Celebrate July 3 AND July 4!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Not to mention that 4 out of the last 5 Presidents were from the south.

This explains perfectly why the South must secede !

For the North to restore its greatness

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Not to mention that 4 out of the last 5 Presidents were from the south.

hmmm:
Bush? texas (nominally south, southwest really)
Clinton: check
Bush 1: Oh, yeah Texas (not really the south), zion of a Conneticutt Yankee family. How Southern....
Reagan: Born in illinois, no? Not aouth then.
Carter: yup.

That is some Enron-like accounting.

[Spiffor]

Ge:
It seems Texas is the "South" in the meaning of "former confederacy"

[Zylka]

Agrees

[GePap]

Meh.... He is still wrong, in that Reagan has no south in him. and the BUsh family comes form a line of Conneticutt Yankees, with Bush the Younger being one of the first not to really growq up there, and he grw up in West Texas.

The only two trully southern boys to be president in the last 26 years have both been dems, Billy and Jimmy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Spiffor: I thought you liked Clinton, btw .

[Spiffor]

I only "like" the half-assed, treacherous, lying, deceptive, hypocrite, warlike right-winger called Bill Clinton in comparison to the even more pathetic George Bush Jr.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Meh.... He is still wrong, in that Reagan has no south in him. and the BUsh family comes form a line of Conneticutt Yankees, with Bush the Younger being one of the first not to really growq up there, and he grw up in West Texas.

The only two trully southern boys to be president in the last 26 years have both been dems, Billy and Jimmy.

I'll give you that one!

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to secede. I merely want to point out that there is much revisionist history that is being taught. To suggest that I get my information from Southern textbooks is ridiculous. I am actually old enough to have talked with the children of people who were alive then. I have also read, over the years, many 1st hand accounts from eye witnesses. Is the world better off because the South lost? Yeah, probably. The point is that the North was brutal, and they were responsible for many of the post war problems. Was the South without fault? Of course no and I would not mean to suggest such. However, if your(generic, not you specifically GePap) view is the mainstream view then I suggest that you are the one that needs to look at the total picture.

[monkspider]

I think the South should secede, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to. I would give them my blessings to boot.

[DarthVeda]

Only if the ice queen becomes president in 2008. Then we can all join them

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker
MtG: they had already gained their "independence". They then attacked Union troops. THEY were the agressors.

Union troops occupying (and being resupplied and reinforced) positions within sovereign foreign states. They wouldn't negotiate, so they were evicted. Occupation of foreign territory by armed forces without the consent of the occupied power is an act of war.

The south just wanted to be let alone, so it could oppress people in without interference

The north was such a worker's paradise that you had the baker's riots over the 100 hour work week, the first domestic "terrorist" organization, the Molly Maguires, the Pullman strike, the Grangers, Anti-Chinese Leagues, and I could go on and list hundreds of distinct acts of oppression of minorities and working class Americans within Yankee territory.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker
Because Lincoln was a visionary and actually cared about the slavery issue, maybe?

Which is why the Emancipation Proclamation expressly confirmed the right of any state to keep slaves if it returned to the Union prior to January 1, 1863...

Which is why Lincoln was claimed by Douglass and others to have state that the black man was not capable of coexisting with whites in white society as an equal, so Lincoln advocated deportation of free blacks to a territory to be set up for them outside the US...

Which is why Lincoln said if he had to maintain slavery to preserve the Union, he would do so...

Which is why the Yankee government permitted slavery to remain in the Union state of Delaware, and in the border/union occupied states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri...

Ol' Abe the Visionary.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Uber KruX


it wasn't that we WANTED to slaughter them, its just we had a cannon and we were shooting at a fly.

Which is why it took you four years and 100,000 more fatalities to prosecute a 2.5 to 1 advantage in manpower, and materiel and logistic advantages in every category?

That fly bit holes in your asses plenty of times.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Can anybody tell me why the North wanted to crush the south ?
I doubt the politicians of that time would have risked hundreds of thousands of lives and the collapse of the fledgling economy just to save slaves, so please tell me about the other motives, thanks .

A major part had simply to do with the Monroe Doctrine - France and England still had imperial ambitions in this hemisphere, and after the land theft from Mexico in the Mexican "war" the US was the dominant power in the hemisphere.

A live CSA would have not only restrained US power, it would be free to conduct it's own foreign policy wrt England and France, and the rest of the hemisphere.

There was also a longstanding economic rivalry between northern manufacturers and mills, and southern resource producers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tuberski





Point. Set. Match.



ACK!

I'm sure they'd all much rather prefer that the Yankees, Brits, Portuguese, et al left them in Africa.