What Does It Mean "The South Shall Rise Again":

The Wichita (KS) Eagle ^ | 23 May 2007 | Mark McCormick

[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.

[carton253]

Yes, just as I find the villification of the southern men I admire on the part of Northerns a little unsettling.

I just wish we didn't have to make it so personal and we could just have fun talking about the heros on both sides of the issue. For there were plenty of them.

[Non-Sequitur]

I like Lincoln. Thought he was a good tough politician. Because I admire his politicial skills, I do not tie myself up in the knots you do trying to justify what he did at Ft. Sumter. You can't have it both ways. He can't be the smart politician he was and be surprised at what happened at Sumter. The two don't mesh.

Actually I think they do. If you read his speeches leading up to and including the Inaugural address he made clear his intention to retain ownership of federal property. Having done so in such a public manner he somewhat painted himself into a corner. He had little choice but to resupply Sumter, and probably hoped to do so peacefully.

[carton253]

Did he not know how the South felt about those forts and their resupply? Did he not know that if he did what he planned to do, there would be trouble?

Sure he did.

But that was the brilliance of it. For now when he called for 75,000 volunteers, they came a running, so outraged, that he would have a hard time keeping them in Washington!

I am not going to shortchange Lincoln's political savvy here. You don't have too either.

[carton253]

You can't argue history like that because now your argument doesn't take into account the South as a player in the conflict. The only agent in your construct is Lincoln. What he wants. No conflict can be understood under that type of constricting historiography. One side was not passive while the other was active. Both were there shaping the events.

Lincoln knew that if he sailed into the harbor, he would get a war. He knew it. That knowledge must be evaluated in his actions as well.

[mkjessup]

Ah say, ah say, ah say SON, y'all takin' indecent rhetorical liberties wid da memory of mah Dixie Homeland (which was secure long before they needed a federal department for dat), and if ah wanna see Viagra, ah'll jes head on up to New York where the Falls pour all of dat water 24 hours a DAY!

And ah might add son, that the last time I was in Viagra Falls New York, one of them tour guides said to me "I'll bet you don't have anything like that in Texas, now do you?" (ah was livin' in Texas at the time), and ah said "No mam, but we sho nuff got a plumber in Ft. Worth that can fix it, do ya want his number?"

She didn't utter another WORD!

God Bless Robert E. Lee!

[66-442hot]

My last was a balsa wood model of a Coast Guard 40 foot utility boat about 10 years ago. It took a long time and an enormous amount of effort. It was motorized and about 2.5’ in length.

It has never seen water, though. I am afraid all my work will end up in Davy Jones’ locker. Ha Ha

I piloted one of those things while I was in the CG in the early 70’s.

[MamaTexan]

Now why do you suppose that so many highly influential, even dispositive, personalities as the people who surrounded Lincoln during his campaign for the nomination in 1860 and his years helping organize the Republican Party in the West in the years immediately prior, who bulked tall and wide in Illinois and even national politics during Lincoln's administration and afterward, never got their definitive scholarly biographies written, in the course of 150 years?

A very good question, Sir, and one I've honestly never contemplated.

--------

When I see opinions posted that so adamantly defend Lincoln and his administration's effort to change a slave's social position from property to person, I can't help but wonder if those same posters also defend the current administration's efforts to change a denizens social position from illegal to citizen.

Then again, some folks will never even see the parallel between the two.

[mkjessup]

When I see opinions posted that so adamantly defend Lincoln and his administration's effort to change a slave's social position from property to person, I can't help but wonder if those same posters also defend the current administration's efforts to change a denizens social position from illegal to citizen. Then again, some folks will never even see the parallel between the two.

The difference is that the slaves in Lincoln's time were brought to this country against their will, AS property, and were bartered and/or sold as if they were nothing more than merchandise. That is the sad historical fact that is fortunately no longer a part of our culture.

In the case of illegal immigrants, they have entered the country ILLEGALLY, of their own volition, and nobody put chains on them and forced them to sail across an ocean to become the property of someone in America.

As I see it, the two situations have absolutely nothing in common with each other.

[beckysueb]

I think that you have crossed the line on that especially when you have Mississippi and Alabama the two worst education states in the Country. Oh and Arkansas is not much better...

Source, please. And I'm not talking about a source 25 years old either.

[beckysueb]

??

[beckysueb]

Don’t matter where they came from. They are still criminals who got a pass. This tells me alot about you. You assume that the south automatically defends its own. Projection, perhaps?

[MamaTexan]

As I see it, the two situations have absolutely nothing in common with each other.

Of course you don't....unless you're aware of the fact that originally, it was a State who decided whether a denizen deserved citizenship, not the federal government.

The war stripped that power from the States under the auspices of freeing the slaves, yet everyone today screams 'no amnesty' and gets upset because the federal government exercises a power that the Union helped them obtain.

Guess you have to file it under "Unintended consequences".

[beckysueb]

But but.... I thought the north was fighting to free the slaves! That is just so disappointing. To learn that the north cared so little for the plight of the slaves. (sarc off.)If the north didn’t care about the slaves, then they need to quit calling the south racists. They were no different. In other words, the plight of the slaves meant very little to BOTH sides.

[beckysueb]

That was the official name for the 50 years following the rebellion.

Gee, I wonder why it was changed to the Civil War. Could it be that it was learned that the north wasn't innocent after all?

[beckysueb]

Cute.

[mkjessup]

I think the pertinent question is “would America be better or worse off now if the South had won the War Between The States?”

[carton253]

Could have been. Could not have been. We don’t know. So, I don’t think it is the pertinent question. It is a very good “what if” question though.

[beckysueb]

Lincoln and his administration's effort to change a slave's social position from property to person,

That myth has already been debunked. Lincoln didn't particularly care about slavery. It was about preserving the Union.

[carton253]

Well, I don’t think it has been debunked. His administration and especially his party had strong and powerful elements within it that cared very much about changing the slave’s social position from property to person, and believed they were fighting to free the slaves and punish the slaveowners.

[puroresu]

Jimmy Carter is not a solid son of the South. Neither is Bill Clinton. Both are Democrat Scalawags.

Don’t believe me? Ask them their opinion about the Confederacy. It’s the same as yours, so you should find it to be familiar.

As I noted earlier, neither North nor South has a monopoly on bad politicians, but the North elects more bad ones than the South. Furthermore, the bad ones we elect tend to be skillful liars (i.e. Carter & Bill Clinton) who are able to pose as something they aren’t to get elected and stay in office. Hillary lacks the ability to pose as a conservative, as Bill did for years, so she had to go to New York to run for the Senate.

Carter won the South in the 1976 presidential election, so you can legitimately blame us in part for his election. I say “in part” because Carter also did quite well up North. He was an unknown running as a conservative Democrat and a lot of folks got taken in.

Clinton, however, lost the South in both 1992 & 1996. Even though he was posing as a new type of Democrat we learned from our Carter mistake, so he lost most of the electoral votes down here. In contrast, he swept Yankeedom in both elections.

When another Democrat Scalawag, Al Gore, ran for president in 2000, We saw through him as well. Gore had earlier been elected to the House (1976) and Senate (1984) by running as an opponent of abortion and gun control, and a supporter of a strong national defense. He even sent his wife on the 700 Club to bemoan the moral decay in our society. But he revealed his phoniness and his true nature during his years as Clinton’s VP. The result? He lost every Southern state, including home state Tennessee, but swept Yankeedom.

I’ll repeat that. He swept Yankeedom. Ultra-leftist John Kerry also swept Yankeedom in 2004. And so will Hillary in 2008 if she’s the Democrat nominee.

If you’re a conservative as claimed, isn’t it a shame you’ll have to rely on Dixie as a firewall to prevent Hillary from becoming Commander-in-Chief?