 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
can all the urban blacks, ricans, italians, and irish be honourary southernors? we're poor and eat fried chicken too. and we can't seem to pronounce our r's either.
Last edited by Albert Speer on 17-12-2003 at 06:08
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
If that flag offends you, it is because you have not been taught what it really stands for. It stands for the rights of the States. Rights that are specifically reserved in the US constitution, but were torn away by a growing federal government. Those of you that protest many of the actions that the US federal government are now taking would probably support the political ideals of the Confederacy. You must remember that slavery was not the only issue. Slavery was legal when the US became a country as well. It is Not anywhere on the Southern agenda of today. It exists only in the minds of uninformed Yankees. |
Bullshit. States dont have the right to infringe on the rights of others, or to coerce them into working for free. And btw, your fearless leaders dont believe in states rights either: they just play any fiddle to keep more power to themselves. Take John Ashcroft, a true American patriot. While he was governor, he was pro states rights. Now that hes attorney general, hes trying to prosecute medical weed users in California, when the people of california have ratified the use of it. Smooth move Asscroft.
And btw, slavery wasnt legal, it just wasnt illegal. Maybe people forgot to read the constitution since it states that all men are created equal. That was a real bugger to plantation owners, and the southern business class. So to get around it, the southern states said that slaves arnt people, they are property. But then to get more representation in congress, they counted each slave as 3/5th of a person. What a sham.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Slavery wasn't the overwhelmingly primary issue on the minds of Secessionists in 1860 - 1861? Perhaps you need a link to a website offering the very words of those same secessionists preserved in electronic heaven. Here you go, read on and be educated: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html |
Thanks for the link Dr. Strangelove. It really is educational. The first quote I pulled up was the Governor's message to the Tennessee State Legislature. Here is an excerpt that I believe will clarify my point and your misconception:
quote:
The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States |
Yes slavery was an important issue for the South. There is no doubt...their economy relied heavily on it. Look a little deeper at the message though..."upon the well defined constitutional rights of the Southern Citizen". This statement usually means to northerners that the South looked upon slavery as a constitutional right. Not so...The South looked upon the constitution as reserving the issue to the States to determine in the abscense of constitutional guidance. Did this make slavery the issue or was it merely the issue of the moment for the South. The modern Southerner, who is still very State's rights oriented, takes the latter position. The idea that a New South would want a return to slavery is completely and uterly ludicrous. The idea that rights not given to the federal government reside with the States is very much alive and the source of talk about a New South.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
|
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Bullshit. States dont have the right to infringe on the rights of others, or to coerce them into working for free. And btw, your fearless leaders dont believe in states rights either: they just play any fiddle to keep more power to themselves. Take John Ashcroft, a true American patriot. While he was governor, he was pro states rights. Now that hes attorney general, hes trying to prosecute medical weed users in California, when the people of california have ratified the use of it. Smooth move Asscroft.
And btw, slavery wasnt legal, it just wasnt illegal. Maybe people forgot to read the constitution since it states that all men are created equal. That was a real bugger to plantation owners, and the southern business class. So to get around it, the southern states said that slaves arnt people, they are property. But then to get more representation in congress, they counted each slave as 3/5th of a person. What a sham. |
You so TOTALLY miss the point. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Given that America is probably the most polarized it's ever been 1860, I think it's time that our friends south of the mason-dixon finally get their independence.
If you think about it, I think everyone would be much happier. The CSA would be able to do away with social reforms, the yankee carpetbaggers would be able to create the ideal welfare state. Texas would be able to do it' s own thing. Heck, Hawaii could even have bring back the monarchy. Plus, the rest of the world would be happy to see a huge, monolithic American hyperpower disappear. I could even help create that independent Wichita Commune that I always wanted to see.
So if and when the south rises again, you can bet your confederate dollars I will be on the front lines waving the stars and bars. Because, let's face it, no one is happy with America in it's present state. The people of America have diverse enough interests that they should be allowed to follow their own destiny. Sure, we can all unite again later to create a socialist brotherhood, but for now I think this would be for the best. Who is with me? |
HA!!! If you want real contemporary polarization by regions, you should have looked at the presidental election results map of 2000.
And no, I never want to see any state seceding from United States.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Not so...The South looked upon the constitution as reserving the issue to the States to determine in the abscense of constitutional guidance. Did this make slavery the issue or was it merely the issue of the moment for the South. |
It's pretty clear to me. When the United States decided to send troops to Utah to quash the practice of polygamy no southerner took a stand in defense of the right of the people of Utah to determine whether or not polygamy shopuld be legal in Utah. Why? Good heavens man, everyone knew that polygamy was immoral, and the people of the US had the right to crush this offense against God! Yet the issue of the possibility that slaves might have rights on the other hand was the moral equivalent of sales taxes, not to be subject to the intercession of the same federal troops sent to Utah? Do you see the hypocrisy there?
Yet, incredibley, the existence of slavery in the South was not under attack. The issue that really cheesed off the secessionist was the fact that new states being admitted to the Union were rejecting slavery. Did southerners rise to defend the rights of these new states to decide on whether or not slavery would be permitted in their own states? You better believe that they did not! Time and time again they demanded they bargained against the rights of the new states. Frankly I don't think that what really bothered them was that they were being shut out of new opportunities in the developing states. After all, if the south had been so crowded that slave owners had streamed westward in search of new farm land then surely they would have achieved a majority in some of the new states. No, I think that the real problem was that they knew they were loosing the race for moral approval. They knew that public opinion everywhere else was gradually turning against them. In reaction they created entire branches of phony science and distorted religion to justify their way of life. The real motive for secession wasn't states rights, or the preservation of slavery. The real motive was the need of the southern slave owner to fence himself off from the disapproving eyes of the rest of the world.
Id that what's happening today?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
The people of America have diverse interests, and those interests are no longer best served by the kleptocrats in Washington. The less centralized power a government has, the better. Surely you would agree with this, my ponderous friend? Why shouldn't the people of the nation be free to choose whatever government policy they choose? What harm could that possibly do? That's democracy at work. If the South have different ideas of government than the North, then let them be I say. |
I agree. I totally agree.
This doesn't necessarily mean we need to partition the United States, but rather that we actually follow the damn Constitution that was based on exactly the sentiments expressed above. I don't think any state would actually choose to secede nowadays, but I don't think there is anything in the Constitution specifically outlawing it. So we shouldn't stand in the way.
As for having a less centralized government, and giving local states and regions more control over their own affairs, well hell, isn't that what libertarianish folks have been saying all along? Knock the Federal Government back to its Constitutionally prescribed limits and let the states do their own things.
Then we can go back to these United States rather than the United States.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Space05us
|
|
Alaska's new state motto if the lower 48 ever actually did split.
"Screw you guys, I'm goin' home" (can someone translate that to Russian?)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2003 05:46
A libertarian dictatorship?
I teased that out of him a few months back. When you believe in SO many natural rights, in the end you restrict the democratic process.
|