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.

[LS]

Ok. Gotcha. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that demand for southern cotton slowed, let alone slowed significantly?

[festus]

It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.

States rights and an accurate interpretation of the constitution belong in the here and now.

The war of Northern Aggression was wrong no matter what reason they chose to justify it with.

As to what it means "The South Shall Rise Again"...... November '08 the answer will come.....

[familyop]

What is it with the neo-confeds about Fred Thompson? Thompson’s not a neo-confed that I know of. Did he play one on TV or something?

[LS]

A further question: if demand for southern cotton was DROPPING, why in the world did every single major Confederate politician argue that “Cotton is King”-—”no one dares make war on King Cotton”? Hardly sounds like people who were losing sales.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln maintained a fort within the territory of South Carolina, a State that considered itself seceded and no longer part of the United States, thus this was a foreign military facility. That would normally be considered justified

So would Castro be justified in bombarding Guantanamo Bay into surrender? What should the U.S. do if he did?

The people of South Carolina took back only the property they had originally ceded the Federal government.

What legal right did they have to do so?

Perhaps if he HAD withdrawn, an accommodation could have been reached, but frankly, both sides were spoiling for a fight.

Having surrendered to Southern demands what accommodation was necessary? The South would have seized what they wanted. What else was there?

[smug]

A little evidence from Jefferson Davis to back up your statement

Nor was this the only injury to which the South was subjected. Under the power of Congress to levy duties on imports, tariff laws were enacted, not merely "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," as authorized by the Constitution, but, positively and primarily, for the protection against foreign competition of domestic manufactures. The effect of this was to impose the main burden of taxation upon the Southern people, who were consumers and not manufacturers, not only by the enhanced price of imports, but indirectly by the consequent depreciation in the value of exports, which were chiefly the products of Southern States. The imposition of this grievance was unaccompanied by the consolation of knowing that the tax thus borne was to be paid into the public Treasury, for the increase of price accrued mainly to the benefit of the manufacturer. Nor was this all: a reference to the annual appropriations will show that the disbursements made were as unequal as the burdens borne—the inequality in both operating in the same direction. These causes all combined to direct immigration to the Northern section; and with the increase of its preponderance appeared more and more distinctly a tendency in the Federal Government to pervert functions delegated to it, and to use them with sectional discrimination against the minority.

[FredHunter08]

“So would Castro be justified in bombarding Guantanamo Bay into surrender? What should the U.S. do if he did?”

He could try. Of course, Cuba had not had previous history as one of the owners of the Federal Government.

“What legal right did they have to do so?”

What legal right did they not have to do so? What legal power was granted Lincoln to keep them in the Union?

“Having surrendered to Southern demands what accommodation was necessary? The South would have seized what they wanted. What else was there?”

Let them go. All that was required.

[M. Espinola]

Neo-confeds state they will not vote for anyone unless they are from the 'South'. Do they mean (Carter,Gore,Clinton)?

It's beyond a shame they will refuse to vote for someone based only on location, even if their foolish bigotry allows a radical Dem to gain the White House.

On Fred Thompson, he did play a part the neo-confeds live on a daily basis, and maybe, instead of his superb conservative voting record, that little role Fred Thompson played (as in acting) is the 'real' attraction for those in question.

[FredHunter08]

“What is it with the neo-confeds about Fred Thompson? Thompson’s not a neo-confed that I know of. Did he play one on TV or something?”

I’m not a “neo-confed”. I just detest falsehoods told by self-hating people like you (if you really are from the South) and self-important people like M. Espinola.

[FredHunter08]

“It’s beyond a shame they will refuse to vote for someone based only on location, even if their foolish bigotry allows a radical Dem to gain the White House.”

You’re a Guiliani supporter, I’d bet. I find it amusing that you demean the South here and then claim WE are the ones showing “foolish bigotry”. Bigot.

“On Fred Thompson, he did play a part the neo-confeds live on a daily basis, and maybe, instead of his superb conservative voting record, that little role Fred Thompson played (as in acting) is the ‘real’ attraction for those in question.”

What’s your attraction to Rudy? His lipstick? Makes as much sense.

[Non-Sequitur]

He could try. Of course, Cuba had not had previous history as one of the owners of the Federal Government.

But would that normally be considered justified? Why or why not?

What legal right did they not have to do so? What legal power was granted Lincoln to keep them in the Union?

We can get into that. But first what legal claim did South Carolina have to Sumter? It belonged to the federal government, built by the federal government on land deeded to it free and clear by the South Carolina legislature. What suddenly made it confederate property without compensation and without the owner having any say in the matter?

Let them go. All that was required.

Let them steal what they want and do nothing?

[RFEngineer]

“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.”

Actually, we’d prefer to enslave Yankees no matter what their race. This time it will be no competition. Southern fighting men against you metrosexual northerners. The mere sight of a weapon and you’ll drop your lattes and run across the Canadian border.

Of course we won’t stop there, because we want to enslave them too, on account of 1812.

You can run, but you can’t hide, Yankee. We’re coming for you, and for payback from Sherman.

[FredHunter08]

“But would that normally be considered justified? Why or why not?”

Was our secession from the British Empire - which included seizing property of the Crown - justififed?

“But first what legal claim did South Carolina have to Sumter?”

As much claim as New York had.

“It belonged to the federal government, built by the federal government on land deeded to it free and clear by the South Carolina legislature.”

Which becomes null and void when South Carolina no longer is in the Union and that fort was a direct and immediate threat to that State.

“What suddenly made it confederate property without compensation and without the owner having any say in the matter?”

The State seceded. Therefore, that was a foreign military base.

“Let them steal what they want and do nothing?”

Since much of the tax money collected in the South had been spent on infrastructure in the North, why not?

On another note, why was Jeff Davis never tried?