Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Poll: Way Down SouthFollow

#1 Apr 07 2010 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
...in the Land of Cotton, the governor of Virginia is reinstating Confederate History Month.
The Christian Science Monitor wrote:
After living through a decade of attacks against the Confederate battle flag and school administrators suspending students who wear Dixie regalia, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) is, like a true Johnny Reb, fighting back.

By reinstating Confederate History Month after previous Democratic governors banned it in the Old Dominion, Governor McDonnell says he wants to remember the South's sacrifices ahead of sesquicentennial commemorations of the Civil War, which start next year. This is the state that housed the Confederate government in Richmond and where most of the Civil War, the country's bloodiest campaign, was fought.
[...]
Indeed, most appalling to critics is McDonnell's decision to leave out references to slavery, which were included in a previous proclamation. McDonnell's declaration asks Virginians to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War ...."

He did not mention slavery, he told The Washington Post, because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states." He continues, "Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

Let's turn this into a poll!
Confederate History Month...
Is a terrible idea, no matter what:13 (20.0%)
Is okay, but they should make slavery history a major component:36 (55.4%)
Is okay and shouldn't need to mention slavery:4 (6.2%)
Should be a national thing like Black History Month:12 (18.5%)
Total:65


I don't care if you don't like my options. Use your words!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Apr 07 2010 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I think it would be okay if it were a dispassionate and honest look back at the Civil War. It won't be, of course.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Apr 07 2010 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Voted the second one, but I echo Samira; slavery should be mentioned, but not a "major component." It was part of the conflict, but not THE cause of it.
#4 Apr 07 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
slavery should be mentioned, but not a "major component."
Ya, this eh.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5 Apr 07 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Oh, I don't mean make it just about slavery. I think an examination of not only the causes but the effects of the war would be interesting and instructive.

Let people drink acorn "coffee" and eat weevilly biscuits. Have exhibits of clothing and boots that were worn by the Confederate army and, for that matter, by civilians by 1865. Have someone available to go to schools and talk about how many people died, and how they died, and how long it took the South to recover from all that glory. Smiley: oyvey



____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Apr 07 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
I think States Rights needs to be the major component of any Confederacy history discussion because that's what the Confederacy was about, quite frankly. It was not about slavery no matter how much the Rainbow coalition wants to paint it as such. While Slavery may have been a trigger issue, it was the idea that the federal government wanted to impose its will over that of the people.

Yes, those that counted for a whole person. Silly tar babies.
#7 Apr 07 2010 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
It was not about slavery no matter how much the Rainbow coalition wants to paint it as such.

While not solely about slavery, it wasn't by a happy coincidence that the states suddenly so concerned about state's rights that they needed to form their own nation just happened to be south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Whitewashing (heh) over slavery as "it was all about state's rights" is just as foolish as saying it was purely about slavery.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Apr 07 2010 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
It was not about slavery no matter how much the Rainbow coalition wants to paint it as such.

While not solely about slavery, it wasn't by a happy coincidence that the states suddenly so concerned about state's rights that they needed to form their own nation just happened to be south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Whitewashing (heh) over slavery as "it was all about state's rights" is just as foolish as saying it was purely about slavery.

But a much better narrative.
#9 Apr 07 2010 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
I think States Rights needs to be the major component of any Confederacy history discussion because that's what the Confederacy was about, quite frankly. It was not about slavery no matter how much the Rainbow coalition wants to paint it as such. While Slavery may have been a trigger issue, it was the idea that the federal government wanted to impose its will over that of the people.


This.

Yes, slavery was an issue, but the primary issue was State's Rights. They were fighting for the right to have their own laws at a state level, and while I don't support many of the beliefs of those who started the Confederacy, I do believe that they should have had the right to make those decisions at the State level. They would not have been able to maintain slavery for all that much longer anyway.

That being said, I see no problem with a Confederacy History Month. If it is more about honouring the soldiers that died and the politicians that created the Confederacy, then it is a perfectly fine thing to do. It's not as though every single person in the CSA was or would have been pro-slavery. If they want to remember the glory days of slavery, well, I'll be the first to want to punch Governor McDonnell in the head for being a ******* moron.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#10 Apr 07 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
[...]while I don't support many of the beliefs of those who started the Confederacy, I do believe that they should have had the right to make those decisions at the State level. They would not have been able to maintain slavery for all that much longer anyway.


So you think that the states should've been able to decide to continue with slavery because, looking back, you can tell that they wouldn't have been able to maintain slavery for "all that much longer?"

Hmm.
#11 Apr 07 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Yes, slavery was an issue, but the primary issue was State's Rights.


You can go around and around about this all day, but states' rights were an issue because of slavery.

Ultimate cause, proximate cause.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#12 Apr 07 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
Yes, slavery was an issue, but the primary issue was State's Rights.

Looming large among them was the right to own other people as property.

Really, you can't separate the two. "State's rights" included more than slavery but it still included slavery as a principle component. It's like saying WWII included more than the Holocaust so the Holocaust isn't really significant enough to be worth mentioning during WWII History Month.


No, that's not a Godwin's

Edited, Apr 7th 2010 5:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Apr 07 2010 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
So you think that the states should've been able to decide to continue with slavery because, looking back, you can tell that they wouldn't have been able to maintain slavery for "all that much longer?"


Hey, I hate slavery. I hate racism(I really really really hate any prejudice against anyone based on race, culture, sexual orientation, country of origin, mental capacity, etc.). But, regardless of the issue at hand, I believe in State's Rights. I'm not going to justify my beliefs. It's just what I believe.

The issue could have been the right to kill people for looking at you funny, I would still believe that it is the right of the state to decide whether or not there should be a law making it illegal to do so.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#14 Apr 07 2010 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Put it this way: what other states' rights issue unrelated to slavery was being discussed in the 1850s?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#15 Apr 07 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
We have confederate hero's day right after MLK day here. I don't see the riots or protests about it. What I do see is everyone reguardless of race taking the extra holliday off.
#16 Apr 07 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
Hey, I hate slavery. I hate racism(I really really really hate any prejudice against anyone based on race, culture, sexual orientation, country of origin, mental capacity, etc.). But, regardless of the issue at hand, I believe in State's Rights. I'm not going to justify my beliefs. It's just what I believe.

The issue could have been the right to kill people for looking at you funny, I would still believe that it is the right of the state to decide whether or not there should be a law making it illegal to do so.


Wow. That's pretty scary right there.
#17 Apr 07 2010 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
Wow. That's pretty scary right there.



I'm going to clarify now, considering that re-reading that, yes, it is ******* scary, that I believe that States' rights were a plausible platform back then for almost any issue, however, now, in 2010, it's something that has to be judged on an issue by issue basis. It's sad really. If a state was to want to re-instate slavery now, States' Rights would not apply. I read too much and get stuck in completely outdated mindsets.

I believe in States' Rights, but not at the level that I believe they should have had back then. It also helps that I have faith in the fact that the politicians in said states would not end up letting too much of the stupid **** pass.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#18 Apr 07 2010 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
I'm going to clarify now, considering that re-reading that, yes, it is @#%^ing scary, that I believe that States' rights were a plausible platform back then for almost any issue, however, now, in 2010, it's something that has to be judged on an issue by issue basis. It's sad really. If a state was to want to re-instate slavery now, States' Rights would not apply. I read too much and get stuck in completely outdated mindsets.

I believe in States' Rights, but not at the level that I believe they should have had back then. It also helps that I have faith in the fact that the politicians in said states would not end up letting too much of the stupid sh*t pass.


It's still pretty ******* scary that you think slavery was A-OK back then, IMHO.
#19 Apr 07 2010 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
It's still pretty @#%^ing scary that you think slavery was A-OK back then, IMHO.


Slavery wasn't ok back then. Or ever. But while a major issue that led to that war was slavery, it wasn't just slavery. If the slavery hadn't been an issue, the war would have been incredibly unjust to those who joined the Confederacy. Everyone focuses on that. An idea though, the South wouldn't have been able to maintain slavery due to the general hatred of it by the civilized world. If they had had their own country, they would have been forced in short order to end slavery for the sake of being able to get along with other countries. Hell, for recognition by Britain and France, they either would have had to prove that they could beat the Union in war, or manumit(and eventually provide the same rights as everyone else to) their slaves and...


oh **** it, I'm just spouting ******** for non-spam +1s.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#20 Apr 07 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Tailmon wrote:
We have confederate hero's day right after MLK day here. I don't see the riots or protests about it. What I do see is everyone reguardless of race taking the extra holliday off.
It's not right after; it just sometimes coincides. It's always Jan 19th.

Edited, Apr 7th 2010 4:59pm by Sweetums
#21 Apr 07 2010 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Robert E. Lee's birthday.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#22 Apr 07 2010 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
The South can't even agree on when to celebrate its Southiness.
#23 Apr 07 2010 at 4:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Tailmon wrote:
We have confederate hero's day right after MLK day here. I don't see the riots or protests about it. What I do see is everyone reguardless of race taking the extra holliday off.

Shit, I don't even get MLK Day off. I need to move.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Apr 07 2010 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Samira wrote:
Put it this way: what other states' rights issue unrelated to slavery was being discussed in the 1850s?

Tariffs!

Hey, I remembered something from 8th grade.

#25 Apr 07 2010 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,212 posts
It was about slavery. The only state's rights the southern states were worried about were to protect the massive profits from exporting cotton which used slave labor.
The southern states did not care about states rights when they had the fugitive slave law passed forcing the return of slaves who had escaped to free soil. So what is Massachusetts wanted to offer sanctuary they couldn't have that right.

Face facts. In 1860 the majority of Supreme Court Justices were southern.
The south controlled the Senate by use of Filibuster, they could have avoided war if they wanted to. In speeches of 1860 61 Alexander Stephens soon to be CSA VP said secession was to protect their way of life and ownership of slaves. It was after the war that he changed the retoric to "states rights"
Finally the VERY first article of the CSA constitution stated that no law was ever to be passed restricting the ownership of slaves.

Nope not about slavery at all at all. It was about he money being made from it.
#26 Apr 07 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
It was also about "the way of life". You know, southern Belles, plantations, mint juleps and cotillions.

fiddle dee dee
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 181 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (181)