• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

South celebrates Civil War, largely without slaves

Catz,

The United States is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. There is no American culture that all residents of America accept as legitimate. No one has any obligation to anyone else unless she or he recognizes that other person as a member of her or his own version of America.

Everyone now has the right to demand her or his culture and to exclude other versions of American culture.

It's called Multiculturalism. It killed unity. Unity will never return.

We are hell and gone from a mono-culture. Unity is not in the cards here. The only question I have is how long with the us will continue to be a country.
 
Really. Explain the widespread celebration of St. Patrick's Day, Columbus Day, etc. I'm descended from a long, long line of Missouri hillbillies, and I've never felt a need to apologize for that.

You've created a scenario that doesn't exist, and then attacked it. That's a fallacious method of argumentation (strawman).

Feel free to prove that variations of white culture aren't regularly celebrated in the U.S. Has your community banned St. Patrick's day?

Howdy, cousin. I really don't understand your post. I do understand that, as a white man, I am expected (by rich white liberals) to embrace several liberal concepts I don't much adhere to, you know, being all bitter and clinging to god and guns and all.
 
Nice, as luck would have it......I'm a teacher. I've got a newsflash for ya'......kids are getting educated right here, right now irrespective of their color. The single biggest factor limiting educational success isn't the school, their teachers, their class sizes, or the monies spent on education, it's their socio-economic status/culture/sub-culture.

Not all socio-economic groups/cultures/sub-cultures value education. The rich and middle classes tend to raise their children to value education and encourage them to excell in it. The poor and working classes are a more mixed picture. Poor whites/blacks/hispanics tend to put less value on education as a way to succeed than middle and upper classes do.

Throw in broken homes, drug and alcohol abuse and you have problems no matter what the culture/socio-economic status of the parents.

So, it doesn't matter what race your kids are, if you valued education as a means to success in this country and made sure they did their homework and tried as hard as they could, they should succeed in education and do better economically than their compatriots. If you are; using drugs, divorced, didn't raise them with the idea they can succeed in life thru education.............. ;)

The proof of the effectiveness of the public school system is in the quality of the education of American children when compared to foreign children who aren't subject to the American public school system.

American children don't do well in comparison because their educations are generally inferior to the educations children receive in most of the rest of the world.

What American teachers have produced is a pig's ear, and they are pretending it is a silk purse.

Teaching is an occupation not a profession. Professionals are fiduciaries who owe a duty to their clients. A duty of competence, loyalty, and the willingness to place their client's interests above their own. That's what lawyers, doctors, CPAs, and other professionals do.

If a professional screws up, she or he is liable for malpractice. If a teacher screws up nothing happens.

Teacher's Unions are the main problem. Not parents.
 
We are hell and gone from a mono-culture. Unity is not in the cards here. The only question I have is how long with the us will continue to be a country.

Between ten and twenty more years. Then I think it's game over for this iteration of America.
 
Exactly why should a hostile act by declared enemies of the United States be "celebrated" in this modern era?

Because it emphasises the seat of power. The end all be all is not the federal US government. It exists so long as we allow it to exist. So long as it functions properly and serves the People and the many States appropriately. Once it has failed that for too long, it is well within the rightful power of the States to leave the Republic. Or if it is on a much grander scale, it is the rightful power and duty of the People at large to scrap the government and construct for themselves a new government better beholden to their rights and liberties. It's a reminder.

Next...the residents of Oklahoma City "celebrate" the anniversary of the Murrow bombing. :roll:

If they do, it's their choice. I doubt they will, but they also probably shouldn't put daycare centers in federal buildings. Federal buildings are legitimate targets in revolt.
 
Lincoln was a politician. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth about slavery. He did say those things that Heavy Duty mentioned. But he also gave his "House divided" speech in 1858. I believe he claimed it wasn't about slavery for political purposes. That's why the Emancipation Proclomation came so close on the heels of his other comments.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't happen for two years after the war started and it only applied to slaves that were currently held in Confederate territory, that wasn't controlled by the Federals. Slaves in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland weren't freed by the EP.
 
You are not going to stop this celebration, and never will. You might as well get use to it. Either that or come out against gay pride marches.

I think the biggest problem that most folks on this thread are having, is calling this a, "celebration". I doubt anyone involved would call it a, "celebration".

I'm sure that the, "all white southerners are boogeymen", crowd wants to think it's a, "celebration", and I'm sure that's why the media article labeled it as such, but I'm bettin' that it's far from reality.
 
Once it has failed that for too long, it is well within the rightful power of the States to leave the Republic.

You would certainly think so. Reciprocity. If the States can elect to join the Union, they can elect to secede.

Or if it is on a much grander scale, it is the rightful power and duty of the People at large to scrap the government and construct for themselves a new government better beholden to their rights and liberties. It's a reminder.

The Declaration of Independence declares this right to revolution, another mark in the long history of the right to revolution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
 
Last edited:
I think the biggest problem that most folks on this thread are having, is calling this a, "celebration". I doubt anyone involved would call it a, "celebration".

I'm sure that the, "all white southerners are boogeymen", crowd wants to think it's a, "celebration", and I'm sure that's why the media article labeled it as such, but I'm bettin' that it's far from reality.

From the source cited in the OP:

The events include a “secession ball” in the former slave port of Charleston (“a joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink,” says the invitation), which will be replicated on a smaller scale in other cities.

I would call that a celebration. YMMV.
 
Columbus day
Saint Patric's day
President's day
4th of July etc

Are celebrations of white heritage. You on the other hand have to come to grips with realtiy about the mixed heratage of this country.

PS Every white person in this country came from someplace else. Just like everyone else except the Native Americans.
I didnt know any of those celebrations lasted a whole month. You mean I can stay drunk for St Patricks DAY for a month?
 
How did that turn out for them?

It was pretty disastrous for the whole country. If Lincoln hadn't pressed the issue of Ft. Sumpter, we'd have a divided country and slavery may still be in effect. We would not have been able to fight the Spanish-American War, World War I or World War II, etc... Most of the world would be speaking German. By pressing Ft. Sumpter, 4 years of war and 620,000 men died, but the union was preserved and slavery abolished.

The disastrous part of it all, in modern times, is that the federal government is too strong relative to the States.
 
Last edited:
It was pretty disastrous for the whole country. If Lincoln hadn't pressed the issue of Ft. Sumpter, we'd have a divided country and slavery may still be in effect. We would not have been able to fight the Spanish-American War, World War I or World War II, etc... Most of the world would be speaking German. By pressing Ft. Sumpter, 4 years of war and 620,000 men died, but the union was preserved and slavery abolished.

The disastrous part of it all, in modern times, is that the federal government is too strong relative to the States.

Make that Ft. Sumter. Damn phonetics.
 
The disastrous part of it all, in modern times, is that the federal government is too strong relative to the States.

That's not disastrous. That's how America was able to rise so quickly and become a global power. Pooling resources produces a stronger product than the sum of it's parts. It's unreasonable to think that a federation would remain weak. It's unreasonable to want to reap the benefits of a federation without having to feed it. If each state was it's own country I would suspect that we would have historically seen more wars on our soil and some states would probably be third world countries.
 
That's not disastrous. That's how America was able to rise so quickly and become a global power. Pooling resources produces a stronger product than the sum of it's parts. It's unreasonable to think that a federation would remain weak. It's unreasonable to want to reap the benefits of a federation without having to feed it. If each state was it's own country I would suspect that we would have historically seen more wars on our soil and some states would probably be third world countries.

I think you have presented a strawman by taking the opposite extreme. The combined economic power of states, without as strong of a central government in domestic affairs, but with a standing Army and federal foreign policy, as originally planned, would still have resulted in America being a global power. The only caveat is to prevent states from seceding so that we don't fragment. The only issue that would cause that was slavery. The civil war did prevent that. So, it was good the union was preserved.

However, the resulting power differential in favor of the fed has hijacked the otherwise independent States in their domestic affairs. Result? Federal entitlements and laws forcing States to do things they may not have done otherwise. The disaster of deficit spending and growing debt. This has increased the power of the fed exponentially and made the 10th Amendment invalid. This was not the originally planned balance and calls into question whether we can claim we are a Federal Republic.
 
overreaching central government.

Haha, yes what was the government overreaching on? Slavery. Good game. Thank you for playing.
 
Haha, yes what was the government overreaching on? Slavery. Good game. Thank you for playing.

You should know the overreaching started to get bad in the 1830's and had nothing to do with slavery. Pick up a history book for once instead of acting like an expert.
 
You should know the overreaching started to get bad in the 1830's and had nothing to do with slavery. Pick up a history book for once instead of acting like an expert.

Overreaching on what? The State Right to own slaves.
 
That's not disastrous. That's how America was able to rise so quickly and become a global power. Pooling resources produces a stronger product than the sum of it's parts. It's unreasonable to think that a federation would remain weak. It's unreasonable to want to reap the benefits of a federation without having to feed it. If each state was it's own country I would suspect that we would have historically seen more wars on our soil and some states would probably be third world countries.

The federal system allows the American Left to impose it's will upon us permanently when they obtain a window of opportunity to do so. Example, ramming Obamacare down our throats. That means the federal system is too dangerous to exist in it's current form.
 
I think you have presented a strawman by taking the opposite extreme. The combined economic power of states, without as strong of a central government in domestic affairs, but with a standing Army and federal foreign policy, as originally planned, would still have resulted in America being a global power. The only caveat is to prevent states from seceding so that we don't fragment. The only issue that would cause that was slavery. The civil war did prevent that. So, it was good the union was preserved.

However, the resulting power differential in favor of the fed has hijacked the otherwise independent States in their domestic affairs. Result? Federal entitlements and laws forcing States to do things they may not have done otherwise. The disaster of deficit spending and growing debt. This has increased the power of the fed exponentially and made the 10th Amendment invalid. This was not the originally planned balance and calls into question whether we can claim we are a Federal Republic.

I think you want your cake and to eat it too.
 
The federal system allows the American Left to impose it's will upon us permanently when they obtain a window of opportunity to do so. Example, ramming Obamacare down our throats. That means the federal system is too dangerous to exist in it's current form.

Health care is too dangerous.

Funny.

He should have started a war instead. That's much safer.
 
And history and the record of it claims otherwise.




Was the War Fought Over Slavery? | American Civil War

Again, you attempt to cover up the reason for the Civil War and secession, by fabricating a history that never was, and by providing red herrings and straw men in your vain attempt to prove that this was not about slavery. Who gives a rat's ass about what Lincoln thought? Lincoln did not secede from the Union. THE SOUTH DID, and here is why:

Georgia Declaration of Secession said:
Mississippi Declaration of Secession said:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
South Carolina Declaration of Secession said:
Texas Declaration of Secession said:

It is not the North that seceeded from the Union. Neither was it Lincoln who split up the Union. Whatever Lincoln's motives were, for keeping the Union together, came AFTER the South seceeded, and is completely immaterial to the reason that the South left the Union. The reasons are in black and white, preserved for all forever, written in the very hands of those who seceeded.

Do I need to keep posting the writings of those who seceeded, or will you stop attempting to fabricate history? The ball is in your court. If you have a problem with what I posted here, don't take it up with me. Take it up, instead, with those who created the historical documents. Your beef is with them, but I have to tell you that you don't stand much of a chance winning the argument with them. After all, THEY are the ones who, in spite of your efforts to change history, created those documents.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom