 |
|

02-20-2007, 11:09 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 10,818
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob
|
The Confederates lost. It's just customary to take your flag down when you lose. We didn't allow the Baathists to keep their flag flying, did we?
|

02-20-2007, 11:17 AM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,107
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45
Well that would be true if the issue of the War of Northern Agression was actually slavery. Freeing the slaves was not the intent of the war, preserving the Union was for the Northern states. The entire issue of Free State vs Slave State was that pesky 2/3 representation provided by the slaves, who had no right to vote. Allowing the slaves to count as 2/3 of a person gave the South more power than it might have otherwise had and the North could have ridden even more roughshod over them with oneous tariffs and import regulations.
|
The number you are thinking of is 3/5. Furthermore, this compromise helped the north and much as it did the south since direct taxes at the federal level were tied to each state's population. The more people a state had the more power it had in Congress, but that state was also subject to higher taxes.
|

02-20-2007, 11:17 AM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,107
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob
hmm, so you think this is a good idea? Epxplain if you can.
|
No state has a right to secede from the Union as long as elections are held on schedule, office holders leave when their term is up and the courts are open for business.
The Confederate flag is a symbol of a slavocracy that engaged in a systematic act of treason against the United States. The North did not violate the South’s states rights in any way whatsoever. The whole issue of the Civil War boils down to one thing: 1860 was the first election in which the South lost all control over the federal government. An effort had been made to keep the number of slave states and the number of free states in balance so the slave states could use their equal representation in the Senate to preserve slavery. And (as far as I know) 1860 was the first time that the presidency, vice-presidency or both were not occupied by a southerner, a slave owner or a southern sympathizer.
Bear in mind that I am southern born and raised. My ancestors were living in the South since before the Revolution (if not since Jamestown). I have at least 3 direct ancestors that served in Lee’s army, but I pay neither them, nor any other traitor, any homage.
|

02-20-2007, 11:21 AM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,107
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob
Slavery would have died out regardless.
|
That’s what the thinking was when the Constitution was written. The South’s lands were exhausted after growing tobacco for so long and no other crop appeared to be a viable option for slave labor. But then along came Eli Whitney and cotton became a profitable crop to grow.
|

02-20-2007, 11:32 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,724
|
|
|

02-20-2007, 11:45 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SW Oklahoma
Posts: 14,092
|
|
If no state has the right to secede from the union, then how do you explain the fact that our founders said that the states had the right to dissolve the Federal Goverment if the goverment becaome tryannical? Also the state of Texas I am told has it written in its constitution that they can legaly leave the union, if they were able to get 3/4 vote on this issue?
__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.
An American first and always a Conservative.
|

02-20-2007, 12:10 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,107
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob
If no state has the right to secede from the union, then how do you explain the fact that our founders said that the states had the right to dissolve the Federal Goverment if the goverment becaome tryannical? Also the state of Texas I am told has it written in its constitution that they can legaly leave the union, if they were able to get 3/4 vote on this issue?
|
The Founding Fathers said no such about the U.S. federal government. As long as elections are held on schedule (and assuming they are fair), office holders leave when their term is up and the courts are open, no tyranny can develop.
And you are wrong to think that the Union equates to the federal government. If government is all that the Union means to you, then you are a perfect liberal. If the government in Washington, D.C. is all you base this country on, please get the Hell out of my country.
Americans may have a right to rebel against their government if that government becomes tyrannical, but what right do Americans have to say they are no longer part of the same country as their fellow citizens?
|

02-20-2007, 12:26 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SW Oklahoma
Posts: 14,092
|
|
Excuse me???? I have every right to be here in America. If you haven't looked closely lately, the feds have become entirrely too intrusive in our lives. The goverment is trying to the thinking for us. I don't need to be forced to wear a seatbelt, they save lives and I understand that, but the law says click it or ticket. Telling the citizens they can't eat trans fats? These are just a few of the items I have been looking at. Remember buddy, another revolution could happen soon. If John Q Public gets tired of the goverment and decides to change it look out. Also I don't have a problem with my ancestors that rode with Lee of which there are 3 and those that owned slaves. It is part of the history of this land and that is all, just like the confederate flag.
__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.
An American first and always a Conservative.
|

02-20-2007, 12:37 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 8,985
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob
Slavery would have died out regardless. Once the people realised that it is cheaper ot hire workers as opossed to buying, houseing, feeding and caring for slaves.
|
I agree Rob, once the agricultural industry began to be mechanized it would be cheaper to buy machines then to buy and maintain slaves, not to mention the morality aspects of it. Many in the South, including slave owners, found it repugnant to own another human being but the entire economy was built on cotton and rice, both very labor intensive (I have picked cotton in Arkansas, I knew then I would NEVER be a farm boy).
The first plantation to mechanize would have gained an economic advantage over the others. Then the liberals would have been yelling that Southerners turned the slaves loose without trying to take care of them.
|

02-20-2007, 01:04 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SW Oklahoma
Posts: 14,092
|
|
The North won and kept the Union together. But in the south some people haven't forgiven Sherman for doing his best to end the war. The civil war is the reason that the North started housing federal troops in the south. They named the forts after Confiderate Generals to take the sting out of occupation.
__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.
An American first and always a Conservative.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|