You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

[Bluestem]

Actually, in my opinion, the post has little to do with north/south - right/wrong - win/loose. It's just one of those posts that should make you think.

Think about what happened in the past and then look at what's happening now.

States rights were greatly diminished after the War of Northern Aggression, and now they are heading to the point where they will no longer exist at all.

It's amazing how far our country has come in the last few decades. Our founding fathers would roll over in the graves and die again if they could see what we have become......

We Farmers and Ranchers should set an example- Give back or decline all the bribe money we have coming to us via the Farm Bill. I won't hold my breath.
I am proud of all my ancestors, been here since 1635. They fought on both sides in the 1860's war and got over it.

We can talk about losing rights blah blah. We're not losing anything. Were giving them up for bribe money.
Our founding fathers aren't rolling in there graves. If anything, they are ashamed of what we have become.

End of rant

 

[Caustic Burno]

I don't hate the South. I have never lived anywhere else. I am a conservative Republican; but let's be completely honest here. THe Civil War had not a darned thing to do with values or fiscal policy, the author is insane. The Old South was dominated by a class of people with a lot of money tied up in land and they didn't want to do any of their own work so they imported colored people to do it for them and they used extreme force to maintain and promote that system. Lincoln did not get elected promising abolition. He won over the western farmers by promising them that Southern plantation owners would not be allowed to expand further westwards. The corrupt Southern aristocracy responded by starting an insurrection. There is nothing wrong with rebellion; but when you choose that a matter be resolved by the sword.....you need to accept the possibility that you could LOSE.....and lose they did..

Many people that fought for the Stars and Bars never owned a slave or a plantation. One great grandfather a school teacher in Lees Army the other a preacher in the 7th Texas Cav. I am amazed how the history of this conflict keeps changing over the decades.

 

[Crowderfarms]

History has been written and re-written to distort the truth, and appease it's readers. I'm not going to put a Hound in this chase cause' it'll get locked. I'm proud of my Heritage.

 

[VanC]

States rights is not an issue of North vs. South. Maybe it was 150 years ago, but not now.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

 

[Caustic Burno]

States rights is not an issue of North vs. South. Maybe it was 150 years ago, but not now.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

Texas as well
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00050I.htm

 

[Workinonit Farm]

States rights is not an issue of North vs. South. Maybe it was 150 years ago, but not now.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

Texas as well
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00050I.htm

Perhaps Virginia will as well.

Katherine

 

[gimpyrancher]

Are we speaking of the same Civil War? The civil War was not fought over slavery. It was about taking the property of someone without just compensation. Yes, the slaves were the property. The slave import trade at the time was virtually non-existent. Economically, slaves were becoming a costly asset. It would have been far cheaper for the government if they were willing to pay a reasonable price for the property they wanted to take (the slaves).

The South lost the civil war yet we're still fighting against the government taking our property without just compensation.

Gimpyrancher :help:

 

[rusty]

You know I thought this war ended a long time ago.We are the United States and that is what makes us strong.This thread is not going the way it was intened.It was meant to compare the two time periods not who won or right or wrong.The truth of it was most southerns fought not to keep slaves (most didn't have any)but they didn't think it right for the northern states telling them what to do.Some of the comments you all are making just weakens us as a nation.The goverment is what we and our ancestors have let it become and we as the people need to get on the same page before any change will take place and with some of the comments from you all it's no wonder we are in the shape we are in.

Sorry for the rant but there is alot to United we stand Divided we fall.

 

[Ryder]

You know I thought this war ended a long time ago.We are the United States and that is what makes us strong.This thread is not going the way it was intened.It was meant to compare the two time periods not who won or right or wrong.The truth of it was most southerns fought not to keep slaves (most didn't have any)but they didn't think it right for the northern states telling them what to do.Some of the comments you all are making just weakens us as a nation.The goverment is what we and our ancestors have let it become and we as the people need to get on the same page before any change will take place and with some of the comments from you all it's no wonder we are in the shape we are in.

Sorry for the rant but there is alot to United we stand Divided we fall.

Do you mean its not all about diversity? :roll:

 

[Brandonm22]

Are we speaking of the same Civil War? The civil War was not fought over slavery. It was about taking the property of someone without just compensation. Yes, the slaves were the property. The slave import trade at the time was virtually non-existent. Economically, slaves were becoming a costly asset. It would have been far cheaper for the government if they were willing to pay a reasonable price for the property they wanted to take (the slaves).

The South lost the civil war yet we're still fighting against the government taking our property without just compensation.

Gimpyrancher :help:

Completely UNTRUE. Lincoln did NOT propose taking the slaves rather he was elected on the platform of no further expansion of slavery into the west, no compromises, no new slave states PERIOD. No southern state offered the compromise you suggested of the slave owners being compensated for their slaves, though I doubt Northerners would have agreed to spending $millions on such a project. Read the history, the South was a minority in the House of Representatives because a slave was not a full person and because northern states with growing manufacturing jobs drew a lot more immigrants. By admitting one new slave state for every new free state, the South was able to maintain at least a 50% control of the Senate for decades. IF New Mexico, Arizona, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Washington, Utah etc all entered the Union as free states, then the South would lose that functional vetoe power that they had over any and all legislation and supreme court appointments and their position in the House would be completely hopeless. Southern plantation owners refused to be cut out of western expansion and Southern governments (back then the state legislatures elected the U.S. Senators not direct election by the people) were not willing too accept political minority status and have issues like tariffs, route of the transcontinental railway, etc decided by the free states. Slavery was actually protected by the Constitution (the Emancipation Proclamation was patently unConstitutional but by then war was going to decide the issue anyway) and it would have taken many many years for a Constitutional Ammendment banning the practice to pass; but believing that that would eventually happen Southern state govts chose secession.

 

[never2old2learn-ron]

You know I thought this war ended a long time ago.We are the United States and that is what makes us strong.This thread is not going the way it was intened.It was meant to compare the two time periods not who won or right or wrong.The truth of it was most southerns fought not to keep slaves (most didn't have any)but they didn't think it right for the northern states telling them what to do.Some of the comments you all are making just weakens us as a nation.The goverment is what we and our ancestors have let it become and we as the people need to get on the same page before any change will take place and with some of the comments from you all it's no wonder we are in the shape we are in.

Sorry for the rant but there is alot to United we stand Divided we fall.

Thanks Rusty, this is excactly what I was thinking, but didn't know how to put it in words.

 

[grannysoo]

You know I thought this war ended a long time ago.

The war did end, however it looks like the struggle for states rights has just begun again.

 

[john250]

You know I thought this war ended a long time ago.

The war did end, however it looks like the struggle for states rights has just begun again.

The "states rights" arguement is no longer regional. Indiana is not inclined to adopt rules written by folks in New York and San Francisco. They may have a majority, but they don't know what we Hoosiers need from a government.
Wyoming, Utah, places like that, which were never part of the Confederate States of America, are strongly resistant to control from DC.
The "Republican" form of government, as opposed to pure "Democracy" is a check on the power of the majority.
The pure genius of our Constitution is that it takes years to get anything done. Everything is slowed to a pace where change occurs gradually.
Vote in 2010. Everything is gonna be OK.

 

[angie1]

You know I thought this war ended a long time ago.We are the United States and that is what makes us strong.This thread is not going the way it was intened.It was meant to compare the two time periods not who won or right or wrong.The truth of it was most southerns fought not to keep slaves (most didn't have any)but they didn't think it right for the northern states telling them what to do.Some of the comments you all are making just weakens us as a nation.The goverment is what we and our ancestors have let it become and we as the people need to get on the same page before any change will take place and with some of the comments from you all it's no wonder we are in the shape we are in.

Sorry for the rant but there is alot to United we stand Divided we fall.

Rusty ~ I see you joined the end of January so I'm thinking that that might explain why you would think this thread would go as you planned (ackward sentence, but you get the picture). Here's the deal: ANYTIME you mention "civil war" (aka War of Northern Aggression :roll: ), "confederate", "yankee" or words of that type ~ you are going to get this reaction. You made the mistake in thinking that this was over and the south surrendered. They are still thumping their chests and stomping their feet. I try to stay out of it. As you say ~ "it is no wonder......"

 

[john250]

why you would think this thread would go as you planned

I haven't seen a thread here yet that went "as planned".