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.

[LexBaird]

You realize you are quoting Lee’s father when you use that “first in” speech, you know. ;-)

Poignant, eh? ;^)

[carton253]

I was just making sure I wasn’t having a case of deja vu...

[Non-Sequitur]

If the South had won the war (or, Heaven forbid, the Constitution was abided by and the right to leave the compact was acknowledged), perhaps Americans would still be Citizens of one of these united States instead of 'U.S. citizens'.

Perhaps not.

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." -- George Washinton, 1796.

[Non-Sequitur]

Since when does the north take the south into consideration while they are sitting up there in DC harassing the people?

For the same reason a whiny 5 year old will get an ice cream cone. Bitch and moan and cry enough and he gets it just to shut him up.

[beckysueb]

Did you see all the rhetoric coming from the libs after the second Bush victory? They now want the south to secede and were kicking themselves for stopping it. What say you?

[beckysueb]

If you are truly conservative, then you know who the whiners are.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

It would be beneath anyone on this board to reply with any argument based on reason or history, to your libel.

Oh, and learn to take time to spellcheck. Your spirit of sectional invective begins to show, when you let your words outrace your brain like that.

Shame on me for introducing broad-brush sectional slurs into this thread. And after all the kind words said here about the North.

Actually, there is no intended sectional invective at all. I never slur the South, just the Confederate States of America. It was bad for Southern people, both black and white. I think some fans of the slave empire must despise Yankeeland so much that they they delude themselves to the real rotten nature of the CSA.

The hard fact is that in the 1860s our section of the country was in the wrong.

[betsyross1776]

There was a war fought over that flag.It is not the only flag that ever had a war involved.It is history , no better then the wars fought before. We made a mistake in the south. We are a young country still with a lot of accomplishments and mistakes. The flag of the Confederacy is of sentimental value to the ancestors of the fallen who fought under that flag. It is a historical event and a historical flag period.The north won, the union stands, why worry about a piece of history. maybe if they left this issue alone it would not be such a hot issue. Liberals dig their own graves and fall in them too.

[Non-Sequitur]

Him quoting Madison, if you want a quote from Davis himself my favorites are---"Sovereigns can't rebel". or perhaps "If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone, 'Died of a theory.'"

I think the whole book is kind of sad, really. Start to finish it's a man trying to justify his actions and blame everything on everyone else. But for pure humor you can't beat all the ways he comes up with to refer to the United States. My favorite is probably the one where he's talking about European powers siding with the Lincoln administration in the blockade of Southern ports, and refers to the U.S. as '...our former limited and special agent...' and in "These neutral nations treated our invasion by our former limited and special agent as though it were the attempt of a sovereign to suppress a rebellion against lawful authority." Well, duh. That's exactly what it was.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Yes, like the reb artillery at Gettysburg, the ammo may be getting low for some of the Defenders of Dixie.

When those people attack my spelling I think they should take into account that I’m a seventh or eighth generation Southerner and thus realize that I might not be able to do any better.

[Non-Sequitur]

Did you see all the rhetoric coming from the libs after the second Bush victory? They now want the south to secede and were kicking themselves for stopping it. What say you?

Had the South chosen to go about their secession legally, that is with the agreement the parties on both sides of the issue, then I would not have had a problem with the South pulling up stumps and heading off into the sunset. Hell, you all can do it tomorrow and I would not shed a tear or lose a moment of sleep. I have never thought that secession was unconstitutional, or that achieving it had to be very difficult, and have never said anything to the contrary. But do it legally. See, what you Southron types choose to ignore is that secession did impact both those states leaving and those remaining. Regardless of what you choose to believe the remaining states had rights as well, and the Constitution protected all states not just the ones choosing to leave. That's probably the biggest beef I have with your position, that you all think only one side had any rights worthy of protection.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Actually, given the South's belated conversion to conservativism, it is you all who should be thanking those of us in the Plains who have stood against liberalism all these decades. Without us you would be a year and a half into either the second Gore administration or the first Kerry administration.

Good words and another point of gratitude is the services that the soldiers of the Midwest, largely the ancestors of today's plains residents, performed in liberating the South from the grip of the slave tyranny. I get the impression that some think that the Union army was made up of Ted Kennedys and big city criminals. The bulk of the Union soldiers were hard working rural men who had more in common with the ordinary reb soldier than did the decadent plantation class who instigated the whole crisis.

[puroresu]

#####Both were Southern born and raised, both launched their poltitical careers there. If that doesn’t make them Son’s of the South then what does?#####

Supporting conservative causes would help.

#####By definition a ‘scalawag’ was a Southern white who joined the Republican party.#####

I’m fully aware of that. That’s why I called them DEMOCRAT scalawags.

#####Actually, given the South’s belated conversion to conservativism, it is you all who should be thanking those of us in the Plains who have stood against liberalism all these decades.#####

I can agree with that in part. The Plains states and the Rocky Mountain states are an important part of the GOP’s base, and to their credit they’ve been GOP for a long time. However, many of the GOP leaders from that region have been proponents of the liberal wing of the party. George Norris, “Fighting” Bob LaFollette, etc. They’ve elected some good solid conservatives, too, of course.

The South’s conversion to conservatism was not belated. The South was solidly Democrat for a century but they were mostly conservative Democrats. The Democratic Party hasn’t always been the nearly monolithic leftist party that it is today. Take the FDR years as an example. FDR’s popularity frightened the GOP into capitulation. GOP presidential candidates for years ran on a platform of “New Deal Lite” (Landon, Dewey, Wilkie, and even Eisenhower). Congressional Republicans offered no serious resistance to the New Deal. But Southern Democrats often did. Walter George (Georgia), Josiah Bailey (North Carolina), Harry Byrd Sr. (Virginia), Tom Connally (Texas) and others gave FDR hell. It got so bad for FDR that he violated Democrat Party tradition and recruited liberal candidates to oppose these Southern stalwarts in Democrat primary elections. FDR was especially determined to oust Senator George, who hailed from Georgia, where FDR often vacationed (Warm Springs). In every case the voters rejected the liberal challengers and returned the conservative warhorses to office.

Now, you may argue that the South voted for FDR over and over. That’s true, but what was the alternative? New Deal Lite?

Once the GOP began to get its act together, and moved to the right under guys like Barry Goldwater & Ronald Reagan, instead of being dominated by liberal Northerners like Rockefeller & Scranton, the South began to shift to the Republicans.

#####Without us you would be a year and a half into either the second Gore administration or the first Kerry administration.#####

Well, that’s true, but it’s also true of the South. Neither the South nor the Heartland states can elect a GOP president alone. But together we can. If the South didn’t exist, or became liberal (as so many PC-Conservatives seem to desire), exactly how could North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, and Company elect a president over the massive Democrat votes from Yankeedom and the West Coast?

#####States like Kansas and Nebraska and the Dakota’s and Utah and Idaho were conservative when conservative wasn’t cool. The South is late to the party. Southerners didn’t start switching to the GOP until they realized that they could call themselves ‘Republican’ and still keep their big spending, big government ways.#####

No. Conservatives switched to the Republican Party when the GOP moved to the right and the Democrats began purging their party of conservatives. Did Southerners support their share of pork spending? Sure. They supported tobacco and cotton subsidies, for example. Just as the good folks in the Plains supported wheat and corn subsidies.

I salute the Plains & Rocky Mountain States for their conservatism. But I also salute the South for the same reason. You failed totally to address my observation that Yankeedom voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry and will do likewise for Hillary.

[x]

He believed in what he was fighting for. You don't go to war and act like that war is your fault.

If he'd said that he believed in what he was fighting for, it wouldn't have been as objectionable. If he'd just said "I desire Peace as much as you do; I deplore bloodshed as much as you do" and stopped there, I wouldn't object to that either.

But Jeff was way to into proving that his own hands were clean (when they weren't). There's something at least a little neurotic about that.

This is a guy who's way to into himself:

I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this War is on my hands. I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this War. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it; but I could not.

And this is a guy who's at least a little bit nutty at least by today's standards:

The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the War came: and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for Slavery. We are fighting for INDEPENDENCE; and that, or EXTERMINATION, we WILL have."

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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

If by "originally" you mean under the Articles of Confederation. But under the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4: "establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization" the power to determine citizenship was a granted power of congress

Also, from Madison's Federalist No. 42

The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization, has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions.(...)The new Constitution has accordingly with great propriety made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the confederation, on this head, by authorising the general government to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Defiance -- the last act of the terminally uncompetitive.

A nice summary of the death throes of a socio-economic system built on slavery, by the way.

[smug]

Thatnks for that. Grant's memoirs is also in there

Your Welcome, I got that one on audio DVD. But it is nice to have a written copy to look at, though. I think "sherman's Memoirs" are in there also, if not there, it is free on the Internet somewhere cause I have downloaded it some time ago.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think "(S)herman's Memoirs" are in there also, if not there, it is free on the Internet somewhere cause I have downloaded it some time ago.

They are indeed.

[MamaTexan]

The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity,

Thank you for posting the esteemed President Washington to make my point.

Notice he says our 'national capacity' is American.

That's because American is our nation, and the United States is the government created to smooth relations between the several States.

-----

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
View of the Constitution of the United States - 1803
St. George Tucker

[Non-Sequitur]

That's because American is our nation, and the United States is the government created to smooth relations between the several States.

He also said that our loyalty to our country as citizens of the United States should override any regional loyalties such as those to state or locality. You suggest just the opposite.