Do those who glorify the Confederacy also advocate for slavery and telling others what to do too?
Ultimately, the Confederacy never would have materialized if states formed beyond Kansas-Nebraska Act passage didn’t have the option to vote slave/free themselves. (Burning KS, etc.)
And so does that explain why die-hard supporters of the Confederacy are also opposed to free choice for others in other states? i.e. abortion, legalized marijuana, assisted suicide, etc.
I have never befriended someone who glorified the Confederacy, I just know the positions routinely voiced. So I really don’t understand the mindset and hope someone can help me.
I must have missed where the question is “race baiting.” Is talking about slavery race baiting?
Hillbilly – I totally see your point about how paying taxes is like slavery. Oh wait, no I don’t. 16 hour days with beatings, rags to wear, and gruel to eat while being legally owned by someone else… that does sound really close to increase marginal tax rate to control federal deficits. Synonyms almost.
Mayflower – I hate come to a knife fight with a gun, a couple years of American history and Constitutional Law makes me giggle at your comments. I’ll help…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act
KS/NE Act allowed states rights and contradicted the MO Compromise. States could now vote on rather they wanted to be slave or free, which much like concerns today, would tip the balance in the Senate pass a certain threshold. The South, who wanted to own people for cheap labor, and the north who believed in rights and reasonable wages. You still see that fight today. You’re caught in one of those “Republicans are fiscally conservative” myths.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvIS27JIypSGf2aylb.bS6vsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090310155511AAnGrqX
But don’t feel bad, there is still time.
Knight2King3 – Well, that is actually a valid point. The first serious conflict between the North and South was the protectionist tariff pushed through Congress that increased the cost of imports so Americas manufacturing base wouldn’t collapse. The South wanted cheaper stuff from overseas and got really p*ssed that the playing field was leveled. Amazing how we see the same thing playing out today. A largely WalMart loving, free trade South with such a shallow tax base that in general they suck more from the federal tit than they contribute.
I’ll give you the important point, a tax law passed almost 40 years before the Civil War led to the conflict if you’ll acknowledge that our support for the counterinsurgency against the Russians in Afghanistan led to 9/11 20 years later. Agreed?
Nice. Though I will give you credit for your subliminal race baiting and Rep/Conservative bashing–it’s still race baiting partisan bullcrap and well, you know what you can do with it.
Currently the only ones advocating slavery and telling others what to do is – obama, pelosi, and reid. They are advocating slavery through massive tax increases and nationalization of all businesses making tax payers slaves to the government. Telling others what to do through more regulation and the authority to take over any private business they decide is not being run the way they want it run.
Actually those that fought for the Confederacy wanted states rights. They did not want the government telling them what they could & couldn’t do.
Get your history right.
Are you serious? Before you go on ranting and raving anymore, why don’t you check out the ‘Tariff of Abominations of 1828’, which was the root cause of the Civil War.
Happy reading……
Those who support the Confederacy support treason. The US army stopped the traitors before they could destroy the US.
no
no
no
Wow…..what an odd generalization. Never heard that one before, nevertheless it is a generalization.So, no!
Learn something about what you call the Civil War, other than what your revisionist PC teachers are forced (or fired) to teach.
Visit the battlefields, see the graves, take the tours, listen to the guides.
Start in Georgia.
Come out of your EGG.
Two sides to everything. Investigate “Special Field Order” #120. Section VII, direct from Lincoln to Sherman.
Prisons … look into the Union ones of Camp Douglass 1,100 lives in 4 months = s Andersonville, Fort Delaware, Elmira. You don’t hear of these. Most records were miss kept or lost, a-hem. Not PC enough to fit the agenda.
Think “Cotton”. Industrial Revolution, textile industry, Europe, Naval blockade.
How the North wanted to “share” or “take”, (sounds like socialism) the #1 cash crop in America, and World.
Amazingly enough, immediately afterwards (the Blokade) Europe’s insatiable appetite for cotton was “slaked” by the planting/production in Africa & India. So this war of aggression lost it’s initial import and needed a plan “B”.
States Rights.
At that time slaves were property, and only the wealthy had them, not unlike Private Jets & Yachts, butlers, maids, cooks, and limousine drivers would be today.
Many in moniker only. I don’t agree with the idea in any form, yet opportunities to co-exist (and the benefits there-of) were there.
Worked to death? You’re thinking Pharaoh. Besides, there were the “Irish” for that. Another story that doesn’t get much “air-time”. No compensation necessary for a loss (of property), just get another one.
“He who is without sin …”
Y!A has been taken over by the nut wing of the Republican Party.
usually repubs are pro-Army, but the guy who said the Confederacy was treasonous (which is WAS, and from a patriotic viewpoint was a bad thing indeed) even got thumbed down.