Confederate Flag

[GannonFan]

Aw, it's always good to have citdog back in the fold. I mean, who better to represent the inadequacies of the educational system in the Palmetto state than one of its finest examples.

So the Constitution is to be blamed for including provisions to account for slaves when representation was apportioned? And praytell, who wanted those provisions? I'm pretty sure the slave-heavy South wanted that in the Constitution. And who was taking away the right of slavery where it existed? No one was. It only became an issue when the South wanted to extend the reach of slavery into new states. Of course, they primarily wanted this in order to preserve political power, again, through the Constitutional provisions they made sure were included in the initial draft.

As for the issue of the slave trade, really, why waste the time typing what you did? No one ever said the North was morally in the right on the slave issue leading up to the War - obviously many profitted on it as much as the South did. But really, so what that the South wanted to stop the importation of slaves. Since in 1860 there were about 4 million poor souls already in bondage, and since the South had gotten quite good at breeding their enslaved masses, it didn't make any sense to import any more slaves. It was expensive compared to just breeding what they already had (which was free), and it diluted the market with more slaves, driving down the value of the "property" they already had. Plus, it could let other people get into the planting business and again, that was bad for business. So yes, bravo to the South for trying to step up and stop the slave trade - how noble of them to be happy with just 4 million men, women, and children in bondage. 4 million who would be able to procreate for generations to come.

But all of this bluster, again, does nothing to avert the main argument - and actually, I think you might be coming around to it. The South never would've went to seccession and to war if it was not for slavery. States rights was a fine concept and all, but the South wasn't going to risk Civil War to argue that point. To protect slavery, both where it existed and to expand it, well, that is, afterall, what the South did ultimately fight for. They fought to keep people in bondage. Again, how noble.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

game over. traitors lose.

[citdog]

Aw, it's always good to have citdog back in the fold. I mean, who better to represent the inadequacies of the educational system in the Palmetto state than one of its finest examples.

So the Constitution is to be blamed for including provisions to account for slaves when representation was apportioned? And praytell, who wanted those provisions? I'm pretty sure the slave-heavy South wanted that in the Constitution. And who was taking away the right of slavery where it existed? No one was. It only became an issue when the South wanted to extend the reach of slavery into new states. Of course, they primarily wanted this in order to preserve political power, again, through the Constitutional provisions they made sure were included in the initial draft.

As for the issue of the slave trade, really, why waste the time typing what you did? No one ever said the North was morally in the right on the slave issue leading up to the War - obviously many profitted on it as much as the South did. But really, so what that the South wanted to stop the importation of slaves. Since in 1860 there were about 4 million poor souls already in bondage, and since the South had gotten quite good at breeding their enslaved masses, it didn't make any sense to import any more slaves. It was expensive compared to just breeding what they already had (which was free), and it diluted the market with more slaves, driving down the value of the "property" they already had. Plus, it could let other people get into the planting business and again, that was bad for business. So yes, bravo to the South for trying to step up and stop the slave trade - how noble of them to be happy with just 4 million men, women, and children in bondage. 4 million who would be able to procreate for generations to come.

But all of this bluster, again, does nothing to avert the main argument - and actually, I think you might be coming around to it. The South never would've went to seccession and to war if it was not for slavery. States rights was a fine concept and all, but the South wasn't going to risk Civil War to argue that point. To protect slavery, both where it existed and to expand it, well, that is, afterall, what the South did ultimately fight for. They fought to keep people in bondage. Again, how noble.

for clarity i will tear apart your argument piecemeal......you know... like y'all attacked us at Fredricksburg

A fine example of the difference between those of us at the South and y'all at the North is found in your second sentence. We CAPITALIZE the word State. Y'all do not. That is a fundamental difference in how different our views actually are about this "voluntary union of the States".

Of course we wanted the 3/5th's compromise and other concessions that made it possible for us to Confederate with you in the first place. The Southern States were paying FAR more than their share in taxes and import duties and if we were going to pay for the National Government we sure as hell were going to insist on being more than your servants politically because of your superior numbers.For example here are hard facts. The South paid into the treasury two-thirds of all the money there; but the Revolutionary War Veterans were paid three times the amount in pensions in the North than they were in the South; the appropriations for roads, harbors, and rivers amounted to five times as much for the North than the South and the money expended for internal improvements ten times as much; twenty three lighthouses were in the North to ten in the South, and eighteen custom houses to one in the South. Under these circumstances what could we or you expect? There was a rebellion in the 1860's and it was the Northern section who led it. The North rebelled against the Constitution. The South fought to defend it.

I bring up the innocence of the Southern People in the vile slave trade and the guilt of the Northern People of this crime against humanity to merely point out how laughable the position of the yankees really is. You say that no one says the North was morally clean of the stain of slavery???????? Not one of the facts I have presented will you find mentioned in any public school. It's only "evil Southerners fought to beat slaves and tear up the country"

Ours was not a Civil War. The United States was a Republic of Sovereign States. It did not become a Nation until after we surrendered and even now the States have not surrendered their rights. A civil war must be in one State between two parties in that State. It may rightly be called the War of Coercion because it was caused by the North attempting to coerce us back into the union, contrary to the Constitution, and for no other reason save that the States of the South demanded their rights.

[Skjellyfetti]

A fine example of the difference between those of us at the South and y'all at the North is found in your second sentence. We CAPITALIZE the word State. Y'all do not. That is a fundamental difference in how different our views actually are about this "voluntary union of the States".

No. That's because we were taught proper grammar and capitalization rules in elementary school.

The North rebelled against the Constitution. The South fought to defend it.

[houndawg]

Aw, it's always good to have citdog back in the fold. I mean, who better to represent the inadequacies of the educational system in the Palmetto state than one of its finest examples.

So the Constitution is to be blamed for including provisions to account for slaves when representation was apportioned? And praytell, who wanted those provisions? I'm pretty sure the slave-heavy South wanted that in the Constitution. And who was taking away the right of slavery where it existed? No one was. It only became an issue when the South wanted to extend the reach of slavery into new states. Of course, they primarily wanted this in order to preserve political power, again, through the Constitutional provisions they made sure were included in the initial draft.

As for the issue of the slave trade, really, why waste the time typing what you did? No one ever said the North was morally in the right on the slave issue leading up to the War - obviously many profitted on it as much as the South did. But really, so what that the South wanted to stop the importation of slaves. Since in 1860 there were about 4 million poor souls already in bondage, and since the South had gotten quite good at breeding their enslaved masses, it didn't make any sense to import any more slaves. It was expensive compared to just breeding what they already had (which was free), and it diluted the market with more slaves, driving down the value of the "property" they already had. Plus, it could let other people get into the planting business and again, that was bad for business. So yes, bravo to the South for trying to step up and stop the slave trade - how noble of them to be happy with just 4 million men, women, and children in bondage. 4 million who would be able to procreate for generations to come.

But all of this bluster, again, does nothing to avert the main argument - and actually, I think you might be coming around to it. The South never would've went to seccession and to war if it was not for slavery. States rights was a fine concept and all, but the South wasn't going to risk Civil War to argue that point. To protect slavery, both where it existed and to expand it, well, that is, afterall, what the South did ultimately fight for. They fought to keep people in bondage. Again, how noble.

for clarity i will tear apart your argument piecemeal......you know... like y'all attacked us at Fredricksburg

A fine example of the difference between those of us at the South and y'all at the North is found in your second sentence. We CAPITALIZE the word State. Y'all do not. That is a fundamental difference in how different our views actually are about this "voluntary union of the States".

Of course we wanted the 3/5th's compromise and other concessions that made it possible for us to Confederate with you in the first place. The Southern States were paying FAR more than their share in taxes and import duties and if we were going to pay for the National Government we sure as hell were going to insist on being more than your servants politically because of your superior numbers.For example here are hard facts. The South paid into the treasury two-thirds of all the money there; but the Revolutionary War Veterans were paid three times the amount in pensions in the North than they were in the South; the appropriations for roads, harbors, and rivers amounted to five times as much for the North than the South and the money expended for internal improvements ten times as much; twenty three lighthouses were in the North to ten in the South, and eighteen custom houses to one in the South. Under these circumstances what could we or you expect? There was a rebellion in the 1860's and it was the Northern section who led it. The North rebelled against the Constitution. The South fought to defend it.

I bring up the innocence of the Southern People in the vile slave trade and the guilt of the Northern People of this crime against humanity to merely point out how laughable the position of the yankees really is. You say that no one says the North was morally clean of the stain of slavery???????? Not one of the facts I have presented will you find mentioned in any public school. It's only "evil Southerners fought to beat slaves and tear up the country"

Ours was not a Civil War. The United States was a Republic of Sovereign States. It did not become a Nation until after we surrendered and even now the States have not surrendered their rights. A civil war must be in one State between two parties in that State. It may rightly be called the War of Coercion because it was caused by the North attempting to coerce us back into the union, contrary to the Constitution, and for no other reason save that the States of the South demanded their rights.

Since we weren't a nation you should have been building your own lighthouses and customs shops. Would have saved yourselves some serious azzwhuppins.

[citdog]

A fine example of the difference between those of us at the South and y'all at the North is found in your second sentence. We CAPITALIZE the word State. Y'all do not. That is a fundamental difference in how different our views actually are about this "voluntary union of the States".

No. That's because we were taught proper grammar and capitalization rules in elementary school.

The North rebelled against the Constitution. The South fought to defend it.

scalawags like the above are the prime example of why it is so important that our Southern children are taught the truth about our history. 'sexjelly' should be used as a cautionary tale.

[Skjellyfetti]

scalawags like the above are the prime example of why it is so important that our Southern children are taught the truth about our history. 'sexjelly' should be used as a cautionary tale.

I was definitely raised on your version of history. I got this book for my birthday from my dad when I was 14:


Just took a little independent investigation and thought to realize it was all bullshit.

It does seem like the place you get most of your material, though.

[citdog]

scalawags like the above are the prime example of why it is so important that our Southern children are taught the truth about our history. 'sexjelly' should be used as a cautionary tale.

I was definitely raised on your version of history. I got this book for my birthday from my dad when I was 14:


Just took a little independent investigation and thought to realize it was all bullshit.

It does seem like the place you get most of your ammo, though.

it figures you have 'daddy issues'.........you only hate because he loves.

[houndawg]

I was definitely raised on your version of history. I got this book for my birthday from my dad when I was 14:


Just took a little independent investigation and thought to realize it was all bullshit.

It does seem like the place you get most of your ammo, though.

it figures you have 'daddy issues'.........you only hate because he loves.

No punch left.... 'dog's knees are wobbly..........he's out on his feet...... somebody tell the ref to stop the punishment before permanent damage occurs....

[citdog]

it figures you have 'daddy issues'.........you only hate because he loves.

No punch left.... 'dog's knees are wobbly..........he's out on his feet...... somebody tell the ref to stop the punishment before permanent damage occurs....

yes. you and the scalawag have refuted my posts so skillfully that i will have to retire from the field.

[kalm]

These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

Nice.

I thought dark colors absorbed light?

[houndawg]

Nice.

I thought dark colors absorbed light?

They do. They also radiate more heat which is why they are preferred for skin in tropical climes.

[houndawg]

No punch left.... 'dog's knees are wobbly..........he's out on his feet...... somebody tell the ref to stop the punishment before permanent damage occurs....

yes. you and the scalawag have refuted my posts so skillfully that i will have to retire from the field.

I'm not refuting anything, I don't think the south is all that bad. Nice folk, by and large, especially the ladies.

[mainejeff]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/10/or ... latestnews

Its a flag.

Its no more offensive than when illegals at a boxing match in Los Angeles run around with the Mexican Flag in our country.



Seriously, why do they keep bashing the Confederate Flag? Is it because the South gave blacks jobs and their unemployment was less than 1%?

Is that why they are pissed off all the time?

Let's see........Americans flying a non-American flag vs. Mexicans flying a Mexican flag........hmmmm, I wonder how that is different???

Are you a COMPLETE moron???