Posted on 12/16/2004 6:48:26 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Wow, I just found this thread and am amazed! Are we still fighting the civil war? That is really fascinating..I went to Charleston SC on business/pleasure and was absolutely charmed by it--but as a Yankee I was somewhat taken aback by the abundance of Confederate flags on the beautiful homes in the city. I am not used to seeing that; up north, if a yankee is sporting the stars and bars, he usually has a race issue. But I was told it was not like that in Charleston, it has to do with southern pride, not race. Trying not to sound like Rodney King here, but can we stick together against the common enemy who doesn't care if you're Billy Yank or Johnny Reb--the islamic hordes who will kill all of us if they could?
FYI, new england has more segregated schools in 2004 than ALL of dixie did in 1950.
don't you think that makes ya'll look like the HYPOCRYTES that we KNOW you are??? aren't you ASHAMED of that FACT???
should we send you some FREEDOM RIDERS to help desegregate YOUR northern schools???
free dixie,sw
are you damnedyankees capable of being ASHAMED of those FACTS?
free dixie,sw
Never saw those poll numbers.
rave on, fool. someone will cover up for you.,
I have no idea what that means.
But it's nice to see you resorting to your usual posting style of personal attacks rather than trying to rely on reason.
As I'm sure you know, there is a substantial difference between government-mandated segregation and segregation based on people's free choice to live in certain neighborhoods.
FYI, new england has more segregated schools in 2004 than ALL of dixie did in 1950.
Please provide an example of government-mandated segregation in New England in 2004.
should we send you some FREEDOM RIDERS to help desegregate YOUR northern schools???
If you can find a school anywhere in this country that is segregated by law, by all means.
Because Brooks was an idiot and John Brown wasnb't. He was just crazy.
Brooks whipped Sumner's ass (and head) with a caning because his bigassed mouth publicly overloaded his arse.
Brooks was a jackass who took a cane and assaulted Sumner, Pearl-Harbor style, because he disagreed with something Sumner said. Sumner had a big mouth and probably deserved to get his ass kicked by Andrew Butler. But Brooks didn't have the balls to fight him like a man, but had to blind side him instead. That makes Brooks an idiot.
John Brown cold bloodedly murdered innocents yet you give him no moral pejorative nod? What the hell are you talking about? I called him "crazy" and a "psychopath" (see, post 963.) I do think his cause was just, but he was crazy.
ALL any of us ever hear from you & the other damnyankees is UNsupported invective, SILLY comments, lame attempts at humor & attacks on the south.
that's why we think of you are either hypocrytes, fools,idiots and/or liars of the most perfidious sort.
it's also why we just want the damnyankees to GO AWAY & leave us ALONE.
and why more and more southrons each & every day decide that they just want OUT.
free dixie,sw
ever heard of REDLINING?
we southrons need to suggest to W's Justice Department to initiate FORCED BUSING into your lilly white suburban schools.
after all, the government insisted on busing INDIAN kids all over the midwest (but NO WHITE kids!) to "promote multicultural schools" & "racial & ethnic diversity".
note to readers: SOME of our kids were bused over 150 MILES a day to sit next to white kids.
free dixie,sw
Your simplistic analysis of the issues, does not qualify you as the anointed one, to define other people's mental health or morals. You give away your fanatic arrogance, when you suggest a right to wage war on others, whose systems offend you. You can quote what is not in the Bible, but cannot quote anything to support your view of morality. You defame the Greek civilization, some of whose works in philosophy, art and scholarship, have never been equaled. But when you simplisticly define the Socialist fanatics of the Twentieth Century, as just being about appropriating the individual for the State, you deliberately miss the point of what motivated them.
Lenin, Trotski, Hitler and Chairman Mao, were all about uniformity; uniform values; uniform condition of life. The individual had to be suppressed, so that the few would not be allowed to rise from the mob. You have much the same attitude. You may convince yourself that it is because of your abhorrence of slavery; but you would actually murder--by your own admission--those who rose to the position, where they in fact became Masters. That sounds like Communism, pure and simple.
The Master/Servant relationship, is not just a matter of buying slaves from overseas vs. employing labor at home. In Europe, serfdom arose in part from conquest, in part from a need for protection from marauding forces. The point is not how a system arises, so much--at least not to me. The point is that all societies that advance beyond the most primitive homogeneous tribal level, have a clear cut hierarchy. To the extent that those at the top, are able to require and compel the labor or services of those beneath them, you have a form of bondage (i.e., slavery).
Because the egalitarian society, is mythological, rather than real; even the most extreme Socialists have a hierarchy--and to that extent, you can cite examples of Bolshevik and Nazi actions, which are analogous to those in a slave system, but the whole motivation is entirely different. You can no more compare the antics of the Communist Party members in Soviet Russia, or the SS and Gestapo in Socialist Germany to the Southern Plantation owner than you can compare a mule to a Dachshund.
Communism and National Socialism were totally about suppressing individuality. On the other hand, the Old South, as the true Christian civilization that it was, was probably the most individualistic society of its time. The Confederate Officer Corps were a cast of characters--intelligent, fascinating, but clearly, in many cases, one of a kind. No one ever suggested that they all acted with One Will, etc.. No one ever suggested that they wanted to take over the World and suppress all dissent.
Just look at the ethnic makeup of the Confederate hierarchy--the Scots-Irish, Huguenots, as well as the direct descendants of the original English settlers. Individualistic people, schooled by personal experiences of their own families, in the fundamental American values.
Yes, you can cite specific instances where slaves were cruelly treated. But in every State, save Louisiana, where Roman legal concepts survived the French roots, there were laws requiring humane treatment. And the proof of the overall pudding, is in the fact that there was no major slave revolt, even with the White Manhood off to War; and again, later, in the images cited by Booker T. Washington, of the weeping former slaves following the caskets of the beloved former Master or Mistress to the gravesite, years after freedom.
The compulsion for uniformity is a hideously cruel thing. It is not something that any Conservative ought to embrace. (See Compulsion For Uniformity.)
No slavery is not a good system. But I seriously doubt that either you or I will ever see a time, when it is not present in more than one area of the earth. And with the tendency towards more and more dependence on Government, across much of the globe, I really suspect that we will see more, not less of it, in the not too distant future. I seriously doubt, if it will be administered with the Christian spirit, which prevailed in much of the Old South, however.
William Flax
Calling the notion that all men are created equal the vile refuse of the far left denounces one of the foremost American values. Suggesting that the Civil Rights movement was a mistake-as the article you referenced does-is contemptible. As for your other reference, where is the source? Neither of these references seem credible, you can't just give someone something that some loony wrote and expect them to take it to heart. It is very sad to see people at a conservative website denying one of the darker parts of our history, I thought that we were above and beyond that. Realize that this racism existed, realize where it came from, and its manifestations, and move on. Such denial only insenses the people that acutally suffered-and there are still some alive today.
Sure there were laws to prevent inhumane treatment, but who would enforce them? Who would accept the word of a "respectable master" over a black slave?
Wars and murder occur all the time. Going to war to prevent or end the enslavement of a people is one of the more noble reasons to go to war, superceeded only by going to war to prevent or end genocide. That is not a matter of left or right, communism or capitalism, these are two of the few things that the majority of nations the world over have deemed universaly immoral. I for one, would gladly go to war for such a righteous cause. Apparently, and perhaps I am mistaken, I hope that I am, but you seem to be out of touch with that universal sentiment.
No, I said that I would support waging war on slave holders. Not any system that offends me, but a slave holding system. Anyone who supports freedom and liberty and what America stands should do so as well. If we cannot agree that slavery is an evil worth fighting, then the rest is meaningless.
You can quote what is not in the Bible, but cannot quote anything to support your view of morality.
You need a citation to support the notion that owning another person like a pet is immoral??? Okay, how about "love thy neighbor as thyself". Or, for the secularists among us, how about, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
You defame the Greek civilization, some of whose works in philosophy, art and scholarship, have never been equaled.
Actually, I didn't mention Greek civilization at all (at least classical Greek). I defamed Roman, post-Roman European, and Near Eastern Civilization. (But it is rather odd that you seem more offended by my "insulting" Greek civilization than that people were held as slaves.) Greek Culture did create unequaled masterpieces and also promoted the evil institution of slavery. I am not saying that the masterpieces are valueless. I am saying that condoning slavery was wrong.
But when you simplisticly define the Socialist fanatics of the Twentieth Century, as just being about appropriating the individual for the State, you deliberately miss the point of what motivated them.
No, I did not simplistically define them. I pointed out that in a basic sense they committed the same crime as every slave-holding society does: they fail to respect the rights of the individual.
Lenin, Trotski, Hitler and Chairman Mao, were all about uniformity; uniform values; uniform condition of life. The individual had to be suppressed, so that the few would not be allowed to rise from the mob.
Where did you learn history? From a comic book? Lenin was about the revolutionary seizure of power and institutionalizing the power of the proletariat. Trotsky was about permanent revolution and opposition to Stalinism. Hitler was about the Fuhrerprincip, i.e., the leader principle; and the hierarchical ascension of the Aryan race above the Jewish/Bolschevic conspiracy he believed was trying to subjugate it. Mao was about the power of the peasantry in instituting socialism, the doctrine of power from the end of a gun, and the belief that the socialist revolution continues beyond the institution of the socialist government.
To say that they are all simply about "uniformity" is like saying that the cannon of Western Literature is about "bowling." It would not only be overly simplistic, but fundamentally wrong.
You have much the same attitude. You may convince yourself that it is because of your abhorrence of slavery; but you would actually murder--by your own admission--those who rose to the position, where they in fact became Masters.
Any person who is held in bondage has a moral right to fight back and kill, if necessary, the one holding him. One is also justified in killing, if necessary, to free another. There is no moral sanction in this because it is the enslaver, the kidnapper, who is the morally responsible agent.
And my thoughts are nothing like Mao, Lenin, Hitler or Trotsky. They each permitted slavery of one kind or another in their societies.
That sounds like Communism, pure and simple.
Wrong again. Communism is the last stage of socialism where the state is supposed to melt away and the direct ownership of the means of production is held by the people directly. In practice, it is an oppressive, revolutionary and centralized system whereby state ownership of property is controlled by an oligarchy, and where individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not respected.
The Master/Servant relationship, is not just a matter of buying slaves from overseas vs. employing labor at home. In Europe, serfdom arose in part from conquest, in part from a need for protection from marauding forces. The point is not how a system arises, so much--at least not to me. The point is that all societies that advance beyond the most primitive homogeneous tribal level, have a clear cut hierarchy. To the extent that those at the top, are able to require and compel the labor or services of those beneath them, you have a form of bondage (i.e., slavery).
You can justify it in your mind in any way you wish. I don't care. That all systems are stratified is true, but trivially so. The issue isn't the level of stratification or the level of compulsion, but whether one human owns another. If slavery exists in fact, but under a different name, it is to be equally condemned. It doesn't justify viewing slavery as less evil.
Because the egalitarian society, is mythological, rather than real; even the most extreme Socialists have a hierarchy--and to that extent, you can cite examples of Bolshevik and Nazi actions, which are analogous to those in a slave system, but the whole motivation is entirely different. You can no more compare the antics of the Communist Party members in Soviet Russia, or the SS and Gestapo in Socialist Germany to the Southern Plantation owner than you can compare a mule to a Dachshund.
You appear to be fixated on this point. The motives of Commies or Nazis differ from Rebs in many respect, but, in one crucial respect they were identical: in none of these systems were the rights of all its inhabitants to their basic inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness protected. The rest is irrelevant trivia.
Communism and National Socialism were totally about suppressing individuality. On the other hand, the Old South, as the true Christian civilization that it was, was probably the most individualistic society of its time.
But it did not protect the rights of all of its individuals.
The Confederate Officer Corps were a cast of characters--intelligent, fascinating, but clearly, in many cases, one of a kind. No one ever suggested that they all acted with One Will, etc.. No one ever suggested that they wanted to take over the World and suppress all dissent.
This "one will" "suppression of individuality" thing is your rant. I never suggested that they weren't individual, fascinating, and one of a kind. Stuart had fantasies that he was a cavalier, Jackson had the lemon-sucking issue and the whole holding up his arm thing. I'm saying that the system in the South did not respect the God-given right of those held in bondage to their own autonomy.
Just look at the ethnic makeup of the Confederate hierarchy--the Scots-Irish, Huguenots, as well as the direct descendants of the original English settlers. Individualistic people, schooled by personal experiences of their own families, in the fundamental American values.
Which, unfortunately, included the evil of slavery. And evil which had to be eradicated as one would eradicate an infestation of termites.
Yes, you can cite specific instances where slaves were cruelly treated. But in every State, save Louisiana, where Roman legal concepts survived the French roots, there were laws requiring humane treatment.
You mean it wasn't all "Song of the South"?
And the proof of the overall pudding, is in the fact that there was no major slave revolt, even with the White Manhood off to War; and again, later, in the images cited by Booker T. Washington, of the weeping former slaves following the caskets of the beloved former Master or Mistress to the gravesite, years after freedom.
Hmmm, let's see, Booker T. Washington is writing after the Democrats succeeding in getting the protection of the Union Army removed from the soil of the South. He offered his people's magnanimity if the whites would agree. He got Jim Crow instead.
The compulsion for uniformity is a hideously cruel thing. It is not something that any Conservative ought to embrace. (See Compulsion For Uniformity.)
What are you talking about? I am saying that one man has no rights to own another and that the slavery system is evil and you're claiming that uniformity is cruel???
No slavery is not a good system. But I seriously doubt that either you or I will ever see a time, when it is not present in more than one area of the earth. And with the tendency towards more and more dependence on Government, across much of the globe, I really suspect that we will see more, not less of it, in the not too distant future. I seriously doubt, if it will be administered with the Christian spirit, which prevailed in much of the Old South, however.
And if we see it arise, we must strike it down, and not glorify slavery in any form, in a quixotic attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Very well said. I agree 100% and your facts are right on. Although, I fear you may be wasting your time.....
Really, you equate Hitler to Jefferson Davis!
it is immoral for the state to allow one person to own another?
May I sell myself into slavery?
ML/NJ
I'm a Yankee too.
There were bad things about the old South, but you (and others) nead to realize that there were also bad things about the old North. Unfortunately for those of us who believe in limited government (like Madison and Jefferson) the bad things from the old South are history, and for free people, at least, the bad things of the old North are much worse and live on.
ML/NJ
Racism still exists sherlock.
The sooner we stop demeaning all forms of racisim and realizing that some forms are okay, they better off all of us will be.
ML/NJ
Please don't misunderstand--I wasn't taking sides, just making an observation. The North had slavery too, they just ended it sooner, there were terrible draft riots in 1863 where dozens if not hundreds of free blacks were killed, and terrible labor conditions in sweat shops, etc. I wasn't lauding the North over the South at all. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.
And can you please tell me what forms are ok?
the reporter, who was present, said that "every lamppost was decorated with hanged Negroes for miles".
AND, reference slavery in the north,in point of fact, some damnyankees still were holding THEIR slaves a YEAR after Richmond fell.
damnedyankees have ALWAYS been the worst of HYPOCRYTES!
free dixie,sw
the battleflag is a reminder to every loyal southerner of the blood sacrifices of our ancestors during the War Between the States & our continuing battle for LIBERTY & self-determination. that is what our battleflag denotes.
btw, our battleflag is NOT the Stars & Bars! (the S&B was the 1st National flag of the CSA & looks NOTHING like our battleflag.)
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.