A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

 

thanks for the addition.
unfortunately, i am not so familiar with LA history outside of the Plessy plight ... when i first ventured out of PA, LA was in my sights until close friends reminded me that "my heritage" would likely impede any progress.

being young and dumb, i heeded their warnings and went further west. (what a mistake)
after discovering some of the Southern truths hidden for so many years, i began to understand the real "concept" of propaganda and just how well it worked. (sad for us)

well, if i do nothing great in this life, at least i've given the greatest gift i can ... knowledge.
add to it, share it and with any luck, it will hold when the propaganda machine devours itself.

Louisianans love outsiders who embrace us. It makes us happy. Just don't be one of the ones who comes down and tries to tell us how we SHOULD do things. Then, you'd not be so welcome. But one thing we love to do is show other people how to have a good time (That includes whites, blacks, asians, and -since Katrina- Mexicans, or anyone else!).
With the exception of the Bama references (GEAUX TIGERS!) here's a ditty from a good loosiana boy:


ETA: Notice what shirt Tim holds up when he mentions "Crimson Tide t-shirt"

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


I know that this is a little off topic, but I am moving to New Orleans from the ATL in about 2 weeks and I am super stoked.

I have lived all across the US and I have to say that Southern folks are, somewhat ironically, the kindest and most accepting group of people that can be found.

We continually have our names dragged through the mud when all the stereotypes are way off-kilter.

Oh yeah....

GO DAWGS!!!
(I pull for any SEC team, well I have a hard time cheering for Alabama and especially Florida. Come to think of it, I hope that Florida loses every time they play, unless it's a team from the B1G. Yankees can go home. )

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Ha! My fiancee is a UGA Bulldog. Looking at her stinkin UGA snuggie right now. You'll fit right in. Welcome aboard!
ETA: We attended the SEC Championship game as a mixed couple. People thought is was quite cute...until the 2nd half! (Then we got humiliated by Bama a month later. What comes around goes around

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

no, not to you specifically, just your false statement.

What false statement? That the people of Hawaii, the native Hawaiians, did not voluntarily choose for Hawaii to join the United States? That the United States consists of former sovereign states that all joined voluntarily?

Have you fixed that link of yours yet?

never once did i question your worthiness, however, your skill

Yes you did. I'm more than happy to continue this debate with you without criticizng your intellect and personal "skills", why don't you have the respect to do the same. We are both adults here.

Velly Velly intwerwesting thlead

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


Hey there Pierregustavetoutant. While I may disagree with many southerners on the motives of the civil war, of the nature of slavery concerning those days, it was a long time ago. We have come far and as I understand, Louisiana is one of those Southern states that had made significant changes. I mean Jindal, born and bred is Louisiana, but a son of indian immigrants, in now the governor. There is also a culture in places like New Orleans where diversity is embraced, we have come a long way. Some people feel that the Confederates states is apart of their heritage and that is perfectly understandable as well.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

So very right, the victors write the history books. Your quote from Lincoln is very accurate and very telling, Lincoln went out of his way especially during the campaign to befriend slave owners and the institution. Lincoln cared more about the Union and he was prepared to jump through hoops for southern support and cooperation, but in the end they forced his hand.

Southern representitives brought it upon themselves when they decided to seceed following Lincolns election win, in fear that their precious assets, black slaves, would be taken away from them. They should have listened to Lincoln, but instead they ended up not only losing the elections, but the institution of slavery and a large chunk of influence in Washington DC.

You seriously have not one idea of what you are talking about.

Essentially you are simply parroting the status-quo opinion continually repeated though mainstream history books and movies.
Because Lincoln was known to personally support the abolitionist movement, it is often perceived that his election was the driving factor that lead to South Carolina seceding from the Union.
His election was timely, but by no means was it the reason for secession.

The reason that South Carolina seceded from the Union was because of the encroachment of the Federal Government.
Abolitionist held sway in congress and it was their influence that caused the secession.

The US Constitution read as follows...

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due."- Article 4 US Constitution

Slaves were owned by contract, laborers, and it was beyond the scope of the powers given to the Federal Government by Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution to force slave owning states to comply with the wishes of the abolitionist, which were in violation of Article 4.

Slavery happened to be the issue that drove secession, but the actual reason for secession was the increasing power of the Federal Government.

NO ONE CARED ABOUT SLAVES back then.
They were seen as being sub-human, to a certain degree.

The abolitionists were opposed to the practice of slavery, primarily, because they were opposed to the growing influence that it afforded the Southern states.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges.
Because Lincoln was known to personally support the abolitionist movement, it is often perceived that his election was the driving factor that lead to South Carolina seceding from the Union.

Which goes back to my point. Lincoln tried to befriend Southern representitives and slave owners during the campaign in order to push back skeptism of what he might do in office if he were to win. Lincoln may have personally supported the abolitionist movement, but he was not going to allow it to get in the way of his presidential ambitions and the state of the Union.

Lincoln sympathized with slave owners during the campaign, that did not undo his connections and personal support to the abolitionist community.

The reason that South Carolina seceded from the Union was because of the encroachment of the Federal Government.
Abolitionist held sway in congress and it was their influence that caused the secession.

The motives for secession by South Carolina and other states goes right back to the institution of slavery. Lincoln winning the elections as a republican for the first time in history, with his history of support for abolitionists, was the final push for those states to try to seceed. Southern states saw their way of life, through the institution of slavery, a vital industry of their economy, under a threat under a Lincoln administration. Despite Lincoln's attempt to convince them that he had no intention of abolishing the institution, they did not believe him.

"encroachment of the federal government" is just another meme from confederate apologists to hide the core motive for southern secession, slavery.

Slavery happened to be the issue that drove secession, but the actual reason for secession was the increasing power of the Federal Government.

Yes, they were scared that Lincoln was going to do away with the institution of slavery under his administration, despite Lincoln's attempts to convince them otherwise.

The abolitionists were opposed to the practice of slavery, primarily, because they were opposed to the growing influence that it afforded the Southern states.

I agree with you here as well. The south had an advantage over the northern industries, free labour. This grew resentment from Northern industrialists through what they viewed as an unfair. The South also had the largest block of influence in the Union, even in the 1860 elections, the only reason why Lincoln one was primarely because of the division in the South concerning the democratic party, the union party. Had the south united in 1860 in the elections, Lincoln would not have won the elections. Still, had the south not attempted secession, they would have held that influence in Washington DC. Lincoln already demonstrated through the campaign that he was prepared to cooperate with the South, and that he was not in anyway prepared to do away with the institution of slavery. The problem was that southerners did not believe him.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
nope, not gonna either.
you want to know what it contains, search it yourself.
it only proves you wrong anyway so i really don't expect you to make the effort.

you are spouting propaganda, as usual.
if you expect anyone to take you seriously, link it.

cause you aren't well equipped, plain and simple.
both adults ?? maybe since your last birthday

Im a southern dude but i know a duck when i see it walk and quack. Im not calling it a dog like some of you propaganda heads want to.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You seem to think that the election of Lincoln was somehow the match that lit the fire of secession for the eventual confederate states and that is simply not true.

The states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa had enacted so-called personal liberty laws that were in direct violation of Article 4 of the Constitution.
The Federal Government remained ambivalent toward these acts and did nothing to stop these states from enacting laws that nullified the acts of Congress.

Slavery was merely symbolic.
The Southern states were not afraid of Lincoln doing anything, because Lincoln did not have the power to do anything.
The Constitution, which was a compact agreed upon by all states with explicitly given powers to a federal entity, had been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slave holding states.
South Carolina felt that these actions released their state from their obligation to the Union, therefore they seceded from the Union.

The reason for their secession was a Federal Government that refused to play by the laws and rules that they were constitutionally obliged to follow.
The Federal Government had gotten out of control.

Slavery was incidental.

You are trying to create a red-herring and in no way accurately representing the reality of our country's history.

The industrially based North grew tired of the raw material, slave labor driven South.
The North decided to act in direct violation of the US Constitution and the Federal Government acquiesced to their defiant behavior.
Consequently, the slave owning states no longer felt obligated to the same Constitution.
In their opinion, it became non-binding.

Lincoln reacted to this by doubling down on the unconstitutional Union behavior and enforcing maritime powers, also known as martial law.

No matter how you cut it, the South was not out of line for the prevailing beliefs of the time.

You are framing the argument with modern ethics and they simply do not apply.

This is not directly related to the Civil War, but I thought it may be worth mentioning that it wasn't the 1st secession crisis. The first secession threat came from the New England states when the rest of the U.S. decided to go to war with England in 1812. Something to think about when calling Southern states "traitorous". Apparently, the Northeast maintained a little bit of loyalty to Momma Britain while many of those who settled in the Southern and Mid Atlantic states hailed from Ireland and Scotland. In any case, there was much huffing and puffing and threatening to secede, using many of the same arguments that the Confederate states used. Except the Southern states had the cojones to actually do it 50 years later.
(If any of our British ATSers are peeping, please believe me when I say that I consider all the countries and peoples of the Britiish Isles to be our friends)
Just making a point.
That said, if I had to pick an AFC East team, it would most certainly be the Patriots.
By the way, Louisiana militia played a big part in the Battle of New Orleans when Andrew Jackson(scion of Irish immigrants) whooped English butt (so what if they were still tuckered out from dealing with Napoleon )
Peace.

Still posting to me, after afew pages back apparently I lacked the "skills" and "worthiness" to debate him.

Originally posted by Honor93
you want to know what it contains, search it yourself.

Why should I need to? I'm not disputing my own claim here you know, you are. If I'm wrong, prove it, otherwise you aren't getting your point anywhere. Here, I'll do one last courtesy and post you a link:

On January 16, 1893, United States diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and prepared to provide for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America, under a treaty of annexation submitted to the United States Senate, on February 15, 1893. Newly elected U.S. President Grover Cleveland, having received notice that the cause of the so-called revolution derived from illegal intervention by U.S. diplomatic and military personnel, withdrew the treaty of annexation and appointed James H. Blount, as Special Commissioner, to investigate the terms of the so-called revolution and to report his findings.

www.hawaiiankingdom.org...

Another interesting article on this matter:
www.hawaiiankingdom.org...

The United States was not formed through purely voluntary means, states were for the most part calved out of territory that already fell under Union control. Hawaii was admitted as an American territory by force, not by purely voluntary efforts. The states of California, Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of other western states, were formed out of former Mexican territory. California was already in place under Mexico, it was taken by force in the Mexican-American war of the 1840's. History doesn't care whether Mexico was "unfairly" or "unjustly" invaded, it happened.

This is why I find it amusing when Confederate apologists insist upon this idea of states having the right to voluntarily leave, or that states "voluntarily" joined the Union, because this was the the case for the most part. The Union was formed through wars and the blood of many even before the civil war. The United States would not be here today if it did not form through force.

you are spouting propaganda, as usual

if you expect anyone to take you seriously

cause you aren't well equipped

This has obviously gotten very personal for you. I'll leave you to talk to yourself.

Ill stick with the dallas cowboys even though i cant stand jerry jones. So tell me what books/articles/material should i read if i want to find out the TRUTH about the civil war. No propaganda please.

Originally posted by krossfyter
Ill stick with the dallas cowboys even though i cant stand jerry jones. So tell me what books/articles/material should i read if i want to find out the TRUTH about the civil war. No propaganda please.

Old books help.

I happen to have a book released by the Federal Government in 1865 that is a compilation of every piece of Lincoln's correspondence as President and his addresses to Congress.
The book is VERY telling.

If you take the time to read the articles of secession, fully read them, then you will get a different perspective as well.
Being from the South, many people like to collect old letters from soldiers in the war and old family diaries.

Most academic books on the subject will tell you everything that you need to know; however...

their framing of the historical events is heavily biased.

Valid information is surprisingly easy to find, but it is rather difficult to understand.
The language of the average American circa late 1800's was very proper and colloquial/slang driven modern English bears little resemblance.

Originally posted by krossfyter
Ill stick with the dallas cowboys even though i cant stand jerry jones. So tell me what books/articles/material should i read if i want to find out the TRUTH about the civil war. No propaganda please.

Loaded question my friend. I always say, go back to the primary sources. But read ALL the sides of the primary sources. Read 1st hand accounts from Northerners, Southerners, and all the many factions in each. No one book will fix it for you.
At least give Shelby Foote a shot. He's slightly pro-Confederate but not without a ridiculous amount of documentation. In other words, he very strongly backs himself up (unlike most of any side).
But really- primary source docs.
We live in a world where libraries and historic collections and archives are much more accessible to the public. Take advantage.
Pleasant journeys, mon ami.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
You seem to think that the election of Lincoln was somehow the match that lit the fire of secession for the eventual confederate states and that is simply not true.

It is true, it's not merely a coincidence. The fact they decided off the bat to seceed a mere month or so after Lincoln wins the elections is very telling:

On election night, November 7, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was the choice of 39 percent of the voters, with no support from the Deep South. The remainder had cast ballots either for Stephen A. Douglas of the Northern Democratic Party, John C. Breckinridge of the Southern Democratic Party, or John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party. Still, Lincoln won a decisive majority in the electoral college.22

By election day, six southern Governors and virtually every Senator and Representative from the seven states of the lower South had gone on record as favoring secession if Lincoln were elected.23 In December, Congress met in a final attempt to reach a compromise on the slavery question. Senator John H. Crittenden of Kentucky proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee the institution of slavery against federal interference in those places where it was already established.24 A more controversial provision would extend the old Missouri compromise line to the west coast, thereby permitting slavery in the southwest territories.

www.ihr.org...

Before Lincoln even assumed office, the South bailed and it ended up costing them dearly.

Slavery was merely symbolic.
The Southern states were not afraid of Lincoln doing anything, because Lincoln did not have the power to do anything.

Well it appears they were back then, so I'm not sure whos history books you're reading. You're welcome to believe what you wish, but take the issue of slavery out of the equation, and I assure you that those states would not have seceeded that time.

thank you kyviecaldges and pierregustavetoutant. let me see what i can find.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
i have no need or desire to disprove a claim you have yet to prove.
anytime you feel so inclined, we're waiting.

HI was never really joined into the United States.
it was more like a 60yr occupation that evolved into what exists today.

www.hawaii-nation.org...
The following information provides an historical perspective on how Hawaii came to be integrated into the United States as a state of the Union, and the fact that this status is not and has never been legally valid.

HI was admitted by VOTE, following an occupation that still exists today.
hyperbole, nothing more.
history is what it is, it doesn't need re-written by the likes of you.

ETA: btw, i find it both funny and odd that you'd mention Hawaii in your posting.
are you attempting to give the "birthers" more ammunition ??
afterall, if HI is still contesting statehood today, clearly they weren't then, which would make Obama a UN mole at best. a US citizen (even IF he was born there), totally questionable.

reply to post by krossfyter
original, source documents ... save the opinion pieces for the pundits.
need some references ?
here's a few online archive sites you may find useful

georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu...
www.palmettohistorysc.org...
www.okhistory.org...
history-sites.com...
sunsite.utk.edu...
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...