On year I was driving from Westchester, NY to visit Toronto, and on the way, the concentration of confederate flags on trucks along the highway made me think that maybe the South did win after all...It's a (at least social) suicide to go to the South and tell them that the North was right, but a southener that goes to the rest of the country and blab about the good o' days of the confederacy, that's called nostolgia and patriotism. I got lost a long time ago ever since I started going to Texas every summer and see how the meaning of the Confederacy was ignored and rather portrayed as an era of peace, tranquility, and harmony. Kinda like the fifties, where the old timers would say the times were "good" because the "colored" were kept in their place...It makes me depressed.
I wish the South had won...
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
Mmmmm....MagNOlias.....
Well any biker bar these days is going to be filled with a bunch of lawyers and doctors in their late 50s from New York. Now at the big gas station/restaurant down the road I just smile and say y'all a lot.N8 said:I'll bet you haven't dropped by the Rebel Yell biker bar and let them know that...
Westy said:
Yeah... it takes a wealthy biker to afford $25k+ for a chopper these days.
In december I saw possibly the funniest thing ever. Biker clad in leather and tattoos pulls up with his "old lady" on the back. When they get off the bike it is revealed that the "old lady" is carrying a custom leather bag with some kind of rat/lap dog Paris Hilton style. I nearly shot beer out of my nose.N8 said:
Yeah... it takes a wealthy biker to afford $25k+ for a chopper these days.
If we were getting the sweet end of the deal, genius, why didn't they just let us leave? Without the North, the South would not look at all like it looks today. It certainly wouldn't look like South America, though.ALEXIS_DH said:
They were issues not because of the differences in how Northerners and Southerners viewed blacks; they were issues because the battle lines were being drawn and each side was attempting an 11th hour land-grab before the $hit hit the fan. Exactly how much history did you take in school?Toshi said:
Many years ago, the NY Times Op-Ed columnist William Safire wrote elegantly on how The Civil War was not about freeing the slaves, but preserving the union. It was actually an unpopular decision in the North, but he perservered and we are an united country today.
As for the idea that revisionist history has distorted this fact. Well, it would have been hard to explain to me as a child the idea of Federal vs. States Rights. I like the idea that I learned about the cause of war as freeing the slaves, and as an adult I learned the real reason for the war.
As for the idea that revisionist history has distorted this fact. Well, it would have been hard to explain to me as a child the idea of Federal vs. States Rights. I like the idea that I learned about the cause of war as freeing the slaves, and as an adult I learned the real reason for the war.
Wierd. I'm not a US citizen and even I know that the war was fought to prevent the southern states leaving the union.
Ironic considering that NATO bombed Belgrade when Yugoslavia tried the same thing.
Ironic considering that NATO bombed Belgrade when Yugoslavia tried the same thing.
LMAO!!dan-o said:
While I have nothing of substance to add to this thread, it is an entertaining read.
fluff said:Wierd. I'm not a US citizen and even I know that the war was fought to prevent the southern states leaving the union.
Ironic considering that NATO bombed Belgrade when Yugoslavia tried the same thing.
Canada could learn a lot from them with that whole Quebec thing.... If only we had some bombs......
llkoolkeg said:
because for some reason, countries never want its states to leave the union.
probably it has to do with the fact that sheer size, no matter what is it made of, gives a country an edge on finantial and defense stuff.
you are right, without the north and its federal bucks poured into stuff like the TN valley authority, or federal judges overruling george wallace the south would be a lot different......
To this day, I am still not sure whether or not the preservation of the Union was a good thing. Obviously there are economies of scale to consider as positive, but when you consider the fact that a much smaller and VERY poorly equipped Army of Northern Virginia trounced the far superior Union Army time and time again over four years, I'd like to think that we could hold our own. Let me repeat it for you, though- the North was taking severe financial advantage of the South at that time. We didn't want or need the North. They wanted to continue to leach off our gravy train, and when we cut them out of the deal, they manufactured a lofty excuse to put us under their thumb.ALEXIS_DH said:
Dude, don't even talk to me about TVA. I have worked with them for the past 5 years and all I can say is that it ain't what it's cracked up to be. Wallace definitely had to go and being a Southerner does not mean you support segregation. Why do you bring that cad up? Do you mean to imply that the South would still have slavery and segregation today were it not for the valiant intercession of kind-hearted yanks? Get real.
as someone else stated, why is it only southeners who so desperately hang to using "us" and "them"?
I guess because theyre the side that didnt get what they wanted and dont think everything is all better now. Makes sense to me. Its not rocket science, mr. gay club entrepaneur (sp?)narlus said:
Us and Them, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Black and White, 1 and 0...narlus said:
I don't know that it's a southern thing, but such 'binary' thinking is almost always harmful in the long run. People have to realise the world is all shades of grey. There are no absolutes. Defining the world in such terms is, by definition, a misrepresentation of reality and as such is detrimental to one's understanding of it.
Toshi said:
actually I've seen a pretty good breakdown of all that - the top 10 states who receive more $ from the Fed Gov't then they pay (in taxes) would in fact be Red states - top 9 who contribute MORE than they get were Blue etc. etc. etc. - in fact, the best state-by-state breakdown of the election I saw showed that the Bush/Kerry split was pretty much right down the Free/Slave state/territory line - the more things change, the more they stay the same
you Red state people should stop sucking at California and New York's t*ts if you think we are such ungodly folk....
Hell if Cali split off on our own we'd have the 5 largest economy in the World
we should just split like the post-election map and have the United States of Canada and Jesusland...
United States of Canada can tool along with modern approaches to living and Jesusland can sink into a fun-filled Theocratic Oligarchy...probably look alot like Iran come to think of it...
Dude, Manifest Destiny.BurlyShirley said:
ha, now don't get me wrong...i live here now(south) but i've never claimed to be a southerner and i definitely don't claim to be a pansy elitist northerner either :devil:Tenchiro said:
but just remember.......we have more guns down here and a lot of rednecks spend their freetime talking about guns, playing with guns, buying guns, shooting guns, making guns...........
...and i've become rather suspicious of some of the locals, i think they're in a militia group that hates the 'gubment
You can argue the intentions and effects of the civil war all day long for all I care. I have only one main point.
The end of slavery in the south was worth it all.
I truly can't believe that anyone would wish it hadn't ended....
United States or divided states, blue states or red states, subsidies or cities, none of it matters as much to me as NO SLAVES!
It's not hard to imagine that if we hadn't stayed united we might have been reconquered long ago, and the world would be a very different place.
Would it be a better place if the US had not survived? I can't believe so at all.
Sorry, but I can't resist responding to Changleen too.
Dude, I don't know what reality you exist in, but the whole "shades of grey" thing is very, very weak. There are absolutes, and the denial of that is the road to anarchy. People who believe the way you do are just afraid of having to stand up and take responsibility for their actions and decisions and are too weak to make others do the same.
What shade of grey was Hitler? How is my viewing him as evil detrimental to my understanding of him? What misrepresentation of reality is going on?
IMO, you are, by definition, absolutely wrong!
The end of slavery in the south was worth it all.
I truly can't believe that anyone would wish it hadn't ended....
United States or divided states, blue states or red states, subsidies or cities, none of it matters as much to me as NO SLAVES!
It's not hard to imagine that if we hadn't stayed united we might have been reconquered long ago, and the world would be a very different place.
Would it be a better place if the US had not survived? I can't believe so at all.
Sorry, but I can't resist responding to Changleen too.
Dude, I don't know what reality you exist in, but the whole "shades of grey" thing is very, very weak. There are absolutes, and the denial of that is the road to anarchy. People who believe the way you do are just afraid of having to stand up and take responsibility for their actions and decisions and are too weak to make others do the same.
What shade of grey was Hitler? How is my viewing him as evil detrimental to my understanding of him? What misrepresentation of reality is going on?
IMO, you are, by definition, absolutely wrong!
So who was absolute evil?DaKahuna said:
Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?
Mussolini?
Arafat?
Saladin?
Who was absolute good?
Gandhi?
Mother Theresa?
Nelson Mandela?
Winston Churchill?
What color is the sky in your Manichean world?
There are absolutes, but not many. Ironically absolute zero is one of the few...
Boy oh boy...another beardless moral relativist spouting off.Changleen said:
Let's look at your own example-
White = the absence of color
Black = the omnipresence of color
Now, ceteris parabis, tell me that they are not absolutes.
Now, the Philosophy 101 freshman is going to say "but it all depends upon your perspective". Bullshi+. There are absolutes.
What about sociopaths who kidnap, rape and murder children? Are they not evil? "Uhn...uhn...but it all depends upon perspective! He probably had a bad childhood and can't help being a psycho!" Your brand of pvssy thinking is as nauseating as it is naive and misguided.
Is someone who kidnaps but does not rape or murder as evil as someone who does all three?llkoolkeg said:Boy oh boy...another beardless moral relativist spouting off.
Let's look at your own example-
White = the absence of color
Black = the omnipresence of color
Now, ceteris parabis, tell me that they are not absolutes.
Now, the Philosophy 101 freshman is going to say "but it all depends upon your perspective". Bullshi+. There are absolutes.
What about sociopaths who kidnap, rape and murder children? Are they not evil? "Uhn...uhn...but it all depends upon perspective! He probably had a bad childhood and can't help being a psycho!" Your brand of pvssy thinking is as nauseating as it is naive and misguided.
No, but evil nonetheless. e.g. distraught women unable to bear their own children who kidnap babies not to harm, but to love and raise as their own. They are evil for doing such to the baby and his parents, but not in the same league and he who I originally described. Mind you, I do not suggest that there are not varying degrees of evil or that one's perspective plays not a role in how one defines evil. Consider the following range-fluff said:
Devil(absolute evil)<--------------------------------------->God(absolute good)
We all fall somewhere between these absolute extremes.
If God is absolute good, then whence does evil come?llkoolkeg said:
When I was a younger punk assed kid I was a bit of a northern elitest. But after school I had a job travelling all around the states and I can certainly conclude this. There are just as many gun totin' rednecks in the rest of the States as there are in the South, you just have to go outside any major city. I have actually used to hang out and shoot with a bunch of anti-gubment militia nut jobs up in Lake George NY. Those folks were wacked in the head but good friends to have.manimal said:ha, now don't get me wrong...i live here now(south) but i've never claimed to be a southerner and i definitely don't claim to be a pansy elitist northerner either :devil:
but just remember.......we have more guns down here and a lot of rednecks spend their freetime talking about guns, playing with guns, buying guns, shooting guns, making guns...........
...and i've become rather suspicious of some of the locals, i think they're in a militia group that hates the 'gubment
A scene from the family guy may help us out here.Silver said:
peter: im looking for toilet training book?
bok store guy: everybody poops but u is still the standard one, we also have the less popular nobody poops but you.
peter
ee were catholic so uhhh? book store guy:oh then you want your a naughty child and thats nothing but pure concentrated evil coming out the back end of you.
peter: perfect
I always liked Chef's take on it:Westy said:A scene from the family guy may help us out here.
peter: im looking for toilet training book?
bok store guy: everybody poops but u is still the standard one, we also have the less popular nobody poops but you.
peter
book store guy:oh then you want your a naughty child and thats nothing but pure concentrated evil coming out the back end of you.
peter: perfect
Stan : "Why would God let Kenny die, Chef? Why? Kenny's my friend. Why can't God take someone else's friend?"
Chef : "Stan, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, Stan. He's all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can't get over it, so he doesn't care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don't matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?"
Stan : "But then, why does God give us anything to start with?"
Chef : "Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin' to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Stan, that give God his great power."
Stan : "I think I understand."
I haven't read thru the whole thread yet so excuse me if I'm repeating someone else.llkoolkeg said:To this day, I am still not sure whether or not the preservation of the Union was a good thing. Obviously there are economies of scale to consider as positive, but when you consider the fact that a much smaller and VERY poorly equipped Army of Northern Virginia trounced the far superior Union Army time and time again over four years, I'd like to think that we could hold our own. Let me repeat it for you, though- the North was taking severe financial advantage of the South at that time. We didn't want or need the North. They wanted to continue to leach off our gravy train, and when we cut them out of the deal, they manufactured a lofty excuse to put us under their thumb.
Dude, don't even talk to me about TVA. I have worked with them for the past 5 years and all I can say is that it ain't what it's cracked up to be. Wallace definitely had to go and being a Southerner does not mean you support segregation. Why do you bring that cad up? Do you mean to imply that the South would still have slavery and segregation today were it not for the valiant intercession of kind-hearted yanks? Get real.
Keg, your logic is fundamentally flawed. The riches the north was leaching from the south was bore on the backs of the blacks. If the north didn't win the war, do you think, given how much of a cash cow slavery was, that the south would have given up slavery. Money is the driving force behind EVERYTHING. If slavery was profitable then, it would have continued indefinitely until someone did something to make change that (things in motion tend to stay in motion, until acted on by an external force...). In this case the north did something, biatch slapped the sh!t out of the south!
Edit: if you need an example, just look at Iraq. We invade a nation under the guise of Weapons of Mass Destruction, but truly for the oil. And in todays economy, oil is money!
I think slavery would have gone away eventually, as it was already doing by the time of the civil war, and that immigrants who really didnt cost much more than slaves would have still made things profitable. Even to this day, mexicans in the states basically make slave wages.Pau11y said:
Sometimes it bothers me that the only form of popular entertainment that contributes any thought these days comes in cartoon form.Silver said:
You might be over optimistic on the greed aspect of human nature.BurlyShirley said:
That'll work.N8 said:
BurlyShirley: why are you trying to get us to write your GOVT essay for you? Can't you just bang a smart fat chick and get her to write it?
And LL, your absolutist duality is intriguing, but I prefer to express it as follows:
Vodka-RedBull (absolute evil)<----------------------------------------------->Leffe Trippel (absolute good)
Pau11y, your retort is fundamentally flawed. Social and political changes can occur by revolution OR evolution. e.g., look to other nations that not only utilized slaves, but who arguably drew the greatest profit from the slave trade- Holland and Britain. They somehow managed to experience a change of heart without a protracted civil war! Are they really more evolved or enlightened than we? Additionally, positive change- even seemingly obvious change- is much more readily accepted when it is bought into vs. forced into. i.e. slavery would have gone away anyways and there would now be less bad feelings over it had the South been transitioned with positive reinforcement instead of "do what we say or else".Pau11y said:Keg, your logic is fundamentally flawed. The riches the north was leaching from the south was bore on the backs of the blacks. If the north didn't win the war, do you think, given how much of a cash cow slavery was, that the south would have given up slavery. Money is the driving force behind EVERYTHING. If slavery was profitable then, it would have continued indefinitely until someone did something to make change that (things in motion tend to stay in motion, until acted on by an external force...). In this case the north did something, biatch slapped the sh!t out of the south!
Edit: if you need an example, just look at Iraq. We invade a nation under the guise of Weapons of Mass Destruction, but truly for the oil. And in todays economy, oil is money!
BTW, the North did not "biatch slap the sh!t out of the South". They managed to eek out a victory in a war of attrition that saw them spanked regularly. Only the industrial might, vastly superior logistical support, better chief executive and greater population of the North saved the Union. Even with less troops, poorly trained and poorly provisioned, Confederate forces put up a hell of a fight. On a level playing field, there would have been no contest. Also, had Britain- still smarting from 1812- entered the fray on the side of the Confederacy(something the certainly considered and promoted as a possibility to Jefferson Davis), the Union would have been dissolved. I get a sense that you and many others here don't realize how close we really came to that.
Iraq is frankly a poor metaphor.
Following the Union route at The Battle of Bull Run (1st Manassas) the CSA could have marched pretty much unopposed to Washington DC if they'd been more experienced.llkoolkeg said: