Ole Miss basketball players kneel during anthem

NationalTitles17 said:

That came on after love boat. You guys may be on fantasy island come to think of it.

Click to expand...

dang it, i am getting my 70s shows mixed up again.

now i guess you are going to tell me that colonel steve austin didn't fly an invisible plane.

All I know is the North won, the South lost, and we are better for it. Victors have the right to write the history and the right to make the demands at the peace table.

92tide said:

"some southerners complaining about the threat to their slaveholding"

Click to expand...

Again slaveholders were a majority in no southern state. Nonslaveholders were not concerned with losing their slaves because they did not have any slaves to lose. Why would they embrace independence from the Union?


In my view, the democratic thing and the constitutional thing for the president to have done was to acknowledge the withdrawal of the seceded states (the seven that withdrew before he took office: SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX), and give them a bill for their share of the national debt as it existed at that time.

Then, purchase all the 1,798 slaves in the state of Delaware (an average of $1,000/slave= $1,789,000). Get Republicans in Congress to pass an abolition amendment (now a Congress without reps from the Deep South), send the amendment to the states for adoption. 35 states before secession, -7=28 states. 3/4 of those is 21. 20 "free" states, plus Delaware, recently made effectively into a free state =21. The amendment is adopted. Then, do not enter into any treaty with the Confederate States to return runaway slaves (just as Great Britain/Canada refused to do with the United States before the war). Every slave who sneaks across the Alabama-Tennessee line (or the North Carolina-South Carolina line, etc.) is now free. How long would slavery survive in the Deep South under those circumstances?
A democratic, constitutional, effective, and cheap end to slavery.

81usaf92 said:

All I know is the North won, the South lost, and we are better for it. Victors have the right to write the history and the right to make the demands at the peace table.

Click to expand...

Interesting. The British rode that philosophy all the way to Irish independence in the 1920s.

Tidewater said:

Interesting. The British rode that philosophy all the way to Irish independence in the 1920s.

Click to expand...

Had the CSA won I seriously doubt anyone could hold off the Germans and Russians from permanently owning France and the Balkans. So unless you think the Germans and Russians are better world powers than us then I think we all came out better that Dixie lost.

81usaf92 said:

Had the CSA won I seriously doubt anyone could hold off the Germans and Russians from permanently owning France and the Balkans. So unless you think the Germans and Russians are better world powers than us then I think we all came out better that Dixie lost.

Click to expand...

That is interesting hypothetical. Maybe without U.S. participation in World War I, there would have been no Nazis, no Soviets and no World War II.

Tidewater said:

Again slaveholders were a majority in no southern state. Nonslaveholders were not concerned with losing their slaves because they did not have any slaves to lose. Why would they embrace independence from the Union?


In my view, the democratic thing and the constitutional thing for the president to have done was to acknowledge the withdrawal of the seceded states (the seven that withdrew before he took office: SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX), and give them a bill for their share of the national debt as it existed at that time.

Then, purchase all the 1,798 slaves in the state of Delaware (an average of $1,000/slave= $1,789,000). Get Republicans in Congress to pass an abolition amendment (now a Congress without reps from the Deep South), send the amendment to the states for adoption. 35 states before secession, -7=28 states. 3/4 of those is 21. 20 "free" states, plus Delaware, recently made effectively into a free state =21. The amendment is adopted. Then, do not enter into any treaty with the Confederate States to return runaway slaves (just as Great Britain/Canada refused to do with the United States before the war). Every slave who sneaks across the Alabama-Tennessee line (or the North Carolina-South Carolina line, etc.) is now free. How long would slavery survive in the Deep South under those circumstances?
A democratic, constitutional, effective, and cheap end to slavery.

Click to expand...

sweet merciful jesus, please make it stop. this is reaching parody. slaveholders held the power. slavery was protected in their constitution. many of the the notices for secession specifically mentioned slavery as the reason. this list goes on. and this doesn't even get into that one large segment of the population that had no voice at all.

you can keep up the lost cause stuff (sorry, not lost cause, just the "real" reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with slavery) pretending that secession was about something other than slavery, but there aren't a lot of folks who are going to take you seriously after reading more than a few posts.

Tidewater said:

That is interesting hypothetical. Maybe without U.S. participation in World War I, there would have been no Nazis, no Soviets

Click to expand...

There would be Soviets, but maybe no Nazis and no Treaty of Versailles. But the point still remains, we would be weaker as a nation and a continent had the South won, and its hard to argue otherwise.

Tidewater said:

Again slaveholders were a majority in no southern state. Nonslaveholders were not concerned with losing their slaves because they did not have any slaves to lose. Why would they embrace independence from the Union?


In my view, the democratic thing and the constitutional thing for the president to have done was to acknowledge the withdrawal of the seceded states (the seven that withdrew before he took office: SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX), and give them a bill for their share of the national debt as it existed at that time.

Then, purchase all the 1,798 slaves in the state of Delaware (an average of $1,000/slave= $1,789,000). Get Republicans in Congress to pass an abolition amendment (now a Congress without reps from the Deep South), send the amendment to the states for adoption. 35 states before secession, -7=28 states. 3/4 of those is 21. 20 "free" states, plus Delaware, recently made effectively into a free state =21. The amendment is adopted. Then, do not enter into any treaty with the Confederate States to return runaway slaves (just as Great Britain/Canada refused to do with the United States before the war). Every slave who sneaks across the Alabama-Tennessee line (or the North Carolina-South Carolina line, etc.) is now free. How long would slavery survive in the Deep South under those circumstances?
A democratic, constitutional, effective, and cheap end to slavery.

Click to expand...

Certainly preferable to 1.6M or so casualties IMO.

Tidewater said:

Again slaveholders were a majority in no southern state. Nonslaveholders were not concerned with losing their slaves because they did not have any slaves to lose. Why would they embrace independence from the Union?


In my view, the democratic thing and the constitutional thing for the president to have done was to acknowledge the withdrawal of the seceded states (the seven that withdrew before he took office: SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX), and give them a bill for their share of the national debt as it existed at that time.

Then, purchase all the 1,798 slaves in the state of Delaware (an average of $1,000/slave= $1,789,000). Get Republicans in Congress to pass an abolition amendment (now a Congress without reps from the Deep South), send the amendment to the states for adoption. 35 states before secession, -7=28 states. 3/4 of those is 21. 20 "free" states, plus Delaware, recently made effectively into a free state =21. The amendment is adopted. Then, do not enter into any treaty with the Confederate States to return runaway slaves (just as Great Britain/Canada refused to do with the United States before the war). Every slave who sneaks across the Alabama-Tennessee line (or the North Carolina-South Carolina line, etc.) is now free. How long would slavery survive in the Deep South under those circumstances?
A democratic, constitutional, effective, and cheap end to slavery.

Click to expand...

I guess you have no issue with the Germans invading Poland because about 80-90% of Germans had no direct connection to the Nazi Party and the French were the real bad guys for breaking Germany up at Versailles.

At some point you have to accept the political mechanisms that push towards the war have more power than the ones that fight them. Yes we understand soldiers of a regime usually fight for more noble causes than the those who order them to war.

There is a great movie quote that goes “ history remembers Kings not soldiers”. Slavery was still wrong no matter how much innocent Southern blood was dripped fighting for what they viewed was fighting against Northern Aggression.

92tide said:

slaveholders held the power.

Click to expand...

I think you should read a bit more about Alabama history. Alabamians were famously jealous of prerogatives. Any politician who talked down to nonslaveholders would find himself thrown out of office. In any case, in the election for the state convention consisted of universal white male enfranchisement and a secret ballot.

slavery was protected in their constitution. many of the the notices for secession specifically mentioned slavery as the reason.

Click to expand...

A reason. If all it was about was slavery, then they would have stated as much and left it at that. Instead, they said things like:
- The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue – to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. (SC)
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance. (Texas)
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens [Harper's Ferry], and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States [Iowa & Ohio] have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose. (Texas)
their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity. (Ga.)
Obviously, there was more going on or they would not have bothered.

this list goes on. and this doesn't even get into that one large segment of the population that had no voice at all.

Click to expand...

And black folk did not vote in any state west of New York city. Women voted in no state.

you can keep up the lost cause stuff (sorry, not lost cause, just the "real" reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with slavery) pretending that secession was about something other than slavery, but there aren't a lot of folks who are going to take you seriously after reading more than a few posts.

Click to expand...

I'll give it a rest at this point.
My object has been to show that southerners at the time had more concerns than just slavery.

And nothing I have said in the thread or other about why I would defend their memory has anything to do with supporting white supremacy. I do not believe in white supremacy nonsense and anybody who says otherwise is a liar.
The existence of people like me (and there are a lot of us out there) means that a Manechean view on the Civil War and its meaning, one which hold to "good northerners" and "evil southerners" is simplistic, even sophomoric. Not everyone who appreciates the southern side in that war or honors the service of Confederate soldiers is a knuckle-dragging racist or does so because of a belief in white supremacy. Sorry is that complicates things for you.

Looks like Ole Miss students are smarter than the university

https://www.al.com/news/2019/03/ole...to-remove-confederate-statue-from-campus.html

It's time for me to throw my hat into this battle.

It has been, as our ancestors used to say, many moons since last I graced you with one of my glorious animadversions about The Confederate States of America's wanton, saturnine flights of fancy. With this letter I intend to propitiate my regular readers with a look at The Confederate States of America's desire to promote, foster, and institute conformism. Before I get to the main points of this letter, let me issue a couple of disclaimers. First, I clearly dislike The Confederate States of America. The Confederate States of America is a cruel luftmensch who wants only to harm others or even instill the fear of harm. Second, The Confederate States of America unmistakably dislikes me. I don't know why. Perhaps it's because I've said in the past that its press releases are littered with exclamation points and vulgar imprecations. In contrast, when I try to convey information to my readers, I present evidence, free of irrelevant emotion, that The Confederate States of America and its apologists are addlepated freaks of nature. This is not set down in complaint against them but merely as analysis.

A surprisingly large number of raucous gits consider The Confederate States of America to be their savior. This overwhelmingly positive view of The Confederate States of America is obviously not shared by those who have been victims of The Confederate States of America's fibs or by those who believe that there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of The Confederate States of America. I wish such people would wake up and realize that The Confederate States of America has called people like me malicious spivs, obnoxious scumbags, and blowsy numskulls so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. The Confederate States of America obviously continues to employ such insults because it's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that The Confederate States of America's lack of vision for an alternative strategy is one reason that it insists on continuing in the same direction. I should add that The Confederate States of America also benefits from the power the status quo gives it to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging its pranks. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. The Confederate States of America's nauseating philippics will destroy us all.