South or North?

[cowgirl]

A question for all those who know about the "War Between the States". 
Who do you think was right?  South or North?  Of course the winners get to write the history books.  Personally I think the South was right!  I am a "daughter of the confederecy".  And, the WBTS was not about slavery (for those who have not read the true history books).  My family was burned out of VA, by "Sherman's march to the sea", and it has been always passed down in my family to tell our children that the WBTS was not about salvery but about "state rights".   Of course both sides were not perfect, I admit that not everything the South did was right. 

So, if you will just give your view on who was "right" that would be great.

Southern by the grace of God!,
cowgirl

[cziffra]

A question for all those who know about the "War Between the States". 
Who do you think was right?  South or North?  Of course the winners get to write the history books.  Personally I think the South was right!  I am a "daughter of the confederecy".  And, the WBTS was not about slavery (for those who have not read the true history books).  My family was burned out of VA, by "Sherman's march to the sea", and it has been always passed down in my family to tell our children that the WBTS was not about salvery but about "state rights".    Of course both sides were not perfect, I admit that not everything the South did was right. 

So, if you will just give your view on who was "right" that would be great.

Southern by the grace of God!,
cowgirl

Send my regards to your parents and grandparents for keeping racism alive.

[cowgirl]

 we don't belive in racism! and did you know that Gen. Lee and Stonewall Jackson (and many other Generals) freeded there slaves even before the war?  While Abraham L.  (and many of his personal) still had slaves!  talk about being racist!
 
Southern by the grace of God,
cowgirl

[cziffra]

I live about as far north as one can, in New Hampshire, and I guarntee you if i took a cruise through the local trailer park, 33% of them woulsd have the confederate flag on some part of their property and 66% of those with flags would be like "God damned niggers are destroying our country."  The simple fact is the confederacy's most important issue was slavery, and their racism continues to this day.

[cowgirl]

yes some people are like that.  it doesn't mean that the whole south was like that.  would you say that the north were not at all being racist?  it's in the history books that the north had slaves too. the simple fact is that the union's most important issue was jealousy!  aren't you being racist yourself against the south?

cowgirl

[prometheus]

I don't know much about american history. But I do know that the official reasons to start a war at the time it is started is often not the actual reason to start one. There is always propaganda.

[pantonality]

The WBTS was started by the South because they believed that Lincoln would tell them how to run their business by outlawing slavery. There are any number of ways of looking at it and states rights is certainly among them. Another way of looking at it was the desire of a majority of the population of the nation to outlaw an abhorrant immoral practice. So think about this if the South were to start exterminating Jews (ala the Third Reich) would you also consider that a States Rights issue?

Simply put most political issues have a number of ways of looking at them. Some things are just wrong. I've come to believe that about abortion, but I have a hard time believing that the government should play a role in the issue. Yet, what other way is there to regulate the matter? We as a people have in the past 30 years gotten used to the idea that if a girl gets knocked up the problem can be made to "go away." How convenient?! Meanwhile an unborn innocent is deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this world for the convenience of the mother.

The fact is slavery and abortion are two significant moral issues. If you believe that abortion should be outlawed, but the South had a right to keep slaves under "states rights" then you are not being consistent in the application of your moral principles. Similarly were we wrong to enter WW II against the Germans? It was the Japanese who attacked us, but we declared war on both Japan and Germany on December 8th, 1941. You could almost say that the USA's entry into WW II was cultural conflict, we afterall had more in common with the English and Germany's aggression against the Sudetenland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland made us uncomfortable. That's one way to parse it if you were an apologist for the Third Reich (not too many of them around, but they're out there).

Simply put, great moral questions transcend political rights, just as the German High Command were all held accountable at Nuremberg for their war crimes, the slave owners of the South were morally in the wrong. Yes, the winner gets to write history, that's why so many believe we were right to drop atomic weapons on Japan and fire bomb Dresden, Germany. Both were attacks against civilians. There is a strong case for the A-bomb saving thousands of American soldiers lives, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Consistency of application of morality is perhaps the greatest issue facing mankind. We all like to believe that keeping slaves is wrong, but is holding Iraqis  at Guantanamo? Yes, this practice among others of questionable morality (wiretapping Americans) have prevented further attacks on American soil.  But, isn't the price of this security a deeply flawed immoral stand? Which do you prefer safety or being morally right? If you think about it that's not an easy question to answer, especially when the Islamic world has codified an acceptability to murder and mayhem in the name of Jihad.

I guess that's just life, if it was easy it wouldn't be worth living. Doesn't that sound like the ancient Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times." These are certainly interesting times, as was the time of the WBTS.

[pianistimo]

tend to agree with pantonality - and yet think some of the southern virtues are nice too whatever race today.  southern women are supposed to be the most feminine and the best cooks.  of course, we have martha stewart here in the north.  southern women seem more comfortable with their bodies - and northern stay more conservative - perhaps due to the cold weather?  if a guy wants a lawyer for a wife - he goes to boston, right?  if he wants someone to coddle him, and sit on the porch with him, he'll have to go south.  i think i got somewhere in the middle.  my husband likes whatever attention he gets - but has learned not to complain about what he doesn't get.   

[Floristan]

Incredible that in 2005 there are still people telling their children that the American Civil War was really about states rights and not about slavery!  Unbelievable. 

[cowgirl]

ok pantonality.  here we go!

 Did you know that Abraham L.  did not want to free the slaves?  If you don't believe me go read it in the EP.  He did not "free" the slaves.  The only ones he tried to free were those in the South, while those in the North were still slaves. 

You said something to the effect of " if the South were exterminating the Jews would you consider States Rights an issue"?  No I wouldn't.  You are condeming the South wholly for the slave problem, when the North was the ones who were bringing them over and selling them.  And the way they were bringing them over was not very respectful.  Have you ever read how the slaves were brought here?  It was very cruel. 

And, what about "Sherman's march to the sea"?  Now he was a real gentleman wasn't he?  No sir!  Did he have any kindness to women and children?  No!  He marched them to the sea, killed many of them, burnt there homes, killed their animals, raped women, and had no mercy! 

Also did you know that the North had a prison camp worse than Andersonville?  I forget the name of it but it is in Chicago IL.  We saw a program of it on the History channel.  Talk about the North trying to have equal rights for everyone.  That's a lie.

Well, I am going to stop for right now.  I don't want to boil over. 

Southern by the grace of God,!
cowgirl

[pianistimo]

if the south was so good, why did they use the underground railroad to escape to the north?  and, why did some people come to lincoln directly instead of through government officials to obtain freedom?  lincoln was better than any president past or present.  he is the greatest of them all because he promoted the ideas of freedom through the use of the bible and the idea that God created us all equally.  and, yes, he was the one that ultimately freed this country from slavery.  argue that one until you are blue in the face.  btw.  i like the south because of it's cooking.  we still have problems today?  just because it's a law - there is still prejudice. 

if the iraqis can't even control minor disputes in their country and we have to PAY the united nations to get them to get along - something is wrong with people in general.  tehy can't even love their own nationalities, let alone people of other races.  may God be merciful when He returns.  otherwise, everyone on the planet will be wiped out over petty diputes.  even kindergartners get along better than governments nowdays.  bold leaders are willing to die for their beliefs (as lincoln did). 

you'll see, as we move into the 21st century, an adoption of 'international law' into the usa courts.  just last night was watching a show that was promoting it.  if our forefathers saw where their freedom was being smushed, they'd die again for it all.  democracy isn't perfect, but we are one of the FEW nations that truly have freedom of speech, press, etc.  try talking to someone from a country that has been through zillions of revolutions.  they'd say the revolutions were over lack of FREEDOM.  freedom doesn't mean doing anything you want- but that the general public has a right to disagree with governmental policy.  this is being speedily eroded in the name of international rights.  if we'd been on the up and up in guantanamo - we'd have every right to claim our democracy superior on the stance that we are the most merciful country and treat our enemies with the same laws despite the dangers.  but, we crossed a line that we cannot go back on.  now we will answer to international courts and lose our integrity as a nation that holds it's own and stands on it's own by stating 'under God we trust.'  our laws will now change to be 'natural laws' of man - instead of 'inalienable rights.'

[pianistimo]

www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/USA-11_Feb_Letter.pdf

justice scalia's interests lie elsewhere than in the us courts.  of course, he deals with law every day - so i'm not saying i understand it all - but as i see it - we would have no cause for complaint with the geneva conventions if we had abided by them.  now we are in trouble.  terror is definately a different way to fight a war not only on people but on laws and trying to get us to stoop to that level.  watching hostages on tv is not something we feel able to do without some kind of action that makes the enemy think we are serious.  and yet, we should be able to get the international community to do something other than ridicule us for our efforts.  it shouldn't have come to this point - and yet, it seems instead of helping us solve the problem they want to judge us.  the international laws will affect us more than the terrorists (because they don't abide by any law).  witness the trial of saddam hussein.  it still isn't over.  that's ridiculous.  he did the crimes.  maybe gleaning the best torture techniques is all countries want.

we cannot 'john wayne' the world.  it's too big.  prayer counts nowdays- because you don't know what's coming at you from any direction.  your own government, the international community, or terrorists.  we must pray for our leaders to make righteous decisions because then they will be blessed and not cursed.  and, our young men will not be dying left and right for a cause that is not appreciated by those countries that live nearest.  imo, they should get pres. bush to stop guantanamo and afganistan prisons, and take a percentage of prisoners to each international countries community to deal with as the laws of the geneva conventions dictate.  we would equally share the burden and not just the blame. 

i think france should step up first!  don't they remember how we helped them in WWII, or are they better than us today?  chirac should make his actions louder than his words.  i have great respect for him as a person and so this is more of an appeal than a threat.  am hoping that he will show regard for the us and president bush within the international community and help him out like a brother.  it is not oil we are discussing right here, it is fundamentally the terrorist problem.  he has seen enough of it in his country to realize that it won't go away without some 'coming together' to fight it.

[pianistimo]

ok.  may as well make today national VENT day.  here's a site for all of you who don't want the homeowner's associations either (as well as the united nations policing them).

https://home.satx.rr.com/cdma/sovereign.htm

planting a shrub around your home could be like determining how much sea space is yours.  pretty soon they'll be out there with a tape measure and taxing the strawberries, or the fish.  these people are out of their mind.  give me liberty or give me death.

[cowgirl]

That's good and everything but this is a topic about WBTS.  what you are saying is important but......

cowgirl

[pianistimo]

that was then, this is now. 

[pantonality]

ok pantonality.  here we go!

 Did you know that Abraham L.  did not want to free the slaves?  If you don't believe me go read it in the EP.  He did not "free" the slaves.  The only ones he tried to free were those in the South, while those in the North were still slaves. 

This was correct until the Emancipation Proclamation (EP). Frankly, Lincoln held a very low opinion of blacks at least until he got to really know Frederick Douglass. People change and grow, but as far as I know I haven't met anyone who is/was perfect. It's part of the charm of being human. So Lincoln finally came to believe that all slavery was wrong and eventually issued the EP. It shows an ability to grow as a human being. It takes great courage for a politician to "change his mind" because we know what you'll be called.

You said something to the effect of " if the South were exterminating the Jews would you consider States Rights an issue"?  No I wouldn't.

It's good to see you're on the moral side of that issue.

You are condeming the South wholly for the slave problem, when the North was the ones who were bringing them over and selling them.  And the way they were bringing them over was not very respectful.  Have you ever read how the slaves were brought here?  It was very cruel.

There were no slaves legally imported into the USA after 1808 so I don't see that this issue has any relevance to the discussion of the WBTS more than half a century later.

And, what about "Sherman's march to the sea"?  Now he was a real gentleman wasn't he?  No sir!  Did he have any kindness to women and children?  No!  He marched them to the sea, killed many of them, burnt there homes, killed their animals, raped women, and had no mercy!

I see no need to excuse General Sherman, but again this has no bearing on whether the moral argument against slavery trumps states rights. In my opinion it does not because we all have to answer to God for our actions. I'm sure Sherman got what was coming to him wherever he went after he died.

Also did you know that the North had a prison camp worse than Andersonville?  I forget the name of it but it is in Chicago IL.  We saw a program of it on the History channel.  Talk about the North trying to have equal rights for everyone.  That's a lie.

I also saw the Discovery Channel program on Andersonville and heard that the Union had a camp that was not any kinder or gentler. You are mixing your messages and logic and that's unfortunate because again the prison camp situation isn't relevant to the question of whether the immorality of involuntary servitude should trump states rights. You have said yourself that if the South were killing Jews you wouldn't allow that under states rights. So if genocide is morally wrong isn't involuntary servitude not far behind? Slavery was and remains a serious issue facing our world (if no longer this country). Frankly the end of slavery was a good thing, that it took a civil war to end the practice was unfortunate, but it's done now and the country has prospered wonderfully since.

Regarding whether the North is about equal rights vs the South being about equal rights, frankly neither is about equal rights. There are pockets of prejudice everywhere. It takes great courage and integrity to stand up against discrimination of all forms, whether it be against African Americans, Jews, musicians, jugglers, carnival workers or Carnival revelers (Mardi Gras, YEAH!).

Well, I am going to stop for right now.  I don't want to boil over. 

Southern by the grace of God,!
cowgirl

Cowgirl, I heard that some students in Iraq were told that if they saw the cartoons that the Danish newpaper printed they'd become Christians. Every possible ethnic or cultural group thinks it's the best. You may be Southern by the grace of God, but if you were born in Hoboken, NJ you'd find a reason to be proud of it. I was born and raised in New England and I was pretty proud of it. Now I live in Iowa and people here are pretty proud of it. I've come to realise that you grow where ever you're planted and that's really a wonderful thing, but I think you'll find that by the time you're cowwoman you'll have more perspective on the issue.

There is no reason to get angry about the discussion such as we're having. One thing I've learned in my 51 years is nobody is 100% right all the time (not even me). But as long as we're getting better and making an honest effort to be understanding of the fellow human beings whose paths we cross the world will become a better place.

Peace be with you,

[jason2711]

They should have just stayed part of the British Empire... we abolished slavery long before you did  (at least in the UK anyway)

[pianistimo]

?  we were slaves from taxation alone!  but, we're still buddies.  after all, our long deceased relatives might have had one or two more children that we didn't know about after leaving.

as far as lincoln, he didn't suddenly change his mind and issue the emancipation proclaimation as a light bulb went off in his head.  as a young boy of about 8, he watched slaves walk right by his farm.  he held it in his conscience - the injustice of the world.  why do you think he even wanted to be president if he couldn't change the world. 

[BoliverAllmon]

Lincoln came from one of the biggest dysfunctional families ever. I hate slavery, but I agree about state's rights. To this day I hate it when the federal government comes in and forces our culture to fit what they "think" it should be.

[cowgirl]

i agree!

Southern by the grace of God,

cowgirl

[cziffra]

Lincoln came from one of the biggest dysfunctional families ever. I hate slavery, but I agree about state's rights. To this day I hate it when the federal government comes in and forces our culture to fit what they "think" it should be.

Oh yeah man, definately.  By the same token, if they try to implement intelligent design or whatever they are calling creationist crap nowadays into classrooms I'll be sure to lead a very bloody and long rebellion.

[cowgirl]

whatever cziffra.  at least they can have both sides of the story.  just like the WBTS. 
i don't agree with the ID movement.

Southern by the grace of God,
cowgirl

[prometheus]

Both sides of the story what about the creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushite, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu?

Those are also all sides of the same story. Why is christian creationism more credible than the above?

[pianistimo]

maybe they're all the same story - just different versions as happened to each race - esp. after the flood.  note how many of them acknowledge a flood tradition, too!  dna, language, geological data, tree rings, archeological findings - they should all point similarly to the truth.  i think science and discovery add to what we understand greatly.  and, someday fact will be distinguished from fiction - as many cultures hold to much fiction as well.