Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Now that’s a powerfully true post from this Texan’s perspective. I’ve noticed on our particular local forum that the talk is getting angrier and angrier. Several folks are saying that they are willing to fight and die for our country. During the election cycle there were a few leftists trying to dominate the forum. Rarely did anyone agree with them so they always resorted to horrible personal attacks, revealing other’s identities, defamation etc. Since the election, they’ve been pretty silent, and a new wave of angry conservative Texans are now dominating the forum. Most of the talk is about illegal immigration and the Islamists. One thing, however, is pretty much missing around these parts – the Confederate Flag.
Pissed off southerners... not a happy thought.
Hit the nail on the head. I'm in Alabama and I've noticed the exact same sense for the exact same reasons you point out. Let me go get my Confederate flag and shake it out. I'm armed and ready, maybe I shouldn't have said that, ha.
OK, lets get somethiong straight. Nearly all of the states Articles of Secession mentioned "Negro Slavery" as their first reason for secession so slavery was the primary reason for southern secession. However, nearly all of the northern leaders disavowed abolition as the reason for the war. Linclon repeatedly disavowed it as the reason. His Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the Confederacy and not in ststes that did not secede such as Md. So. This means that the norths reason for the war was purely economic.
What this means is that both sides had the basest of motives. The north fought a war of imperialism while the south fought to preserve slavery. Unintentionally, the north achieved emancipation of the slaves (they changed their "motivation" for the war in mid-fight).
As a many generational southerner, I am not pissed off. Although I revere the Confederate Battle flag and do not want to see it removed from monuments, some of my friends who are black are offended by it so I do not display it.
Excellent! Right on target! This one will be broadcast far and wide!
We should've let 'em quit the Union when we had a chance.
Greg Daniels, for once you've said something I completely agree with...
There are other reasons for us being pissed off as well.
How about the fact that public schools that are supposed to be institutions of learning are banning anything Confederate? Everyday there is an attack somewhere on a public school, or students in that school that are proud of their heritage.
How about the fact that our dead are no longer allowed to be honored with the flag in which they fought under and died?
Why is it that those that tell us that diversity is strentgh, and that we need equality, do not have room in their diverse hearts and minds for our right to equal treatment or for our culture?
In a repeat performance of Dick Gephardt's visit to South Carolina in 2003, both U.S. Senators, Christopher Dodd and Joseph Biden have made the now annual pilgrimage to South Carolina, to trash the Confederate flag and kiss NAACP butt, on Martin Luther King Day. How can these people claim to want equality when they don't treat us as equals?
http://mobushwhacker.bravejourna...com/entry/
19327
Reconstruction never ended, it is ongoing.
You'll get no arguements from me there. There are still carpetbaggers from the north coming down here today, buying property at overly inflated prices, driving up the property tax values for those who have lived here since birth, protesting our thinking and our way of doing things...
No, reconstruction didn't end, it merely shifted gears. Today's carpetbaggers are called by another word: "retirees..."
Hawk, I do think the controversy over the Confederate flag is a lot of BS. It's a noble banner that a lot of guys died for. Displaying it doesn't mean you think slavery is OK.
This from a California guy.
Under both the U.S. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 ruling in the Dred Scott Case, the practice of slavery in the United States was legal. In addition, the proposed 13th Ammendment that was drawn up prior to Lincoln's election, was worded so that slavery in the Southern states would not be touched by the U.S. Government.
The question begs: If Slavery was legal under national law, why then would the Southern States secede in order to maintain the slave system when they already had the full protection of United States federal law?
No, ladies and gentlemen, THE war, the War Between the States, was ignited purely over the issue of money. Over $3 billion in mortgaged loans from non-slaveholding states investors propped up the great majority of Southern plantations and Northern slave-holding ventures. Slave operations were going on in nearly every major Northern state with the exception of those making up the Northwest group where slavery was outlawed in accordance with their territorial charter.
Remember, also, that until the middle of the War Between the States, there was no federal income tax, and up until the outbreak of hostilities at Ft. Sumter at Charleston, the Northern-dominated Congress legislated that the great proportion, or share, of all duties, tariffs, and customs fees collected at Southern seaports would disproportionately end up in the hands of the heavier-populated Northern states, Northern investors and railroad expansionists. That is fact and historic records in Washington back up what I've said.
In fact, also, and presented as evidence as to what was the actual trigger-pull on the gun sounding the first actual shot of the war, was a short article that ran on the front page of the 17 January 1861 issue of the New York Times. I state it verbatum and as actual cite:
Headline:
"Increase of the South Carolina Army - Charleston, Wednesday, Jan. 16 -"
Body:
"Gov. Pickens has sent a Message to the Legislature, advising the raising of two more military companies and one more regiment to serve three years. He advises a permanent garrison of the extensive fortifications in South Carolina. "This may be expensive, but considering that we shall soon have a Southern Confederacy, it will be necessary to protect the seacoast, and aferwards transfer the troops to the Southern Government. The fanatical excitement of the Northern people shows us that if we expect to preserve peace, we must prepare for war."
Second paragraph:
"The House of Representatives have passed the bill to stay the collection and prosecution of all debts due by South Carolinians to men in the Non-Slaveholding States until after December next."
Third paragraph:
"Lieut. Mead, of Fort Sumter, reached here this afternoon, on a leave of absence to go home in Virginia, on account of the illness of his sister."
End of story.
Ladies and gentlemen, paragraph number two of this news story is the sum and sub
Exactly, which is what historians less focused on making sure the south is BLAMED for the war point out time after time.
David - one thing I'd like to point out is that, just because slavery was mentioned in allot of the Southern documents their reason for secession went a whole lot deeper then that. If you'll read the Declaration of Causes for Secession you'll notice that slavery was the branches on the tree. Northern oppression was the roots.
Don - no, the southern cause was not wholly over money issues either. Read the Declaration of Causes and it'll show the REAL reason of secession.
Another great article on the Confederate flag is "Truth about the Confederate Battle Flag" on www.chuchbaldwinlive.com
Thanks for the URL!!!!!!!!!!
Spamalot posting.
Edited By Siteowner
Spam much?
No, you're teaching revisitionist northern history. And I never once advocated the owning of slaves. Slavery was becoming unprofitable with the advent of machinery.
My comments a little too hot and inflammatory for gray-staters to handle, eh? Sure woke THIS corner of website up after thirteen months of anaesthesia. m somehow was able to read my posting (your comments respected, M), but then >boom!< blog-gone. So suspension of civil basics such as free speech and open dialogue falls in line with the older traditional customs such as the eighteenth and nineteenth suspension of civil liberites...... Not so surprising. And pulling this response will be interestingly typical of the insecurity the whole movement had to begin with, some two centuries ago.
"Leave us alone; we're not hurtin' y'all" was/is simply not the point, Johnny.
Whether or not slavery "was becoming unprofitable" bcomes moot in light of the south's continued penchant to control and to denigrate this (considerably larger) segment of the southern populace of the time. Humanity was the issue, humanity was AT issue, the cynical perpetual secessionist spin and/or dodge on this topic notwithstanding. I wouldn't disagree that Harriet B.S. 
("So this is the little lady that caused this great big war;" Lincoln) and her ilk stirred the pot, but it would only be a matter of time before someone else would have done the same.
Can ya handle it, HDCL?
You ramble on and on and don't make a point. Any moron can preen and prattle, as you're proving that you can do, and not make a coherent thought come of what they're saying. What you posted earlier was spam, pure and simple. If you want to post that much text, PUT IT on your OWN site, not here. You took up three full comment blocks with your diatribe.
Can I handle it? I'm locked and loaded, bub, are you threatening to invade again?
This earlier posting from Liberty applies to you, as well, fivelks:
David - one thing I'd like to point out is that, just because slavery was mentioned in allot of the Southern documents their reason for secession went a whole lot deeper then that. If you'll read the Declaration of Causes for Secession you'll notice that slavery was the branches on the tree. Northern oppression was the roots.
Don - no, the southern cause was not wholly over money issues either. Read the Declaration of Causes and it'll show the REAL reason of secession.
Another great article on the Confederate flag is "Truth about the Confederate Battle Flag" on www.chuchbaldwinlive.com
Liberty | 01.27.07 - 1:40 pm | #
Furthermore, fivelks:
It's PRECISELY that holier than thou, smarter than you are, better than you are attitude that some of you loud mouths from across the Mason-Dixon line come at us with that keep this shit alive in the first place.
Congratulations, you've won the loudmouth of the day award.
I've nothing further to say to you.
Dang, y'all! Someone got a might fried and a nerve "tetched!" Took three messages from you, at obsessive two-minute intervals, to finally inform that you had nothing more to say. We'll see.
New to this particular blog, I'd tried to fairly commend something from you, M, only to find out that you'd needed to don an alter-ego/persona as HCdL, purveyor of "Don't look now, but we're pissed off and ready to rumble!"
Rambled? Of course you don't read anything understandable when you're told that your ancestral treatment of slaves was inhumane. What part of that you don't understand isn't quite sensible, but history played it out for you; others bled for you. We'll see what you've learned, besides anger.
And I'm not even a liberal, heaven help us.
Holier than-thou? Even most of your kindred there in the south are holier-than-thou-specifically, and are living it now, rather than destructively re-fighting it.
This needn't be a problem. Mine are and shall remain only words, but you seem to think that the "invasion" has already begun, which it hasn't and won't.
Settle down, get past that awful American Mistake, and help someone. Get pro-active.
Take care, M. I mean it.
Best,
5
To quote Bugs Bunny, "He don't know me very well, DO he?"
Maybe not, but with role models like Islamic slave-holders, Bugs Bunny, and quite possibly Nathan Bedford Forrest, "ahm'-a'-thinkin'" we know a lot more about you than we need to. This, added to the opening-salvo Sumter-like rant here, falls into the clear category of "too much information." Who even asked?
[Still, you have nothing further to say to me. Love it. "Why, my goodness, yes: I absolutely hated that racy skin-flick my neighbor rented last evening; those were three of the most disgusting hours I've ever had to sit through...."]
Get it? Think, then type.
And push back from your keyboard, put on your cleanest bowling shirt, get in your pickup and get over and get those South Carolinians' heads on right for this country to move forward.
My guess is that, if you're here (and you seem to be everywhere on SpreeNet; do you have a job?), you're a conservative like me. But spewing the garbage like we see above at the very opening of this blog, the Liberals and the Dems will surely find you, feed upon you and court you....and why wouldn't they? These days, they're all about -- and depending upon -- things like Hawk's House Divided; they're exploiting every possibility of it for this coming November. Looks like they may have found quite a useful friend and ally in you.
Tragedy.
Get better role models if you're able, if you, as an adult, must have and/or cite them. [You just might want to work on the grammar, too.] Help out, for God's sake. Be part of the solution. Most of the rest of your Southern countrymen have done so.
5
.....
Fuck the civil, time for a revolution government is out of hand time to start over again......
i am only 15 but my dad is a southern man and and so am i after the war of northern aggression america has gone lower and lower soon war will begin and i say YOU WANT MY RIGHTS COME AND GET THEM!!!!
Dear Johnny Wet-Behind-The-Ears:
War of Northern Aggression? Who fired the opening rounds at Sumter?
Alright, Einstein? Think, then type. Read your history books; and on this one they'll all agree, since those Carolinian traitors will eternally and gleefully admit to having committed a federal crime and betrayed the United States of America. 12 April, 1861. Bill Sherman on his little GAR walkabout in Georgia and South Carolina saw to it four springtimes later that they paid for this treachery back then, and, if your brand of intellect is any indicator of general mental capacity for that region, they're still paying today.
By the time February - April of '65 arrived, Jeff Davis Joe Johnston and Bobby Lee -- all extremely bright and capable officials in their own spheres of influence -- were all too glad to hurl young lives like yours (since a lot of the older vets were out of commission limping home missing arms, legs, parts of faces) against the Federal machine and see you and yours get essentially ground up like so much luncheon meat, just to perpetuate the supposed God-given ["states"] right to the lifestyle of owning people for cheap labor.
So no one needs to come and get your rights from you, son.....although your people had no problem taking rights away from imported others right under their very noses Folks with your sympathies and misconceptions have, for all intents and purposes, sold them. Those rights were sold when your forebears descended to buying African-Americans at auction and treating them like so many lawnchairs at Wal-Mart.
And Im' not even a liberal.
At any rate, your own mental midgetry and characteristic disloyalty appears to have relieved you of plenty of your rights without any participation by anyone else.
People like you hate America. The greatness of this land will exact payment if you continue in this, because Freedom Isn't Free, son. in fact, it's really quite expensive. Didn't your Dad teach you this? I have a teenage son, and he doesn't hate this land so.....a land he -- and you -- must inherit. If your Dad loves you, I hope he helps snap you out of this "yeah! come and git me, Billy Earl!" mindset.
God Bless the United States of America. Still one nation under God. Though otherwise pretended for a short and bloody interval, it truly NEVER was anything else.
5
Dear Johnny Wet-Behind-The-Ears:
War of Northern Aggression? Who, after all, fired the opening rounds at Sumter?
Alright, Einstein? Think, then type. Read your history books; and on this one they'll all agree, since those Carolinian traitors will eternally and gleefully admit to having committed a federal crime (by firing upon a federal arsenal and military installation) and betrayed the United States of America. 12 April, 1861. Bill Sherman on his little GAR walkabout in Georgia and South Carolina saw to it four springtimes later that they paid for this treachery back then, and, if your brand of intellect is any indicator of general mental capacity for that region, they're still paying today.
Rights taken? What about lives taken? Lives that Bobby Lee, Jeff Davis and Joe Johnston (all very capable officials in their own realms), to name a few, were spending like so many dollars at the craps table. Lives of people your very own age, once these lie-buyers had expended the flower of the south's youth among slightly older males thrown away in combat.
Against Americans. And Americans perpetrating it. A lie.
So no one needs to come and get your rights from you, son. You have, for all intents and purposes, sold them. Your own mental handicap of characteristic disloyalty appears to have relieved you of plenty of your rights without any participation by anyone else. There certainly did not exist (150 years ago) among folks such as yourself a great deal of care about whos rights were being taken away at that time -- if they'd ever been regarded or afforded to the southern African-American community to begin with, I should add.
And I'm not even a liberal.
People like you seem to hate America and the unity it will require to survive. The greatness of this land will exact payment if you continue in this. Did your Dad teach you this? I have a teenage son, and he doesn't hate this land so ..... a land he -- and you -- must inherit.
God Bless the United States of America. Still one nation under God. Though otherwise pretended for a short and bloody interval, it truly NEVER was anything else.
5
hey the confederate soldiers fired first because they were provoked "mr" fivelks they fought for the right of the people
the confederates did not fight for slavery they fought for the right of the people
the confederates fired on sumpter because it was built in southern land and i have read my history books "sir".
if your son cared about america he would feel the same because war is coming and the union will NOT win.
my "mental handicap" is what america is based on,freedom and the rights of the people not becoming a slave to the american goverment.
i know i have to inherit this land and i can tell you one thing if there is a war and i see your son fighting for a union cause i will not hesitate to ,as they say ,open fire.
for war is a bloody game and i now that many will die but atleast i will die for a cause.
and i also hope that your son will give me what is called a fantastic death on the battlefield where good or bad has no meaning and everyone fights for what they believe in.
i don't see your son fighting for what he believes in do i? maybe im not as tall or strong or as fast as your son but im fighting.
1) Violation of States Rights and property rights - Fugitive Slave Law allowing bounty hunters to enter anyone's home.
2)Dredd Scott - violation of State's Rights, now all states are slave states. Violation of church and state: it was a church-taught view in the South that God blessed permanent African slavery. This region-specific religious dogma was now set as legal law of the land. All the Compromises up to that date were shredded, the Mo. compromise was dissolved. This is all autocratic gov't. by fiat.
The southern-based Knights of the Golden Circle murdered dissenting northern citizens. J. Davis praised the placement of a white-man on the throne of Mexico.
Pres. Buchannan lobbied the court on the Dredd Scott decision in violation of Constitution.
The original 3/5'ths provision has no foundation in democratic-republican
theory - it was blackmail, making a southern white man 'worth' more than a northener for no other reason than the southerner lived in a state that allowed human slavery.
OK, you get to seceed but first every brick, nail and stone of every U.S. military installation, NASA included are to be removed from southern soil.
Try starting over without 'us'.
P.S. If Lee had been born in Maryland, he would have fought for the north, as he agreed neither with slavery or seccesion.
well , it seems every opinion under the sun has been printed . i am a southerner , mixed of native and white blood . i am also a citizian of a beaten nation ( CSA ). one of my ansestors was captured and spent the rest of the war in camp douglas and lived . this was a prision camp in chicago where confederate pow's were starved , tortured , and murdered . there was plenty of food , unlike andersonville , where even the gards had not enough food to guard union pow's . the southern comander was exacuted , while the yankee ones were promoted . when a black confederate soldier was brought into douglas , the yankees shot them on sight . lincoln said that the southerners were traitors , not pow's , even though they were defending there homes from an invading army . i fly my flag with pride for just this fact . not racist but SOUTHERN PRIDE !
HOW AND WHY ABRAHAM LINCOLN STARTED THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION TO PROTECT HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER
by Frank Conner
The North's Republican party came out of nowhere in 1854, formed from the wreckage of the Whig party (the Northern Conscience-Whigs), and from the Free-Soilers and the Know-Nothings. It opposed slavery, and it demanded a powerful national-government which would subsidize Northern industrialization. The new Republican party grew very rapidly. Not surprisingly, its key bankrollers were Northern capitalists--financiers, shippers, industrialists, etc. Two of its founders and strongest political-leaders were Salmon P. Chase (first a senator and then a governor); and William H. Seward (also a governor and a senator).
At the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago, Chase and Seward were the favored candidates. Lincoln was a dark horse. In national politics, he had served only in the House, and only for one two-year term--1847-49: he had left Congress 11 years earlier! Lincoln had only three things going for him: he was considered a political lightweight, who could easily be manipulated by the powerbrokers; he himself was from Illinois, so the convention hall was located on his own stomping-grounds; and both he and his campaign manager--David E. Davis--were extraordinarily-adroit politicians.
In 1860 the vast majority of the Republicans did not want war. But the relatively-mild Seward had earlier coined several phrases which led many to believe mistakenly that he was a warmonger. And if Seward might possibly lead the country into war, the hot-head Chase would probably do so. Lincoln the unknown murmured soothing words of peace--which went down well. Meanwhile, he and Davis manipulated that convention behind the scenes in ways that would make today's dirty-tricks advocates turn green with envy.
Consequently, Lincoln won the Republican nomination.
There were two factors about the Republican campaign in the election of 1860 which disturbed the Southerners so badly that Southern states subsequently seceded. First was the Republican-party platform for 1860.
Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.)
Second, the Republican party--unlike any of the other big political-parties that had come along--was purely a regional (Northern) party, not a national party. if the Republicans somehow managed to gain control of Congress AND the White House, they would then be able to use the federal government to enact and enforce their party platform--and thus convert the prosperous Southern-states into the dirt-poor agricultural colonies of the Northern capitalists. And given the 19th-century trends in demographics, the Southern states would never be able to reverse that process. The intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would then have been subverted completely: the Southern states would no longer be governed with the consent of the governed--but instead bullied mercilessly by the Northern majority. Why, then, remain in the Union?
Meanwhile, the numerically-far-stronger national Democratic-party was busy self-destructing over the issue of slavery.
So when the 1860 election-returns came in, it turned out that the Republicans had won the White House, and substantial majorities in the House and the Senate. When that message sank in, Southern states began seceding from the Union--beginning with South Carolina on 20 December 1860.
Several of them said that the main issue was the protection of slavery, but that was strictly for local consumption by people who did their thinking solely in terms of simple slogans. The Southern legislators could do their math; thus they knew full well that the only truly-safe way to protect the institution of slavery would be for the Southern states to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment to emancipate the slaves. For slavery was specifically protected by the Constitution, and that protection could be removed only by an amendment ratified by three-quarters of the states. In 1860 there were 15 slave states and 18 free states. Had the number of slave states remained constant, 27 more free states would have had to be admitted into the Union--for a total of 60 states--before an abolition amendment could be ratified. That was not likely to occur anytime soon. But with the Southern states seceding, the issue of slavery could then be settled by force of arms at an time.
After the Republicans gained control of the presidency and the Congress following the 1860 elections, eleven Southern states eventually seceded from the Union--specifically to avoid becoming the helpless agricultural-colonies of the Northern capitalists.
This move took the Northern capitalists completely by surprise. The South was like the little boy who was forever crying "wolf." Southern states had been threatening to secede ever since the Tariff of Abominations and the days of Calhoun; the North no longer took those threats seriously. But with the South now gone, there would be no federal funding to industrialize the North--because the Northern citizenry would certainly never agree to be taxed to pay for it. And far worse than that, the many, many Northern-capitalists who had been earning fortunes factoring the Southern cotton-crop, transporting the cotton, and buying the cotton for New England textile-mills now faced financial ruin. The South normally bought its manufactured goods from Britain, anyway. Now, as a sovereign nation, the South could easily cut far better deals with the British financiers, shipowners, and textile mills to supply the South with all of the necessary support-services--leaving the Northern capitalists out in the cold.
This was all Lincoln's fault! If he hadn't been elected, the South wouldn't have seceded; and the Northern capitalists would not now be in this mess.
So as President-elect Lincoln prepared to take over the presidency, he was in a world of hurt. He had the trappings of office--but not the powerbase to support him safely in office against the slings and arrows of his outrageous political-enemies. Both Seward and Chase had well-established powerbases (financial backers, newspapers, magazines, personal political-organizations, friends in Congress, etc.). Both of them badly wanted Lincoln's job. Both of them merely awaited the first opportunity to spring a political trap on him; then subject him to deadly public-ridicule; and thereafter cut him off at the knees.
Given time, Lincoln--who would, after all, occupy the presidency--could weld together a formidable powerbase of his own; but right at the beginning of his term he was perilously vulnerable. He MUST now have the support of the Northern capitalists.
Lincoln was a Whig masquerading as a Republican, because that was now the only game in town. He didn't care anything about the slavery issue; he preferred to temporize with the abolitionists. But he couldn't temporize with the Northern capitalists. He would have to drag the South back into the Union immediately, or he'd (figuratively) be shot out of the saddle and discredited very quickly; then Seward or Chase would really be running the country; and Lincoln could forget all about being reelected in 1864. That was unthinkable. But there was no way Lincoln or anyone else in the Republican party could possibly talk the Southern states back into the Union at this stage of the game; so he would have to conquer them in war.
(He assumed it would be a 90-day war, which the Union Army would win in one battle.)
If you read Lincoln's first inaugural-address with any care at all, you'll see that it was simply a declaration of war against the South. It was also filled with lies and specious reasoning. In 1861, the official government-charter for the U.S. was the U.S. Constitution. In writing it, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (some of the most-canny politicians in the country) had pointedly omitted from it the "perpetual union" clause which had been a main feature of the unworkable Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union--the U.S.-government charter which had preceded the Constitution.
Under the Articles, no state could secede lawfully unless all states seceded simultaneously. But the Constitution--which Lincoln had just taken an oath to uphold--did not contain that clause (or any other like it); so any state could secede lawfully at any time. And the Southern states did secede lawfully. Honest Abe flat-out lied when he said that was not so in his inaugural address; and he subsequently used his blatant lie to slaughter 623,000 Americans and Confederates--primarily in order to perpetuate himself in political office.
Lincoln had said he would go to war to "preserve the Union." But in order to start the war, he would somehow have to maneuver the South into firing the first shots, because Congress did not want war and would not declare war of its own volition.
The most-likely hot-spot in which Lincoln could start his war was Charleston Harbor, where shots had already been fired in anger under the Buchanan administration. But the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, saw the danger--that Lincoln might, as an excuse, send a force of U.S. Navy warships to Charleston Harbor supposedly to bring food to Maj Anderson's Union force holed up in Fort Sumter. So Gov Pickens opened negotiations with Maj Anderson, and concluded a deal permitting Anderson to send boats
The history of the war and it's reasons have been chewed again and again. We can try to re-write history
or just let it go....
As far as anger, that is not a southern thing. As a Yankee, I am not
happy with the direction of the country.
The swing to the left,no boarder control
laws, the welfare state, all add up to
anger to anyone that works for a living.
As a Northerner, I do not think in terms of North/South in a political sense. The Southerners should be proud of their heritage, and
tradition of strength and courage. It
is part of what makes the South....Southern. Anger over the direction of the country is not a rehash of the civil war, but a reasonable reaction to current issues
on a national scale.
God Bless America ( we need that blessing now more than ever)
I have enjoyed all the comments- I appreciate Paulies comments and agree that we Need God's direction and blessing! I am from Portland OR which is a very liberal place and when I am in the South for business I am the HAPPIEST man on earth because on the whole it is God Fearing and CONSERVATIVE.
One of the things that pisses me off more than anything regarding the War between the States is SHERMAN and Rescontruction - what he did to the South is DESPICABLE and I put him in the top ten list of EVIL men. The South was already in the throes of defeat ,what he did to the homes and property of the South is despicable. There was no need for the widespread destruction he implemented, it was just pure cruelty. Even with cries to burn and pillage in PA - Lee would not allow his troops to burn and pillage. Because he was a gentlemen and not an asshole cad like Sherman. Reconstruction was the last straw, the degredation and imposition of tyranny by the Yankees was deplorable. Instead of successfuly trying to integrate the freed slaves into Society - they we used and mistreated to punish the whites- that was a smart move wasn't it? We are still paying the price today... anyway that is enough postulating on my part.
Commenting by HaloScan
