Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,497
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 11, 2017 22:43:40 GMT -5
Rebel yell: Southern nationalists again crying 'secede'BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — As 21st century activists seek to topple monuments to the 19th century Confederate rebellion, some white Southerners are again advocating for what the Confederates tried and failed to do: secede from the Union. It's not an easy argument to win, and it's not clear how much support the idea has: The leading Southern nationalist group, the Alabama-based League of the South, has been making the same claim for more than two decades and still has an address in the U.S.A., not the C.S.A. But the idea of a break-away Southern nation persists. The League of the South's longtime president, retired university professor Michael Hill of Killen, Alabama, posted a message in July that began, "Fight or die white man" and went on to say Southern nationalists seek "nothing less than the complete reconquest and restoration of our patrimony — the whole, entire South." "And that means the South will once again be in name and in actuality White Man's Land. A place where we and our progeny can enjoy Christian liberty and the fruits of our own labor, unhindered by parasitical 'out groups,'" said Hill's message, posted on the group's Facebook page a day after a rally in support of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia. Complete article here: Rebel yell: Southern nationalists again crying 'secede'Thoughts?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,715
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 11, 2017 22:48:40 GMT -5
Thoughts? I don't think they have any idea what real Christian liberty is.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,369
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 11, 2017 22:56:21 GMT -5
Rebel yell: Southern nationalists again crying 'secede'"And that means the South will once again be in name and in actuality White Man's Land. A place where we and our progeny can enjoy Christian liberty and the fruits of our own labor, unhindered by parasitical 'out groups,'" said Hill's message, posted on the group's Facebook page a day after a rally in support of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia. Complete article here: Rebel yell: Southern nationalists again crying 'secede'Thoughts? Once again...their own labor? Do they teach history in the south at all? Or have they just forgotten about their "peculiar institution"?
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 11, 2017 23:06:06 GMT -5
I'm so on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line if these idiots I'm surrounded by pull this crap. I'm already seeing more and more confederate flags flying off the bed of pick up trucks around here.. We used to just have 1 idiot, now they're starting to pop up & multiply.
However, the trump flag flying idiot at the entrance to my subdivision took his trump flags down. Must have finally found his personal red line that was crossed by a tweet.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,803
|
Post by kadee79 on Aug 12, 2017 0:07:43 GMT -5
Steff, I'm with you on the wrong side of the Mason/Dixon line....but I haven't seen any confederate flags in quite awhile around here and they used to be all over the place. I think there might be a couple of flag poles that have them in the area, but not on trucks anymore that I've noticed.
I don't think these folks have any idea of how to run a country or even a state for that matter. They won't have a post office, they won't have the over-site for airports or other transportation. Who is going to pay for paving roads? There wouldn't be any more welfare checks or food stamps from the fed. Work?, they know how to work?...not too many that I've seen, at least certainly not in the farm fields around here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 3:00:51 GMT -5
Rebel yell: Southern nationalists again crying 'secede'"And that means the South will once again be in name and in actuality White Man's Land. A place where we and our progeny can enjoy Christian liberty and the fruits of our own labor, unhindered by parasitical 'out groups,'" said Hill's message, posted on the group's Facebook page a day after a rally in support of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia. Complete article here: Rebel yell: Southern nationalists again crying 'secede'Thoughts? Once again...their own labor? Do they teach history in the south at all? Or have they just forgotten about their "peculiar institution"? Apparently they learned from the people that re-wrote history how to re-write history. (I've never argued that slavery didn't exist, it's just a fact that it wasn't the sole and singular reason for the Civil War that many historical revisionists would have you believe... Matter of fact, as "Reasons for the war" go, it was pretty far down the list... and not even on the list for some states that seceded)
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 12, 2017 11:35:45 GMT -5
You mean there are actually people that have different opinions than you about the Civil War? Those damn Yankee revisionists!
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,803
|
Post by kadee79 on Aug 12, 2017 13:44:21 GMT -5
Yep, it was "states rights"...the rights of each state to keep slaves!
But that isn't really what this thread is about, it's about the idiots that want to return to the past. They have no idea what they are wishing for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 20:22:28 GMT -5
You mean there are actually people that have different opinions than you about the Civil War? Those damn Yankee revisionists! I don't doubt there are people with different opinions than me on that war... I'm a southerner that thinks it was stupid to secede in the first place. And it's not just Yankees that are revisionist on it... but you know that already.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 20:31:03 GMT -5
Yep, it was "states rights"... the rights of each state to keep slaves!But that isn't really what this thread is about, it's about the idiots that want to return to the past. They have no idea what they are wishing for. The bolded is correct. The underlined is revisionist (because you neglect to mention all the other States Rights that it was about that were actually more important... and slavery was the one "states' right" that could have been kept by actually NOT seceding {might want to do a little research on "The Corwin Amendment"}).
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 12, 2017 22:52:34 GMT -5
Did the South really think there was a future in institutionalized/legal slavery - when the rest of the world was developing a 'social conscience' and abolishing it country by country? It seems kinda short sited to me...
The South's financial heyday (based on cheap labor) was ending one way or another and keeping slavery wasn't going to fix that. It sucks. But I think the South's financial fate was sealed well before the war started. (going on the assumption that slavery = money and not literally that some humans were less human and were rightfully slaves - cause I just can't wrap my mind around how one comes to that conclusion)
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Aug 12, 2017 22:55:56 GMT -5
Once again...their own labor? Do they teach history in the south at all? Or have they just forgotten about their "peculiar institution"? Apparently they learned from the people that re-wrote history how to re-write history. (I've never argued that slavery didn't exist, it's just a fact that it wasn't the sole and singular reason for the Civil War that many historical revisionists would have you believe... Matter of fact, as "Reasons for the war" go, it was pretty far down the list... and not even on the list for some states that seceded) Have you read this? en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_UnionThe fact act that you proudly display the confederate flag in your avatar and maintain I that the civil war was about states rights tells us all we need to know about you. The south, in fact, was cranky that the north wouldn't enforce their laws regarding slavery. They worked actively against the individual northern states' rights to do that. Who's rewriting history here? Keep flying your your racist flag, Richard. It tells us who you are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 23:50:47 GMT -5
Apparently they learned from the people that re-wrote history how to re-write history. (I've never argued that slavery didn't exist, it's just a fact that it wasn't the sole and singular reason for the Civil War that many historical revisionists would have you believe... Matter of fact, as "Reasons for the war" go, it was pretty far down the list... and not even on the list for some states that seceded) Have you read this? en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_UnionThe fact act that you proudly display the confederate flag in your avatar and maintain I that the civil war was about states rights tells us all we need to know about you. The south, in fact, was cranky that the north wouldn't enforce their laws regarding slavery. They worked actively against the individual northern states' rights to do that. Who's rewriting history here? Keep flying your your racist flag, Richard. It tells us who you are.I am not now nor have I ever flown a racist flag... not in any context. If you see racism where none exists... that kind of tells us who you are. And yes, I've read all of the secession documents, at length (I've studied the Civil War for decades, since I was in high school... have you?). If you want to use them to prove that the South was simply and solely "pro-slavery" and no other causes existed, then I point you to the Constitution of the United States, which has several pro-slavery clauses in it. Including the Fugitive Slave Law ( Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) which supersedes any and all anti-slave laws of any non-slave state, should an escaped slave make it to their state. So I guess the United States was pro-slavery as well... according to you and how you define "pro-slavery". Have you read this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_AmendmentLincoln made note of it in his first Inaugural Address: Basically Lincoln accepted the Corwin Amendment as a done deal, knowing that it had passed both houses of Congress already and would pass the needed state legislatures... IF WAR HADN'T BROKEN OUT. And he clearly states that he has no objection to it "being made express and irrevocable". So... I state again... The Civil War wasn't about slavery. All the south had to do to keep slavery FOREVER (if that was indeed the only issue) was make ratification the Corwin Amendment (which was almost already a foregone conclusion anyway) a condition of them not seceding (or of them returning). That's it. No bloodshed. No battles. No fighting. Just that one amendment to the Constitution that had already passed Congress and that Lincoln had already accepted as law, and that one NORTHERN state had already ratified before the Civil War started, and that 4 more NORTHERN states ratified before it became a moot point, and the only remaining way out of Civil War was for the North to be victorious.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2017 2:14:08 GMT -5
It's still a racist flag, Richard.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2017 2:17:30 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,160
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 13, 2017 2:17:53 GMT -5
I am not now nor have I ever flown a racist flag... not in any context. If you see racism where none exists... that kind of tells us who you are. And yes, I've read all of the secession documents, at length (I've studied the Civil War for decades, since I was in high school... have you?). If you want to use them to prove that the South was simply and solely "pro-slavery" and no other causes existed, then I point you to the Constitution of the United States, which has several pro-slavery clauses in it. Including the Fugitive Slave Law ( Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) which supersedes any and all anti-slave laws of any non-slave state, should an escaped slave make it to their state. So I guess the United States was pro-slavery as well... according to you and how you define "pro-slavery". Have you read this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_AmendmentLincoln made note of it in his first Inaugural Address: Basically Lincoln accepted the Corwin Amendment as a done deal, knowing that it had passed both houses of Congress already and would pass the needed state legislatures... IF WAR HADN'T BROKEN OUT. And he clearly states that he has no objection to it "being made express and irrevocable". So... I state again... The Civil War wasn't about slavery. All the south had to do to keep slavery FOREVER (if that was indeed the only issue) was make ratification the Corwin Amendment (which was almost already a foregone conclusion anyway) a condition of them not seceding (or of them returning). That's it. No bloodshed. No battles. No fighting. Just that one amendment to the Constitution that had already passed Congress and that Lincoln had already accepted as law, and that one NORTHERN state had already ratified before the Civil War started, and that 4 more NORTHERN states ratified before it became a moot point, and the only remaining way out of Civil War was for the North to be victorious. You betray your own argument. If the states had already seceded, and their primary issue was NOT slavery, why would the Corwin Amendment have been considered as a last-ditch effort to bring them back? Because slavery WAS the main issue. Lincoln accepted it not because it was a done deal, but because his only real priority was to preserve the Union. If he could have prevented war by freeing every slave, he would have done so. If he could have preserved the Union by not freeing any slaves, he would have done that instead. He famously said so. The problem for the South was that it did not address the territories. If those territories were allowed to become free states rather than slave states, the power of the southern slave states would have declined, and slavery would have eventually been abolished anyway. Additionally, the "states' rights" thing is a canard. If southern states truly believed in states' rights, why were they so against the right of northern states to not support slavery? It is specifically stated in South Carolina's declaration as, "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery...." After the first half of that document attempts to establish the state's right to secede, the entire second half (which is devoted to the reasons for secession) is about slavery and the actions of non-slave states. Finally, "FOREVER" is a long time. There is no guarantee that adoption of the Corwin Amendment would have ensured slavery's existence. In the same way that the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, a future amendment could have repealed that one. Note also that the Crittenden Compromise, which DID guarantee slave ownership in the western territories and which also contained an amendment stating that none of the guarantees of slave ownership could ever be altered or abolished by Congress, failed with opposition from both northern states and Lincoln. They were not going to allow that kind of continued growth. Slavery as an institution had the handwriting on the wall. It might have lasted ten more years, it might have lasted fifty, but the die was cast and the clock was ticking.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 5:31:34 GMT -5
It's still a racist flag, Richard. So... if The Klan uses the flag it must be "racist"... is that what you think? What flag is that, that that Klanswoman (a guess, based on the hair sticking out from under the hood) is so proudly waving? And It took a little searching, but I guess the good ol' Maple Leaf Flag is racist too... Coopting a historic symbol for purposes it was never intended for doesn't stain the symbol unless the defenders of the symbol give in and allow the stain to set in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 5:39:42 GMT -5
I am not now nor have I ever flown a racist flag... not in any context. If you see racism where none exists... that kind of tells us who you are. And yes, I've read all of the secession documents, at length (I've studied the Civil War for decades, since I was in high school... have you?). If you want to use them to prove that the South was simply and solely "pro-slavery" and no other causes existed, then I point you to the Constitution of the United States, which has several pro-slavery clauses in it. Including the Fugitive Slave Law ( Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) which supersedes any and all anti-slave laws of any non-slave state, should an escaped slave make it to their state. So I guess the United States was pro-slavery as well... according to you and how you define "pro-slavery". Have you read this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_AmendmentLincoln made note of it in his first Inaugural Address: Basically Lincoln accepted the Corwin Amendment as a done deal, knowing that it had passed both houses of Congress already and would pass the needed state legislatures... IF WAR HADN'T BROKEN OUT. And he clearly states that he has no objection to it "being made express and irrevocable". So... I state again... The Civil War wasn't about slavery. All the south had to do to keep slavery FOREVER (if that was indeed the only issue) was make ratification the Corwin Amendment (which was almost already a foregone conclusion anyway) a condition of them not seceding (or of them returning). That's it. No bloodshed. No battles. No fighting. Just that one amendment to the Constitution that had already passed Congress and that Lincoln had already accepted as law, and that one NORTHERN state had already ratified before the Civil War started, and that 4 more NORTHERN states ratified before it became a moot point, and the only remaining way out of Civil War was for the North to be victorious. You betray your own argument. If the states had already seceded, and their primary issue was NOT slavery, why would the Corwin Amendment have been considered as a last-ditch effort to bring them back? Because slavery WAS the main issue. Lincoln accepted it not because it was a done deal, but because his only real priority was to preserve the Union. If he could have prevented war by freeing every slave, he would have done so. If he could have preserved the Union by not freeing any slaves, he would have done that instead. He famously said so. The problem for the South was that it did not address the territories. If those territories were allowed to become free states rather than slave states, the power of the southern slave states would have declined, and slavery would have eventually been abolished anyway. Additionally, the "states' rights" thing is a canard. If southern states truly believed in states' rights, why were they so against the right of northern states to not support slavery? It is specifically stated in South Carolina's declaration as, "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery...." After the first half of that document attempts to establish the state's right to secede, the entire second half (which is devoted to the reasons for secession) is about slavery and the actions of non-slave states. Finally, "FOREVER" is a long time. There is no guarantee that adoption of the Corwin Amendment would have ensured slavery's existence. In the same way that the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, a future amendment could have repealed that one. Note also that the Crittenden Compromise, which DID guarantee slave ownership in the western territories and which also contained an amendment stating that none of the guarantees of slave ownership could ever be altered or abolished by Congress, failed with opposition from both northern states and Lincoln. They were not going to allow that kind of continued growth. Slavery as an institution had the handwriting on the wall. It might have lasted ten more years, it might have lasted fifty, but the die was cast and the clock was ticking. The Corwin Amendment's failure to bring the states back proves the point that it wasn't about slavery. That's not contrary to my point. That's my whole point. It wasn't about slavery. And apparently you didn't read the Corwin Amendment. It was unamendable and irrevocable. Here's the Amendment in full:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 5:52:12 GMT -5
It's impossible to read history and not understand that slavery was a central issue of the civil war. Was it the only issue, no. Was it an issue embedded in larger cultural context... obviously. But to deny it was a central issue means YOU are the one attempting a revisionist history.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,409
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 13, 2017 13:21:21 GMT -5
Once again...their own labor? Do they teach history in the south at all? Or have they just forgotten about their "peculiar institution"? Apparently they learned from the people that re-wrote history how to re-write history. (I've never argued that slavery didn't exist, it's just a fact that it wasn't the sole and singular reason for the Civil War that many historical revisionists would have you believe... Matter of fact, as "Reasons for the war" go, it was pretty far down the list... and not even on the list for some states that seceded) Regardless of the reasons, Lincoln made the statement that he would not reunite with slavery intact, and the South retorted that they would conced on other issues, but would never give up slavery. So, like any conflict, many things can get worked out, but one issue is the true crux of the matter.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2017 13:46:09 GMT -5
Excuses, excuses, excuses, Richard.
The Confederate flag is symbolic of racism. You can stomp your feet, search for obscure images, and deny it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 13, 2017 14:46:37 GMT -5
Although it's a fact the Confederate flag is used as a racist symbol, it's Richard's opinion that it isn't one.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2017 14:58:21 GMT -5
Although it's a fact the Confederate flag is used as a racist symbol, it's Richard's opinion that it isn't one. It's also Richard's opinion that white privilege doesn't exist. Things that make you go "hmmm."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,160
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 13, 2017 14:58:39 GMT -5
I don't have a problem stipulating that the Confederate flag is a symbol of Confederate (Southern) pride. What I do have a problem with is white supremacy and slavery being so intricately interwoven with that Confederate pride. You cannot separate slavery from the Confederacy, and to the extent that one admires the Confederacy, one accepts their belief system. Primary among those beliefs was white supremacy and the "moral law" that slavery was not only good and proper, but ordained by God. Southern pride should not be synonymous with Confederate pride. It can and perhaps should exist as for any area, but it should be IN SPITE OF the Confederacy, not BECAUSE OF it. If one truly rejects the ideas of white supremacy and slavery, one should reject the flag as well.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 13, 2017 15:54:21 GMT -5
There were slaves in the north and Lincoln did not free slaves in the states that didn't secede.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 13, 2017 15:55:28 GMT -5
Unfortunately that flag has been used inappropriately as has the nazi flag so the meanings are bastardized now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 16:59:35 GMT -5
Richard can also call his happy snowman gay. But no one else is going to think he's talking about his smile.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 13, 2017 18:37:39 GMT -5
Too bad. Another word that used to be something nice and now has a totally different meaning.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 13, 2017 19:45:13 GMT -5
The Nazi flag was created by Hitler himself. The swastika is an ancient Indian religious/good luck symbol that was used by Hitler for his flag. Hard to see how the nazi flag has been used "inappropriately" & "bastardized".
In his 1925 work Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler writes that: "I myself, meanwhile, after innumerable attempts, had laid down a final form; a flag with a red background, a white disk, and a black swastika in the middle. After long trials I also found a definite proportion between the size of the flag and the size of the white disk, as well as the shape and thickness of the swastika."
When Hitler created a flag for the Nazi Party, he sought to incorporate both the swastika and "those revered colors expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honor to the German nation." (Red, white, and black were the colors of the flag of the old German Empire.)
A little history goes a long way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 19:54:28 GMT -5
It's impossible to read history and not understand that slavery was a central issue of the civil war. Was it the only issue, no. Was it an issue embedded in larger cultural context... obviously. But to deny it was a central issue means YOU are the one attempting a revisionist history. No. What it means is that I accept the facts. The ones revising history are the ones that stupidly insist that it was all or even primarily about slavery. The fact that the Corwin Amendment failed to stop or reverse the secessions proves that point as it would have made slavery federally untouchable (states could still discontinue it of they so-choose though). I freely admit and agree that slavery was AN issue. But it was simply one of many, and not even the most prominent.
|
|