Page 2 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

KagamineLen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,633

05 Aug 2015, 1:21 pm



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

05 Aug 2015, 4:19 pm

sly279 wrote:
yep from what I remember they simply paid evefryone for the freed slaves. which is stupid but mean people who owned slaves were less upset.


There was compensation, but given how much of a change it was you have to expect that. The point is they achieved emancipation.

The British slave trade is often mentioned in isolation, excluding all the other European colonial forces.

The US may not imported as many slaves, but that doesn't they didn't trade the revenue from American slave breading program could easily give the British slave trade a run for its money literal.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,643
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 4:46 pm

sly279 wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
The England flag / St George Cross has been associated with racists, ultra-nationalists and football hooligans. There are good reasons to challenge that impression, not by banning it, but having a counter movement.

You could argue that it is not the same given the root of the Confederate flag, but are you forgetting the feudal system in England and the association with the the Crusades it has (and that St. George has nothing to do with England). What it represents can change over time.

However dumb this flag fixation is (and it is dumb), having a counter narrative to Southern pride equaling racism, is no bad thing. A message that if it has been there, I've not aware of.

The civil war has been oversimplified, as if portraying the North/Yankees as moral crusaders against slavery, like wannabee William Wilberforce ilk freedom fighters is bunk. That is not accurate at least not at that start, and actually it was really about the politics of white people industrialism, vs agrarianism. Even Lincoln himself has been misrepresented in his early career.

I do think Confederate flag should have never graced state property in the first place. Most of the problem to do with that are down to the cold war. Principles thrown out the window in spirit of paranoia.


banning of slaverly was a political move to stop England from supporting the south and to try to make the south surrender faster. as all slaves in land taken by the north would be free. it wasn't til later all blacks were free like they should have been. heck until then they called them contraband as in confiscated property. many of the troops of the north treated blacks terrible and refused to help or free them. look how they treated black troops fighting for the north.

the north good freedom fighting and south bad slave owners is a after the war victors make the history thing. and I'm from the north. well west but we were witht he north and taught history from the Norths view. wasn't until college that I learned there was a lot more to the civil war then what northern/west high schools teach. its not so black and white.

slavery was going to end one way or another though it wasn't a sustainable system. the south knew that but they weren't ready to move away from it as it caused the collapse of their whole economy, they weren't industrialized like the north was. as my teach put it if the north was so anti slavery why didn't they refuse to buy any southern produces. nope they bought southern products cheaply and made it to other stuff and sold to Europe. they profited highly off of slavery and din't want to change it either. there were more anti slavery people in the north yes, and there were a few in the south too. remember England had gotten rid of slavery long before the us.


Whether or not slavery in America would have ended on it's own, the fact remains, the Confederacy started the war to preserve slavery and white supremacy. It was the slave owners themselves who had fired the first shot, not the Union. So the point really isn't if slavery would be phased out, but that there were people willing to kill for it's continuation.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,643
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 4:48 pm

^^^
And I should add, the Confederate constitution forbade any state in their country from making slavery illegal. So much for the notion that slavery would have just been allowed to fade away in Dixie.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

05 Aug 2015, 5:44 pm

Spiderpig wrote:
And where did they take the money from?

It's a fact that you can't abolish slavery without robbing slave owners of their property. Fortunately, this problem doesn't exist when slavery has already been abolished.


taxes, probably mostly from their colonies.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

05 Aug 2015, 5:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
The England flag / St George Cross has been associated with racists, ultra-nationalists and football hooligans. There are good reasons to challenge that impression, not by banning it, but having a counter movement.

You could argue that it is not the same given the root of the Confederate flag, but are you forgetting the feudal system in England and the association with the the Crusades it has (and that St. George has nothing to do with England). What it represents can change over time.

However dumb this flag fixation is (and it is dumb), having a counter narrative to Southern pride equaling racism, is no bad thing. A message that if it has been there, I've not aware of.

The civil war has been oversimplified, as if portraying the North/Yankees as moral crusaders against slavery, like wannabee William Wilberforce ilk freedom fighters is bunk. That is not accurate at least not at that start, and actually it was really about the politics of white people industrialism, vs agrarianism. Even Lincoln himself has been misrepresented in his early career.

I do think Confederate flag should have never graced state property in the first place. Most of the problem to do with that are down to the cold war. Principles thrown out the window in spirit of paranoia.


banning of slaverly was a political move to stop England from supporting the south and to try to make the south surrender faster. as all slaves in land taken by the north would be free. it wasn't til later all blacks were free like they should have been. heck until then they called them contraband as in confiscated property. many of the troops of the north treated blacks terrible and refused to help or free them. look how they treated black troops fighting for the north.

the north good freedom fighting and south bad slave owners is a after the war victors make the history thing. and I'm from the north. well west but we were witht he north and taught history from the Norths view. wasn't until college that I learned there was a lot more to the civil war then what northern/west high schools teach. its not so black and white.

slavery was going to end one way or another though it wasn't a sustainable system. the south knew that but they weren't ready to move away from it as it caused the collapse of their whole economy, they weren't industrialized like the north was. as my teach put it if the north was so anti slavery why didn't they refuse to buy any southern produces. nope they bought southern products cheaply and made it to other stuff and sold to Europe. they profited highly off of slavery and din't want to change it either. there were more anti slavery people in the north yes, and there were a few in the south too. remember England had gotten rid of slavery long before the us.


Whether or not slavery in America would have ended on it's own, the fact remains, the Confederacy started the war to preserve slavery and white supremacy. It was the slave owners themselves who had fired the first shot, not the Union. So the point really isn't if slavery would be phased out, but that there were people willing to kill for it's continuation.


slave owners were rich few, how do you explain all the non slave owners who fought for states rights.

also if russia claimed an island in us waters and the us said no thats ours, then russian sent in more troops to build up troop placement on the island. the us responds by attacking the island. who started the war? was it russia who took an island in the us's territory water , or was it the us who attacked to defend their borders? teh south left the union legally. the island was in the heart of the south. when the south left legally all union forts in its borders should have been withdrawn. instead of doing that the union sent more troops in to build up. quite frankly the us has done as the south did many times before and after that and every time it was said the other side started the war. yes the south fired the first shots but it was to defend their border. the south lost and slaverly was wrong but I can't stand revisinging history to proprganda the winner. the union started the war, the union wanted the war, they wanted the south back in the uinion there was never a "oh lets just let them be" it was aways a " you son of B***h you can't leave we'll bring you back with force" but to just march down and attack would looked bad, so they forced the south's hand. just like when we sent troops over the mexican border and they got shot and we used that for war, just like how we wanted war with japan so waited, but waited for them to attack first. politics. if it hadn't been for politics I'm sure union troops would marched into the south the minute the states left.

just like who started ww1? it wasn't eh central powers, they weren't the evil side. they were attacked by the serbs, who backed by the Russians started ww1. have a group group from Canada's government assassinate the president and watch the us invade. but again central powers lost the war, so were painted as the bad guys who started it all.

there's history and there's political history. one is real and one is changed to suite the victory

Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
And I should add, the Confederate constitution forbade any state in their country from making slavery illegal. So much for the notion that slavery would have just been allowed to fade away in Dixie.


yes and drugs are illegal too. and so is immigration oh and gay marriage was illegal. yep laws never change, they stuck in stone forever. many in the south new slaverly coulndt' last they just weren't ready to get rid of it. given 20-30 years it would have likely ended, just not in the 3 months some in the north wanted. you can not move away from such a huge and vita but failling system quickly, you have to gradeually move from it or face the whole thing falling apart. the north was already devoluped with factories so ending slavely quickly wouldn't have hurt them but doing so in the south which had 1/4 the factories or less then the north would have had horrible effects like it did.

just like we cant' up and stop all coal produciton right now this minute and move everyone to nuclear. or stop all gas and go electric cars. how many people would be without cars and starve due to the move? I can't buy an electric car. many millions and millions can't we but 20 year or more old gas cars because thats all we can afford. so if tomorrow the gov banned gas. i'd be screwed. do we need to move away from gas and coal yes but it can't be done quickly.

England did it slowly and paid people for each slave. the us didn't have the money to do so. the money allowed the slavers to fund new ways of doing things. I wish slavery would never have happen but it did. wish we nevere used coal and gas, but we did. you have to deal with the reality of things. I don't think we can quite understand it being so many hundred years separated from that culture, time and society.

we are judging people long dead by our society standards. I imagine people in the future will look back not so fondly on us and our society standards.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

05 Aug 2015, 6:08 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Okay ... I've noticed that lots of people have been talking about the Confederate Flag lately. Apparently the flag was removed from the South Carolina Statehouse. That's good. The people of South Carolina have finally accepted that the south got owned during the civil war.

I'm sick of hearing people say that the stars and bars are a symbol of "southern pride". The flag is a symbol of white supremacy and it isn't very patriotic since the Confederated hated the Union.


I'm not even getting into this debate. I'm going to say this and then not check back because there is no point in it, I've tried talking to Yankees about this and they can't understand it.

You are talking out of your ass. Learn about the subject from both sides. I suppose you completely discredit the black Southerners who fly the flag too, huh?


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

05 Aug 2015, 6:31 pm

Why wouldn't i? Being black doesn't prevent someone from being a stupid as*hole.

Take Kanye for example.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,643
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 8:46 pm

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
The England flag / St George Cross has been associated with racists, ultra-nationalists and football hooligans. There are good reasons to challenge that impression, not by banning it, but having a counter movement.

You could argue that it is not the same given the root of the Confederate flag, but are you forgetting the feudal system in England and the association with the the Crusades it has (and that St. George has nothing to do with England). What it represents can change over time.

However dumb this flag fixation is (and it is dumb), having a counter narrative to Southern pride equaling racism, is no bad thing. A message that if it has been there, I've not aware of.

The civil war has been oversimplified, as if portraying the North/Yankees as moral crusaders against slavery, like wannabee William Wilberforce ilk freedom fighters is bunk. That is not accurate at least not at that start, and actually it was really about the politics of white people industrialism, vs agrarianism. Even Lincoln himself has been misrepresented in his early career.

I do think Confederate flag should have never graced state property in the first place. Most of the problem to do with that are down to the cold war. Principles thrown out the window in spirit of paranoia.


banning of slaverly was a political move to stop England from supporting the south and to try to make the south surrender faster. as all slaves in land taken by the north would be free. it wasn't til later all blacks were free like they should have been. heck until then they called them contraband as in confiscated property. many of the troops of the north treated blacks terrible and refused to help or free them. look how they treated black troops fighting for the north.

the north good freedom fighting and south bad slave owners is a after the war victors make the history thing. and I'm from the north. well west but we were witht he north and taught history from the Norths view. wasn't until college that I learned there was a lot more to the civil war then what northern/west high schools teach. its not so black and white.

slavery was going to end one way or another though it wasn't a sustainable system. the south knew that but they weren't ready to move away from it as it caused the collapse of their whole economy, they weren't industrialized like the north was. as my teach put it if the north was so anti slavery why didn't they refuse to buy any southern produces. nope they bought southern products cheaply and made it to other stuff and sold to Europe. they profited highly off of slavery and din't want to change it either. there were more anti slavery people in the north yes, and there were a few in the south too. remember England had gotten rid of slavery long before the us.


Whether or not slavery in America would have ended on it's own, the fact remains, the Confederacy started the war to preserve slavery and white supremacy. It was the slave owners themselves who had fired the first shot, not the Union. So the point really isn't if slavery would be phased out, but that there were people willing to kill for it's continuation.


slave owners were rich few, how do you explain all the non slave owners who fought for states rights.

also if russia claimed an island in us waters and the us said no thats ours, then russian sent in more troops to build up troop placement on the island. the us responds by attacking the island. who started the war? was it russia who took an island in the us's territory water , or was it the us who attacked to defend their borders? teh south left the union legally. the island was in the heart of the south. when the south left legally all union forts in its borders should have been withdrawn. instead of doing that the union sent more troops in to build up. quite frankly the us has done as the south did many times before and after that and every time it was said the other side started the war. yes the south fired the first shots but it was to defend their border. the south lost and slaverly was wrong but I can't stand revisinging history to proprganda the winner. the union started the war, the union wanted the war, they wanted the south back in the uinion there was never a "oh lets just let them be" it was aways a " you son of B***h you can't leave we'll bring you back with force" but to just march down and attack would looked bad, so they forced the south's hand. just like when we sent troops over the mexican border and they got shot and we used that for war, just like how we wanted war with japan so waited, but waited for them to attack first. politics. if it hadn't been for politics I'm sure union troops would marched into the south the minute the states left.

just like who started ww1? it wasn't eh central powers, they weren't the evil side. they were attacked by the serbs, who backed by the Russians started ww1. have a group group from Canada's government assassinate the president and watch the us invade. but again central powers lost the war, so were painted as the bad guys who started it all.

there's history and there's political history. one is real and one is changed to suite the victory

Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
And I should add, the Confederate constitution forbade any state in their country from making slavery illegal. So much for the notion that slavery would have just been allowed to fade away in Dixie.


yes and drugs are illegal too. and so is immigration oh and gay marriage was illegal. yep laws never change, they stuck in stone forever. many in the south new slaverly coulndt' last they just weren't ready to get rid of it. given 20-30 years it would have likely ended, just not in the 3 months some in the north wanted. you can not move away from such a huge and vita but failling system quickly, you have to gradeually move from it or face the whole thing falling apart. the north was already devoluped with factories so ending slavely quickly wouldn't have hurt them but doing so in the south which had 1/4 the factories or less then the north would have had horrible effects like it did.

just like we cant' up and stop all coal produciton right now this minute and move everyone to nuclear. or stop all gas and go electric cars. how many people would be without cars and starve due to the move? I can't buy an electric car. many millions and millions can't we but 20 year or more old gas cars because thats all we can afford. so if tomorrow the gov banned gas. i'd be screwed. do we need to move away from gas and coal yes but it can't be done quickly.

England did it slowly and paid people for each slave. the us didn't have the money to do so. the money allowed the slavers to fund new ways of doing things. I wish slavery would never have happen but it did. wish we nevere used coal and gas, but we did. you have to deal with the reality of things. I don't think we can quite understand it being so many hundred years separated from that culture, time and society.

we are judging people long dead by our society standards. I imagine people in the future will look back not so fondly on us and our society standards.


The south did not leave the Union legally, as there is no legal means for any state to do that.
And as far as Fort Sumter was concerned, it was a federal facility, owned and operated by the US government regardless of where it's locate geographically. That the south laid siege to it was itself an act of war.
As for the Union wanting war - not really, they were negotiating with the Confederacy all through the conflict, even going to the extent of promising not to free any slaves. It was the Confederate leadership - comprised of the wealthy planter class - who believed Lincoln's election would spell the doom for their cash cow of slavery (which ironically is what ultimately happened - due to their own actions), and so decided to instigate armed rebellion to keep slavery alive.
And sure, most of the men fighting for the Confederacy didn't own slaves. It's also true that the Confederate government instituted a draft, and so it's impossible to know how many chose to fight for the south, and how many only did because they faced execution or prison if they did not. There was in fact a high degree of desertion in the Confederate army, and some of those men were like Newton Knight, who formed a guerrilla army composed of other deserters and escaped slaves to carry on warfare against the Confederate government in Mississippi. Many other white southerners joined the Union army out of conscience and loyalty. Then there were those hard line poor southerners who were fighting for the cause of white supremacy, as they feared with the end of slavery, they might not have blacks just a step lower than them on the social ladder to look down on.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

06 Aug 2015, 1:57 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

The south did not leave the Union legally, as there is no legal means for any state to do that.
And as far as Fort Sumter was concerned, it was a federal facility, owned and operated by the US government regardless of where it's locate geographically. That the south laid siege to it was itself an act of war.
As for the Union wanting war - not really, they were negotiating with the Confederacy all through the conflict, even going to the extent of promising not to free any slaves. It was the Confederate leadership - comprised of the wealthy planter class - who believed Lincoln's election would spell the doom for their cash cow of slavery (which ironically is what ultimately happened - due to their own actions), and so decided to instigate armed rebellion to keep slavery alive.
And sure, most of the men fighting for the Confederacy didn't own slaves. It's also true that the Confederate government instituted a draft, and so it's impossible to know how many chose to fight for the south, and how many only did because they faced execution or prison if they did not. There was in fact a high degree of desertion in the Confederate army, and some of those men were like Newton Knight, who formed a guerrilla army composed of other deserters and escaped slaves to carry on warfare against the Confederate government in Mississippi. Many other white southerners joined the Union army out of conscience and loyalty. Then there were those hard line poor southerners who were fighting for the cause of white supremacy, as they feared with the end of slavery, they might not have blacks just a step lower than them on the social ladder to look down on.


there was before the civil war, the civil war is what caused there to not be one now. before it the constitution was a a thing the states willingly cam into and could willing leave.

what are you kidding me they left so all waters and land in their states were not federal property anymore. can russian invade any eastern European nation to retake its old soviet era forts? or is it when those nations left soviet union that those forts that are in thier borders left with them and there for no longer belonged to the russia.

you just want to paint the south as a bunch of evil people who had it coming. thats hardly ever how real history works.
the north could do no harm and was just an inocent child, the south was the devil and had to be slain for the good of all man kind.

wonder if all the talk fo laws to get rid of slavery made them scared? slavery was at the time a states right it was not the only state right at issue. but it ws one of the main ones. which was for states to decide themselves what they wanted to do. you need to understand that this was a states rights vs federal control thing too. at the time many still believed the united states was just that. a group of simi independent states that worked together. they called them self not us citizens but Missourians, new Englanders, Virginians. it took the civil war and ww1 to bring us all together and people to call them us citizens except Texas who many there still refer to themselves as Texans. mean look at how the military was mad up. it wasn't one big mixed army it was a bunch of units from each state flying that states flag, who worked together under a federal general. even then you had different army regions. the main of the south being from Virginia.
people back then weren't Americans yet in the sense we are today.

completely different times, its inappropriate to talk about it using today's society standards and laws on books today.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

06 Aug 2015, 2:01 am

blauSamstag wrote:
Why wouldn't i? Being black doesn't prevent someone from being a stupid as*hole.

Take Kanye for example.


I thought the people flying the Confederate Flag were meant to be the intolerant ones. It's hilarious watching you fighting to rid yourself of your right to free speech, all in the name of... what exactly?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Aug 2015, 3:35 am

adifferentname wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Why wouldn't i? Being black doesn't prevent someone from being a stupid as*hole.

Take Kanye for example.


I thought the people flying the Confederate Flag were meant to be the intolerant ones. It's hilarious watching you fighting to rid yourself of your right to free speech, all in the name of... what exactly?


Ah, yes; the progressive hypocrisy.
On the average they are at least every bit as intolerant, hateful, and violent as those they so vehemently oppose for being.............intolerant, hateful, and violent.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,643
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Aug 2015, 3:46 am

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

The south did not leave the Union legally, as there is no legal means for any state to do that.
And as far as Fort Sumter was concerned, it was a federal facility, owned and operated by the US government regardless of where it's locate geographically. That the south laid siege to it was itself an act of war.
As for the Union wanting war - not really, they were negotiating with the Confederacy all through the conflict, even going to the extent of promising not to free any slaves. It was the Confederate leadership - comprised of the wealthy planter class - who believed Lincoln's election would spell the doom for their cash cow of slavery (which ironically is what ultimately happened - due to their own actions), and so decided to instigate armed rebellion to keep slavery alive.
And sure, most of the men fighting for the Confederacy didn't own slaves. It's also true that the Confederate government instituted a draft, and so it's impossible to know how many chose to fight for the south, and how many only did because they faced execution or prison if they did not. There was in fact a high degree of desertion in the Confederate army, and some of those men were like Newton Knight, who formed a guerrilla army composed of other deserters and escaped slaves to carry on warfare against the Confederate government in Mississippi. Many other white southerners joined the Union army out of conscience and loyalty. Then there were those hard line poor southerners who were fighting for the cause of white supremacy, as they feared with the end of slavery, they might not have blacks just a step lower than them on the social ladder to look down on.


there was before the civil war, the civil war is what caused there to not be one now. before it the constitution was a a thing the states willingly cam into and could willing leave.

what are you kidding me they left so all waters and land in their states were not federal property anymore. can russian invade any eastern European nation to retake its old soviet era forts? or is it when those nations left soviet union that those forts that are in thier borders left with them and there for no longer belonged to the russia.

you just want to paint the south as a bunch of evil people who had it coming. thats hardly ever how real history works.
the north could do no harm and was just an inocent child, the south was the devil and had to be slain for the good of all man kind.

wonder if all the talk fo laws to get rid of slavery made them scared? slavery was at the time a states right it was not the only state right at issue. but it ws one of the main ones. which was for states to decide themselves what they wanted to do. you need to understand that this was a states rights vs federal control thing too. at the time many still believed the united states was just that. a group of simi independent states that worked together. they called them self not us citizens but Missourians, new Englanders, Virginians. it took the civil war and ww1 to bring us all together and people to call them us citizens except Texas who many there still refer to themselves as Texans. mean look at how the military was mad up. it wasn't one big mixed army it was a bunch of units from each state flying that states flag, who worked together under a federal general. even then you had different army regions. the main of the south being from Virginia.
people back then weren't Americans yet in the sense we are today.

completely different times, its inappropriate to talk about it using today's society standards and laws on books today.


Are you talking about the constitution, or the articles of confederation? Because the articles of confederation proved to be so unworkable with such a weak centralized government that the constitution replaced it. And I have no knowledge of the constitution allowing states to just come and go as they please.
In regard to your example of Russia claiming authority over former military installations in former East Block nations - there is in fact a considerable difference. Those East Block nations had always been separate countries, whereas rebelling American states were just that - American. And while the Kremlin had recognized the breaking away allies from Soviet rule, Washington DC had no reason to recognize American states attempting to break away, as they were always part of this country.
As for states rights being a cause of the war - as you yourself had conceded that the main argument was about slavery as a state right, I think it can be reasonably argued that that reason is simply indefensible on moral grounds.
As for regionalism to the extent of putting state ahead of country - Yes, that was the case, especially in the older states, but that hardly makes it right. In the American far west, where my dad's side of the family has deep roots in, regionalism never really took root because the states and territories were much younger, and comprised of people from all over the country looking for a new place to reinvent themselves. With this came a sense that that they were Americans first and foremost. A big part of that sentiment also was based in the fact that a great many of westerners of the 19th and early 20th centuries - popularly known as the Old west - had lived in more than one state and territory. Case in point: my family on my dad's side had lived in four different states in one lifetime, those being South Dakota, Oregon, California, and finally Washington. Even today in my home state of Washington, it's very, very common for residents here to have been born elsewhere, and came to the Pacific Northwest looking for, as people in old west times, to find someplace better.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

06 Aug 2015, 9:28 am

Yeah, it's a myth that any state ever encorporated into the USA ever was granted a right of secession.

Even texas never did, though it was given the right to break into 5 states of the united states of america.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

06 Aug 2015, 10:21 am

Raptor wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Why wouldn't i? Being black doesn't prevent someone from being a stupid as*hole.

Take Kanye for example.


I thought the people flying the Confederate Flag were meant to be the intolerant ones. It's hilarious watching you fighting to rid yourself of your right to free speech, all in the name of... what exactly?


Ah, yes; the progressive hypocrisy.
On the average they are at least every bit as intolerant, hateful, and violent as those they so vehemently oppose for being.............intolerant, hateful, and violent.


How is intolerance of the despicable a sin, or somehow inconsistent with progressive thought?



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

06 Aug 2015, 10:36 am

blauSamstag wrote:
Raptor wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Why wouldn't i? Being black doesn't prevent someone from being a stupid as*hole.

Take Kanye for example.


I thought the people flying the Confederate Flag were meant to be the intolerant ones. It's hilarious watching you fighting to rid yourself of your right to free speech, all in the name of... what exactly?


Ah, yes; the progressive hypocrisy.
On the average they are at least every bit as intolerant, hateful, and violent as those they so vehemently oppose for being.............intolerant, hateful, and violent.


How is intolerance of the despicable a sin, or somehow inconsistent with progressive thought?


blauSamstag wrote:
Being black doesn't prevent someone from being a stupid as*hole.


Said by you, of people whose only 'failing' is to disagree with you.

There is a word for this.

You know what that word is.