nhboy
Ubi bene ibi patria
lol!
Sweet Tea to be banned in South Carolina
- Thread starter GregV814
- Start date
lol!
It's great to see you getting out of that Soros job rut..getting out of your shell....posting well-reasoned responses instead of just your old cut-n-paste job.
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
Sweet tea is symbolic of those fighting to secede from the union in a war that killed over 600,000 Americans?
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
I live in North Carolina. My Facebook feed has been unbearable today with all my NC, SC and Virginia friends commenting about this. And all but one person who supports that flag either believes the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery (seriously?) or I know the person to be racist.
Does it depict whomever drinking sweet tea?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
As has been stated several times, the EP and any other actions taken by the president against the south, were part of his war powers. He is specifically limited from using those powers on the USA.
Yep, its essentially a museum piece. Nobody is claiming recognizing history is wrong. Even so I don't think they fly the rebel flag there.
Pushrod
Patriot
It's being flown over a confederate war memorial, not over the capital or some other position of prominence... over a confederate war memorial honoring those who died. That seems an appropriate place for it to be flying.
There is no appropriate place for an enemy flag to be flying in the US. Displayed, sure. It's history. Flying, no.
I'd be curious what the people of SC would say if this were put to a vote.
And can we please stop with the "the Civil War wasn't about slavery" bull####? Of course it was about slavery. Duh.
"Oh, no! It was about State's rights!!"
Um, yeah, state's rights to......own slaves. Dummy.
"Oh, no! It was about State's rights!!"
Um, yeah, state's rights to......own slaves. Dummy.
PsyOps
Pixelated
And can we please stop with the "the Civil War wasn't about slavery" bull####? Of course it was about slavery. Duh.
"Oh, no! It was about State's rights!!"
Um, yeah, state's rights to......own slaves. Dummy.
That’s what gets me about this discussion, the primary reason the south wanted to secede was to keep slavery alive. It was economically advantageous to have slaves tending their farms for free. I see it more about economics.
I’ve always wondered about the validity of the ‘states rights’ argument. If neighboring states are committing what’s considered to be ‘illegal acts’ and desire to secede in order to continue committing those illegal acts, is this a valid reason to secede? Does the rest of the country turn a blind eye to evil in recognition of ‘states rights’?
I'd be careful who you say that to, there are some locals who get offended at the idea the South lost the war of northern aggression.
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
"Economics" is an excuse. Slavery wasn't just about "economic advantages", it was the notion that Africans are somehow inferior and are not human, should not be treated as such and their natural role is to serve whites.
While slavery was a big portion of it, it wasn't the only issue. The south didn't want the federal government to have absolute power and they wanted the ability to govern themselves, taxes also played a big role especially for the poor southerners who didn't own slaves. It is just like the current debates on pot and gay marriage, if enough people felt strongly enough that the federal government is overstepping its authority by arresting people in a state where pot is legal or determining gay marriage is legal in a state that doesn't want it they would fight it. The only difference is today we can fight things in courts, with media, and on social networking. Back then, the courts and government were corrupt and the papers only printed what they were told. So calling them traitors is a little harsh, they just believed the federal government should not have that much power over states. As for the people that fought for the south, most were not slave owners. The ones in the fields on the front lines were poor farmers like my ancestors who never owned slaves. Also don't forget that much of the money that made the US as strong as it is today came from the southern farms and exports. And many were forced to fight like the people drafted for Vietnam. I had family on both sides of the conflict and a lot of good and bad came out of the Civil War. Slavery ending was a big one on the good side but on the bad side it sometimes feels that federal government has too much power over some issues. People have different majority beliefs in different states on issues like drugs, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research etc.. and states have to abide by the federal government's ruling on these issues or they face possible federal prosecution.
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
And can we please stop with the "the Civil War wasn't about slavery" bull####? Of course it was about slavery. Duh.
"Oh, no! It was about State's rights!!"
Um, yeah, state's rights to......own slaves. Dummy.
They are evidently taught otherwise in the Carolinas. Not a single person I've talked to thinks slavery the issue or even an issue. Hell, in Western Virginia, they don't even realize slavery existed. In the Carolinas, they're taught that slaves were even treated well. Even Charles County, when I was a freshman in high school, was teaching kids that the Civil War was not about slavery.
One thing we all have to keep in mind when discussing this, the education system in the north is far superior than in the south. Once we realize that, we can figure out that southerners may not be racist (thought a lot are), they're likely just ignorant.
In some respects it's the glass is half full or half empty. The issue of slavery went back before the constitution was framed, it was danced around in the declaration of independence.
The northern states did not really have a need for African slaves, they had indentured servants but they weren't managing large plantations were cheap labor was required.
There are a lot of myths about slavery, as many as there are about the civil war.
Make no mistake, slavery was the most important issue, but it wasn't the only one. The union was dominated by the industrial north, the north wanted cheap raw material to process into goods and the south provided that.
To keep it cheap the north used their political clout to control import and export duties. A lot of northerners didn't give two chits about slavery, when pressed they would probably tell you it was a bad thing but... But they weren't willing to go to war over slavery. As industrialization took over the treatment of slaves took on that of machinery, you worked it until it was broke and then replaced it. neither side was ultraistic. The number of people in the north that actually wanted to free the slaves and end the institution was a minority. There were some that did not want to see it end because they profited from it (indirectly) and still others who either didn't know or didn't care.
Many slaves were treated very well. The entertainment industry likes to depict all slave owners as sadistic monsters who bought humans in order to beat, rape, and kill them, but that isn't true. Sure, there were some sadistic slave owners, but slaves were expensive and common sense would tell you that you don't pay that kind of money for even a mule or a horse, and then beat and kill it. Many slaves were educated, even though it was against the law - that is a matter of historical fact and well documented.
Regardless, they were still slaves no matter how well they were treated. So there's that.