time North got on it, and by the mid-1830s had successfully accomplished that goal.
 
T&A said:
The fact that the Northern economies all took off after the war, thanks to their own industrial might proves that cotton was actually slowing them down. The South had 70 years to build up its industrial base, during which time North got on it, and by the mid-1830s had successfully accomplished that goal.
Click to expand...

Cotton holding the north back? That's stupid. Maybe that's just when industrialization began. These are non causally related events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top