Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Federal assistance has been keeping this part of the country from sinking underwater for decades." Well, that's what happens when you put 60% of your wealth into owning *people* When they are finally recognized as human, there goes your wealth
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But we still have the BBQs and light the fireworks and sing the anthem. If that's okay, why not light up the grill on Confederate Day?*** Because they were traitors AND they lost? Just guessin...
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Who really got independence? You had to be white, male and own land. We were founded by a bunch of hypocrites. But we still have the BBQs and light the fireworks and sing the anthem. If that's okay, why not light up the grill on Confederate Day?> Then what CAN you celebrate? It was a major step toward freedom for every race. Sure, the founders had plenty of problems, but we can celebrate the good things without dwelling on their failings.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Who really got independence? You had to be white, male and own land. We were founded by a bunch of hypocrites." Well sure, but those people are long gone. Can you not see that our independence is one of the most momentous things in modern history? Think about how that single event has changed the entire world.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> While I feel slavery was in no way justified, I actually agree that civil war is a misnomer. << I'm not following your distinction here. Virginia (and other southern states) were seceding from the union - over their perceived right to 'own' human beings as if they were livestock. They lost, and as a result did not secede and are still considered american citizens and part of the united states to this very day. That sounds like a civil war to me. It has been pretty well established that slavery is bad, so I cannot fathom why these states would want to shine the spotlight on this particularly ugly part of their history - it's like germany having an annual holocaust celebration. Try as hard as they might, the southern revisionists will never be able to erase the stain of slavery and bigotry. And they do try hard. We've had court cases about proud displays the confederate flag in state buildings, and now this fringey governor issuing proclamations about the south's role in the civil war as if it were some noble undertaking by a brave and upright people. Newsflash - they lost - about a 150 years ago. And history has shown that they were also on the losing side of the moral argument. There's just no dispute remaining about this. This is the third time in three months that this VA governor has become 'newsworthy' over some backward-ass policy and shameless pandering to lizard brained GOP voters. It comes as no surprise to anyone that these rural white crackers have a lot of residual animosity towards blacks. Now they have a governor who will happily empower them for his own ends. Remember how huffy they got when Obama's comment about these rural white 'working class' voters "clinging to their guns and religion" came out. Obama was spot on. These people are lost causes who are never going to come around to any kind of intelligent thought. Facts and reason mean nothing to them - it's gut instinct all the way - fear and loathing. The frightening part in all this is that the republican party is willing to exploit the dregs of our own society for their own unrelated purposes. One of the great american political parties has become so corrupted by it's own lust for power that there's nothing NOTHING they will not say or do - no moral barrier that they won't sink below. And why not - it's not like black americans are ever going to support them anyway. So they cynically use racial divisions that already exist within the public to drive the dumbest and most easily manipulated people into voting for republicans. The wink-and-nudge message is clear - they'll work to oppress the "others" - read: blacks and gays specifically, but anybody outside the WASP profile generally. There may be a GOP supporter or two who will say that I've got it all wrong, but they feel like they must defend their party, because to face the facts and reality would mean that they've misplaced their ideological trust with a party that continually demonstrates a lack of basic integrity, honor and moral clarity. Anyone who hasn't gotten the message by now is probably a hopeless cause.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ I think they were a separate country with their own legislature, money, military and government. The fact that it's called a civil war is due to history being written by the winning side, and not necessarily written accurately. All the racist hogwash is repellent to me, I am just arguing whether it was a civil war or a war between the states. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Newsflash - they lost - about a 150 years ago*** I heard talk that this is all a big ramp-up to next year, the 150th anniversary of the Confederacy. ***I am just arguing whether it was a civil war or a war between the states*** Or a War of Northern Aggression. ;p I'm wondering though, what exactly is the distinction between the two in your view?
Originally Posted By Labuda ...and they started changing the story about why they went to war early on - right after they lost. Here's an interesting paragraph from wiki: Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[16] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[17] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[18] There was a striking contrast[17][19] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession[18] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech. Similarly, Confederate President Jefferson Davis also reversed his original position, that the central cause of the war was the issue of slavery, arguing after the war that states' rights was its principal cause. Oh, and thanks to wiki, I can tell you this, too: The Lost Cause is the name commonly given to a literary and intellectual movement that sought to reconcile the traditional white society of the Southern United States to the defeat of the Confederate States of America in the Civil War of 1861–1865.[1] Those who contributed to the movement tended to portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and most of the Confederacy's leaders as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry, defeated by the Union armies not through superior military skill, but by overwhelming force. They also tended to condemn Reconstruction.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I thought it was a disturbance within the same country with two factions vying for control. A quick perusal on an online dictionary confirmed that for me, but a glance at wikipedia made the case for a civil war sometimes being a conflict between two separate countries that used to be the same... but I take everything on wikipedia with a grain of salt. With that definition, any conflict between China and Taiwan can be claimed as a civil disturbance rather than an a armed conflict, or anything between China and Tibet... so I have reasons to not like that definition of civil war. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm still wondering how the semantics of it all work (the difference between "civil war" as opposed to "war between the states", for example). Why is one or the other so significantly different? (I'm assuming "war between the states" offers up more legitimacy towards the South, as opposed to the more rebellious notion of a "civil war"???)
Originally Posted By Mr X Labuda, that's some mighty fine thinkin points there in post 29. You SURE you're from Texas?
Originally Posted By Labuda Hehe Yep, born and raised, sir. Not sure what that proves, but my Daddy was a transplant, if that helps you figure anything out... he didn't get here until he was 9. Oh, but he was uber conservative. I'm pretty sure it was from him, for example, that I learned that "union" was a dirty word. LOL
Originally Posted By Mr X ***my Daddy was a transplant, if that helps you figure anything out*** No, but I guess that help YOU figure things out (somehow)... I've got way better on you...I'm New England born and raised and roots that go all the way back to the MAYFLOWER. Suck it, sister. ;D
Originally Posted By Labuda Well, I'm not sure when the immigrant part of my Mom's family got here, but on her side, I'm 9th generation Texan. The Hulls have been here for a while. Also have some Native American blood in me courtesy of Great Grandmother Sarah Elisabeth being half Native American. So, Mayflower newb, YOU suck it.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_American_Civil_War" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...ivil_War</a> - Anatole
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Also have some Native American blood in me courtesy of Great Grandmother Sarah Elisabeth being half Native American. So, Mayflower newb, YOU suck it. *** Touche, Labuda. Touche.
Originally Posted By Mr X Great link, Anatole. I will go with "Freedom War", as in the article, or even better "The War on Slavery" which rings so much truer and today markets so much better too! I suggest we all agree on the fact that the war in question should, ne NEEDS to be referred to "The War on Slavery". Anyone onboard with this?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>...and they started changing the story about why they went to war early on - right after they lost. Here's an interesting paragraph from wiki:<< My impression is that it goes back a few years farther than that. I don't have sources handy to cite, but I believe the Confederate army was made up mostly of poor, white, non-slaveowners. The army recruiters told these folks that they needed to join up in order to protect their homes and families against Yankee attackers. One of my heroes is Andrew Johnson, who was one of the few Southern politicians of the time to openly accuse the rich Southerners who started the war of duping the Southern public into believing their cause was something noble. (Johnson was the only U.S. Senator from a Confederate state to refuse to recognize secession.)
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I suggest we all agree on the fact that the war in question should, ne NEEDS to be referred to "The War on Slavery".<< I don't think Lincoln would have agreed. He was always explicit in stating that the war was fought against secession, and not against slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation, you'll remember, only liberated slaves in areas currently in rebellion--it was intended as a way to foster slave revolts behind the Confederate lines. There's a good case to be made that the war was about economic domination, with the rich Northern businessmen facing off against the rich Southern slaveowners, with the poor folks on both sides as cannon fodder.
