• 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!

Why Would You Even Want the South to Rise Again?

DashingAmerican

Civil Libertarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
986
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Living in the South, I see my fair share of Confederate flags and the such.

I've always wondered, though, why would someone even want the south to rise again?
 
You know what the South was about, right?
 
Living in the South, I see my fair share of Confederate flags and the such.

I've always wondered, though, why would someone even want the south to rise again?

Well, if the south rose again, it would give the north an ass to kick again.
 
Living in the South, I see my fair share of Confederate flags and the such.

I've always wondered, though, why would someone even want the south to rise again?

Driving to Florida about a month ago along I-75, about 10 miles into Georgia from TN, I spotted some yahoo's idea of making a point. He had a C flag up on a flagpole that was higher than the surrounding trees. Wife and both were like, "What kind of moron does that?"

...then we looked at each other, and said, "Trump voter!"
 
Why was it about state rights?

Because they felt like the federal government was overreaching, but that's not what I'm getting at. What I'm trying to get around to, is why would someone want the Confederate states, as they are now, to secede; would they even be viable?
 
Sure, the south was about state rights, in the most broad of senses.

Well, let's ask one of the primary movers and shakers of the confederates, Alexander Stephens(you may have heard of him, he was important):

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

So he seems to disagree with you...
 
Well, if the south rose again, it would give the north an ass to kick again.

Be a much fairer fight today. The South is no longer agrarian. And, the North is rusting. :)
 
Well, if the south rose again, it would give the north an ass to kick again.

I would hardly say the north kicked ass. It was a very bloody and, at many points, a closely contested war.
 
I would hardly say the north kicked ass. It was a very bloody and, at many points, a closely contested war.

Bloody yes, close, no. Grant had won the war by 1862 with his strategy in the west. It just took the confederates a long time to admit the loss.
 
Well, let's ask one of the primary movers and shakers of the confederates, Alexander Stephens(you may have heard of him, he was important):



So he seems to disagree with you...

Sure, he was the VP of the CSA and actually, that was definitely a part of the issue between the Confederacy and the Union.
 
Because they felt like the federal government was overreaching, but that's not what I'm getting at. What I'm trying to get around to, is why would someone want the Confederate states, as they are now, to secede; would they even be viable?

Putting your repetitive answers aside (states rights and federal government over-reach are the same thing, same answer), what was the federal government over-reaching about?
 
Bloody yes, close, no. Grant had won the war by 1862 with his strategy in the west. It just took the confederates a long time to admit the loss.

I disagree, there were several points, where the morale was low and popular opinion was near bottom in the north. Though, Grant was a hell of a general.
 
Putting your repetitive answers aside (states rights and federal government over-reach are the same thing, same answer), what was the federal government over-reaching about?

Again, that's not what I want this thread to be about. The original point of this thread was stated previously.
 
Again, that's not what I want this thread to be about. The original point of this thread was stated previously.

If you don't know what the South was about, how can you know the answer to your question?
 
Driving to Florida about a month ago along I-75, about 10 miles into Georgia from TN, I spotted some yahoo's idea of making a point. He had a C flag up on a flagpole that was higher than the surrounding trees. Wife and both were like, "What kind of moron does that?"

...then we looked at each other, and said, "Trump voter!"

Trump voters are definitely...misguided.
 
I disagree, there were several points, where the morale was low and popular opinion was near bottom in the north. Though, Grant was a hell of a general.

AS history shows, the north was never at a point it was ready to give up, and despite Lee's evident skill on defense, his inability to figure out how to push the north harder ensured giving up was not an option.
 
If you don't know what the South was about, how can you know the answer to your question?

I know exactly what the south was about, I live here, but I'm not going to stand aside and have the thread derailed and degenerated into another "the Civil War was about slaves" thread, we already have about 5 of those. So, you can answer the point previously stated or you can not.
 
Sure, he was the VP of the CSA and actually, that was definitely a part of the issue between the Confederacy and the Union.

To say it was "part of the issue" would be like saying the sun is part of what warms the Earth. While there where other factors, they are insignificant in the face of the big one.
 
AS history shows, the north was never at a point it was ready to give up, and despite Lee's evident skill on defense, his inability to figure out how to push the north harder ensured giving up was not an option.

I agree. Look at us discussing history and not raving like lunatics. :applaud
 
I know exactly what the south was about, I live here, but I'm not going to stand aside and have the thread derailed and degenerated into another "the Civil War was about slaves" thread, we already have about 5 of those. So, you can answer the point previously stated or you can not.

If you know the South was about slavery, then how can you not know what people mean when they say "the South will rise again"? Isn't that kinda obvious?
 
If you know the South was about slavery, then how can you not know what people mean when thy say "the South will rise again"? Isn't that kinda obvious?

Finally we're getting somewhere. Firstly, I don't think most of the people that say that really want slavery to return, I think they just have their head up their ass, but I can't know their thoughts and neither can you.

So, for the third time, would the Confederate States, as they are now, be a viable union?
 
Finally we're getting somewhere. Firstly, I don't think most of the people that say that really want slavery to return, I think they just have their head up their ass, but I can't know their thoughts and neither can you.

So, for the third time, would the Confederate States, as they are now, be a viable union?

They don't want slavery, necessarily. They want an aspect of traditional Southern Culture, racism, to rise again. Is there any other aspect of South Culture that has been marginalized? No.

"The South will rise again" is not about secession. It's about cultural dominance.
 
Back
Top Bottom