Get off the Fourth Reich! That's just dumb.Quote by: ericsp23
If we have another civil war it won't be between the North and the South, but rather between the Red and Blue states. A part of me wants that war, but a larger part wants the two side to agree to be Fellow Americans and learn to compromise and get along.
Oh, by the way, this is towards the person who posted the first one, Harpist4U. Sorry.
The reason the South lost the Civil War: Right before the Battle of Gettysburg, when the tide turned for the North, Lee and his generals got together and realized: "Hey, if we win this war, we're gonna have to go occupy the North!" There you go.
Seriously: The real reason the South "lost" the Civil War was because of a lack of troops and supplies. And the South had the best generals. The North had more people and more industrial cities. Ooooh, you beat a country with 1/10 the troops and resources as you. Kudos.
Not every Southerner is a racist. I'm not.
The South is SO much better than the North. It's always cold, everyone's always talking really fast, and you (some of you) allow gay marriage. In the South it's almost always warm (or ranging), we were our own country, and we have the best food and people you can find. Billy Graham's from the South, George Washington, Andy Griffith, Douglas MacArthur, Robert E. Lee, and so on.
Oh, and by the way. WE don't want YOU here, either.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." -- George Washington
The War of Northern Aggression was an unwarranted action by the unscrupulous Republican Party, a regional Party of the North.
http://www.iahushua.com/hist/lincoln.html
What the United States was left with was Federalism, corporatism, half a million dead Americans, carpetbaggers and hate. States should be able to leave the bondage to the empire of the United States of America. Isn't that what self-determination is about? Choosing who you wish to associate with in political affairs?There were two factors about the Republican campaign in the election of 1860 which disturbed the Southerners so badly that Southern states subsequently seceded. First was the Republican-party platform for 1860.
Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.)
Second, the Republican party--unlike any of the other big political-parties that had come along--was purely a regional (Northern) party, not a national party. if the Republicans somehow managed to gain control of Congress AND the White House, they would then be able to use the federal government to enact and enforce their party platform--and thus convert the prosperous Southern-states into the dirt-poor agricultural colonies of the Northern capitalists. And given the 19th-century trends in demographics, the Southern states would never be able to reverse that process. The intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would then have been subverted completely: the Southern states would no longer be governed with the consent of the governed--but instead bullied mercilessly by the Northern majority. Why, then, remain in the Union?
The state where I reside, Hawaii, is actually an occupied nation. It was siezed with an unauthorized armed landing by US Marines. The legitimate government of this nation was overthrown with US troops, then it was annexed by a joint resolution by Congress. It was a land grab pure and simple. Still held by the US occupiers to this day, with thousands of brainwashed US colonists given the franchise in this "state." In this travesty, the US paints itself as a good guy, but it is and was an armed thug. Hawaii should be allowed its freedom from the occupation and the oppression by Uncle Sam.
But back to the topic: Harpist, you think you know what you're writing about, but the reality of history has a different look to those who can think for themselves.
http://www.true-patriot.com/essays/civil.htm
In short, Harpist, read something other than high-school history and encounter some truth, not brainwashing...When the Constitution was first being debated, George Mason of Virginia introduced a bill to prevent the passage of any tariff that did not receive a two-thirds majority. He warned, "The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states". His words proved so true as early as the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, and even more so after the events of 1860.
What a lot of people do not realize is that the Republican platform not only called for stopping the introduction of slavery to new territories, it also called for the introduction of new, higher tariffs. In March of 1861, Congress passed and Buchanan signed into law the Morill tariff. This tariff imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. This threatened the bankruptcy of the entire South. The deep southern states of South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Georgia had already rebelled and formed the Confederacy at this time, in anticipation of the Republican tariffs. As one Texas delegate to Congress stated, "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."
The London Times concurred, "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South...."
So the Confederacy passed laws creating a free trade zone in the South, with no tariffs at all. This was an economic threat to the North of no small magnitude. Without the tariff imposed on all north American ports that accessed the hinterland, trade would flow around the Northern ports through southern ports instead, leaving the North ports vacant, and its industrial centers stagnant, and Northerners had no doubts about it. As stated by the Philadelphia Press on 18 March 1861 demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."
This free trade zone also reversed Lincoln's willingness to take time and allow the division to heal with the rebellious states. The threat of this free trade zone had to be quelled, and so he sent an armed force to reinforce the Ft Sumter garrison and to collect any tariffs entering Charleston harbor. This is critical to understanding why Lincoln suddenly took a hard tone with the South, because the free trade zone meant the ruin of the North's economy, and it had to be prevented at all costs.
It was after the Morill tariff and the counter by the Confederacy of creating itself as a free trade zone that the secession reached a second crescendo that caused Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to follow in secession.
So to summarize the situation in the words of another neutral observer of the time, Karl Marx, "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
Try this:
and
http://www.scv674.org/SH-Introduction.htm
There are two sides to every story, two sides to a conflict, and while history is history, it has always been open to many interpretations. Somewhere along the line the Southern Perspective has obscured. It is said that the first casualty of war is truth and that the victors write the history. Our attempt here is to provide another perspective on the events leading up to, during, and after the forming of the Confederate States of America. Some may argue that this is not a balanced treatment. In response we would say that current history taught in most classrooms is not balanced. In fact it is biased and flawed in that only one perspective, the Northern Yankee perspective is presented to students. For years that Northern approach to teaching American History in that time frame has been slanted.
Here we present the "other side of the coin". Do not let others do your thinking. You have heard their side, now hear ours. Those who approach this with an open mind will be amazed at the facts left out of nearly all the textbooks. Students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, and citizens are encouraged to review our course, check out many of the referenced readings, read a few books from the late 19th and early 20th centuries for another view and then draw your own conclusions. For those with a closed, hateful minds, no amount of factual presentation will be sufficient. They who are out to destroy everything Southern and Confederate are not the audience for our efforts. Rather, our focus is on individuals willing to approach this conflict without prejudice. We believe if we are allowed to present the facts, the facts will speak for themselves.
Last edited by PatrickHenry; 28th April 2005 at 03:40 AM. Reason: more info
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams
I wasn't the one who introduced that phrase into this thread and my post was in response to the person who did introduce it. It is not the kind of language that I would normally which is why I put it in quotes.
That being said, I do think there are striking similarities between what is going on in America today and what happened in Nazi Germany when the Nazis first came to power. I'm not saying that the Republicans and Nazis are the same, I'm just saying they are using similar tactics to gain and hold onto power.
Economic Left/Right -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarion -4.41
An interesting obsevation, but I think they work toward the same ends, and, thus, are just sellouts that happen to have resided in the South. Not to many internation banks located in the South. Of course, I'm not so sure about the military industrial complex.
Those are three reasons I'd give in support of the North. I can't believe how slow some people talk, it drives me mad. You must waste half your day talking so damned slow.
(formerly G.Adams)
"You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality" ~ Ayn Rand
Interesting.........better I suppose, to speak loudly and quickly.......and yet say little of importance.
Nope, thats just as wasteful. I don't like waiting for people to get to their point, whether it's because they take slow or most of their speech consists of filler material. I don't particularly like small talk either, especially when it's the forced polite crap type.
(formerly G.Adams)
"You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality" ~ Ayn Rand
If Northerners hate the South so much, then WHY DO YOU KEEP COMING DOWN HERE??!!!
We don't want you, EITHER!!!
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." -- George Washington
James, why don't you a) take a chill pill, and b) look at the people you're addressing and note that they're mainly from the UK?
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.
-George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.
[QUOTE=James]Oh, by the way, this is towards the person who posted the first one, Harpist4U. Sorry.
The reason the South lost the Civil War: Right before the Battle of Gettysburg, when the tide turned for the North, Lee and his generals got together and realized: "Hey, if we win this war, we're gonna have to go occupy the North!" There you go.
No. The reason that the South lost the war was the death of Jackson at Chancelorsville. If he had been alive at Gettysburg he would have seen the importance of taking the cemetery. After all his men were almost across the street. But Jackson was dead, and Cemetery Hill stayed in Northern hands and linked up with Culp's Hill and the ridge to Little Round Top. Positions that were just too strong.
Seriously: The real reason the South "lost" the Civil War was because of a lack of troops and supplies. And the South had the best generals. The North had more people and more industrial cities. Ooooh, you beat a country with 1/10 the troops and resources as you. Kudos.
No, my above explains it.
Not every Southerner is a racist. I'm not.
The South is SO much better than the North. It's always cold, everyone's always talking really fast, and you (some of you) allow gay marriage. In the South it's almost always warm (or ranging), we were our own country, and we have the best food and people you can find. Billy Graham's from the South, George Washington, Andy Griffith, Douglas MacArthur, Robert E. Lee, and so on.
The South had some very good generals and it had some lousy ones too. Most of those in the West were lousy and were defeated constantly. Not all of Lee's generals where that wonderful either. AP Hill was so so. Ewell was so so. Longstreet was wonderful, Lee was capable and had wonderful insight has to how to fight a war. Jackson was fantastic, but flawed too.
When Grant, Sheriden, and Sherman moved East the South was doomed. Grant was a very successful and competent general. He had many capable subordinates too.
Could the South have won the Civil War? Certainly! If Lee had won G-berg he would have moved onto Washington and the city would have evacuated, Lincoln was making plans to leave. Would the North have sued for peace? Maybe it would have.
As for living in the South? I love the place. I don't live there now, but I did for years.
It is the Demos and Leftists who are shouting Repub speakers off of the podium. Repubs don't do that.
The Nazis did though. Now, you tell me, which side is acting as the Nazi's did?
The answer is the Democrats are behaving like Nazis.
When the Demos state allowing those who don't believe as they do to speak their mind in peace, then I'll change my mine.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks