User Panel
Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.
Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS? Stupidity has never been eradicated either. Neither has murder, but lets ban guns anyway |
|
It'll generate as many award nominations, that's for sure. |
|
|
"Ah just kant quit you, General Lee" edit-You're probably right. |
||
|
Yup, Southerners are and were a bunch of black hating rednecks. That's why the Confederate Army was racially integrated, while American forces were segregated even in WWII.
|
|
The civil war was about slavery. The south wanted to keep one group of people enslaved and the north wanted to enslave everyone. Look at the example of those fine free northern states like California and New York.
|
|
The South was a rep republic? It was no such thing. You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.
|
||
|
As soon as you tell us how the Indians were represented by the Union... |
||
|
I could be wrong but I think the main reason for the Civil War was that the North wanted to impose export taxes on the farm products of the South. Most things seem to come down to money. |
|
|
That's all very fine about why the South left the Union, but to say that 'slavery was the issue' you would have to show that its eradication was the announced purpose of Lincoln's War...and it wasn't. Not a whole lot of Yankees would have fought to 'End Slavery, Now!' But to 'Preserve the Union'? History answers the question nicely. Eric The(Unreconstructed)Hun |
||
|
No, slavery was not the issue for the Union...but it WAS a big issue for the South. Slavery didn't cause the Union to declare war on the CSA, secession did. But the South seceeded because of slavery, among other economic reasons. |
|||
|
They weren't. They were members of sovereign nations by treaty, remember? |
|||
|
In theory... Reality was something else. The point is, neither side was lilly-white (so to speak) in this matter. Yes, the South DID support slavery and seceeded to preserve it, among other reasons. But the Union government didn't give a crap about slavery until it suited their purposes. |
||||
|
The V.P. of the Confederacy was quoted earlier in this threas as saying that slavery was "...a first cause of the War..." (emphasis mine). NOT secondary. NOT tertiary. A FIRST cause. Not the only cause, to be sure. But right up there with the big few. How some of you can continue to deny this fact is beyond me. |
|||
|
Quoted:
The same manner in which the slaves were represented in the North....the 3/5ths Rule. You know the agreement that the Yankees made with Southerners simply in order to form that 'More Perfect Union.' Walked into that one with both eyes wide open, didja? From the World Book - 'The African American Journey'.... 'By 1860, the nation had about 490,000 free blacks. But most of them faced such severe discrimination that they were little better off than the slaves.' Not very pretty history on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line, eh, m'boy? Eric The(SincerelyUnreconstructed)Hun |
|
|
Well, I have answered YOUR question. Still waiting for an answer to MY question about how the slaves were "represented" in the Confederacy. As for your latter statement, well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that Lincoln would be so pragmatic as to utilize any tool at his disposal to win the War. If the Confederates had had the good sense to abolish slavery at any time almost up to the end, they might have won foreign support and staved off defeat. Ever wonder why they didn't take this obvious step? |
|||||
|
Quoted:
It takes two to tango, m'boy! What number was 'The War to end Slavery' as one of Lincoln's announced war aims? First? Second? What? Face it, Jedidiah, the Yankees would not have fought to free the slaves and everyone knows that. Everyone.....except you, it appears. Are you purposefully trying to be clueless? Eric The(StillUnreconstructed,TryAsTheyMight)Hun |
|
|
Quoted:
I don't mean to speak for Rikwriter, but I answered your question, above. And Lincoln was an idiot...IMHO. He could have waited out the South...and allowed cooler heads than his to prevail. Ah, but History is a bitch, ain't she? And in this case a real Yankee bitch! Eric The(AndTheyAreTheVeryWorseKindOfBitches)Hun |
|
|
Actually, the 3/5 rule was used in determining the Census. This determined the number people within a State, and hence the number of Reps in the US House. Underlying point is that not being allowed citizenship, the slaves were NEVER represented in any Legislature of any kind, except by their Masters, who had their own interests in direct contradiction to those of the slaves. To compare the deplorable condition os some free Blacks in the North to the MANY Black slaves in the South is absurd. To do so equates the fundamental SIN of slavery with simple abuse and maltreatment. |
||
|
We'll never know if Lincoln, left to his own devices, would have waited. Seems like the Confeds firing on Ft. Sumter took that option off the table. |
||
|
Just quoting from the Confed V.P., who was there at the time, and knew what he was talking about. He, at least, had the honesty to admit the truth of the matter, and nothing you can say or do will change that fact. |
||
|
Yup. And George Wallace and all of the other segregationists the civil rights movement fought against were Democrats. And JFK sent the first troops into Vietnam, LBJ dramitcally increased the war (both Democrats) and Nixon got us out (Republican). Yet the Democrats view Republicans as racist warmongers. |
|
|
I said that History was a Yankee Bitch, didn't I? But Lincoln decided NOT to wait, as he was being urged to do by all around him, to reinforce Fort Sumter. As regrettable as the War Between the States was, what followed was even more Hell. Eric The(Unreconstructed,ISay)Hun |
|||
|
Although there were many issues, even the slavery issue was economic not morality:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Economic_Interpretations |
|
|
|
|
|
LOL - so THAT is your beef? If it had been reversed and it was a blue taking over the map, would that have made it better? Who really fucking cares what color they used. Blue and red are obvious choices. |
|
|
Again - Lee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAKING OF THIS FILM. |
|
|
What - you dont think that was catchy? I think that would have looked awesome with one of those spinning news papers - The Muslim Menace!! And if you buy me dinner I might jack you off, as *I* wrote the time line - not Spike Lee. |
|
|
He's probably kicking himself that it didn't occur to him, then. |
||
|
1)Blue would have been a more HONEST choice, since the South was solidly DEMOCRATIC at the time. 2)Don't pretend there wasn't a "red state" reference in there...you may THINK we're stupid enough to believe that, but trust me, we aren't. |
||
|
This movie is not about the serious hypothesis of "what if" the South had won. It is a hypothetical, more of a "Twilight Zone" what if. PS - The film comes from Kansas which is a Red state. |
|
|
Then you're the scum. Not quite up to Spike Lee's level, but damn close. |
||
|
Democratic - sure. Liberal - I dont think so. As for the red state reference, that was done by the flash designer. Maybe he put it in as a reference, but who fucking cares. If it was the other way around then the "blue staters" would be pissy. Shit, its only been since the last election or two since the whole "blue state/red state" thing came about. I guess the only way to not offend anyone would be to use purple and green. But the film isnt made to cater to the PC. It will probably offend some people. Its still a good movie. |
|
|
Oh? Why is that? Because I wrote a FICITONAL TIMELINE ABOUT A FICTIONAL COUNTRY. LOL. Wowsa! Hell- with all the muslim bashing I see here, I would think that a country that recognized the threat early on and went after it would be praised. Fictional or not. If you think it sounds a bit Orwellian and a nod to cold war propoganda, then you are right. |
|
|
Anyone interested in the truth cares. |
|
|
Stop pretending that you didn't intend the analogies. Anyone with two brain cells can see right through you. |
||
|
You should be pleased to know there is no red state/blue state reference in the film. |
||
|
At least they come right out and admit that it's bullshit revisionist history crap.
"A movie that's MAKING history" You said it, asshats. |
|
What analogies? I was taking current events and trying to imagine what an Impirialistic CSA who is prone to strike first would do. I also enjoyed the "Red Menace" propoganda from the '50s. I thought that with the threat found from the Al Quida etc, they would further demonize the muslims and strike first. Since the CSA in the film made Christianity the only allowed religion, using a Crusade metaphor back to the holy land is not far off. If you want to spell out a few things better, perhaps I can reply better. |
|
|
Yeah. Right! |
|
|
The war was fought to bring the southern states back to the Union, the Southern states seceded from the Union due to a growing threat to State's Rights and the ability to decide things for the individiual state, one of which was slavery. There are 4 things that ae considered by Gov't professors as to limiting State rights, one of which is the Civil War. |
|
|
Bingo. How does Wal-Mart exert its influence over its suppliers? By voting with its pocketbook. Sometimes the pocketbook can be the "Big Stick". |
||
|
seems a few of the "southern redneck" crowd isn't happy with their portrayal.
|
|
Gung ho, isolationist warmongers? WTF,O? |
||
|
raf, You're assuming/presuming that "The V.P. of the Confederacy" was being straightforward. Wasn't he a politician, too, though? Part of your answer might be found here: A New Look at the "Civil War" by Carl Pearlston. It's a really good article I came across whilst searching for my favorite Dickens quote:
Oh, though I'm not his biggest fan, would I were that Dickens had been an arfcommer! P.S. I know that, like everyone involved, the Brits *also* had a bridge they wished to sell us...... |
||||
|
If only you knew a tenth as much as you thought you know. |
|
|
Christ, you've got to be kidding. |
||
|
perfectly put! except that it was not for the moral reasons people try to claim. Lincoln would be considered a racist today by almost anyone's standards. It was about economic control, and since the slave was the most efficient way to pick cotton, the north targeted that. They didn't give two shits about them. Much less send their husbands and fathers off to fight for a bunch slaves. The spin that has been put on the slavery issue is just incredible!!! |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.