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.

[Cementjungle]

What Does It Mean "The South Shall Rise Again"

The FDA has approved the sale of Viagra in the South.

[Badeye]

Excellent post.

[Non-Sequitur]

McDowell, Pope, Hooker, BURNSIDE, Sickles, Howard come to mind immediately.

To which I can reply with Joe Johnston, Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, John Hood, Pierre Beauregard, John Pemberton, and Kirby Smith. The North did not have the monopoly on military idiots.

I’ve concluded Longstreet was probably the single best corps commander in either army overall. They all made errors, some larger than others, to be sure.

I would disagree. Longstreet was a little better than average when he was under Lee but was a disaster when on detached duty. The Union had some who were better.

[Clemenza]

Ah, yes, more glorification of the War of Southern Treason... (ducks out of room). ;-)

[Badeye]

John Brown was clearly a psychopathic serial killer, no denying it.

‘John Browns Body’ was controlled by a very sick mind.

[Non-Sequitur]

The FDA has approved the sale of Viagra in the South.

And the livestock are panicking.

[NucSubs]

"The South Shall Rise Again" To this Yankee, it means that Democrat redneck white trash want to go back to the good old days of segregation, lynching, and enslavement of black people. DING DING DING! And at least you have taken a shot at answering the question. No one else has.

[Badeye]

All true.

[WhiteSox1837]

I keep making the argument that the only major cause the south had in rebellion was the threat of abolition and you keep counter arguing with articles that only talk about how the south was threatened by abolition... Its not even worth arguing with you anymore. The bottom line is that the confederate battle flag and the term “The South Will Rise Again” are incredibly offensive terms that have no place being displayed in public and the basis of the rebellion was to keep the institution of slavery.

[riverdawg]

The tariff issue returned to center stage as a political potboiler after The Panic of 1857. Many Northern politicians began agitating for higher tariffs at that time, in the belief that industries in the North required further protection from the vagaries of international competition. (This line of “reasoning” was a forerunner of the arguments used 70 years later to justify the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930). The clamor for higher tariffs came about after two decades, following the Great Compromise of 1833, in which tariff rates had gradually fallen. Lincoln ran on a very strong pro-tariff platform in 1860. When he was elected, for many in the South the die was cast for secession. The election of 1860 is a very interesting one; it really was two elections, one in the North (between Lincoln and Douglas) and another in the South (between Breckinridge and Bell).

[LexBaird]

Well,sadly,sometimes in the heat of war and the emotional trauma of life and death issues,Christians do commit terrible acts.The Crusades would be one example or the Indian Wars in the US West. Brown blew it at Ossawatomie,no doubt about it.

There is a qualitative difference between killing enemies in a war and bushwhacking people on your own decision. Atrocities committed in war are no more moral than those done otherwise, either. The states of Kansas and Missouri in the mid-19th c. seemed to be rife with people who were nominally "Christian", yet took glory in atrocities justified by "smiting the wicked" as self-defined.

[Badeye]

‘Its not even worth arguing with you anymore. ‘

I concluded as much before making available some different works on the topic based on your blind stance. But I figured ‘what the heck, I’ll do a quick google, and relay it anyway’.

I’m not surprised you are so entrenched in the mantra it was all about slavery, and that the CSA battle flag ‘is racist’. Thats typical of Northern viewpoint which predominates the limited discussions of the topic in what passes for ‘public education’.

No matter what anyone tells you, or makes available to you, you will continue to believe what you’ve been taught by ‘history’.

Some of us understand the what the observation ‘Histories are written by the victors’ actually meant.

It was a warning. You fail to understand it.

No problem. Now you can declare ‘victory’ even though there was no battle fought.

[Non-Sequitur]

When he was elected, for many in the South the die was cast for secession.

If tariffs were such a big issue then why didn't any of the 1860 Democrat platforms take a position on them? They were all over slavery but silent on the big 'T'. Why?

[mamelukesabre]

The roman empire did ok for awhile with slaves.

[mtnwmn]

Could be he doesn’t know the difference between the Confederate flag and the Confederate Battle flag.

[Badeye]

‘McDowell, Pope, Hooker, BURNSIDE, Sickles, Howard come to mind immediately.’

‘To which I can reply with Joe Johnston, Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, John Hood, Pierre Beauregard, John Pemberton, and Kirby Smith. The North did not have the monopoly on military idiots. ‘

Hmmmm. Joe Johnston did have the ‘retrograde movement’ down pat at any rate...(chuckle). Bragg, Polk, and Pemberton we agree about.

Beauregard did have his ‘moments’ so I wouldn’t put him in the same catagory you did, although his plan for a grand sweep of the western theater, then into Kentucky, and finally climaxing with a march on Washington was a bit ‘much’.

Hood was a very good division commander, great at getting his troops where they needed to be, but was completely wrong as the replacement for Johnston, no denying it.

‘I’ve concluded Longstreet was probably the single best corps commander in either army overall. They all made errors, some larger than others, to be sure.’

‘I would disagree. Longstreet was a little better than average when he was under Lee but was a disaster when on detached duty. The Union had some who were better.’

I think he saved Lee from himself quite a few times. And I completely disagree with the ‘little better than average’ remark. Average compared to who? And considering his logistical support was negligible at best for the entire war except for the three or four weeks leading to Gettysburg. Like you, I didn’t think he did well in an ‘independent command’ but I didn’t address that. I thought he was a great corps commander, the best on either side. Its debatable on that level in my view.

[mamelukesabre]

Na. Your too hard on them. It’s just an expression of that beautiful belicose rebelious American free spirit. “State’s Rights” is a nostalgic concept and the thought of a war being waged over that concept is very romantic...if you can purge the whole slavery thing from your memory and make it an unimportant or nonexistent factor.

[LexBaird]

Now that I know you can cut-n-paste, answer the question, if you please. What “States’ Rights” were being abused enough to cause secession? Your poorly formatted text seems to agree with what most believe: “States Rights” in the context of 1860 political rhetoric begins and ends with slavery, from Calhoun’s fulminations to Taney’s judicial activism.

The Nullification Crisis is a red herring, dealt with decisively by Jackson twenty five years before the CW. The States have NO “right” to nullify tariffs, a clearly defined Federal power.

[mtnwmn]

“.... and proving why the South, its traditional values, military service, good manners, and fierce independence will certainly rise again.”

Let’s hope it spreads to the rest of the country!

[Badeye]

‘Now that I know you can cut-n-paste, answer the question, if you please. What “States’ Rights” were being abused enough to cause secession? ‘

Please point out where I stated it was ‘enough to cause secession’.

And I won’t even mock you for ‘cutting and pasting’...(chuckle)

Just cause I’m a swell guy, ya know?