Stereotyping the Old South

Damn Yankee said:
They sell "Bubba Teeth" here for the sole purpose of fooling you ignorant northerners into thinking that they are real. The fact is that we don't want you moving down here, at least not until you've become more knowledgeable or open-minded.
Click to expand...

Don't tell them that.

Or,,,,,, "they will" move down here.

Then they'll start voting down here.
 
Damn Yankee said:
They sell "Bubba Teeth" here for the sole purpose of fooling you ignorant northerners into thinking that they are real. The fact is that we don't want you moving down here, at least not until you've become more knowledgeable or open-minded.
Click to expand...

Or until we learn how to lose wars like you do.
 
Liberty said:
Don't tell them that.

Or,,,,,, "they will" move down here.

Then they'll start voting down here.
Click to expand...

I can assure you, there is no risk of that. People aren't willing to risk their sanity. In fact, I know plenty of people (non-military) who have moved up here to Warshington.
 
King of Hoops said:
Or until we learn how to lose wars like you do.
Click to expand...
You again show your ignorance of not just Southern history, but the Civil War. It was the Democrats in the flatlands who controlled the South who lost. Many in the Piedmont and Mountain countries objected to the war, spied, ferried slaves up north or outright fought for the Union side.
 
Liberty said:
Don't tell them that.

Or,,,,,, "they will" move down here.

Then they'll start voting down here.
Click to expand...

"They" are in two distinct factions:
1. Like me, who got sick of the northern liberalism and intrusions into personal freedom so moved south, strengthening its conservative roots; and
2. Libtards who moved into places like Cary, near Raleigh, to work a government job. Note that Cary stands for Concentrated Area of Relocated Yankees.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You again show your ignorance of not just Southern history, but the Civil War. It was the Democrats in the flatlands who controlled the South who lost. Many in the Piedmont and Mountain countries objected to the war, spied, ferried slaves up north or outright fought for the Union side.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the mountain folk, great to hear it...
 
Dixie said:
Congenital racism? Wow, never heard that one! So, according to Chicklet, the mere fact that you are born in the South, means you are born a racist, and there is nothing you can do about it. That's what "congenital" means, and he chose the word, not me. I actually read this long sentence a few times, I wanted to fully appreciate the level of sheer hate displayed by Chicklet for his fellow man... read it again... can you feel it? It's a deep-rooted seething hate. Now Chicklet doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about me, but he has devout hatred in his heart for me, because I am someone who was born in the South, and that means I am a congenital racist, I can't help that. He goes on to accuse me of being dishonest and lying or distorting the facts, when everything I pointed out is absolutely true. That's why he failed to specify what I was lying or distorting.



What? The creation of the Confederacy marked the legal end to slavery? Is that what you learned in public school? When the Confederacy was created, slavery was still legal. In fact, just months before the Confederacy was created, Abe Lincoln was busy trotting out alternative ideas, like keeping slavery legal until 1911... rounding up the slaves and shipping them off to Haiti and Central America, or back to Africa. Yeah, that Abe really did believe black people should be equal to whites, that's why he said "The negro will never be able to occupy a place in society with whites." Slavery would remain legal in America until Congress and the people amended the Constitution after the Civil War!

You seem to ignorantly think that Abe Lincoln abolished slavery, and the South got mad about that and formed the Confederacy to fight for slavery, but that's not what happened, and it's a gross misunderstanding of history to believe that's what happened. There was a great deal of concern that Lincoln would free the slaves, and there were many Southerners who had no problem with that, the sticking point was compensation for property owned. Now, I know you don't like to think of slaves as property, but the Confederacy didn't make them property, the Supreme Court ruled that, long before anyone ever thought of the Confederacy. So we have these people who owned legitimate property, according to the Supreme Court, and the Bill of Rights already in existence, says that government can't seize your property without compensation. Naturally, these people felt like they had a legitimate complaint, and there was a great deal of money invested in slaves. But that was still not the reason for secession, it was clearly about states rights versus federalism. Slavery was a huge part of that, and it's understandable that people reading the articles of secession would get the impression it was about slavery, but it wasn't about the issue of enslaving human beings, it was about just compensation for property, and the federal government's stubborn refusal to deal with that.



Jim Crow laws were enacted as early as 1866, shortly after the war. They were the basis for what became known as 'segregation' and while we currently have a negative connotation of segregation, a great many Americans believed segregation to be a legitimate way to assimilate blacks into society. Much of their belief was based on ignorance and bigoted prejudice, and it did last way too long, but again... The Confederacy had been defeated before the first Jim Crow law was passed, and for a century, the SCOTUS upheld the Jim Crow laws... the Confederacy didn't force them to do that. The South didn't make the SCOTUS rule as it did, and they didn't make Congress become complacent and disinterested in civil rights for black Americans. It's amazing how you attempt to tie Jim Crow laws to The Confederacy, when they didn't come about until after the Confederacy was no more.



I haven't denied there are racists throughout the 50 states, but I refuse to accept some idiocy that Southern people are just natural born racists because they happened to be born below the Mason-Dixon line! There is no "intrenched racism" in the South, or anywhere else in America, that was maybe the case 60 years ago, but not today. No one currently alive in the South, ever owned a slave or knew any relatives who owned a slave. It doesn't matter what people who were here before us did, how can we be responsible for what they did? If we're going to live vicariously through history, maybe we can stick a bone in your nose and send your unhappy black ass back to Africa, where you can be the ignorant little jungle bunny history intended you to be?




Fuck YOU, and the mentality behind the BS rationalizations for your OWN racist beliefs.
Click to expand...

1) Our Dixie Dunce has yet to master 8th grade reading comprehension, as I stated that congenitial racism permeates the Southern States (with regards to this absurd defense of the Confederacy and such). Big difference than stating that all Southerners are congenitally racists. Somebody near and dear to our Dixie Dunce explain the difference to him.

2) Rather than go point for point with our Dixie Dunce, I'll let the reader examine a better, more accurate viewpoint of the Confederacy and slavery relation to and after the Civil War http://car0lesc0tt.tripod.com/clopton.html

3) For our Dixie Dunce to say that the Jim Crow laws are in no way a relation/off shoot to the Confederacy and it's mindset is pure revisionism. Here's a little accuracy that derails our silly Dixie's revisionist train http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/segregation.html

4) Obviously, Dixie is unaware that the law that guaranteed my right to an education anywhere in the USA that my parents chose for me is just 4 years older than myself. He's probably also unawares of such blatant acts of racism as red lining and how in NYC in the 1980's 2 major corporate personnel firms were found not considering black candidates at the behest of some of their more notable clients. Just a few easily researched references that put our Dixie's rhetoric in the rubbish heap.

5) All Dixie has to do is just copy and paste where I supported or defended a society that had white folks as slaves and Jim Crow laws against them, and then his accusation of "racisim" might hold some water. Until then, my previous declaration stands.
 
Wow, two major firms in NYC were caught being racist.... I didn't realize NYC was part of the Confederacy.

Oh wait.... Didn't New York have a fairly vibrant secession movement of their own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots

Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned ugly and degraded into "a virtual racial pogrom, with uncounted numbers of blacks murdered on the streets". The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool stated on July 16, "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[7] The military suppressed the mob using artillery and fixed bayonets, but not before numerous buildings were ransacked or destroyed, including many homes and an orphanage for black children.[8]


WOW..... THEY MUST HAVE ALL BEEN BORN IN THE SOUTH AND SUFFERED FROM "CONGENITAL RACISM!"
 
If you're referring to Hartford, no, neither NY nor any of the New England states ever had a vibrant secession movement. The discussion of secession that was brought up never made it out of committee. It was therefore never a point of official discussion before the convention.
 
King of Hoops said:
If you're referring to Hartford, no, neither NY nor any of the New England states ever had a vibrant secession movement. The discussion of secession that was brought up never made it out of committee. It was therefore never a point of official discussion before the convention.
Click to expand...

The mayor of New York recommended it!
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=435

Kind of hard to say the idea wasn't vibrant, if the mayor himself endorsed it.
 
ROFL, Wood was a copperhead Democrat who advocated that NYC, not State, secede. He then had to switch over to the Congress, and didn't return to citywide politics until after war ended.
 
Minus a small handful of members of the Party of Treason, I'd have to say, yes, since he was regarded as a rouble-rousing controversial figure, and because he was unable to run for re-election the next year after voicing his sentiments.
 
King of Hoops said:
Minus a small handful of members of the Party of Treason, I'd have to say, yes, since he was regarded as a rouble-rousing controversial figure, and because he was unable to run for re-election the next year after voicing his sentiments.
Click to expand...


He got elected mayor of New York City... he must have had some measure of support.

Let's bring this conversation back into context of what I said, shall we? I made the statement there was a vibrant secession movement in NY, and that is true. I never said that NY seceded, or that it was some kind of monumental epic battle... just that there was a vibrant movement. I linked the New York Draft Riots... a very well-known fact of history, which supports my contention there was such a vibrant movement. What you did, was attempt to apply your own standards to what I said, and make it seem as if this were an argument over whether NY seceded from the Union. You win... NY never seceded from the Union, but then, I never claimed they did!
 
The draft riots and the Mayor's politics are not linked. The riots were also put down, with great effort from the people of NYC, who were called out as a militia force to help restore order. The riots were a product of a draft system which the people viewed as unfair. The Mayor had been elected a year before he voiced his sentiments, and prior to that, the people of the city likely didn't seen discussions of secession as relevant, seeing as how it had never occurred prior to 1860.
 
I should also point out, that what Wood was saying in that address, was that he assumed the outcome of the Civil War would be continued disunion, and that it should be expected that further break-ups and the creation of more states should be expected. While the South viewed the federal government as oppressive to its interest, he felt that the people of NYC were oppressed by Salem and Upstate NY, which were alligned with the "fanaticism" of New England. He basically advocated that, in the new order to follow the war, Southern New York, to include NYC, would probably have to secede from NY State.

Hell, in today's world, there is still talk of secession away from states. People keep speculating that California will split north and south, and even that Washington will split west and east. West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War, and the Unionists had no problem with that.
 
West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War, and the Unionists had no problem with that.
Click to expand...

By all means, continue on with the story of WHY this was the case.. what happened? It wasn't because some wanted slavery and some didn't, was it? Which one was allowed to keep their slaves if they joined the Union?
 
King of Hoops said:
The draft riots and the Mayor's politics are not linked. The riots were also put down, with great effort from the people of NYC, who were called out as a militia force to help restore order. The riots were a product of a draft system which the people viewed as unfair. The Mayor had been elected a year before he voiced his sentiments, and prior to that, the people of the city likely didn't seen discussions of secession as relevant, seeing as how it had never occurred prior to 1860.
Click to expand...

Yes, the mayor's recommendation of secession is very much related to riots going on at the same time in NYC, over their involvement in this war of aggression against one of their leading business and trade partners, the southern states. Let's not sugar coat things, people didn't really give two shits about black people being "free" in America. Not in the South, but also, not in the North, East, West, Southwest... that idea was not prevalent in this country. It's sad.... I wish I could say it was different, but it simply wasn't. Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was controversial for the time, it was carefully crafted to free the slaves in states which were technically not under US jurisdiction anymore. duh!
 
This issue reminds me of the republican loss in the last election, the topic is constantly being rearranged into something other than what it was. We could include the Iraq invasion too, as it was a constant redefining of motives values and reasons. But when the south lost because of their attachment to slavery all sorts of Pandora explanations spewed forth into the history of made up whys. Today with cyberspace the reasons change and grow in all directions on a weekly basis. As Soviet radio once reported "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." After listening to the republicans yesterday, they can do the past and the future. Global happiness follows close behind their new budget. Weird how now they are on the right track, or is this the same track spun magically new?

The south wanted slavery, same as the republicans today want power and corporate wealth, nothing has really changed. All that changes is the influence of money and paid for revisionism. The new revisionism is a mea culpa history. Below are a few links that tell the story if you can see it or the harder part accept it. If unanimity existed history would be so easy but ignoring the fundamentals is dishonest.

"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

"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery

Southern arguments for and against
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/86991/southern_arguments_for_and_against.html?cat=37
Agrument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
does constitution allow secession
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top