If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Richmond Times Dispatch)   Virginia prepares to commemorate War of Northern Aggression's 150th anniversary   (timesdispatch.com) divider line 460
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

12120 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2007 at 3:09 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



460 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-09 04:36:42 PM
ComicBookGuy: November 3, 2005

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on Fark. It has the right balance of bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, elitism and downright arrogance that I would totally expect out of someone who has no more than an elementary understanding of philosophy and politics that one would expect from a modern day Government education. It is quintessential "liberalism" at its finest.
 
2007-09-09 04:36:47 PM
Sum Dum Gai: ...The North didn't care a huge amount about slavery.

Initially. As the war continued and the goal and aim of the conflict evolved, the war became not a mere effort to preserve the Union but total war; a war against the very culture and people of the South. Towards this end the great armies of the Republic which marched forth, supported by the vast industrial engine of the North, did so not only to preserve the Union but to abolish and destroy the very civilization of the South. So it was that all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.
 
2007-09-09 04:37:51 PM
mmm... pancake: How many of the supporters of this war here on Fark would openly voice their support for Bush declaring war against California if it decided it wanted to secede from the Union?

If they did it by firing on a US Army base?
 
2007-09-09 04:38:29 PM
enki40: Let them send their own children to die for nothing.

We don't want any more in here. They are your neighbors, you keep them.
 
2007-09-09 04:38:41 PM
mmm... pancake: ComicBookGuy: November 3, 2005

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on Fark. It has the right balance of bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, elitism and downright arrogance that I would totally expect out of someone who has no more than an elementary understanding of philosophy and politics that one would expect from a modern day Government education. It is quintessential "liberalism" at its finest.


Oh? It's factually inaccurate?
 
2007-09-09 04:38:56 PM
ceejayoz: US Constitution, Article One, Section Nine:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.


For the last time, it wasn't a rebellion. They wanted to leave peacefully. They was never any intention of rebelling for control of the Union. Fail.
 
2007-09-09 04:39:28 PM
barneyfifesbullet: If you could walk out onto a Civil War battlefield and ask a Confederate soldier what they were doing there, I'm so sure they would say they were "fighting to keep slaves".

Southerners left their families, their homes, so they could go fight to keep slaves. That's it. Nothing else to it.

Only dumbasses believe that. So, how dumb are you?


Did average people just randomly show up and start fighting? Or did they have a Government behind them providing the purpose? Are the soldiers in Iraq the ones saying that we are fighting for WMDs, Democracy, Freedom, insert_reason_here?

Comeon, this isn't about the average Joe, it's about the CSA and the USA.
 
2007-09-09 04:39:28 PM
aerojockey: Please shut up Southern fools.

You guys can crow about your rights being violated by the North all day. You can sugar coat your motives all you want. The fact is, the only "violation" of your rights that moved you to secede was the "right" to take away the rights and enslave dark-skinned people. Tariffs alone? Work it out peacefully. Slavery alone? Secede.

I don't give a fark what the North's real motives were in invading the South, and I'm sure greed, power, and pride were a big part of it. But forcing you guys to stop enslaving human beings was justification enough, and you guys deserved everything you got, including the carpetbaggers.


And you want me to believe that the North has treated blacks with a much more gentle hand? Good God, get off your high horse and give me a break! Were the riots in South Boston in 1975 over desegregation a southern plot? How about Mayor Daley having his cops beat the shiat out of protestors on live TV? Was that a sign of Northern superiority?

/Grew up in the South, now living in Wisconsin.
//Wisconsin justice better towards blacks? Frank Jude may disagree.
 
2007-09-09 04:39:33 PM
barneyfifesbullet: If you could walk out onto a Civil War battlefield and ask a Confederate soldier what they were doing there, I'm so sure they would say they were "fighting to keep slaves".

Southerners left their families, their homes, so they could go fight to keep slaves. That's it. Nothing else to it.

Only dumbasses believe that. So, how dumb are you?


The average southerner didn't have, and couldn't afford slaves.

They were fighting for the plutocrats, much like today.
 
2007-09-09 04:39:35 PM
barneyfifesbullet: If you could walk out onto a Civil War battlefield and ask a Confederate soldier what they were doing there, I'm so sure they would say they were "fighting to keep slaves".

Southerners left their families, their homes, so they could go fight to keep slaves. That's it. Nothing else to it.

Only dumbasses believe that. So, how dumb are you?


QFT.

\b.a., history ed.
 
2007-09-09 04:40:18 PM
gingerfish109: When an entire region can reject a candidate, and still have no effect on the outcome of the election, it could seem to them that they were disenfranchised.

Yeah, tell me about it... take a look at the 2004 election map.
 
2007-09-09 04:40:29 PM
OMG..if Lee was overrated what does that say about Meade or McClellan?
 
2007-09-09 04:41:15 PM
mmm... pancake: For the last time, it wasn't a rebellion.

Dude, they even called themselves rebels. With a "rebel yell". They fought to overthrow the Federal government's power in their states and institute their own. It's a pretty textbook definition of rebellion.

Oh, and they certainly invaded a few times.
 
2007-09-09 04:41:29 PM
ComicBookGuy: Oh? It's factually inaccurate?

There were no facts. It was the typical incessant rambling of a modern day liberal who uses wit and anger in place of any real facts or logic.
 
2007-09-09 04:42:15 PM
ceejayoz: Oh, and they certainly invaded a few times.

While I agree, I have to say that this was just a good strategy.
 
2007-09-09 04:42:33 PM
ceejayoz: They fought to overthrow the Federal government's power in their states and institute their own. It's a pretty textbook definition of rebellion.

The Federal Government is nothing more than a union of states. Think about that for a second.
 
2007-09-09 04:43:34 PM
mmmm...pancake

"For the last time, it wasn't a rebellion. They wanted to leave peacefully. They was never any intention of rebelling for control of the Union. Fail."

Then they shouldn't have attacked Northern territory. They shouldn't have started the shooting war. The South started it---the North finished it.
 
2007-09-09 04:43:47 PM
Lagaidh

FlyingPig:
If the South had won, slavery would still be being practiced there TODAY. If you don't agree with this, you're shiatting yourself.

With how history went in the 20th century I have a hard time believing that. International pressure would have convinced any resultant CSA nation to abolish slavery.


Sure, if by "international pressure" you mean "another war". No way in hell South ever gives up the right to enslave dark-skinned people without someone forcing them to. Look at South Africa: international pressure didn't get to them until the '90s, and the CSA would have had a lot more money at stake and thus a lot more reason to resist.

An independent CSA probably would have allied with the Nazis sooner than have their hypocrisy exposed by joining with the free world. Hell, the CSA wouldn't really have been a big step away from fascism, since the "rights" they spoke of was really only the rights of a few rich white landowners. It wouldn't have taken much for said rich white men to enforce their power by decree.
 
2007-09-09 04:45:09 PM
Lee was stupid---he lost the war for the south at Gettysburg.
 
2007-09-09 04:46:40 PM
enki40: Lee was stupid---he lost the war for the south at Gettysburg.

Pickett's Charge was one of the dumbest military moves in the history of warfare.
 
2007-09-09 04:46:42 PM
PC LOAD LETTER: While I agree, I have to say that this was just a good strategy.

Oh, certainly. The point is that doing so unequivocally permits the President to suspend habeus corpus.

mmm... pancake: The Federal Government is nothing more than a union of states. Think about that for a second.

The Federal Government was the established authority in both the North and the South. The South attempted to change that. Under what definitions of rebellion does that not count as one?

/will not accept "A crappy Star Wars game." as answer
 
2007-09-09 04:46:59 PM
The average southerner may not have owned slaves, but you can bet they were fighting for the freedom to hold slaves and a states right to do so. They weren't going to have any yankees telling what they could or could not do with "their n!993r5".

To pretend the south was fighting for anything other than slavery is dumb.

How dumb are you?
 
2007-09-09 04:48:19 PM
This thread is great: Just picture toothless, barefoot rednecks yelling at scholarly, preppy snobs about the war, and it's a really entertaining read!

"The South'll RISE AGAIN, y'all! Yee-haw!" Vs. "YOU LOST GET OVER IT."

/I wish we'd let the South stay its own country
//They'd be picking Northern lettuce by now
 
2007-09-09 04:49:13 PM
enki40: since you hate Republicans (new window)so much.
 
2007-09-09 04:49:26 PM
The Southern Dandy: The average southerner may not have owned slaves, but you can bet they were fighting for the freedom to hold slaves and a states right to do so. They weren't going to have any yankees telling what they could or could not do with "their n!993r5".

To pretend the south was fighting for anything other than slavery is dumb.

How dumb are you?


It wasn't merely slavery, however. To pretend so would be just as dumb.
 
2007-09-09 04:50:07 PM
I'm a righteous Bush supporter with a Confederate flag hanging in my front yard who is fond of questioning the patriotism and loyalty of others, so of course someone else typed this for me.
 
2007-09-09 04:50:54 PM
cmb53208

And you want me to believe that the North has treated blacks with a much more gentle hand?

Yes.

Were the riots in South Boston in 1975 over desegregation a southern plot?

Segregation of schools... slavery... segregation of schools... slavery...

WHICH ONE'S WORSE? I CAN'T DECICE!!!~~

How about Mayor Daley having his cops beat the shiat out of protestors on live TV? Was that a sign of Northern superiority?

The North wasn't all peachy clean, but here's the thing: the North had long abolished slavery of human beings. Whatever racism existed in the North, it paled in comparison to the sins of the South.
 
2007-09-09 04:50:59 PM
the_cnidarian: enki40: since you hate Republicans (new window)so much.
Link (new window)redo
 
2007-09-09 04:51:12 PM
ceejayoz: The Federal Government was the established authority in both the North and the South. The South attempted to change that. Under what definitions of rebellion does that not count as one?

The Federal Government is a collection of states. It is not a separate entity. All the South did was attempt to opt out of the union and then try to expel what they considered to be a foreign army. If we opt out of the United Nations, does the rest of the world have the right to come in and declare war on us to force us back into the United Nations? That's essentially the argument that's being made here.
 
2007-09-09 04:51:44 PM
The Southern Dandy: To pretend the south was fighting for anything other than slavery is dumb.

Hell, right out of the second line of the Georgia Declaration of Secession:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
 
2007-09-09 04:51:55 PM
plutonium238: Wow, who knew people could get this fired up about something they had nothing to do with.

Welcome to the prevailing attitude in much of the South, especially the small town South.

When I attended Clemson I was surprised by the undercurrent of animosity towards the North and Northerners displayed by 18-year-old young men from small town South Carolina. Talk about carrying a grudge, jeesh.
 
2007-09-09 04:53:35 PM
aerojockey: Lagaidh

FlyingPig:
If the South had won, slavery would still be being practiced there TODAY. If you don't agree with this, you're shiatting yourself.

With how history went in the 20th century I have a hard time believing that. International pressure would have convinced any resultant CSA nation to abolish slavery.

Sure, if by "international pressure" you mean "another war". No way in hell South ever gives up the right to enslave dark-skinned people without someone forcing them to. Look at South Africa: international pressure didn't get to them until the '90s, and the CSA would have had a lot more money at stake and thus a lot more reason to resist.

An independent CSA probably would have allied with the Nazis sooner than have their hypocrisy exposed by joining with the free world. Hell, the CSA wouldn't really have been a big step away from fascism, since the "rights" they spoke of was really only the rights of a few rich white landowners. It wouldn't have taken much for said rich white men to enforce their power by decree.


Well, even during the time, very influential people fighting for the Confederacy understood that slavery was an inherent wrong, just like the framers of the country did, but had to let it slide for the time being to achieve, what they believed at the time, was a greater goal. Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I just can't see the Confederacy continuing on with slavery until this day and age. Maybe for another 50 years, but not to this day as you assert.
 
2007-09-09 04:54:09 PM
ph0rk: It wasn't merely slavery, however. To pretend so would be just as dumb.

People who resort to that emotional plea are incapable for forming a logical, rational argument. The most they can muster is "OMG!!!1! Slavery!!!" and that's all you'll ever get out of them.
 
2007-09-09 04:54:42 PM
mmm... pancake: If we opt out of the United Nations, does the rest of the world have the right to come in and declare war on us to force us back into the United Nations?

The UN is not a government or a union, it's an international body.

Again, why the "rebel yell"?
 
2007-09-09 04:55:34 PM
ceejayoz: Hell, right out of the second line of the Georgia Declaration of Secession:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.



...and Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world"
 
2007-09-09 04:56:30 PM
ph0rk

It wasn't merely slavery, however. To pretend so would be just as dumb.

Without slavery, South doesn't secede. With any other issues but slavery, the South probably does secede.

So, no, it wasn't merely about slavery, but the slavery issue was necessary and sufficient for that war to happen.
 
2007-09-09 04:58:10 PM
www.librarything.com

"The American Civil War is a wonderful example of good coming out of evil, of strength coming out of suffering. The American Civil War was where this country became this country. The Revolution got us free of England, established us an independent nation, but the Civil War was the one that decided what kind of nation we were going to be. There were a lot of bad things that went along with a lot of good things. And it's that combination of different points of view that somehow found a way to get along with each other and learn from each other and contribute each in its way to the American character that has given us our strength."
 
2007-09-09 04:59:02 PM
the_cnidarian

I don't hate republicans at all. I hate conservatives. Lincoln was not a conservative, he was a liberal. The people calling themselves democrats at the time of the civil war were conservatives. Republican views change, and democrat views change. Liberal views do not change and conservative views do not change.

This country was founded on liberal thinking---at the time there were no democrats and republicans--only liberals and conservatives. At the time of the American revolution, liberals were on the side of a new Country, and conservatives wanted to stay with England. During the civil war, liberals wanted to free the slaves, and conservatives wanted to let things go on as they always had---that is conservative thinking. Lincoln may have been a republican---but he was also a liberal. I vote for liberals, no matter what they call themselves as far as party goes.
 
2007-09-09 04:59:10 PM
ceejayoz: The UN is not a government or a union, it's an international body.

Ok, then. Assuming the UN was a union of nations, would it be ok for the other nations to invade and force us back into the union if we decided to opt out?
 
2007-09-09 04:59:26 PM
ceejayoz: mmm... pancake: If we opt out of the United Nations, does the rest of the world have the right to come in and declare war on us to force us back into the United Nations?

The UN is not a government or a union, it's an international body.

Again, why the "rebel yell"?


at the risk of being pedantic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_yell


The yell has often been linked to Native American cries. Confederate soldiers may have either imitated or learned the yell from Native American groups, many of whom sided with the Confederacy. The yell has also been associated with hunting cries. Perhaps Confederate soldiers imitated the cries of their hunting dogs.

Another plausible source of the rebel yell, advanced by the historian Grady McWhiney, is that it derived from the screams traditionally made by Scottish Highlanders when making a Highland charge during battle. At the Battle of Killiecrankie "Dundee and the Chiefs chose to employ perhaps the most effective pre-battle weapon in the traditional (highland) arsenal - the eerie and disconcerting howl" (Hill J.M.,1986), also "The terror was heightened by their wild plaided appearance and the distinctive war-cry of the Gael - a high, savage whooping sound...." (MacLeod J., 1996 pp 140). Also earlier documentation during the Roman conquests of Britain suggest the use of a particular yell uttered by the northern Celtic tribes of the region, in conjunction with wearing blue woad body paint and no clothing.

The notion that the Rebel Yell was Celtic in origin is further supported by James Hill (1986 pp 173) "The first United States census in 1790 revealed a well defined ethnic division between the Northern and Southern states. In new England (sic) 75 percent of the people were Anglo-Saxons in origin, while Celts outnumbered Anglo-Saxons in the South two to one." "A decade before the American Civil War the South - from Virginia to Texas was probably three-quarters Celtic." This evidence is also supported by McDonald & McWhiney's research into the Celtic nature of the Southern States, (McDonald, F., 1978) & (Mcdonald, F., & McDonald, E.S. 1980). There is also linguistic evidence from Scottish Gaelic, where there is significant support to link a high pitched scream or cry with Highland Scots battle tactics - "Goir - shriek, or cry with a shrill piercing voice" (Dwelly E., 1973: 515); forms the syllable of "goiream - let me shout" - cry, shout in Goiream a' Chogaidh - battle Cry. Also "Gaoir - cry of pain or alarm, cry of woe, derisive cheering, wailing" and "Gaoir Chatha - battle cry" (Dwelly E., 1973: 475).

A third explanation, with special reference to the rebel yells uttered by the Army of Northern Virginia is that the rebel yell was partly adapted from the specialized cries used by men experienced in fox hunting. Sidney Lanier, the poet and Confederate veteran, described his unit's yell as "a single long cry as from the leader of a pack of hounds." [1].

Considering the existence of many differing versions of the yell, it may have multiple origins.

either way, it seems to have been an older tradition than the war itself and took on that moniker later. Who named it?

see also: http://www.stonewallbrigade.com/articles_rebelyell.html
 
2007-09-09 04:59:31 PM
We kicked your ass, get over it!

ya'll were there?
 
2007-09-09 05:00:16 PM
I have relatives who live in hick towns in the South. They're stereotypes, every one of them: the men DO wear coveralls w/o shirts, the women DO walk around barefoot; my cousin HAS shot a snake and eaten it...etc.

Anyway, I once told my Tennessee cousin Jimbo and his sister Shawnda Sue-Anne (they're white) (they live together as roommates; YOU decide the rest) that the best reason we should have let the South stay independent is that there's no way civilization (aka the North) would ever have had a dumbass from Arkansas followed by an even dumber-ass from Texas as Presidents of our country.

Once they figured out I'd lumped George "God's Messenger" Bush and Bill "Klintoon" in the same category, they stopped talking to me.
 
2007-09-09 05:00:51 PM
kilgorn: "The American Civil War is a wonderful example of good coming out of evil, of strength coming out of suffering. The American Civil War was where this country became this country. The Revolution got us free of England, established us an independent nation, but the Civil War was the one that decided what kind of nation we were going to be. There were a lot of bad things that went along with a lot of good things. And it's that combination of different points of view that somehow found a way to get along with each other and learn from each other and contribute each in its way to the American character that has given us our strength."

This crystallizes what I feel about the Civil War and is also why I think it is okay, nay required, to remember it as a formative and important part of American history.
 
2007-09-09 05:01:23 PM
Bad news about that: the second most educated city in the nation is Raleigh, NC, with 50% of its adults with a college degree. Charlotte, NC is the nation's second largest banking center I guess because they're a bunch of dumbasses, right?

If you want to see some rednecks and the like, may I suggest the upper peninsula of Michigan?


What the hell does Raleigh or Charlotte of today have to do with discussions of the civil war era? I have an Uncle settled in Virgina who is smart as a whip (despite a bit of land mine in his head), who settled there decades ago with his family. I almost ended up moving there, and I currently live 2,400 miles from where I was born and raised and 3,400 miles from where my father was born and raised. The South of today is part of America, which has one of the most mobile populations of any first world nation, and if I were to ridicule the South it would have nothing to do with 'their' Confederate past but rather the demonstratively corrupt and inept political institutions (red or blue - how much pride do you have in Mississippi's educashonal sistum, or Mayor Chocolate Nagin?).

I'm not trolling so much as I don't really care enough about the whole issue to invest in citing my sources, or even spellchecking for that matter. History wonks can get worked up over the most egregious lies about who did what for why.

Yay "Southern" "culture." Whatever.
 
2007-09-09 05:01:30 PM
aerojockey: Without slavery, South doesn't secede. With any other issues but slavery, the South probably does secede.

So, no, it wasn't merely about slavery, but the slavery issue was necessary and sufficient for that war to happen.


Sorry, nobody knows that for sure one way or the other.
 
2007-09-09 05:01:42 PM
aerojockey: ph0rk

It wasn't merely slavery, however. To pretend so would be just as dumb.

Without slavery, South doesn't secede. With any other issues but slavery, the South probably does secede.

So, no, it wasn't merely about slavery, but the slavery issue was necessary and sufficient for that war to happen.


necessary, yes; sufficient, perhaps not.
 
2007-09-09 05:01:56 PM
kilgorn

The civil war is not over. The South has been doing its best to destroy America at every election. The South holds Southern values as sacred--not American values.
 
2007-09-09 05:02:58 PM
mmm... pancake: Ok, then. Assuming the UN was a union of nations, would it be ok for the other nations to invade and force us back into the union if we decided to opt out?

"If your mum was your uncle..."

If the UN was a Federal government like the United States, and the US attacked a UN base as part of their secession, sure. Governments put down rebellions all the time, often far more harshly than the US did.
 
2007-09-09 05:03:49 PM
robsul82 [TotalFark] Quote 2007-09-09 01:29:31 PM

the_cnidarian: robsul82: despite what they're saying now.

I like how some people attribute the mentality exhibited by the morans at the redneck games to everybody who lives south of the Mason-Dixon line, thereby commiting the same idiotic prejudices of said morans;

/sweet, sweet, hy·poc·ri·sy (new window)


Mmmhmm. You lost, get over it.

/try spelling correctly if you're calling others idiotic



Congratulations, robsul82, you made what is likely the dumbest post in today's dumbest thread. I need read no further. What makes this thread dumb? there is nothing controversial about commemorating one of the most important happenings in U.S. history. Where's the controversy? I don't see it.

Yet some farkers won't miss a chance to classify all southerners as rednecks, whereas others keep arguing the war had no connection to slavery. Mostly it just shows both groups are dumbasses.
 
2007-09-09 05:04:46 PM
mmm... pancake: Sorry, nobody knows that for sure one way or the other.

Dude, Mississippi's entire declaration of secession is biatching about the North interfering with slavery. Why didn't they cite any other issues in this rather important document?
 
Displayed 50 of 460 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report