Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Does It Mean "The South Shall Rise Again":
The Wichita (KS) Eagle ^ | 23 May 2007 | Mark McCormick

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: battleflag; cbf; confederacy; confederate; confederatecrumbs; crossofsaintandrew; damnmossbacks; damnyankee; democratsareracists; dixie; dixiedems; flag; kansas; mouthyfolks; nomanners; northernaggression; rednecks; saintandrewscross; scumbaglawyer; southernwhine; southronaggression; southwillloseagain; southwillriseagain; thesouth; trailertrash; trashtalk; williteverend; wishfulthinking; yankeeaggression; yankeebastards; yankeescum; yeahsure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,541-1,557 next last
To: Badeye; MamaTexan
MamaTexan:

I love quotes too. Particularly ones from the Founders concerning the Constitutional compact:

"If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once as a dissolution, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of our Union with them or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation."
Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825.

Badeye:
Great quote, to be sure. Its easy to forget that Jeffersons own hand set up the primary reasons the Civil War took place 80 years later when you read his thoughts as in this passage.

Badeye, - As Mama Tex says:
"Government cannot make a law contrary to the law that made the government".

If the States had - from the outset - protected their powers from federal encroachments in the Courts - the civil war need never have been fought.
Instead, the States played the same game as the Feds [and still do].
They both still claim undelegated powers; - 'Governments can make laws contrary to the supreme Law of the Land. - The bill of rights only selectively applies to Congress or to the States'

341 posted on 05/24/2007 9:21:04 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: D-Chivas

To this southerner it means we will finally throw off the bondage of Northern economic interests that have held us hostage to low wages and second class status. Your statement smacks of just the sort of bigotry used in that effort. Call us names, treat us shabbily, but let the USA need defending and you will see Southerns stand and fight for the FLAG of the USA in disproportionate numbers.


342 posted on 05/24/2007 9:21:09 AM PDT by Islander7 ("Show me an honest politician and I will show you a case of mistaken identity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Psssssst. John Edwards. Henry Waxman. Lindsay Graham. Just three that quickly popped into my head after reading the above, friend.

Are you ready to go over the list from the North? (Better pack a lunch)

343 posted on 05/24/2007 9:24:10 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Nosotros no hablamos español.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

Make fun of NO all you want to. There were alot of good people who lived in NO. A handfull of bad apples will spoil the whole city. Besides it didn’t stop you yanks from making it a big tourist attraction, did it?


344 posted on 05/24/2007 9:24:56 AM PDT by beckysueb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
To be fair, that's because we're more urbanized, god help us. If we could get Chicago to secede and become the 51st state, Illinois would be the best state in the Union.

While that may be true, the migration to freedom heads south.

345 posted on 05/24/2007 9:25:56 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Nosotros no hablamos español.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

You have a point. Its that way in almost every state. The big urban areas spoil it for the rest.


346 posted on 05/24/2007 9:26:02 AM PDT by beckysueb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb
If the south had won, there would have been 2 countries. The United States of America and the Confederate States of America,

I sincerely doubt it. A nation founded on the idea that any part can secede at will, without consideration for its fellow sections, would have balkanized long since. There would have been the U.S., the Republic of West Texas, the Republic of East Texas, the Commonwealth of Greater Charleston, the Cherokee Nation of the West, the Cherokee Nation of the East, Free Kentucky, etc.

347 posted on 05/24/2007 9:29:05 AM PDT by LexBaird (PR releases are the Chinese dog food of political square meals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Yes. It tells us that the Confederate government did not want to exceed its power by giving away property that did not belong to them.

Really? The confederate government had no problems with levying slave labor without compensation 'for the war effort'. They had no problem taking property that didn't belong to them by placing quotas on agricultural produce or reserving cargo space on private packet ships, again 'for the war effort'. That, apparently, isn't exceeding their powers. Or if it was they didn't care. But you would have us believe they had constitutional qualms about freeing slaves that fought for them against the Union?

348 posted on 05/24/2007 9:34:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: gardengirl

Hey - and do you know who I was basing all this on? My mother. Yes! She moved south (forced by her health) when I was about 7, and never shut up until she died last month as an unrepentant democrat. One thing she never stopped making fun of was southern food - which of course I love. I never was able to do much with grits though - I’m not against them, I am more bewildered. But turnip greens and corn bread - now THAT’s different!


349 posted on 05/24/2007 9:35:20 AM PDT by twonie ( watch this space)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

My stepson went to Iraq. He took a Confederate flag with him. I’m so proud of him.


350 posted on 05/24/2007 9:35:22 AM PDT by beckysueb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: mjolnir

What you say about Walter Williams is just not true. He can and does view human behavior through more than just an economic praxis.

I never said that slavery was not a cause. But it was not the most important cause.

If the South had the spirited folks we had in 1861 then I would indeed feel sympathy for modern Southern nationhood. But we like the North have been conquered by the junk culture of Hollywood so there is much less difference between North and South. The South lost a generation of its best men in the War and they as a whole are truly irreplaceable.


351 posted on 05/24/2007 9:37:01 AM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: frithguild

‘Answer “Cause your down here....’ said the young Iraqi man...’

Perhaps the young sunni Iraqi man...but even thats a stretch.


352 posted on 05/24/2007 9:37:03 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

Very good post. I have read so many stories of the love between a lot of slaves and their families. It has been totally rewritten, though. Sure slavery was wrong but the myth that slaves were regularly beaten and killed is wrong.


353 posted on 05/24/2007 9:38:19 AM PDT by beckysueb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

And who controlled the Presidency and the Congress during the 1832 crisis? Southern Democrats.


354 posted on 05/24/2007 9:38:43 AM PDT by LexBaird (PR releases are the Chinese dog food of political square meals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

I think one reason why so many of the officers of the North and the South ‘got along’ after the war (and indeed, why Davis and Grant were so reluctant to carry their animosity into the personal realm) is because they fought alongside each other in the Mexican War of 1847. Research President Polk and the battle of Resaca de la Palma down in the Brownsville, Texas area.


355 posted on 05/24/2007 9:39:32 AM PDT by Alkhin (star dust contemplating star dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

"As a Ney,I am appalled that someone sharing my name could write such a stupid article"
356 posted on 05/24/2007 9:39:34 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RacerF150

‘Psssssst. John Edwards. Henry Waxman. Lindsay Graham. Just three that quickly popped into my head after reading the above, friend.
Are you ready to go over the list from the North? (Better pack a lunch)’

Ummm, I find that so obvious I didn’t feel it was warranted to do so, and yep it would require packing a lunch.

My point was there are girlie men down south, and I listed three of them.


357 posted on 05/24/2007 9:39:35 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

The same things that make us such good warriors are the same reasons we left the old countries. I say “we” in the general sense. Southerners, and particularly those from NC, are independent and loyal to a fault. There is a large population of Scottish? descendents close by-you can spot them a mile away. Huge men, barrel chested, reddish gold hair. Loud, opinionated, mistrustful of the law in any form -men who live by their own code-good men-men (and women)who can cook like nobody’s business, would give you anything they possessed if you truly needed it but would fight to the death if you tried to take it. That is the embodiment of the South to me. Men who still carry names like William, Wallace, even plenty of William Wallaces still floating around!


358 posted on 05/24/2007 9:40:27 AM PDT by gardengirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Non-Sequitur
OK, so had the South won would the slogan be "government of 2/3rds of the people, by 2/3rds of the people, for 2/3rds of the people?"

Well, well ... aren't you just a ball of confusion this morning. You do know who insisted upon that whole 2/3 thing, don't you? (Hint: it wasn't southerners)...

The 2/3 personage for blacks was insisted upon by Northern politicians to balance the census so the South would not be over represented it the congress diluting Northern power. So there!!

Heck, Lincoln had no desire to free the slaves until late in the war. He wanted to save the Union.

My ancestors fought on both sides that war and on both sides of the American revolution. In fact, my bloodline arrived on this continent long before the was a USA.
359 posted on 05/24/2007 9:41:12 AM PDT by Islander7 ("Show me an honest politician and I will show you a case of mistaken identity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb
Well if you guys can see racism in the Confederate Flag, why do you get upset if someone sees something in your battle song?

You guys? 'Scuse me?

First, I don't believe in a collective mindset. Please show me where I have made any statement about any flag.

Second, people are free to interpret things as they see fit, but facts are STILL facts.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic has nothing to do with 'murdering Americans' as the poster stated.

Ergo, his assertion does not create or alter the written, factual lyrics of the song.

360 posted on 05/24/2007 9:41:44 AM PDT by MamaTexan (Government cannot make a law contrary to the law that made the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,541-1,557 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson