If I mention segregation, slavery, lynching, Dixiecrats, or terrorist organizations like the KKK, southerners get all red-faced and their panties in a bunch and want to start the war all over again. Some of you say I need a history lesson. Well, until you can demonstrate to me what the heck “southern pride” is in real terms that don’t involve eating BBQ, listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd, or anybody remotely involving the movie Deliverance, my impression is that You People still have a major PR problem.”
LOL Thats the funniest thing I have read in a while. The North doesn't need a flag. Our pride stands tall in our towering sky scrapers, beutifull cities, strong industrial base, and prosperous peoples of all colors and creeds living side by side.
I always hear that the south didn't rebel because of slavery but in defense of states rights, but what other rights of the southern states were being violated other than the threat of abolition??? Furthermore the southern states were acting illegaly and against the constitution by denying others their god given right to liberty, which is why almost all Northern states abolished slavery shortly after the US Constitution was sighned, because slavery is unconstitutional.
Please point me to the section in the Constitution that states slavery is unconstitutional, as I am unable to find it. The Constitution prior to the civil war, that is.
I think slavery was the major cause of the war, but not the only cause. From the Texas Ordinance of Secession [Source: Texas]:
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
This was a big issue in the state. In the late 1850s there were Indian raids in the Texas counties where my ancestors lived. The Federal government eventually offered partial compensation for the funds Texas had to expend fighting off the Indians and the bandits from Mexico (both of which were federal obligations) but would not fully reimburse Texas. One of my ancestors fought the Indians as a member of a frontier battalion and another fought the Mexican bandits while serving under Rip Ford.
Here's another excerpt from the Texas Ordinance:
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
That refers to sectional aggrandizement. High protective tariffs benefited the North at the expense of the South. The Daily Chicago Times editorialized on December 10, 1860:
The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . . We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.
Furthermore the southern states were acting illegaly and against the constitution by denying others their god given right to liberty, which is why almost all Northern states abolished slavery shortly after the US Constitution was sighned, because slavery is unconstitutional.
Slavery by name wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution did have a provision calling for the return of fugitive slaves. If slavery were unconstitutional as you claim, why would the following statement be in the Constitution?
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.