Daughters of Confederacy service

Bad news..the NORTH won(get OVER IT!)....;-)

:)

Florida Mike wrote:

Bad news..the NORTH won(get OVER IT!)....;-)

Why is it every time something is mentioned about the Civil War, someone's most intelligent comment is either "The South Lost", or The North Won".
To the families who lost loved ones, the main thing is that their relatives gave their lives in the conflict. What is so wrong about having a memorial service to remember the blood spilled no matter which side it was on?

More Dollars Gone wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it every time something is mentioned about the Civil War, someone's most intelligent comment is either "The South Lost", or The North Won".
To the families who lost loved ones, the main thing is that their relatives gave their lives in the conflict. What is so wrong about having a memorial service to remember the blood spilled no matter which side it was on?

A refreshing point of view! Thank you! My family also celebrates these types of things and the ceremonies are really interesting and a time for family to get together and celebrate our history---and--- hertitage.

It's me! it's me!
Its Judge Roger T,
A Supreme Court Judge with LUNACY

I started the Civil War with Dred Scott
But my predecessors on this court
Are crazier than I ever got!

Abe knew me crazy
And signed my arrest warrent in '61

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/or ig2/adams3.html)

I have returned from the dead to say
A black Abe is soon to come

With warrents for robed lunatics who had better run.

sp corr: warrant

Although the civil war was shrouded by the industry of slavery and it's abolition, the Civil War was actually a cause of a fight for states rights. The South, of course, was built on the backs of slaves, which in turn helped the United States develop into the nation that it is today. The Northerners had slaves as well, as it was a foundation for the economic times. To celebrate and remember the veterans of either side of this war, which claimed over 500,000 mens lives who fought for their rights as they saw them. I do not believe in slavery, nor do I condone what happened during those times.

We all have ancestors who may have not been the best people. Slavery still exists today on the continent of Africa.

One thing I believe that offends people, is that the title of your organization is The Confederacy, not Daughters of the Civil War. The Confederacy is represented and forever will be by the slave trade, and as apart of our history, it will never be forgotten.

Sarcasm Lives wrote:

I do not believe in slavery, nor do I condone what happened during those times.

Good. It's settled. You agree that reparations are in order.

You ramble on that slavery was good for the economy and built America into something great.

You conveniently forget slavery and subsequent badges of slavery perpetuated African American poverty to the extent very few Black Americans currently inherit money, land and property as compared to decendants of non-slaves.

In a nutshell, if great, great grand-daddy owned slaves, great great grandson inherits part of that ill-gained wealth one way or another.

DEAL WITH IT, YOU ARE A RAMBLING BIGOT.

I attended law school with retards like you who defended slavery and the psychotic, delusional U.S. Supreme Court Judges who advocated the "only 3/5th human theory" by stating "it was the times."

Right...a bigot. Many slaves were sold into slavery and captured by their own African brothers. None of my post defended anything with regards to slavery. Jews were enslaved by the Romans, who in turn built the city of Rome into the what it is today. But I'm sure that's ok right? An inheritance is exactly that, where did your family get their money? Mr. Bigot? Where did your prosperity come from, if not from the backs of those less fortunate than you. It is not the fault of Americans in 2008 that a person's family owned slaves. It was how the economy was run during those times. Was it right? NO it was not. Was it considered normal, sure as hell was.

I do not agree that reparations should be made. And by the way, continue with the name calling, and I will find your ass in a court of law for slander. "Retard" is an insult to people such as your wife who suffer from mental defects. I suffer from no mental defects. For a lawyer, I think you would know better than to stoop to such a level.

The post, if you read it without making these jackass assumptions, is dealing with the article itself, not some cockamammy idea that you carry through your mindless rants.

By the way, keep stalking me, and I'll take your sorry ass to court. hahahaha

Sarcasm Lives wrote:

Right...a bigot. Many slaves were sold into slavery and captured by their own African brothers. None of my post defended anything with regards to slavery. Jews were enslaved by the Romans, who in turn built the city of Rome into the what it is today. But I'm sure that's ok right? An inheritance is exactly that, where did your family get their money? Mr. Bigot? Where did your prosperity come from, if not from the backs of those less fortunate than you. It is not the fault of Americans in 2008 that a person's family owned slaves. It was how the economy was run during those times. Was it right? NO it was not. Was it considered normal, sure as hell was.
I do not agree that reparations should be made. And by the way, continue with the name calling, and I will find your ass in a court of law for slander. "Retard" is an insult to people such as your wife who suffer from mental defects. I suffer from no mental defects. For a lawyer, I think you would know better than to stoop to such a level.
The post, if you read it without making these jackass assumptions, is dealing with the article itself, not some cockamammy idea that you carry through your mindless rants.
By the way, keep stalking me, and I'll take your sorry ass to court. hahahaha

I am Justice Taney's Ghost, nothing more or less.
You are a ranting fool, a plain fact, not a guess.

Serve me process if you choose
Betcha dollars to donuts YOU LOSE

Reparations here and now
'cause your great-grandfather got the farm and mine got the dry cow.

Sarcasm Lives wrote:

Although the civil war was shrouded by the industry of slavery and it's abolition, the Civil War was actually a cause of a fight for states rights. The South, of course, was built on the backs of slaves, which in turn helped the United States develop into the nation that it is today. The Northerners had slaves as well, as it was a foundation for the economic times. To celebrate and remember the veterans of either side of this war, which claimed over 500,000 mens lives who fought for their rights as they saw them. I do not believe in slavery, nor do I condone what happened during those times.
We all have ancestors who may have not been the best people. Slavery still exists today on the continent of Africa.
One thing I believe that offends people, is that the title of your organization is The Confederacy, not Daughters of the Civil War. The Confederacy is represented and forever will be by the slave trade, and as apart of our history, it will never be forgotten.

Slavery was illegal in the states of the north. That's why the 1860 census had goose eggs, you know, A ZERO, in the slave column for a northern state. There were states in the south where FIFTY PERCENT OR MORE of the population were SLAVES.

Sarcasm Lives wrote:

Although the civil war was shrouded by the industry of slavery and it's abolition, the Civil War was actually a cause of a fight for states rights. The South, of course, was built on the backs of slaves, which in turn helped the United States develop into the nation that it is today. The Northerners had slaves as well, as it was a foundation for the economic times. To celebrate and remember the veterans of either side of this war, which claimed over 500,000 mens lives who fought for their rights as they saw them. I do not believe in slavery, nor do I condone what happened during those times.
We all have ancestors who may have not been the best people. Slavery still exists today on the continent of Africa.
One thing I believe that offends people, is that the title of your organization is The Confederacy, not Daughters of the Civil War. The Confederacy is represented and forever will be by the slave trade, and as apart of our history, it will never be forgotten.

Slaves were the foundation for an antiquated feudal society with a one crop agricultural economy, NOT the north.

Slaves were not always illegal in the North my friend. Do some research. You may be surprised. For example, many of the northern states on the coast depended on the ports to bring in goods, which included slaves. SLAVES WERE BOUGHT AND SOLD IN THE NORTH. Cotton didn't grow up north, but they did grow other crops, and they used slave labor to till the soil. They may have treated them better, but they were still slaves, and it was still wrong.

Sarcasm Lives wrote:

Slaves were not always illegal in the North my friend. Do some research. You may be surprised. For example, many of the northern states on the coast depended on the ports to bring in goods, which included slaves. SLAVES WERE BOUGHT AND SOLD IN THE NORTH. Cotton didn't grow up north, but they did grow other crops, and they used slave labor to till the soil. They may have treated them better, but they were still slaves, and it was still wrong.

Unlike you, I did my research. Unlike you, I read the 1860 census. A slave owner could transport a slave through a northern state, but they had to be on their way back to a southern state.

Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called “Border Ruffians.” Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called “Bleeding Kansas.” The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina’s Senator Preston Brooks.

Justice Taneys Ghost wrote:

<quoted text>
Good. It's settled. You agree that reparations are in order.
You ramble on that slavery was good for the economy and built America into something great.
You conveniently forget slavery and subsequent badges of slavery perpetuated African American poverty to the extent very few Black Americans currently inherit money, land and property as compared to decendants of non-slaves.
In a nutshell, if great, great grand-daddy owned slaves, great great grandson inherits part of that ill-gained wealth one way or another.
DEAL WITH IT, YOU ARE A RAMBLING BIGOT.
I attended law school with retards like you who defended slavery and the psychotic, delusional U.S. Supreme Court Judges who advocated the "only 3/5th human theory" by stating "it was the times."

It is always about money isn't it?

Not to upset with anyone else who had a part in it, only the ones with money. And it really doesn't matter if they had anything to do with it or not.

The United States was a nation divided into two distinct regions separated by the Mason-Dixon line. New England, the Northeast and the Midwest had a rapidly growing economy based on family farms, industry, mining, commerce and transportation, with a large and rapidly growing urban population and no slavery outside the border states. Its growth was fed by a high birth rate and large numbers of European immigrants, especially Irish, British, German, Polish and Scandinavian.

The South was dominated by a settled plantation system based on slavery, with rapid growth taking place in the Southwest, such as Texas, based on high birth rates and low immigration from Europe. There were few cities or towns, and little manufacturing except in border areas. Slave owners controlled politics and economics. Two-thirds of the Southern whites owned no slaves and usually were engaged in subsistence agriculture, but support for slavery came from all segments of southern society.

Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to control the national government. Southerners were worried about the relative political decline of their region because the North was growing much faster in terms of population and industrial output.