Skip to comments.What Does It Mean "The South Shall Rise Again":
Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
So that's what the South meant when they said they were trying to preserve the Constitution?
Lincoln didnt fight the war to end slavery. If you had clue one youd understand that.
No, he fought it to preserve the Union and because war was the path that Jefferson Davis chose. The question really is why the South chose armed rebellion in the first place and defense of their institution of slavery was by far the most important reason for their decision.
Yeah OK, that makes allot of sense.
The La Raza clan shout about Aztlan. Isn’t that a notion of “The South Is Gonna Rise Again”?
Different South but very racially motivated (The Race is doing the shouting) and territorial.
With media portrayals of backwood hicks with bad accents (by strangely non-southern actors), there seem to be some in America intent on keeping the people of the Southern states down.
If ya’ll want to burn Atlanta again, go for it. It is full of liberals.
Ummm. You think it was the Northerners who insisted on keeping 1/3 of the South's population in bondage? I think you are confusing NS's point about the Southern population free/slave ratio with the 3/5th clause in the Constitution.
“Yeah OK, that makes allot of sense.”
Just as much sense as your statement.
Man, you are so off base with me on this topic we should just stop now.
That said, "The South shall rise again" may be the dumbest slogan in american history.
I’m off base over what?
My statement as to the advantage the North had?
Logistics won the day for the North. Yes, that was something Grant recognized. My point was that the industry that drove that military machine was run on what we would now call “slavery”.
‘No, he fought it to preserve the Union and because war was the path that Jefferson Davis chose. The question really is why the South chose armed rebellion in the first place and defense of their institution of slavery was by far the most important reason for their decision.’
A quote attributed to Longstreet comes to mind;
‘We should have freed all the slaves, THEN fired on Ft Sumnter.’
Had they done so, I think America today would likely resemble Europe, with a half dozen ‘countries’.
You think the Northern slave traders (all those shipping companies....) had a problem with it?
You think the average Northerner had a problem with it? You might want to consider the laws in many Northern states prior to the War of Northern Aggression.
The northern industrial complex benefitted mightily, due to the labor of those in bondage. Outside of radical abolitionists, who were quite fringe even in the north in the years leading up to war, I see nothing in history to indicate a lack of willingess to profit thusly. So, what's your point?
‘Logistics won the day for the North. Yes, that was something Grant recognized. My point was that the industry that drove that military machine was run on what we would now call slavery.’
Sounds like a rationalization.
Gotta love the Onion........
Hmmmm...I think you just gave me an idea for a modeling project. I'm wondering what color I should paint it...
Your post #7 is absolutely right. Well said!
No, it was the North. And before you apply any sort of noble purpose to the Southern desire to have each slave counted as a whole person, their sole reason was to increase their disproportionate representation in Congress. Slaves didn't vote and didn't have any rights. In the South they were property, not people. It was highly hypocritical of the Southern leadership to demand they be counted as such for crass political purposes. The 3/5ths limit was a compromise. Considering their status they probably shouldn't have been counted at all.
You'll also notice that the South kept the 3/5th clause in their own constitution. I guess they decided it wasn't that bad, huh?
Who was it that said she sounded like Granny Clampett trying to get on American Idol?
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.