A Dixie Poll

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Slavery was an issue because Southerners were retards and idiots. Some things never change...

Why were they retards and idiots? They were doing something the government ordained and made legal to do, they had crops to harvest because they were in an agricultural region where crops grew, they made investments in what the court had determined was legitimate personal property... I don't understand what was retarded or idiotic about that. They didn't think the Federal government had the right to take their personal property without compensation... was that idiotic of them? Would it have been less 'retarded' for them to have just turned over their property rights to the Federal government without a fight?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I'd fight to protect my State too.

And if I were a judge I'd put the noose around your neck just the same as all the other members of your treasonous militia.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Why were they retards and idiots? They were doing something the government ordained and made legal to do, they had crops to harvest because they were in an agricultural region where crops grew, they made investments in what the court had determined was legitimate personal property... I don't understand what was retarded or idiotic about that. They didn't think the Federal government had the right to take their personal property without compensation... was that idiotic of them? Would it have been less 'retarded' for them to have just turned over their property rights to the Federal government without a fight?

1) Take a look at the Northern and Southern economies postwar.
2) Property is third on the list of Natural Rights after life and liberty.
3) The Federal government never asked them to turn over their slaves. It simply went to work adding free, Western states to the Union, so that it could take the slaves away at a future date via the legislative process. This upset the retards for some reason.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1) Take a look at the Northern and Southern economies postwar.
2) Property is third on the list of Natural Rights after life and liberty.
3) The Federal government never asked them to turn over their slaves. It simply went to work adding free, Western states to the Union, so that it could take the slaves away at a future date via the legislative process. This upset the retards for some reason.

1.) The Southern economy was in shambles, no doubt... but I don't think that was because of Northern industrialization... just a hunch, but I think it may have had more to do with Sherman burning the South to the fucking ground. In any event, 1896 the US had 14.5% unemployment, and it was the worst economic depression to date at the time.

2.) Property is third on the list, what is your point? That slaves (property) had Constitutional rights to life and liberty? Not according to the law of the time, they didn't.

3.) The reason was Federal encroachment on States Rights and individual property rights. We are going in circles with this. Not a single article of secession mentioned the Missouri Compromise as being the reason for the war, so I don't think it is a valid argument that was the case.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The law was in contradiction to a higher law, and was invalid.

 

[Minister of Truth]

1.) The Southern economy was in shambles, no doubt... but I don't think that was because of Northern industrialization... just a hunch, but I think it may have had more to do with Sherman burning the South to the fucking ground. In any event, 1896 the US had 14.5% unemployment, and it was the worst economic depression to date at the time.

The damage caused by Sherman the Magnificent is hugely overblown. Did you know he never even burned Atlanta? I was so pissed when I learned that fact!! And yes, Northern industry is what allowed the North to crush the South in the war.

2.) Property is third on the list, what is your point? That slaves (property) had Constitutional rights to life and liberty? Not according to the law of the time, they didn't.

Natural Rights are the basis for American Government, not Southern ignorance.

3.) The reason was Federal encroachment on States Rights and individual property rights. We are going in circles with this. Not a single article of secession mentioned the Missouri Compromise as being the reason for the war, so I don't think it is a valid argument that was the case.

Name one example where the Federal Government actually encroached upon state's rights or individual property rights. It simply never happened - the South seceeded over absolutely nothing. Their secession documents simply mention the institution in general as needing to be preserved.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The damage caused by Sherman the Magnificent is hugely overblown. Did you know he never even burned Atlanta? I was so pissed when I learned that fact!! And yes, Northern industry is what allowed the North to crush the South in the war.

Uhm, I think you need to refresh yourself on Civil War history, the North certainly didn't "crush" the South. In fact, if not for a couple of crucial tactical errors in the end, the outcome would have been very different. The South almost won the war, but "almost" is never good enough in war. Sherman's rampage through Georgia is very well known, let's not try to spin it now. The Southern economy was in shambles following the war, and if you want to pretend the North and South were on an even playing field following the war, you are just plain ignorant. And again, the MAIN Northern "industry" was weaving cotton into fabric in the textile mills... you have not offered any other "industry" as an example of Northern industrialization, and the fact of the matter is, you can't.

Natural Rights are the basis for American Government, not Southern ignorance.

I agree with this, but the fact of the matter was, black slaves were not afforded Natural Rights because they weren't considered people, they were deemed property by YOUR Supreme Court! This "ignorance" came from YOUR Supreme Court and YOUR US Government, not Southerners.

Name one example where the Federal Government actually encroached upon state's rights or individual property rights. It simply never happened - the South seceeded over absolutely nothing. Their secession documents simply mention the institution in general as needing to be preserved.

The Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 violated states rights because they placed undue burden on Southern states, which were not realized by industrial Northern states. This began a rift between the North and South, and it eventually culminated in the Civil War. There were other issues as well, the addition of states to the union on condition they would be "free states" was an affront to the states right to make its own determination on something that was legal in the US.

It's really very simple, one side favored Federal government control over the states, the other side favored State autonomy in a Confederation government. Both sides claimed Constitutional high ground, and the dispute resulted in Civil War. Even to this day, there is a hearty debate over whether or not we are a collection of states who maintain a federal government uniting us, or whether the Federal government authoritatively presides over the many states.

 

[midcan5]

Only if you openly or tacitly praise a time in our history when all men were not created equal nor free.




"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne [Dixie], for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac." James Baldwin

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Only if you openly or tacitly praise a time in our history when all men were not created equal nor free.




"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne [Dixie], for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac." James Baldwin

First of all, I am not openly or tacitly praising anything, I am merely stating facts. Being honest about history doesn't mean you condone or support the history, it just means you are being honest about what happened. Stating that slaves were property as deemed by the US Supreme Court, is not praising or supporting that decision, it's just stating a fact. Pointing out that modern viewpoints on civil rights did not exist in 1860 America, is not gloating or bragging, it's just stating a fact.

Secondly, you can continue to denigrate white people all you like, I am not offended. I am probably less white European than anything. You could also call me Jap, Negro, Redskin, or peasant Dutch. I do have a little of all those in my blood. One thing I am not, is racist, so you'll forgive me if I don't return the racial pejoratives in response to you. But if that makes you feel better about yourself, and you think it shows people something, you just keep right on denigrating people based on race.

 

[midcan5]

First of all, I am not openly or tacitly praising anything, I am merely stating facts. Being honest about history doesn't mean you condone or support the history, it just means you are being honest about what happened. Stating that slaves were property as deemed by the US Supreme Court, is not praising or supporting that decision, it's just stating a fact. Pointing out that modern viewpoints on civil rights did not exist in 1860 America, is not gloating or bragging, it's just stating a fact.

Secondly, you can continue to denigrate white people all you like, I am not offended. I am probably less white European than anything. You could also call me Jap, Negro, Redskin, or peasant Dutch. I do have a little of all those in my blood. One thing I am not, is racist, so you'll forgive me if I don't return the racial pejoratives in response to you. But if that makes you feel better about yourself, and you think it shows people something, you just keep right on denigrating people based on race.

If I called that disingenuous nonsense would that be denigrating white 'people?' One does not wear nor present the swastika because of the good times, or because of history, and while there may be an odd soul out there that fails to understand the significance of that symbol and yours, that does not make it right or proper. Ask any racist if they are a racist and guess what answer you will receive. Got it? Nah, I'm not racist. But I care not if you are racist or a martian, using symbols that represent a time when America was less than good to all its citizens is still a sign of naivety at best, ignorance or hate at worst.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If I called that disingenuous nonsense would that be denigrating white 'people?' One does not wear nor present the swastika because of the good times, or because of history, and while there may be an odd soul out there that fails to understand the significance of that symbol and yours, that does not make it right or proper. Ask any racist if they are a racist and guess what answer you will receive. Got it? Nah, I'm not racist. But I care not if you are racist or a martian, using symbols that represent a time when America was less than good to all its citizens is still a sign of naivety at best, ignorance or hate at worst.

So Church's should stop their use of the cross; because of the Klans history of using it to intimidate??

 

[midcan5]

Enough said....


"“Many issues of the Civil War are still being debated today,” said Brag Bowling of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which led the push to get that proclamation in Virginia. That seems extremely depressing, as if we were Serbs stewing about what the Turks did at the Plain of Blackbirds in 1389.

Actually, a national discussion of Civil War history sounds fine — as long as we could start by agreeing that the whole leaving-the-union thing was a terrible idea. In the proclamations, it generally sounds as if everything went swimmingly until the part where the South lost and grudgingly rejoined the country.

Virginia has been making big leaps lately in the category of general craziness. We all remember the Legislature’s heroic work in passing a bill to protect Virginia citizens from having microchips planted in their bodies against their will. And that the sponsor said he was concerned the chips could be a “mark of the beast” that would be used by the Antichrist at the end of days."


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/opinion/08collins.html?hpw

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If I called that disingenuous nonsense would that be denigrating white 'people?' One does not wear nor present the swastika because of the good times, or because of history, and while there may be an odd soul out there that fails to understand the significance of that symbol and yours, that does not make it right or proper. Ask any racist if they are a racist and guess what answer you will receive. Got it? Nah, I'm not racist. But I care not if you are racist or a martian, using symbols that represent a time when America was less than good to all its citizens is still a sign of naivety at best, ignorance or hate at worst.

Let's get something clear, the Swastika was the official symbol of Hitler's Nazi German Empire! It ALWAYS will be connected with Nazism and the atrocities associated with that ideology. The CSA was not practicing genocide against a race of people, they were standing up for principles of our nation and Constitution, and the rights of state sovereignty. LATER the Confederate flag was HIJACKED... STOLEN... by white supremacist hate groups, and used as a banner to promote their message of hate. Those sentiments ARE closely related to Nazism, and ARE deplorable, but that was never the original sentiment behind the Confederate flag, nor did the Confederate flag EVER fly in official capacity representing such ideology.

You try to ignorantly make the connection between the Confederate flag and the Swastika, and there is a marked difference in the two and what they represented.

 

[Cypress]

The CSA was not practicing genocide against a race of people, they were standing up for principles of our nation and Constitution, and the rights of state sovereignty. .........

Mississippi Declaration of Secession, 1861

"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 dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The damage caused by Sherman the Magnificent is hugely overblown. Did you know he never even burned Atlanta? I was so pissed when I learned that fact!! And yes, Northern industry is what allowed the North to crush the South in the war.

Natural Rights are the basis for American Government, not Southern ignorance.

Name one example where the Federal Government actually encroached upon state's rights or individual property rights. It simply never happened - the South seceeded over absolutely nothing. Their secession documents simply mention the institution in general as needing to be preserved.

Dixie pwned by 3D!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Mississippi Declaration of Secession, 1861

"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 dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

As your own source points out, it was an issue of economics and commerce. The "argument" was not about whether slavery should be legal, that argument was a completely separate issue. YOUR Supreme Court had ruled that slaves were not people, but property!

Oh yes, Prissy... you can post quotes from people of the day which sound deplorable by today's standards, would you like to comment on what Lincoln had to say about "the negro" and how he didn't think they could ever hold an equal station in society with white people? It sounds like something David Duke might say, but this came from the man who emancipated the slaves! Can you comment on Lincoln's plan to repatriate freed slaves to Central America, Haiti, and Liberia? Nope, not a peep from you on those quotes and ideas, you are just focused on SOUTHERN quotes and ideas of the time, but basically EVERYONE in America was a racist by today's standards.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie pwned by 3D!!

I guess it must make you feel like a big shit to pop off like this, but my reply to 3D totally destroyed anything he had to say. I completely dismantled his points one by one, and he has run away to hide in shame, while you are acting like the fucking retard you are, proclaiming he has "pwned" someone! You're a worse fucktard idiot than he is, at least he had the sense to run hide, you just keep yapping like a little neurotic poodle.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I found this fascinating article from Ebony dated from February 2000. There may well be a bias here, but it certainly offers a different view of Abraham Lincoln.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_4_55/ai_59110854/

 

[Minister of Truth]

Uhm, I think you need to refresh yourself on Civil War history, the North certainly didn't "crush" the South. In fact, if not for a couple of crucial tactical errors in the end, the outcome would have been very different. The South almost won the war, but "almost" is never good enough in war. Sherman's rampage through Georgia is very well known, let's not try to spin it now. The Southern economy was in shambles following the war, and if you want to pretend the North and South were on an even playing field following the war, you are just plain ignorant. And again, the MAIN Northern "industry" was weaving cotton into fabric in the textile mills... you have not offered any other "industry" as an example of Northern industrialization, and the fact of the matter is, you can't.



I agree with this, but the fact of the matter was, black slaves were not afforded Natural Rights because they weren't considered people, they were deemed property by YOUR Supreme Court! This "ignorance" came from YOUR Supreme Court and YOUR US Government, not Southerners.



The Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 violated states rights because they placed undue burden on Southern states, which were not realized by industrial Northern states. This began a rift between the North and South, and it eventually culminated in the Civil War. There were other issues as well, the addition of states to the union on condition they would be "free states" was an affront to the states right to make its own determination on something that was legal in the US.

It's really very simple, one side favored Federal government control over the states, the other side favored State autonomy in a Confederation government. Both sides claimed Constitutional high ground, and the dispute resulted in Civil War. Even to this day, there is a hearty debate over whether or not we are a collection of states who maintain a federal government uniting us, or whether the Federal government authoritatively presides over the many states.

Okay, Northern industries that the South was lacking in consisted of many things to include coal and iron, which built many miles of the Transcontinental Railroad during the war. The railroad had been stalled for years by Southern morons because they didn't want this crucial instrument for building up the West. There were numerous munitions factories, copper, salt, and silver mines, and so forth.

Second, the Supreme Court is only as good as the presidents who make appointments, and the Chief Justice of the day was Roger Taney - a Jackson appointee.

The tariffs did not violate "state's rights," as the government has the power to levy them. To say that they did was not only a lie, but it was justplainstupid.com. Some states were designated as slave states as well as free states. In the Missouri Compromise, Misery was designated as a slave state, so that the balance of power could be maintained. In Kansas Territory, on the other hand, slavers poured into the land for the sole purpose of voting for a pro-slave government, and when it became clear they were still in the minority, they set up an alternate capital in Lecompton, in defiance of the will of the people.

Its really very simple. On the one hand, you had the rule of law, and on the other side, you had lying, deceitful people, who made up bogus arguments for secession.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, Northern industries that the South was lacking in consisted of many things to include coal and iron, which built many miles of the Transcontinental Railroad during the war. The railroad had been stalled for years by Southern morons because they didn't want this crucial instrument for building up the West. There were numerous munitions factories, copper, salt, and silver mines, and so forth.

The LEADING industry was textile production. Most mining of coal and iron was in the South and Virginia, and most copper, salt and silver is mined in South Dakota, and out west. These are not what we typically consider "industrialized" when talking about "industrialization" because mining has been around for centuries. Yes, it is an "industry" but not what is generally referred to when discussing "industrialization."

Second, the Supreme Court is only as good as the presidents who make appointments, and the Chief Justice of the day was Roger Taney - a Jackson appointee.

Regardless of this, the fact is, the court ruled how the court ruled, and it was not part of the Confederate States of America when it ruled slaves were property! We're not arguing whether the court SHOULD have ruled the way they did, or even WHY they ruled the way they did, just the fact that they DID rule that way, and it WAS law of the land, according to YOUR court, not the South's.

The tariffs did not violate "state's rights," as the government has the power to levy them. To say that they did was not only a lie, but it was justplainstupid.com. Some states were designated as slave states as well as free states. In the Missouri Compromise, Misery was designated as a slave state, so that the balance of power could be maintained. In Kansas Territory, on the other hand, slavers poured into the land for the sole purpose of voting for a pro-slave government, and when it became clear they were still in the minority, they set up an alternate capital in Lecompton, in defiance of the will of the people.

The tariffs most certainly DID violate the state's rights, it doesn't matter that government has the power to levy them! tariffs and treaties must adhere to the rest of the Constitution, you can't pass a tariff that punishes one state and favors another, that violates the Constitution.