Alabama Gov.'s Slavery Blunder

[Rose Siding]

(AP) Confederate heritage groups got excited when Gov. Bob Riley's annual proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month dropped a paragraph saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
....
For many years, Alabama governors have signed proclamations designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. When Riley became governor in January 2003, he used the same proclamation as his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.

It contained a paragraph that says "Our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "
....
Broxton said restoring the language will hurt Riley if he runs for re-election next year and faces former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in the Republican primary.

"Roy Moore will get all of the Confederate vote for governor," Broxton predicted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/05/politics/main685650_page2.shtml

[sui generis]

1. the "confederate" vote?

what alternate universe are those pig fuckers living in? I say we invade.

[Dhalgren]

13. Please do!

The "Americans" down here have been holding out as long as we can! We need help, now! We would love to see a couple of hundred thousand of you "freedom fighters" invade and help us oust these throw-backs to slavery! How long! Oh Lord! How long!

[KansDem]

15. "I say we invade..."

Let's do it! We can call it a "preemptive invasion" because the South has WMDs and can attack the North in 15 minutes, then blame it on "faulty intelligence" when none are found! This lie has worked before, so why not again?

on edit: but why invade the South? It's not like they're sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve...:shrug:

[sui generis]

16. I think they have oil too

:evilgrin:

[KansDem]

18. Really? Then what are we waiting for?

[davidinalameda]

39. I know where that sign is

not too far from where I grew up

[maxrandb]

27. Unfortunately

As the southerners would say; "All of your aircraft carriers are belong to us".

But we do have a bunch of subs up in Groton and New London CT, and CA and HI would probably side with us.

This is a no-shitter; Every Commanding Officer of a Submarine that I have met have pictures of our Aircraft Carriers in their scope-sights plasterd all over the place.

One hit from a sub and you could kiss that $4 billion carrier goodbye.

[KansDem]

29. "But we do have a bunch of subs..."

Can they navigate the Mississippi River? I mean, we have to control the Mississippi River if we are to win!

Something like the K-5 (SS-36):


The first submarine to navigate the Mississippi River, arriving at St Louis, 14 June 1919.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08036.htm

Only newer...

[happyslug]

43. We in Pittsburgh are ready

We have out Sub ready to go to control the Ohio and Mississippi River



http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/1998/julaug/feat6.htm



http://www.geocities.com/uss_requin/

[hyphenate]

50. Naw

An old fashioned riverboat will work pretty well. :)

[Harry S Truman]

58. Please

oh dumb-fuck rebel shit suckers, start another civil war. We up here just want to rip you from your momma's breasts again. Make you walk barefoot through the corn rows again. We got more guns than you can count, bubba. We'll keep Wall Street and all the states that pay taxes to keep you sorry Johnny crack lickers employed. Give us an excuse to nuke Bammy or Atlanta or whatever fetid hole you call home now. I've got confederate flags to burn now, so gotta go. Y'all fuck off now, ya'hear?

[TroglodyteScholar]

62. A little harsh

Let's start by getting southern rethugs & faux-dems out of office. Then if you still want to nuke "Bammy" or Atlanta, let me know first. That's a dickhead thing to do.

[QC]

70. "That's a dickhead thing to do."

Well, it's only fitting, since DU has such an abundance of dickheads now.

[BadGimp]

30. ROFLMAO

thanks for the mental imagery :O

[MADem]

85. So much IRONY

I'm sure they all voted GOP in the last election. They need to be told "HEY, YOU LOST--Get OVER it!!!!"

Invade? That costs too much! Hell, cut 'em loose, put a twenty foot high electrified fence around the joint, empty the prisons here of all violent offenders and transport them there, and leave them to it--after giving all of the 'blue' folks safe passage and a resettlement allowance, of course....!

[sescob]

110. I thought the same thing! n/t

[Toucano]

134. Amazing

There's a "confederate vote"? ? ?

:rofl:

[CottonBear]

2. Oh lord, there's still a "Confederate vote" in Alabama.

Same here in Georgia.

I'm a native southerner. Never lived anywhere else.

I'm embarrassed by these people. I wish they would STFU or admit they are backward, racist bigots and not hide behind their "heritage."

End rant.

[maxrandb]

20. Of Course There is

and the first person to realize and recognize it was Nixon. It's why Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush, and Clinton (too) was elected. It's why the Republicans have been able to seize and maintain power. It's why we haven't elected a president without a "southern accent", or "cowboy image" since Nixon. Hell even the "Kennebunkport Cowboys" daddy hid the fact he was a Connecticut Blue-blood.

And it's not just the South.

The Repubs know that they can get the "Confederate vote" in Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire and others. Combine that with enough conservative Republicans, moderate to conservative Democrats, and "voila", confederate rule of the United States. It may not be overt, but after looking at the electoral maps, I have to wonder....Who won the Civil War?

[pokercat999]

66. Right you are but

if Philadelphia loses any more population PA will go with them. I've rarely seen more bigoted people than in rural central and western PA including Pittsburgh.

[Zhade]

59. Tell me about it. I grew up down south.

Let me just say, THANK YOU, liberal Southerners, for not being messed up in the head like your red-state opponents. Even though you get crapped on a lot here, you're very, VERY appreciated!

[CottonBear]

91. Oh no, thank you!

We are NOT ALL fucked up.

It's just that the idiots get the press coverage.

Us southern libs are here, livin' blue in a red zone.

[southlandshari]

93. Right back at you!

Your words are deeply appreciated by many here.

:loveya:

[TroglodyteScholar]

64. Their heritage IS bigotry-They know it, and they're proud of it. eom

[leftofcool]

3. No Problem with Confed history..............

lots of good men died fighting for what was NOT a slavery issue to them but a "rights/land" issue. It has its place in our history but that paragraph should go back in so all will know that never again should this country be divided over whether or not someone has a right to own another human being.

Left of Cool

[Rose Siding]

5. Even the AP misrepresents the actual language in the paragraph

as saying slavery was THE cause of the war. The paragraph says "one of the causes".

[leftofcool]

7. I noticed that...............

For about 99% of those 600,000 dead boys, slavery wasn't even as issue.

Left of Cool

[happyslug]

28. 99% was NOT an issue, Yes, right, by the way I have some land for you....

Nathan Bedford Forest when he first heard this argument During the Civil War, asked the Politician who said it "If we are not Fighting for Slavery, why are we fighting?". While state rights, property rights, land rights etc were stated, these arguments have always been used by the losers on the National Political Level. For example Liberals and Progressives argued about Labor Rights as a State rights issues from the 1880s till the 1930s, for the Federal Government was generally Hostile to Labor till FDR (and than argued AGAINST state rights once the Federal Government became pro-Labor in the 1930s and 1940s).

Thus STATE RIGHTS is NOT a issue BY ITSELF, it is an issue when you have a dispute between the people who control the National Government (Generally the Majority of the Country but not always, look at how Corporate America controlled the National Government before 1930s) and a minority that controls some states or regions (For example the first section of the Country to scream State Rights was New England, after Jefferson became President and they opposed his support for France over England in the Napoleonic War).

State Rights was NOT even a Southern Issue till the 1850s when the South lost 50% membership in the US Senate with the Admission of California. The South really went into "States Rights" with the election of Lincoln who won the Presidency WITHOUT A SINGLE SOUTHERN VOTE (Lincoln was NOT even on the ballot in the Slave States).

AS to the Northern Army the best example is Maryland, when the People of Maryland in 1865 Voted to Abolished Slavery, the vote FAILED until the Votes from the Soldiers serving in the Army came in (The Maryland Army vote was OVERWHELMING to Abolish Slavery).

In the years before the Civil War, the Northern States Passed several Laws to protect their Black Citizens, the South condemned these laws for their codified the "Northern" Rule as to blacks and Slavery (i.e. a person claiming a black was a Slave had to prove the Black was a Slave). As part of the Compromise of 1850, the Federal Congress had passed the Fugitive Slave act, part of which had adopted the "Southern Rule" i.e. a Black was PRESUMED to be a slave unless he proved he was freed. Immediately after the passage of the Act, Southern Slave trackers crossed the Ohio and took by force any free slave living their on the grounds their were runaway Slaves (The Blacks had to PROVE their were not, even if they had been living in the area for decades). Various Northern States hated this rule and openly opposed it as VIOLATING STATE RIGHTS while the SOUTH demanded that the Federal Government ENFORCE THE LAW even if it did violate the Rights of the States.

My point here is State Rights is always cited by the losing side on an National Political Argument. In the 1810s it was New England demanding its State Rights to Trade with Britain dispute the Federal Government Embargo on such trade, in the 1850s it was NORTHERN STATES Claiming states Rights objections to the Fugitive Slave Act, in the 1860s it was the South trying to protect Slavery, in the 1880s it was the States objecting to the Power of Corporations, in the 1890s and 1920s in was Labor objecting to the Federal Government's support of Corporations against Labor, in the 1940s it was the South Supporting Corporation opposition to the Federal Government Support for Labor, in the 1950s it was the South Again, in its opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. More Recently in the 1980s and 1990s it has been various States objecting to the Federal Government WEAKENING of Federal Environmental laws.

As I quoted Forrest in the beginning of this paper I will end with him, a few weeks before he died he made a speech saying he was supportive of the "Black Race" (And this was from the man who had founded the KKK in 1866 and disbanded the Original KKK in 1871). Words are cheap, actions cost money, and when push came to shove in 1861 Forest shown by his actions what he thought. He went to his Black Slaves and asked them to be his supply wagon drivers in the coming war, Forest knew they would agree if he offered them the one thing the Black slaves wanted - Freedom for themselves and their families. Forest knew what he was fighting for (slavery) and knew what Blacks would fight for (Freedom). No one goes to war for "States Rights" you go to war for something more specific than "States Rights". The South went to war to protect its "State's Rights" to have slaves. Thus Slavery was the "State Right" the south was fighting for, and everyone knew it at the time and the South has been Slavery was the State Right everyone.

[leftofcool]

31. Yea but that is Forest..............

who was an idiot. If ya read many of the diaries and journals of the regular army soldiers, most of them didn't even know what they were fighting for especially the ones under 16, which a bunch of them were in the South, North too.

Left of Cool

[happyslug]

42. The Same with WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam Dairies and Journals

Diaries and Journals almost always record what is happening to the Writer NOT why the Writer is where he is. Thus you rarely see WHY is such journals unless there was a reason to write it down (For example when the Diary is about to be reviewed by someone else so you write things in the Diary to impress that person).

Thus Diaries have an innate prejudice for what the military unit was doing when the Diary is being written NOT why the unit was there. For the Answer to Why you have to look at other sources, for example Newspapers AND sermons. Sermons were important for about 1/2 of the Southern Army could NOT read or write and thus they received their information verbally. The first army that the vast majority of its members could read and write was the Union Army. This difference even caused some cultural clashes during the Civil War, for example one Northern Unit Surrender and the Southern put in command of them set up two tables, one for soldier who would read and write the other for people who could not. When all of the Northern Soldiers went to the table for people who could read and write the Southern Commander yelled at the Troopers for being obnoxious, it took a few minutes for the commander to clam down enough for the Northern Soldiers to be able to tell him that all of them could read and write AND THAT WAS NORMAL FOR NORTHERNS BY 1860.

The ability to read and write was one of the major Difference between the Northern and Southern armies during the Civil War. Colonel Mosby (OF Mosby's Rangers) would later say that it was the lack of a Public School System in the South that lead to the Civil War, for to many Southerns only received their information from verbal communications NOT the written word. This also made the Southern Army weaker than the North for the Northern Commanders could communicate to their soldiers both Verbally and in writing, while the South had to send orders to their enlisted by Verbal Communications only (To many enlistees could NOT read to rely on Written Communications to enlistees).

My point is that to determine WHY people where fighting in 1861-1865 you have to look someplace other than the Journals. You have to look at what was being discussed in the Papers and Sermons of the South and during the 1860s it was Slavery and the preservation of Slavery, that was the "State Right" the South was fighting to preserve.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. What a major pile of crap. All of my dirt-poor Southern ancestors...

...that fought in Confederate units left behind letters and other documents proving not only that they could write, but write well. The Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA, is FILLED with diaries and letters of Southerners who fought in the Civil War. The vast majority of first-hand accounts of the Civil War were written by Southerners who were not officers, and new accounts are being found in attic trunks, and basements every year.

And before you get all excited thinking that you're having a discussion with a descendant of Confederate soldiers, here's a news flash for you...my Dad's side of the family fought on BOTH sides. And both sides of his family were worse than dirt-poor. But both sides could write, too.

And no, reading the newspapers and sermons do not give you an accurate picture of what ALL Southerners were thinking at the time. You're reading nothing but what the most outspoken supporters of slavery were thinking. Something else that you overlooked...newspaper owners and preachers were rarely counted among the poorest Southerners. And newspaper owners rarely wrote anything that was not supported by the powers that be....namely the large plantation/slave owners.

Here's another account you failed to mention. When the Union announced their intent to draft able-bodied men for the military in 1863, New York City was the scene of massive riots resulting in the lynching of nearly three hundred blacks. On what do you wish to blame that?

[happyslug]

95. I said HALF the Southern Army COULD read

The Problem was the other half the Southern army could NOT. This was not an Officer/Enlistee split but a split within the enlistee ranks. The North because the overwhelming members of its army could read had an advantage over the South. The North could give written Orders to ALMOST EVERY ONE IN THE NORTHERN ARMY, the South could NOT do the same.

Furthermore everyone learning to read and write was something new in the 1860s, even in the North Public Education had only been around since the 1840s (The push started in the 1830s but most Northern States had adopted what we would call Public Schools by 1850). You get into older generation than that i.e. born before 1830 you had a high rate of illiteracy even in the North (For example Kit Carson was made a Union Brigadier General during the Civil War even through he could NOT read or Write).

Another example of the effect of having a huge number of enlistees that could NOT read and Write can be seen during the Revolution, George Washington had Paine's "Common Sense" read to the troops. Common Sense was read because most of Washington's troops could not read and write but Washington wanted the Troops to hear what Paine had to say. In a Modern army with a much higher literacy rate you just publish books and leave the troops read it on their own, but given the lack of education it was better to read Paine's writings to the Troops then to leave it up to them to read Common Sense (which many of them could not). My point as to literacy was to show a problem the Southern Army had AND why you just can NOT rely on Journals of the period, only the better educated would have such journals and most were kept for what was happening on a day by day basis NOT why the soldier enlisted or why they were fighting.

Anyway My point was that you can NOT go by journals or Dairies as to WHY Southern were fighting, you have to go by WHAT PEOPLE WERE SAYING. The only accurate record we have of that is what was printed in the Local Newspapers AND what the local preachers were saying (You can also go by letters home but not letters home by the Soldiers, i.e. Letters home on why the Soldier was enlisting would be a good source but most letters home from soldiers are telling people back home how the soldier is and what is happening to him at that point in time NOT general political discussion).

As to the Draft Riot of 1863, New York City had been a flash point in the North since 1860, no other northern city had as much trade with the South as New York City. Because of the War, New York City actually went into a tail spin economically (Lincoln tried as much as he could to ship trade to other more Republican Cities). Furthermore the Democrats had had control of the Custom house of New York for the eight years before the Civil War (and for almost 32 years except for two four year terms prior to 1861). All of this was lost with Lincoln's election. With Lincoln's election the GOP kicked out all of the Democrats out of office and installed good Republicans in their place. This further caused resentment in New York City. Immigration was also a factor, with immigrants keeping wages low even as the War caused food and housing to increase. Thus by 1863 New York City just needed a flash to become a Riot and a rumor that the Draft Act of 1863 would include immigrants was enough to start the Riot.

The Riot was put down, and organizations were sent up to help people avoid the draft (including locally raise taxes to help poor people pay for a deferment which was one of the Characteristics of the Draft Act of 1863, some historians has called the Draft Act of 1863 a Revenue enhancement more than a draft act for the real purpose was to provide money for veterans to re-enlist when the US Government had no money for bonuses. If you want to know more read up on the Draft Act of 1863 and the Draft Riots both provide some interesting reading once you get over people preconceived notice of what both was about).

[southlandshari]

96. Just to be clear

you are saying that it is far more accurate to use newspaper reports and the written records of church sermons to judge how Southerns felt about the civil war than it would be to read the actual journals written by confederate soldiers?

I'm not trying to be nasty, nor am I arguing whether or not the Civil War was about - all or in part - slavery. There are far more qualified historians in this thread already (on both sides) to do that.

I just find it curious that, given what is happening today in this country, anyone thinks the media or local clergy are better sources of information and sentiment than people speaking - or writing - in their own words. Then or now. I'm not saying these aren't valid historical records, just that they are not MORE valid than soldier journals.

Am I missing your point?

[happyslug]

114. What I am saying is that such personal accounts have a built in prejudice

That you have to account for. If you would read the troops letters home today, they will not be saying this war is bad, but what they are doing. It will be rare for them discuss the politics of this war. Thus my point is that such written record is a poor source for WHY THE SOLDIER WAS FIGHTING, the better source would be what he was hearing and reading.

[southlandshari]

120. I understand the point you are making

but I would differ a little bit on how likely it is for soldiers to write home about their feelings about a war they are fighting. I have two cousins who have served in Iraq, and both have written home in detail about why they think they are there, what they think of the current administration that sent them there, etc...

When they are given a voice in the mainstream media (not often enough), many parents of soldiers in Iraq or Afganistan quote their children's letters and calls home as being quite pointed about their feelings about the reasons for the war (whether they are in agreement or disagreement).

I don't know whether you are underestimating or I am overestimating the number of soldiers who feel comfortable sharing their feelings in letters home. But when things are rough for them, homesickness sets in, they see things that are disturbing, I think they are MORE likely to write about their feelings rather than less. Not all of them, but plenty of them, not a small minority. I don't have any stats to back this up, just anecdotal evidence.

We can certainly agree to disagree, though!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

109. You still don't have a clue, do you?

[malmapus]

101. Agreed, my family is lucky to have letters still from relatives

That fought, and in only a few are slaves even mentioned. I recall one he mentions seeing blacks digging earthworks close to Atlanta.

My relatives at the time were dirt poor too. They were not fighting to keep slaves, from the writings they were fighting to protect their home and family from an invading army, espicially when Sherman was making his way through Georgia.

There was alot more state pride back in those days. I think thats what got the poorer population to sign on, they could give a rats ass about the rich folk who actually owned slaves.

[CottonBear]

9. The paragraph should go back in but it won't.

Those bastards are too afraid they might lose and the "confederate vote" along with the fundy vote is what will get them elected.

Roy Barnes (D) lost reelection for governor in Georgia because of changes he pushed through that got rid of our racist flag (which has now been changed back.)

Now the flaggers (as they call themselves) are mad at Sonny Perdue (R) because he would never allow a vote on the matter.

These people are scary. Believe me, I know because I know many of them. They call blacks the "n" word and drive around with confederate flags all over their trucks.

[southlandshari]

94. It already did

And before this article was written. The full article states this - several paragraphs down, after the image of Alabama segregationists celebrating has been firmly planted in readers' minds.

[DulceDecorum]

17. How about

owning a Muslim nation?
Is that so wrong?
They are not even Christians.
Yet.

[SoCalDem]

19. "rights/land" issues?

RIGHT to force SLAVES to work the LAND...potato-po-taH-to

[TankLV]

32. And those "rights" were the RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES!

But hey, thanks for playing anyway!

[leftofcool]

34. Not quite for all soldiers.............

it is the difference in soldiers and politicians...............most of those misguided kids didn;t know what the hell was going on........sort of reminds me of a more current war.

Left of Cool

[NYC]

61. No, the poor soldiers,

who didn't own land or slaves, got to lose their lives for the people who did own land and slaves. What has changed?

[leftofcool]

63. Not a thing except now it's called OIL........eom

[kliljedahl]

71. That's Operation Iraqi Liberation

Right?


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[denverbill]

35. Nobody will EVER convince me that slavery was not THE issue.

Even my wife, born in Georgia, disagrees with me, but I don't see how anyone other than a historical revisionist can possibly believe that the Civil War was not primarily a war over slavery.

From the time of the writing of the Constitution until 1860 there had been debates, compromises, laws passed, and even bloodshed over the slavery issue. Every time a new state wanted into the Union, pro-slavery people would try to flood the state with pro-slavery settlers to bring the state into the union as pro-slavery and free-staters would do the same. They didn't flood the state as 'pro-states-rights/anti-states-rights' voters.

The Republican Party formed as a party dedicated to keeping slavery restricted to the states where it currently existed. The South didn't give a damn about any Whig or northern Democrat getting elected President, but the first one who belonged to a party which wanted to restrict slavery to it's existing states was cause enough for the South to revolt.

Even in 1860 Southerners knew slavery was morally wrong, but because they believed it would be economically disastrous to them they kept voting to keep it in place. But, like Republicans today, southerners at the time knew defending slavery as such was difficult so they reworded the debate to avoid even talking about slavery, and instead talked about states-rights.

State-rights was NEVER an issue. If the South was so damned concerned about states-rights, why did they continually fight against the right of northern states to treat runaway slaves as free once they reached northern territory? They constantly fought to have federal law trump state law in order to force the northern states to return their 'property'. The only time they began to whimper about states rights was when it became obvious that the number of free-states would eventually overcome the pro-slavers and have enough votes to alter the Constitution and abolish slavery altogether.

Slavery was the dominant recurring issue in American politics from 1790 to 1860. Not a decade went by without some major slavery issue cropping up. The South wouldn't have joined the Union period if slavery wasn't allowed, as attested to by Section. 9 of the Constitution:

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

From the Constitution to Missouri Compromise in 1820 to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott in the 1850's to the election of Lincoln in 1860, time after time the debate was about slavery. And now, revisionists want to pretend that the debate at the time had little to do with slavery, and everything to do with 'state's rights'. I understand the need to want to believe your ancestors were fighting 'the good fight'. And I can actually agree that many of the actual fighting men believed they were fighting 'for Virginia', not 'for slavery'. But to claim that the primary cause of the war was not slavery is absurd.

[leftofcool]

37. I agree, most definitely the main issue but................

we still must honor our own soldiers, whether they were right or wrong or in between or from the North or the South, misled, misguided etc.......... If it takes a confed history month, fine. All in all, that paragraph should be back in.

Left of Cool

[denverbill]

46. The whole idea of a Confederate History month is a bit disturbing.

There were a great many Germans who weren't war criminals that fought in WWII but nobody in Germany would ever think of celebrating "Nazi Heritage Month" or putting a swastika on the flag of Bavaria.

It's one thing to honor the memory of someone who fought in support of their state or country. It's another thing to honor the cause they fought for, especially when that cause is Nazism or slavery. I can understand honoring Robert E Lee for fighting to defend his home state as a professional soldier, much as Americans can do the same for Rommel. But I can't understand honoring Jefferson Davis anymore than I could Adolph Hitler.

[Lindacooks]

99. I agree.

Hey, Confederate lovers! YOU LOST!!! GET OVER IT!!!

[ikojo]

47. I disagree with this....

"we still must honor our own soldiers, whether they were right or wrong or in between or from the North or the South, misled, misguided etc.......... If it takes a confed history month, fine. All in all, that paragraph should be back in.

Left of Cool"



In the 1980s Reagan visited a cemetary where some SS soldiers were buried. There was a lot of protest on this side of the Atlantic because many in the US did not think it proper for a US president to honor members of the SS, dead or alive.

What would people in the US say if Germany instituted a Nazi history month, after all I am sure some Germans feel they must honor their soldiers, whether they were right or wrong.

I DON'T THINK SO.

[leftofcool]

48. You think those who fought for the Confeds are like Nazis?

I've heard em called lots of names but never heard anyone Liken them to Nazi soldiers. Very sad.

Left of cool

[ikojo]

51. No, I don't think they are like Nazis. I was trying to compare

how I think Americans and others around the world would feel if Germany felt that they wanted to honor their war dead, even though they fought for a bad idea.

[leftofcool]

55. Actually, Germany does honor it's war dead.

My husband is German and still has relatives (not Nazis) there. They do honor all their soldiers. Same as we do and same as most other countries. Ya don't have to honor the ideas or causes, just the men.

Left of Cool

[Inland]

124. Same difference. Most German soldiers weren't nazis.

Just as most of the southern soldiers weren't slaveowners.

And like the German soldiers fighting for the Nazi regime, the CSA enlisted man still needed killing.

Not going to say many nice things about someone who needed killing, even if its only because they were lined up across the field.

[tabasco]

41. You're right.

The abolitionists in the North were the most pro-war group on either side. Slavery was the singlemost important issue leading to war and anybody who tells you different is reciting revisionist history.

[Inland]

125. Let's ask the Legislature of Mississippi why wanted to leave the Union

In its formal declaration ratified.

http://www.civilwar.com/decms.htm

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.


In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. 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. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
****

[alcibiades_mystery]

150. Ding Ding Ding

Correct, throughout.

Anybody who says that slavery wasn't THE key cause and issue of the civil war is a romanticist, a racist, or an ignorant motherfucker.

They love the fact that the confederacy (made up of a bunch of despicable tyrants and their imbecile armies) fought aginst great odds and won the battle of first manassas (god forbid you call it bull run, like the yankees). It is built on the one of the most horrid histories of despotism, rape, and murder that the world has ever known. And these motherfucking loser motherfuckers were the aggressors.

Three cheers to the armies of Pennsylvania.
Three cheers to the armies of Ohio.
Three cheers to the armies of New York.
Three cheers to the armies of Massachusetts.
Three cheers to the armies of Michigan, Maine, Vermont, Illinois.

Three cheers to the arnies that bustede the ass and put down the feudalist regime of the slaver states.

Let's stop pretending it was honorable or smart to be a slaver and a traitor.

[Jacobin]

153. Gee, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation signed

in 1863 TWO YEARS after the war started and it ONLY APPLIED in those states which had seceded.

Since you have already complained that nothing will convince you that you are wrong, then it is useless to reply to your post, but if you ever get to the point where you want FACTS instead of beliefs to understand history, perhaps you will revisit.

:-)

[olddad56]

4. Bring our troops home from Alabama, that war is over.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Mr Broxton is correct

Roy Moore will get the confederate vote and the klan vote and the Constitution hating vote which should give him a majority in Alabama. I'm not on a high horse here. I live in Mississippi, Roy would be extremely competitive here with a similar voter base, although not mine.

[DulceDecorum]

10. You could fix that in two minutes flat

by requiring ALL voters to be literate
REGARDLESS of what their grandpappys were doing way back when.

[TygrBright]

49. Uh.... you mean the way the Klan racists...

...instituted "literacy tests" as a way to keep black people from voting?

Interesting idea.

skeptically,
Bright

[DulceDecorum]

87. Those grandfather clauses

are toxic.
And since the Supreme Court was deathly afraid
to repeal or even look askance at the myriad grandfather clauses
or alumni legacies,
they came up with Affirmative Action
which is a poor black parody of the white grandpappy boondoggle.

If and when the US abolishes BOTH
-- with the grandfather clauses going first,
since they were there first,
then
the US will become a true meritocracy
where everyone truly has an equal opportunity.
But that day will probably never dawn.
The US will crumble in dust
before the Fortunate Sons are forced to forego
the education and job opportunities that are completely wasted on them.

[BR_Parkway]

8. I hope it's enough that they elect Moore, then folks could see

exactly how things would look when a total nutcase takes over.

[peacebird]

11. ummm - those folks are totally BLIND

or else the lesson on exactly how things would look when a total nutcase takes over would have already been learned from the examples set by bush & his buddies.....

[DulceDecorum]

12. Gawd,

have a heart, BR_Parkway.
Anyone who wants to see that can go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Stuckinthebush]

22. Ahhh! Can I come live with you?

Please don't condemn the progressives in Alabama to that fate.

[colonel odis]

44. progressives in alabama? all two of them?

[MelissaB]

52. Make that three! I'm checking in.

Don't forget my husband and children while you are counting. :)

[quaoar]

53. How can you tell how many progressives there are

in Alabama?

It must be awfully difficult to count while looking down your nose.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. I thought his nose was somewhere else...

...and where the nose goes, the head is sure to follow.

[southlandshari]

92. I forgot

just how much I love the way you think, Media_Lies_Daily!

:hug:

[unsavedtrash]

88. Thank You

[colonel odis]

102. it was a joke, for crying out loud. though i lived in alabama for

two years. so i doubt i'm too far from the truth.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

106. For a joke to be successful, it has to be interpreted as a joke....

...your "joke" fell flat because...

a) It wasn't even close to the truth. I've lived in Alabama since 1990 and have taken the time to get to know people as more than just labels;

b) Southern DUers are tired of taking the blame from other DUers for Herr Busch living in the White House. The NeoCons cheated and lied their way to power and they intend to keep it at all costs.

[colonel odis]

118. just because you don't think it's a joke doesn't mean it's not. sorry.

and if you're that sensitive about it, don't live in alabama. jeez .... i'm from and live in tennessee and have to hear all the jokes about me being married to my sister. which really piss me off, since we're divorced now.

[Stuckinthebush]

128. Ha!

That was funny.

:D

I got pissed off at all of the shoe jokes, that I finally went and bought a pair!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

135. Well, you know what we say in the South....

...Kiss my grits, honey-chil'.

Here's the deal, odis....I'm getting real tired of all of the nonsense posted to DU by my "fellow" DUers about the South and Southerners. I don't see anything even remotely funny about their comments. In fact, I've lost all respect for DUers posting those kinds of insults and will not hesitate to set the record straight.

As a Southerner, you ought to have more self-respect than to rub your own nose in their crap.

[wryter2000]

33. Yes, but...

That's what some people said when Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California. "Maybe if he wins, people will get sick of maniacs in government." We know how well that worked out.

[unsavedtrash]

86. I am terrified that is going to happen

:scared:

[SnowGoose]

14. It does make you wonder...

if there is still a 'confederate vote' after all this time since the Civil War, with a common language, and *for the most part* a common religion and culture uniting the USA...

...then what does that say about the wisdom of our adventure in Iraq? How long until those resentments and hatreds are gone? When will their 'confederate vote' be irrelevant? Not in our lifetimes, you can be sure.

'Goose

[southlandshari]

21. Bookmarking for later

Ya'll know I can't let this one go without a response, but I've just finished my lunch break and have to get back to work. For now, I'll just throw out a couple of things that come to mind:

1) Broxton is a complete idiot, and though I can't deny he has his followers and friends here in Alabama, he is NOT representative of everyone or even the majority (please, Lord, I hope not!) here. There are plenty of Republicans in Alabama who don't care much about glorifying the "good old days" of the confederacy. Broxton sued to block renovations at the capitol a couple of years ago because he thought the money was really being used by "liberals" (here? I know -ha, ha!) to build a monument to Martin Luther King, Jr. - and he wanted those funds to go to a memorial something or other to George Wallace.

2) Before everyone jumps all over Riley, keep in mind that he tried to get rid of this holiday last year via a constitutional amendment that also would have gotten rid of racist language in the Alabama constitution. It failed - BARELY, by only 1% I think - not because Alabamians voters voted against progress on racial equality, but because there were tax issues involved in the same amendment, and once again, the fundies/confederates/big fatcat business interests joined forces in a misinformation campaign against economic progress that would help our schools and low and middle income families.

The article in the OP also pointed out (several paragraphs down) that Riley restored the paragraph and re-issued the statement as soon as the error was realized.

Shari

[Rose Siding]

26. Good points

In the OP I snipped to get in the actual language, and the Moore points were compelling- Riley did rectify the problem right away and that's important.

[southlandshari]

130. Thanks for the clarification

and I hope my post didn't seem aimed at you personally. I didn't take the OP as an attack on Alabama, and assumed up front that you didn't mean it to be.

[AndyTiedye]

23. The State Flags Tell The Story

[quaoar]

54. The red cross on a white field is Alabama's flag

It is the St. Andrew's cross, which is also used on the flag of Scotland.

I never realized Scotland was a known hotbed of Confederate sympathizers.

[LizW]

24. Has a certain smell to me

Don't get distracted by the nutty rednecks here. They aren't the important part of this story. If there's anything Alabama politicians know, it's dirty politics, and this has the aroma of a nasty little battle in the war between the two Republican factions in Alabama.

It sounds like someone advised Riley that he could make points with the loony Confederate racists by leaving out the slavery paragraph in the proclaimation this year. It's not like any normal voters pay any attention to that load of crap, anyway. I mean, does anyone really buy that it was a "mistake" to leave out that particular paragraph? And now no one seems to know how it happened? Uh-huh.

But alas, the plan backfires when somehow the out of state media gets notice that the paragraph has been dropped, Riley has an "oh, shit" moment and scurries to explain and put it back in, and the loony Confederate racists go nuts (not a long trip). Result: Riley looks like a pandering moron for even issuing such an idiotic proclaimation in the first place, AND the loonies are furious and denouncing him to the press.

I don't even have to guess who was behind this.

I advise everyone to have lots of popcorn on hand for the Alabama Republican gubernatorial primary. It's going to be good. And if it's nasty and vicious and bloody enough, we just MIGHT end up with Democrat Lucy Baxley as governor. (fingers crossed)

[glitch]

157. Ah, sweet reason. Thanks for posting. nt

[DFWJock]

25. Alabama hates our freedoms

we must invade.

[Roland99]

36. "Roy Moore will get all of the Confederate vote for governor,"

Let him.

Let Alabama wallow in its bigotry.

[Syrinx]

45. I find your comments highly ironic n/t

[quaoar]

57. And when Gov. Roy Moore runs for president

you can wallow in it too.

[Roland99]

117. Let him run

Let him put his bigotry on display for the entire nation.

The right has begun to hang itself, much sooner than I expected.


Let's keep feeding them rope.

[quaoar]

126. Easy for you to say

You wouldn't have to deal with him fucking up your state.

[Roland99]

127. How could it be worse?

Well, you could be Georgia! :)

[theHandpuppet]

38. Southern apologists and revisionists

Oh yeah, right, the war had nothing to do with SLAVERY!

Opening paragraph, Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. 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.

Opening paragraph, Georgia Declaration of Secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union...She was received into the confederacy...as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

In all the non-slave-holding States...the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party...based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States

...all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations...

From the South Carolina Declaration of Secession:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

There's lots more where these came from:
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/williamson_address.html
http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm
http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/secession.htm

[quaoar]

56. The war had everything to do with slavery

for the wealthy white plantation owners who had slaves. But the people who owned a lot of slaves made up a very small percentage of the population. Many white Southerners did not see it as an issue worth fighting for because they had no economic stake in it. But the wealthy slave owners held all the power in state governments (what else is new?). So they got their way.

You might want to look up the attempt by Winston County, Alabama to secede from Alabama over opposition to the war. It's known as The Incident at Looney's Tavern and has become a tourist attraction today.

[theHandpuppet]

67. I know about the Winston County secession attempt

I also know that many non-slave owning southerners of the Appalachians, particularly those from Eastern Tennessee and NE Alabama, were Unionists and formed their own Union regiments.

Nevertheless, it is ridiculous and wholly inaccurate to suggest that slavery was not a primary reason for Southern secession and the Civil War, no matter who wrote the particular articles of succession. Those Southerners who disagreed with the slave-owning landowners had a choice: join the Southern Union regiments or fight with the Confederacy and all it stood for as defined by their leadership.

More on the Southern Loyalists (Unionists):
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~cescott/yanks.html

Tennessee Loyalists, 750 of whom died in Andersonville Prison:
http://www.stkusers.com/lindas/history.html

The massacre at Fort Pillow: http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/813/Fort_Pillow_a_Civil_War_dishonor

There is much more info on the web regarding the little-known Southern Unionists; these are the men, both black and white, who should be honored by the South but their courage has been largely ignored and buried by neo-confederates and other apologists for the Confederacy of slave-owning states.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

77. Just curious, are you from the South, or have you ever lived in the South?

[theHandpuppet]

104. No and yes

Not Southern born. Currently reside in WV; lived for ten years in Virginia. Historically speaking, my paternal line came to Virginia in 1635 and after heroically fighting the British in the American Revolution, eventually settled in the mountains of SE Kentucky, where they lived for generations until the Depression drove my grandfather across the Ohio to seek work. My Kentucky kin all served in Union regiments, both infantry and cavalry, as did their cousins in WV and Eastern Tennessee.

Why do you ask? Do I have to qualify myself to post information on this thread?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

107. Your response tells me that you know very little about the South....

...and even less about how Southerners think and view the world.

Thanks for proving my point, even though you failed to understand the reasoning behind my question.

And yes, when one makes unsubstantiated generalizations based on propaganda they should have to qualify themselves, don't you agree?

Oh by the way, did you know that quite a few black Southerners fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War? They certainly didn't fight to help the Southern elites to preserve slavery, did they? Do you think it's possible that they fought for the same reasons that caused dirt-poor Southerners to fight?

Black Confederates Fact Page
<http://www.geocities.com/11thkentucky/blackconfed.htm>

QUOTE:

Black Confederates Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. He writes, “During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that “…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country” and that by doing so they were “demonstrating it’s possible to hate the system of slavery and love one’s country.” This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”

[theHandpuppet]

112. Correction...

To correct a typo in my other response: I lived in Virginia for 17 years, not ten.

As for your comments above, let's see: what unsubstantiated generalizations based on propaganda were made in my posts? Please be specific, because I do believe you are in error. This discussion concerned slavery as an underlying cause for the Civil War; the fact that the Articles of Secession were written by (mostly) landed slaveowners with a vested interest in preserving that abominable institution rather than "dirt-poor" non-slave owning Southerners is moot; the former DID cite the slavery issue as a major reason for secession and guided their states into Civil War. To deny that fact is to be an apologist and revisionist in my book, whether or not one wants to tack on an hundred various (and legitimate) reasons, none involving slavery, for which a man may have fought for the Confederacy.

You see, I'm not going to make excuses for the Yankees who made their fortunes in the slave trade, no more than I would make excuses for some of my Virginia ancestors who owned slaves. Fact is fact, a wrong is a wrong, it just IS.

As for the Southern blacks in confederate ranks, yes, I am quite aware of African Americans who served in the CSA and have done some research on the subject. And despite your above-quoted source, indeed some of those served because their officer masters brought their body servants along with them. Others did serve as soldiers and there are in fact black members among the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization. There are plenty of black republicans, too, but that fact doesn't legitimize the Republican Party and its agenda.

As to whether or not I meet your criteria for being qualified to post on this thread, I find that quite amusing. As a resident of a red state, I suppose I shouldn't qualify to post on DU -- but there you go. That reasoning can walk both sides of the street. I don't think you understand me very well, either.

[Trajan]

149. Even as I appreciate your typically considerate remarks in DU ...

I must take issue with a 'defense' of the Confederate States of America, the apologism of the movement's adherents; and the apparent confusion between the words 'Confederates' and 'Southerners' ....

The Confederates did, through legislative fiat and military action, make war against it's fellow americans to protect an institution of slavery through which some 'southerners' became wealthy through the forced labor of slaves held against their will; they made war against their own people because the nation was moving towards abolishing the laws that protected that perfidous institution, and threatened thier ready source of wealth ...

It is important as well to note: Not only were there southerners who did not possess slaves or advocate slavery; there were also NORTHERNERS who supported slavery, and who rejected the abolistionist movement and supported efforts to protect slavery .... Even though the predominance of southern plantation owners gave the south a higher population of confederate advocates (and a base of operation), supporters of slavery and the confederate effort they were by no means exclusively southern ....

The problem here is the usage and apparent interchangability of the terms 'confederate' and 'southerner' ....

By apparently defending and apologizing for the 'Confederacy', you seem to do so to defend what you apparently feel is an insult to 'Southern' people .... Like those who confuse 'Southerners' for 'redneck rad state GOP luvin' bible totin and quotin slave holders', you have apparently confused the legitimate criticism of the Confederate movement and those who supported it, with pig headed regional hatred of Southerners as a whole ....

It is RIGHT and PROPER to admonish and depsise the Confederate movement, just as it is RIGHT and PROPER to castigate those who support the aims of the CSA, and to this day praise it as a model of virtue .... The castigation of the Confederates is NOT a condemnation of 'southerners' in general .... It is a condemnation of the 'values' which the Confederates espoused, and a condemnation of their willingness to praise those who would enslave a fellow human being ....

Maybe I am wrong ... maybe I have misread your postings .... but frankly, I am flabbergasted that anyone would even faintly defend those who protect the awful legacy of slavery .... Defending the Confederate sympathisers of today because theyre southern is as sweeping a fallacy as insulting all southerners as 'confederates' ....

To criticise the CONDFEDERATE movement of the south, and its northern supporters, is ABSOLUTELY justifed .... and it is NOT an attack on Southerners to say so ...

[Jilly Beans]

74. The north bears every bit as much blame for slavery as the south

The northern textile industries certainly didn't reject slave-grown-and-picked Southern cotton. It was their demand, as well as European demand, that drove the cotton industry. Northern industrialists were never against slavery.

[QC]

76. And who dominated the slave trade?

New England, particularly Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The latter state alone controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the trade in the era after the Revolutionary War.

And the family that endowed Brown University and for whom it was named, anyone care to guess how they made their fortune?

http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TroglodyteScholar]

65. Sorry you had to suffer through it

Alabama was glad to see you go. It's actually a nice place with a lot of nice people. The whole time I lived there (12 of my formative years), I never met a single person who would say what you just said about ANY state. But whatever, some people just aren't as sleazy as others.

[QC]

69. Gee, I hate to think that we missed out on knowing such

an intelligent, opeminded, joy of a person like yourself. How will we ever recover from the loss?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. Yes, indeed....all of us that live in Alabama are uneducated racist....

...bigots. Especially those of us that post on DU, right?

Based on your apparent lack of critical thinking, I'm very pleased that you spent so little time in Alabama. If you had stopped for any length of time, you might have had your preconceived notions about Alabama completely destroyed. But, hey...why stop a good rant, right?

Oh, by the way...are you aware that voting in Alabama is done by optical character readers that use software programs to tabulate and compile the votes? Are you aware that just like electronic voting machines, optical character readers are not subject to independent review of tabulated votes by an impartial third party?

Are you also aware of the fact that Herr Riley won his first term as governor when a heavily Republican county "discovered" additional votes for Riley sometime after that voting precinct had closed?

Gee...doesn't that sound familiar? Doesn't that sound like the exact same way Herr Busch has been "elected" twice?

He who controls the voting machines, controls the elections. That's a real simple concept that some folks just can't seem to grasp. They would rather blame the populations of ENTIRE states instead of putting the blame where it really belongs.

Care to make any more ill-informed and uneducated statements?

[LoganW]

79. I'm just calling it like it is

The majority of the state voted pro-segregationist just last year. That means it's fair game to recognize the state for the majority of what it is.

"Oh, by the way...are you aware that voting in Alabama is done by optical character readers that use software programs to tabulate and compile the votes? Are you aware that just like electronic voting machines, optical character readers are not subject to independent review of tabulated votes by an impartial third party? "

Oh please. So they wasted resources rigging a vote on something that wouldn't have any legal effect either way? I've been to the state - and I believe the results on this one.

I'm not saying EVERYONE is bad in the state, but clearly a majority are.

It's unfortunate some people would choose to ignore the racist problem in some of these states.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. When offered facts,....

...folks like yourself continue to spout the same old tired crap about Alabama. Now you want to state that you had "been to the state", when it appears from your first post that you were just passing through Alabama as quickly as possible. So, which account is true?

It's unfortunate that people living in ALL of the other regions of the US don't even know they have a race problem. I've lived and/or traveled in all of the states in the Continental US, and the worse places I've seen for racism outside of the deep south include the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Idaho, Indiana, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.

And yes...rigging votes has been the name of the political game throughout the US long before electricity was invented. If an issue is important to the folks in control, they will stop at nothing to ensure that the "correct" vote is tallied.

And no...a majority of the folks are not "bad" in Alabama. You just choose to see it that way based on your little trip passing through the state as quickly as possible.

Here's a quick political science lesson for you...the total number of voters in a minor election rarely equal 50% of the population of the state. The winning side rarely equals more than 60% of all of those people that actually vote. Therefore, the total number of voters on the winning side will not equal more than 25% to 30% of the total population. Care to rephrase your comments?

[Bridget Burke]

103. Yet another hater of a state or region....

Who's too ashamed of his own home to include it in his profile.

Since he hasn't been here a month yet, he might not know how common & boring we find this tired old divisive crap.

[southlandshari]

123. No. You are not.

Calling it "like it is". You do not know what Alabama "is". You do not live here. You have never lived here. You apparently have only been within the state lines once in your life, and on that occasion you couldn't put the pedal to the metal hard enough to escape the few hours at most you drove on Alabama roadways.

Instead, you are calling "it" in the same, sad, simplistic manner that ignorant people here view places like California and New York. Everything is black and white, no shades of grey, right? Everyone is one-dimensional, either "good" or "bad" with no room for humanity or personal growth, right?

You are spouting off about a piece of legislation about which you obviously only know the barest of details, and yet when several posters have provided you with a more comprehensive look at the issues involved with that ballot initiative, you are silent.

Do not pick fights you are not willing to see through to the end. Especially not with Southern progressives. There are a lot of us, and we've fought far worse than the likes of you for decades. Be willing to go the distance with your flippant remarks, or be gone.

[QC]

131. Bravo! Excellent post! n/t

[southlandshari]

132. Thanks, QC

I doubt he ever came back to this thread to even see this or any of the other responses from several DUers. Apparently, driving through without stopping - or listening - is the way to go these days.

:shrug:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

136. Wow! Nicely said, southlandshari! :-)

[southlandshari]

137. It needed to be said

And I take your agreement as a compliment, considering the source!

:toast:

[QC]

81. Where do you live, by the way?

It's interesting how the loud bashers are always so careful to keep their profiles blank. You ashamed of something?

[quaoar]

82. He probably lives in one of those racially enlightened places

like Chicago or Boston.

[QC]

116. {crickets} n/t

[unsavedtrash]

89. You must be confusing my southern drawl with stupidity. Do not pick on my

accent. Yes Alabama is backwards in a lot of ways but there are quite a few of us here working to change things. I guess, a lot more than ya'll think. I am way southern fried but I am still a progressive.

[southlandshari]

90. Educate yourself

Amendment Two - which would indeed have removed the racist language distinguishing between "white" and "colored" children - was defeated last November. By a margin of about 1500 votes out of 1.8 MILLION.

And it was NOT defeated because most Alabamians love segregation. The Alabama Christian Coalition - loathed even by its own national organization - and other big business interests got together and spent tons of money spreading the myth that the amendment would mean higher taxes if passed. There was a part of the amendment that would reaffirm Brown vs. Board of Education and put into law what is already in practice here - the guarantee of public education for all Alabama's children. The ACC launched a massive campaign that played into people's worst fears about "power-hungry" federal judges imposing higher taxes in the state to improve public school systems, whether needed or not.

Now I'm not about to argue the point against higher taxes for better public schools in Alabama. We need this, and unfortunately, the majority of voters have not endorsed it at the polls. Our side has been flat out-spun by special interests and right-wing isolationists.

We can - and I believe will - do better, though. Consider the difference in the vote for Amendment One in 2003, and Amendment Two in 2004. Amendment One, an ambitious tax and accountability package proposed by our (Republican) governor went down in flames when opposed by the timber industry and other big businesses - and the EVIL ALABAMA CHRISTIAN COALITION. Though the ACC opposed it, many, many pastors in churches across Alabama spoke out about the need to change our repressive tax code. Amendment One was voted down by at least 60% of the state's population.

Amendment Two, despite being on the same ballot as the presidential race, which of course Bush won easily in Alabama, lost by less than 1% of the vote. That means plenty of Republicans voted for Bush AND for Amendment Two.

We are making progress here. I know, I know. It just isn't as fun to talk about that as it is to say shitty things about stereotypes in other places and feel good that you are so much better than the rest of us.

[Daphne08]

97. The word Alabama is Native American, for Heaven's Sake,

as are the names of many, many places on this continent.

Oh, and if you did not care for the Southern states, then perhaps it would be better if you simply did not return.

[kliljedahl]

68. Maybe we should reconsider

that whole "don't let them secede" thing?


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[QC]

72. That's a mighty bold statement coming from an Indianan....

The Klan seen from above

Dinner in Pamela's house for the Grand Dragon of Indiana.

[kliljedahl]

73. Hey I just live here

I'm not from here. Do I know you?


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[quaoar]

78. Hey!!

How come the little girl in the Klan picture is out of uniform?

[KakistocracyHater]

98. slavery & pride

I think the Civil War was also partly the result of male pride, that "don't order me about" thing; I have relatives on each side of that war, so it's difficult to be 1-sided. Yes, it was definitely partly about slavery, I'd say 75% of it, & then whatever it took to fire them up was used for the rest.

[wellst0nev0ter]

100. Read The Confederate Constitution

and TELL me that the Confederacy wasn't made to preserve slavery. Also note how it abrogates "states' rights" in their pursuit to keep and expand slavery:

Article IV Sec. 2.(i): The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article IV Sec. 2.(iii): No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried 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 slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article IV Sec. 3(iii): The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

The rest of the document is pretty much indistinguishable from the original Constitution, go ahead and read it yourself.

[theHandpuppet]

105. Who needs the truth?

The Confederate apologists and revisionists here will simply stick their fingers in their ears and whistle Dixie!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

111. I don't guess that the fact that a substantial number of blacks fought....

...in Confederate units or formed confederate units of their own will have any impact on the way that you think.

Black Confederates Fact Page
<http://www.geocities.com/11thkentucky/blackconfed.htm>

QUOTE:

Black Confederates Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. He writes, “During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that “…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country” and that by doing so they were “demonstrating it’s possible to hate the system of slavery and love one’s country.” This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”

[theHandpuppet]

113. By the way...

Thought you might find this site of interest: http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/data.htm

[Media_Lies_Daily]

133. What's your point? Everyone knows that black troops served in the....

...Union Army. As a matter of fact, I consider "Glory" to be one of the best Civil War movies ever filmed.

My point was that most people, including Southerners, don't know that blacks also served in the Confederate Army. They also don't WANT to know that blacks served in Confederate units because that would tend to destroy the argument that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Racists, north and south, certainly don't want to hear it.

It's obvious that you don't want to hear it...why not? Does it upset some of your most cherished notions about both the North and South?

[theHandpuppet]

139. You know...

A little less hysteria would lend more credence to your arguments. In previous posts on this very thread I stated that I was quite aware of blacks who served in the CSA and are even members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Had you bothered to actually peruse the site I referenced by that link, you would have also found links to several essays regarding blacks in the Southern armies.

In addition, I followed that up with another post citing several more links to historical essays on black participation in the CSA and related topics. Also included were some articles which cited mistreatment of black troops in Union armies. So there's plenty there for you to read -- unless it is you who doesn't want to hear it.

None of this, however, changes the FACT that slavery was indeed a if not "the" primary issue for the secession. Since your only counter to this well-documented argument is repeatedly stating that blacks served in the CSA, I don't see how any further debate on the issue could possibly be fruitful. As I said before, there are blacks in the Republican Party, too, but it doesn't change my opinion about the platform of the GOP.

[Tomee450]

143. But the few blacks who

served in the Confederate Army did so on a promise that they would be freed. There was no real support for the Confederacy among black people.

[theHandpuppet]

115. I see you keep repeating that mantra...

... and indeed I did follow your link, which also links up to a number of CSA websites. Well, rather than keep citing the same sources I provided in other posts, here are some more for you:

This would make for interesting reading: http://www.temple.edu/temple_times/4-1-04/bfod.html (see also: http://www.siu.edu/%7Esiupress/titles/f03_titles/urwin_dixie.htm ) I particularly like this quote: “Wars don’t always change hearts. It takes a mature society to learn from its mistakes and celebrate its successes.”

http://americancivilwar.com/colored/histofcoloredtroops.html
http://www.bjmjr.com/civwar/rpt_townsend.htm
http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/burke_cw.htm
http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/cw_lack.htm
http://oha.ci.alexandria.va.us/fortward/special-sections/freedom/
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/dshaffer/Hist4450Spring2000/B-Vets/blackvets.htm
http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=BH_Links_18th

[Media_Lies_Daily]

108. The framers of the Confederate Constitution were from the Southern....

...elite...plantation and business owners who used slaves in large numbers. They represented 5% of the population, but held ALL of the political and economic power of the South. Therefore, the Confederate Constitution was written in support of what that 5% deemed to be important to them.

The other 95% of the white population in the South owned small farms and had little or no political power in the various Southern legislatures. Most, if not all of them were dirt-poor. They certainly didn't fight to preserve slavery...they fought to protect their farms and families. They marched off to war with people from their own communities and towns, people to whom they were related and others that they knew well.

Southern Blacks also marched off to war with Confederate units...a fact that blows holes in the idea that slavery was the primary reason for the war. Why did they fight? What were their thoughts before joining an existing unit or forming units of their own? Could it be that they joined for the same reasons that their dirt-poor white neighbors joined? Regardless of the reasons, this facet of the Civil War has been buried.

<http://www.geocities.com/11thkentucky/blackconfed.htm>

[wellst0nev0ter]

138. *Grins*

If you don't think the poor white population had in interest in maintaining slavery, think again.

Imagine, if those black slaves were suddenly freed, then they will have a whole new competition for the already scarce job market as well as competition for private plantation produce.

Also, before you believe the revisionist claptrap you're presenting, take a look at this article. I won't bother to cite it in full, but the last graf is quite memorable: "We can believe in the 'black soldiers fighting' in the Confederate armies just as soon as historians discover the 'thousands' of Jews in the SS and Gestapo."

[Inland]

142. The antipathy to freed blacks in the north prove this point.

Downright hatred among those fighting it out for the bottom rung of the latter.

The poor white say the freeman as competition in the labor market.

But aside from economics, even a poor person enjoys the status of being in a superior race, and free blacks challenged that.

[Inland]

141. Were southerners idiots, or not? Please pick one.

At one point, you take umbrage at the accusation that the southern masses were illiterate. But here, you almost make them into automatons and idiots.

Somehow, the fact that the sectional disputes had their roots in slavery entirely escaped the 95% that did all the fighting (by which you mean 95% of the free population--funny how all the slave citizenry just plain disappears).

Huge constitutional disputes dating back to the first constitution, and coming to heads in 1830, 1850, and whenever, all the declarations of secession from the CSA states, the CSA constitution, and those non-elite southerners never had a clue that the reason for secession was slavery? (The declaration of Alabama also brings up navigation buoys. Let's leave that aside)

In the north, an entire poltical party was formed over slavery. And won the presidential election. Didn't it make the papers in the south?

All that can be said is that many joined up without having a personal interest in slavery, or a personal belief. That's true in every war. Some join because everyone else is, some are caught up in faux patriotism, some believe, some need a job. So?

Fact is, the non-elite southerners knew the causes of the war and knew the consequences of victory. They knew that if the north won, slavery would come to an end. They knew that if the south won, slavery would last forever, and the Union ended for at least the time being, maybe forever. With that knowledge, they decided to shoot their own countrymen. Whatever reason they had for that, it isn't good enough: at that point, they needed killing, and everything that one says about them has to take that need into account.

[wellst0nev0ter]

152. Ooh, Good Point

Some people will desperately cling to whatever myth they can malleate to a situation, no matter what the facts are.

[gordianot]

119. Continuation of an old argument. Same old denial.

As an amateur Civil War buff I have read more books on the Civil War than I care to count. Whatever you choose to call this sad chapter American Civil War, War between the States, War of Succession, etc.. SLAVERY WAS CLEARLY THE CENTRAL ISSUE. If you read primary sources you will find that the participants did not really understand themselves what was going on, most often they resorted to slogans of the day. You would think with the advantage of hindsight and 140 years of history there would be more sensitivity.

Leave it to reactionary closeted bigotry of the modern Republican party to stir this up again. If Lincoln was resurrected in modern America the GOP would be his greatest shock.

[theHandpuppet]

121. Some similarities to the current Iraqi War

... if I may draw an analogy. We know that this war was generated by a cabal of neocons motivated by OIL and GREED. Certainly those who will most benefit from this war will be but a few from these same upper echelons of the MIC. Still, there are many thousands of poor and working class footsoldiers who volunteered to serve not for profit but for reasons, even noble ones, which may vary from a sense of duty to earning money for college, or perhaps they got caught up in the drum-banging fervor and fear whipped up by their leaders post 9/11. That still does not negate the fact that the Iraq War had been planned and executed by evil men with an equally evil agenda motivated by oil and greed.

“Wars don’t always change hearts. It takes a mature society to learn from its mistakes and celebrate its successes.”

We can't afford to whitewash the history books.

[gordianot]

122. Correct

The stakes are so high this time we may not be allowed the luxury of hindsight. Mark Twain a victim of the American Civil War, after he participated in killing of a fellow American during the war, in his later years atoned for his actions in "War Prayer". Twains' "War Prayer" should be required reading in every High School, sadly it would never be allowed.

A conscience is a hard thing for many Americans to reconcile.

[BamaLefty]

129. Lol- Roger Broxton

He's from my town. He ran against Seth Hammett (Speaker of the House- D) back in 2002 and ran SOLELY ON THE CONFEDERATE FLAG.

He is an idiot through and through! :eyes:

[theHandpuppet]

140. Here's an excellent article on the subject...

... from the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=254&printable=1

[Emillereid]

144. Let's just expel Alabama from the union -- it's not worth it!

[southlandshari]

145. Alabama - and its diverse population - is here to stay.

And this was a pretty interesting thread - whichever side you were on.

Just thought it deserved a little better final post than that sideswipe before fading into the archives.

[QC]

146. I wonder where Emillereid is from?

Like others of his ilk, he has very carefully kept his profile blank. Interesting how they always do that.

[southlandshari]

147. Blank profile, hit and run post

Nothing new here! I will say that posts like his (and others a few posts up) make me thankful for those who disagree, or even have something disparaging to say about someone else's opinion in a thread, who actually take the time to explain their own perspective, and, when appropriate, back up their argument with links or stats. I may still disagree with them, but I respect them for having the guts to do more than drop a snappy, stupid insult and never return to the thread.

[QC]

148. "drop a snappy, stupid insult and never return to the thread"

That has become the dominant posting style around here. I know this sounds freaky, but there was once a time here when our discussions at DU tended to be above the level of those of drunken fratboys. It was wild! People would actually state points in a civil manner, put up some evidence for them, and then others would reply with counterpoints and evidence, etc. Sure, we've always had some smirking twits and some netkooks, but they didn't always dominate the place. And--believe it or not--we generally spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats! Crazy!

Now it's all a matter of swooping into threads and posting such jewels of wisdom "anybody who thinks _____ can just lick my ballsack!!!!!!!!!!" and moving on to deposit another turd in another thread.

[Emillereid]

151. I'm from California.

[liberaltrucker]

154. Ah, the land of fruits and nuts

Regional stereotypes work both ways

[QC]

155. But it's like, you know, like so totally awesome to have a governator!

Yeah, slinging around ignorant stereotypes does work both ways, doesn't it?

[Emillereid]

156. And money -- don't forget the money.