A Dixie Poll

Is Dixie's Avatar Patriotic?

  • Total voters
    16
If the government has the power to levy tariffs, then it is 100% not a matter of state's rights. States rights come into play when the Federal government does something not outlined in the Constitution.

And again, if the SCOTUS was bending over with a gag in its mouth and being the South's bitch, then why did the South secede over an issue that the SCOTUS had supposedly settled in the South's favor? Answer - Southerners are retarded. I guarantee you, if the SCOTUS ever rules in favor of an issue that is of specific interest to NE, the Midwest, the Pacific Coast, the Plains West, Mountain West, or Southwest, said region will celebrate its victory rather than scream, shout, sodomize its cousin, and secede from the Union.
 
T&A said:
If the government has the power to levy tariffs, then it is 100% not a matter of state's rights. States rights come into play when the Federal government does something not outlined in the Constitution.

And again, if the SCOTUS was bending over with a gag in its mouth and being the South's bitch, then why did the South secede over an issue that the SCOTUS had supposedly settled in the South's favor? Answer - Southerners are retarded. I guarantee you, if the SCOTUS ever rules in favor of an issue that is of specific interest to NE, the Midwest, the Pacific Coast, the Plains West, Mountain West, or Southwest, said region will celebrate its victory rather than scream, shout, sodomize its cousin, and secede from the Union.
Click to expand...

The government does not have the right to violate the 8th and 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, I am sorry you aren't comprehending this. To invoke a tariff which punished Southern states and rewarded Northern states, was a blatant violation of both Amendments. The South tolerated it for many years, but with the issue of property rights being threatened by the government, it was too much for the South to bear. Yes, the South wanted to keep slavery, and while that is morally wrong by today's standards, it wasn't so clear back then. According to the SCOTUS, slavery was legal and didn't violate the Constitution. Fucktards such as yourself, want to pretend this was not the case, and the South was flagrantly trying to do something unethical and immoral, against the Constitution and rule of law! That simply was NOT the case at the time. We can view it by today's standards and it sounds horrid, but at the time, slaves had no Constitutional rights, they were not citizens, the law didn't even recognize them as people! They belonged to their owners, they were property, as so deemed by YOUR Supreme Court. You can lay a lot of shit off on the South and Southerners, but that factoid, you can't escape. That was the law!
 
Since you mentioned "Northern industrialization" earlier, I think it is pertinent to bring up another very valid point here. Slaves were owned by plantation operators because slaves were used to pick cotton. Had there not been a demand for cotton, or had society balked at using 'slave-picked' cotton, they would have had no use for slaves. But cotton was the leading export of the United States, and the primary resource for most of the industry in the North. With the advent of the cotton gin, cotton could be cleaned and processed much faster, and because of that, the demand for cotton grew enormously in the mid 1800s. This was not the fault of the Southern states or the plantation owners, but as any good capitalist businessmen, the plantation owners met the challenge of increased demand for cotton by expanding their farms, and yes... buying more slaves to pick more cotton. Again, this was not the fault of the plantation owner, he didn't increase demand for cotton, he merely responded to it as any businessman would have. So the number of slaves grew with the burgeoning demand for cotton, slaves were an investment made by the plantation owner. He didn't buy them so he could shackle them and rape them when he felt like it, he didn't have slaves because he was racist and hated black people, he bought and maintained slaves because that was how cotton was harvested at the time, and because the US Supreme Court had upheld the practice and it was legal.
 
"there was a right side and a wrong side in the late war which no sentiment ought to cause us to forget.”

-FREDERICK DOUGLAS, 1878
Click to expand...


A little self introspection would help Dixie. Denial and excuse-making for immorality won’t earn you any karma points. Just like Japanese kids are taught glorious history about their struggle in WW2, and are purposely not taught about the Rape of Nanking, or their brutal treatment of Chinese civilians and POWs, you Neoconfederates have been spoon-fed a steady diet of romance and nostalgia for the Dixieland.

You still honor traitors and secessionists, while downplaying the institutional rape and enslavement of millions of fellow Americans. You had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages of enslavement and Jim Crow, first by the United States Army, and then later by the U.S. Federal Courts. Left to your own devices, I doubt you would have progressed to the point where a black man can date a white woman without fear of being lynched, or burned alive.

Soul searching and self-introspection is not shameful. It’s completely honorable and respectable. You should try it sometime.



from fellow southerner Ed Kilgore:

NeoConfederate History Month

It would be immensely useful for Virginians and southerners generally to spend some time reflecting on the century or so of grinding poverty and cultural isolation that fidelity to the Romance in Gray earned for the entire region, regardless of race. Few Americans from any region know much about the actual history of Reconstruction, capped by the shameful consignment of African Americans to the tender mercies of their former masters, or about the systematic disenfranchisement of black citizens (and in some places, particularly McDonnell’s Virginia, of poor whites) that immediately followed.
A Neo-Confederate History Month could be thoroughly bipartisan.

Republicans could enjoy greater exposure to the virulent racism of such progressive icons as William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, not to mention Democratic New Deal crusaders in the South like Mississippi’s Theodore Bilbo. The capture of the political machinery of Republican and Democratic parties in a number of states, inside and beyond the South, by the revived Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, would be an interesting subject for further study as well.

Most of all, a Neo-Confederate History Month could remind us of the last great effusion of enthusiasm for Davis and Lee and Jackson and all the other avatars of the Confederacy: the white southern fight to maintain racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. That’s when “Dixie” was played as often as the national anthem at most white high school football games in the South; when Confederate regalia were attached to state flags across the region; and when the vast constitutional and political edifice of pre-secession agitprop was brought back to life in the last-ditch effort to make the Second Reconstruction fail like the first.

Bob McDonnell should be particularly responsible, as a former Attorney General of his state, for reminding us all of the “massive resistance” doctrine preached by Virginia Senator Harry Byrd in response to federal judicial rulings and pending civil rights laws, and of the “interposition” theory of nullification spread most notably by Richmond News Leader editor James Jackson Kilpatrick.

Any Neo-Confederate History Month would be incomplete, of course, without reference to the contemporary conservative revival of states’ rights and nullification theories redolent of proto-Confederates, Confederates, and neo-Confederates.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/ed-kilgore/neo-confederate-history-month
Click to expand...
 
It would be nice if people could go back and see history as it was and not how they want it to be. Revisionism on the right is a major industry today and the partisans and think tanks spread the confusion through free books and support for those who share their view.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/08/mcdonnell_slavery_virginia

"It's nice that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has apologized for omitting any mention of slavery in his proclamation of "Confederate History Month." Apologizing is better than not apologizing.

But this isn't forgetting to turn off the lights. It's not really the kind of thing for which you can smack yourself on the forehead and say, "Man, I am so sorry I forgot about that." The proclamation didn't just fall out by accident, or happen automatically. The last two governors, both Democrats, made a point of not proclaiming a Confederate History Month. And even the Republicans before them had made some acknowledgment of the evils of slavery, even amid their celebration of slavery's defenders. McDonnell was consciously reversing both policies."

And.

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
 
A little self introspection would help Dixie. Denial and excuse-making for immorality won’t earn you any karma points.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one "denying" or making excuses here. Denial would be the insistence that Northerners were fighting to free the slaves, like they were John Frickin Lewis! Pretending the North was some liberal beacon of Civil Rights in 1860.... THAT is Denial! Excuse making examples can be found a few posts back, where T&A tries to explain why the US Courts (not the south) upheld the institution of slavery. I've merely corrected those misconceptions.

You had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages of enslavement and Jim Crow, first by the United States Army, and then later by the U.S. Federal Courts.
Click to expand...

I didn't pass the Jim Crow laws, I didn't uphold segregation in the Supreme Court. These were not something done by the CSA, rather by US Courts and US Congress' for years and years before and after the Civil War. Why do you continue to DENY that? Why do you continue to EXCUSE the North and blame it all on the South?
 
 
Dixie said:
The government does not have the right to violate the 8th and 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, I am sorry you aren't comprehending this. To invoke a tariff which punished Southern states and rewarded Northern states, was a blatant violation of both Amendments. The South tolerated it for many years, but with the issue of property rights being threatened by the government, it was too much for the South to bear. Yes, the South wanted to keep slavery, and while that is morally wrong by today's standards, it wasn't so clear back then. According to the SCOTUS, slavery was legal and didn't violate the Constitution. Fucktards such as yourself, want to pretend this was not the case, and the South was flagrantly trying to do something unethical and immoral, against the Constitution and rule of law! That simply was NOT the case at the time. We can view it by today's standards and it sounds horrid, but at the time, slaves had no Constitutional rights, they were not citizens, the law didn't even recognize them as people! They belonged to their owners, they were property, as so deemed by YOUR Supreme Court. You can lay a lot of shit off on the South and Southerners, but that factoid, you can't escape. That was the law!
Click to expand...

With regards to tariffs, at no point did the Federal government EVER violate the 8th & 9th Amendments. It also NEVER denied the South its right to own slaves. The claim of either was and is a LIE.

Also, 1/3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top