Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
4/1/2020 6:58:51 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/6/2005 7:31:17 AM EDT


NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A state appeals court heard arguments Wednesday over whether Vanderbilt University can remove the word "Confederate" from a dormitory the United Daughters of the Confederacy helped build in the 1930s.

The Tennessee chapter of the group claims the university's effort to drop the first word from Confederate Memorial Hall violates decades-old contracts, but Vanderbilt claims the contracts are no longer valid.

The judges, who did not say when they will issue a ruling, had strong words for both sides.

"You're arguing social values and making the courts be the tough guy," Judge William Cain said when a Vanderbilt attorney argued the university is completely different than it was in 1934. "The court is faced here with a bilateral contract and not an academic freedom."

Presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr., however, highlighted weaknesses in the heritage group's case, including that parts of the deal were oral and that some of the contract documents entered as evidence were not signed.

"You've put your flags up and marched into battle without ammunition," Koch said.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, which has 1,300 members in Tennessee and 25,000 nationwide, gave one-third of the cost of the $150,000 building in 1935 as part of a series of contracts with Peabody College. Peabody merged with Vanderbilt in 1979.

In 2002, Vanderbilt Chancellor Gordon Gee cited school diversity efforts when he decided to rename the dorm Memorial Hall.

The word "Confederate" has stirred debate at the private liberal arts university since the residence hall was renovated in 1988. Critics call it offensive in the face of an increasingly diverse student body and faculty, but Confederate heritage groups say the name change is an attempt to rewrite history and reject Southern culture.

"This name was given in good faith," said Daughters of the Confederacy member Jennie Jo Hardison, who attended Wednesday's hearing. "This is not about race at all, and I resent that. It's about a contract."

A lower court ruled in 2003 that the university had a right to remove the name, but "Confederate" remains etched in stone above the building until the case is resolved.

Vanderbilt attorney William Ozier told the three-judge panel that three contracts from 1913 to 1933 are no longer valid.

"There is no contract that requires the maintenance of the name," Ozier said.

Douglas Jones, the heritage group's attorney, said the building was meant to be a memorial to Southern soldiers and that a 1927 contract specifies the name to be Confederate Memorial Hall. Architectural sketches of the building include the name.

"There's no time limits of the contract. It was a memorial," Jones said.

"Is it less of a memorial if it doesn't have the name?" presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr. asked.

"It would not be the memorial it is without the name," Jones replied.

Link Posted: 1/6/2005 7:33:13 AM EDT
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 7:39:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 7:39:58 AM EDT by FRO]

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 7:41:11 AM EDT
I went to Robert E. Lee high school in Houston, graduated in 1975.  Our football team was the Generals, and the mascot was a little confederate general with a sword and pistol.  I went by the school recently, and noticed it is just "Lee" high school now -- the "Robert E" is officially gone.  Also, the "mascot" is now just a sort of smiley-face thing -- and they no longer have a football team, either.

Re-writing history.

 
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 7:42:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.


+1
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 7:43:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 7:54:09 AM EDT by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.


+1



But, did they win?



=

#1
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 7:45:59 AM EDT
Why don't we just rename Fort Bragg while we're at it.

And BTW I'm no apologist for the confederacy, but I understand that southerners are proud of their heritage and there's nothing wrong with that.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 8:31:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.


+1



But, did they win?

www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/images/americanflag.jpg

=

#1



No.

But if a civil war was fought today, the SOUTH and TEXAS would kick the north and Cali's ass (North v South & Texas v Cali)  We would do this easily, rapidly, and without much effort.  You guys are much to "diverse," and that would work against you . . . .  Have you seen any of the recent statistics of where the gun owners in the country are? where the firearms culture is centered? where a tradition of hunting is still big?  HINT: it isn't the North.

Personally, I've never had a problem with northern guys, but no one can doubt that the majoity of them (anti-gun types (not the ones on this board)) have been emasculated in the name of political correctness.

Link Posted: 1/6/2005 8:42:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.



No they don't. They were rebellious criminals. They aligned themselves with an illegal government They fought for a "country" that by the grace of God and the blood of heros does not exist anymore.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 8:46:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JPPJ:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.


+1



But, did they win?

www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/images/americanflag.jpg

=

#1



No.

But if a civil war was fought today, the SOUTH and TEXAS would kick the north and Cali's ass (North v South & Texas v Cali)  We would do this easily, rapidly, and without much effort.  You guys are much to "diverse," and that would work against you . . . .  Have you seen any of the recent statistics of where the gun owners in the country are? where the firearms culture is centered? where a tradition of hunting is still big?  HINT: it isn't the North.

Personally, I've never had a problem with northern guys, but no one can doubt that the majoity of them (anti-gun types (not the ones on this board)) have been emasculated in the name of political correctness.




Once the Caliban unleases the Gheys of War, you'll be kissing their ass'
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 8:55:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.



No they don't. They were rebellious criminals. They aligned themselves with an illegal government They fought for a "country" that by the grace of God and the blood of heros does not exist anymore.



Somebody doesn't know there history very well. The Civil War started as a States Rights issue. They were not criminals. The North and the South in the mid 1800's were so diametrically opposed to each other , that they basically were two different countries.  Just like we bitch and moan today about what the federal government does because of the influence of business and money. The North during that time period had ALL the wealth. So they were able to influence the federal government to make laws that were good for them. The South finally said enough is enough. They seceded, from the Union. Slavery did not become a reason for the Civil War until the Emanciapation Proclomation. The South lost war. Was brought back into the Union. And the rest is history.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:02:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:

Once the Caliban unleases the Gheys of War, you'll be kissing their ass'



Funny!!!!
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:04:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jfor:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.



No they don't. They were rebellious criminals. They aligned themselves with an illegal government They fought for a "country" that by the grace of God and the blood of heros does not exist anymore.



Somebody doesn't know there history very well. The Civil War started as a States Rights issue. They were not criminals. The North and the South in the mid 1800's were so diametrically opposed to each other , that they basically were two different countries.  Just like we bitch and moan today about what the federal government does because of the influence of business and money. The North during that time period had ALL the wealth. So they were able to influence the federal government to make laws that were good for them. The South finally said enough is enough. They seceded, from the Union. Slavery did not become a reason for the Civil War until the Emanciapation Proclomation. The South lost war. Was brought back into the Union. And the rest is history.



They seceded illegaly from the union. They rebelled against the Federal Govt.. They fired the first shots. Re-write history if you want. Honor them if you feel the need. It doesn't change a thing. The south is responsible for every death related to the civil war. They started it. They lost. Her soldiers were mercifully forgiven. Be thankful for that and let it go.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:07:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By Jfor:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.



No they don't. They were rebellious criminals. They aligned themselves with an illegal government They fought for a "country" that by the grace of God and the blood of heros does not exist anymore.



Somebody doesn't know there history very well. The Civil War started as a States Rights issue. They were not criminals. The North and the South in the mid 1800's were so diametrically opposed to each other , that they basically were two different countries.  Just like we bitch and moan today about what the federal government does because of the influence of business and money. The North during that time period had ALL the wealth. So they were able to influence the federal government to make laws that were good for them. The South finally said enough is enough. They seceded, from the Union. Slavery did not become a reason for the Civil War until the Emanciapation Proclomation. The South lost war. Was brought back into the Union. And the rest is history.



They seceded illegaly from the union. They rebelled against the Federal Govt.. They fired the first shots. Re-write history if you want. Honor them if you feel the need. It doesn't change a thing. The south is responsible for every death related to the civil war. They started it. They lost. Her soldiers were mercifully forgiven. Be thankful for that and let it go.



An incorrect and foolish assertion
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:09:29 AM EDT
did the colonies declare indepedence illegally?  yes.  but the difference was they won.  how does one secede legally?  you follow the constitution and your state legislatures vote for it which the southerns did.  lincoln was all about federal power.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:09:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 9:14:40 AM EDT by drache]

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.



No they don't. They were rebellious criminals. They aligned themselves with an illegal government They fought for a "country" that by the grace of God and the blood of heros does not exist anymore.




Um, so did a couple guys named Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.

ETA: incidentally, quite a few "southerners" amoung "the founding fathers". Quite interesting don't you think?
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:13:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 9:15:37 AM EDT by dravisar]

Originally Posted By Jfor:
Somebody doesn't know there history very well. The Civil War started as a States Rights issue. They were not criminals. The North and the South in the mid 1800's were so diametrically opposed to each other , that they basically were two different countries.  Just like we bitch and moan today about what the federal government does because of the influence of business and money. The North during that time period had ALL the wealth. So they were able to influence the federal government to make laws that were good for them. The South finally said enough is enough. They seceded, from the Union. Slavery did not become a reason for the Civil War until the Emanciapation Proclomation. The South lost war. Was brought back into the Union. And the rest is history.



Sounds to me like your the one who doesn't know your history very well. Claiming that the north had "all the wealth" is ridiculous. The north was primarily industrial in economic makeup, and in the name of capitalism, yes, they were more enriched.

Unfortunately, you left out the part about where the south was raking in massive income from tobacco, cotton, and other trade items. There was a HUGE class system going in the south, in which plantation owners were VERY, VERY rich, due to this little thing called free labor: Slavery. There was almost no middle class existent. You were either a rich, baronlike figure, or poor beyond belief, and in debt to the plantation owners.

You got your history mixed up bud....
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:21:09 AM EDT
I've been up north and if thats what they won let them keep it...
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:23:44 AM EDT
When is it going stop? I hate it when crap like this happens. It's the cleansing of America's roots. Very sad indeed.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:24:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jicky:
I've been up north and if thats what they won let them keep it...



Actually, they already had the North. They "won" the south. Not won really but kicked their asses none the less.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:26:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jicky:
I've been up north and if thats what they won let them keep it...




Not to split hairs here, but KY IS the north.
Perhaps with a more southern attitude, but they were part of the federal army.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:31:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Steve_T_M:
Why don't we just rename Fort Bragg while we're at it.





I've never figured out why they named a Fort after Braxton Bragg anyhow.  Couldn't they have picked a more successful guy?  sheesh.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:31:57 AM EDT
To me, it's an interesting question (apart from all the North-South bickering), since the entity that made the deal back in the 30s doesn't actually exist anymore.

Peabody college was essentially taken over by Vandy, and as such I'm sure Vandy has the right to do whatever they want with the assets.  Granted, I guess they still have to follow contracts entered into by Peabody - but this contract seems vague in that it just specifies that the plaintiffs paid for part of the building, but doesn't say anything about alterations to the building.  (If that were the case, no renovations or modernizations of the building would ever have been possible, right?)

Vandy certainly could tear down the building if they wanted to make room for a new medical building or something.  


Plus, an interesting question to me is: WHO paid for the rest of the building back in the 30s?  Why is it that the Daughters of the Confederacy get to have veto power over what happens to a building that they only partially paid for?  Maybe they should just have a partial "vote" in what happens to the building, based on the proportion they paid for.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:34:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
To me, it's an interesting question (apart from all the North-South bickering), since the entity that made the deal back in the 30s doesn't actually exist anymore.

Peabody college was essentially taken over by Vandy, and as such I'm sure Vandy has the right to do whatever they want with the assets.  Granted, I guess they still have to follow contracts entered into by Peabody - but this contract seems vague in that it just specifies that the plaintiffs paid for part of the building, but doesn't say anything about alterations to the building.  (If that were the case, no renovations or modernizations of the building would ever have been possible, right?)

Vandy certainly could tear down the building if they wanted to make room for a new medical building or something.  


Plus, an interesting question to me is: WHO paid for the rest of the building back in the 30s?  Why is it that the Daughters of the Confederacy get to have veto power over what happens to a building that they only partially paid for?  Maybe they should just have a partial "vote" in what happens to the building, based on the proportion they paid for.



Is this some veiled attempt to get back on topic?
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:35:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drache:

Originally Posted By Jicky:
I've been up north and if thats what they won let them keep it...




Not to split hairs here, but KY IS the north.
Perhaps with a more southern attitude, but they were part of the federal army.



Where I live its a very Southern attitude...Very..
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:36:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 9:36:56 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
To me, it's an interesting question (apart from all the North-South bickering), since the entity that made the deal back in the 30s doesn't actually exist anymore.

Peabody college was essentially taken over by Vandy, and as such I'm sure Vandy has the right to do whatever they want with the assets.  Granted, I guess they still have to follow contracts entered into by Peabody - but this contract seems vague in that it just specifies that the plaintiffs paid for part of the building, but doesn't say anything about alterations to the building.  (If that were the case, no renovations or modernizations of the building would ever have been possible, right?)

Vandy certainly could tear down the building if they wanted to make room for a new medical building or something.  


Plus, an interesting question to me is: WHO paid for the rest of the building back in the 30s?  Why is it that the Daughters of the Confederacy get to have veto power over what happens to a building that they only partially paid for?  Maybe they should just have a partial "vote" in what happens to the building, based on the proportion they paid for.



Is this some veiled attempt to get back on topic?



I thought I would at least try.

My fiancee actually knows Chancellor Gee a little - he is a really nice guy.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 10:00:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
To me, it's an interesting question (apart from all the North-South bickering), since the entity that made the deal back in the 30s doesn't actually exist anymore.

Peabody college was essentially taken over by Vandy, and as such I'm sure Vandy has the right to do whatever they want with the assets.  Granted, I guess they still have to follow contracts entered into by Peabody - but this contract seems vague in that it just specifies that the plaintiffs paid for part of the building, but doesn't say anything about alterations to the building.  (If that were the case, no renovations or modernizations of the building would ever have been possible, right?)

Vandy certainly could tear down the building if they wanted to make room for a new medical building or something.  


Plus, an interesting question to me is: WHO paid for the rest of the building back in the 30s?  Why is it that the Daughters of the Confederacy get to have veto power over what happens to a building that they only partially paid for?  Maybe they should just have a partial "vote" in what happens to the building, based on the proportion they paid for.



Is this some veiled attempt to get back on topic?



I thought I would at least try.

My fiancee actually knows Chancellor Gee a little - he is a really nice guy.



How dare you try to get this thread back on track, you silly Dutchmen.

ALL threads on ARFCOM which contain the words "Confederate," or "Confederacy" must degenerate into mindless bickering over who started the Civil War and which sides was in the right.

That is ARFCOM's First Law of Argumentum ad Nauseum.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 10:23:02 AM EDT
Winners get to write history
Losers get to ? ???
Well I guess losers get to STFU.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:14:24 AM EDT
On the original issues presented in court, did anyone else notice that the school is essentially arguing that legal contracts have an expiration date?

I'm sure most lawyers and courts will be fascinated by this and debate EXACTLY when a legal, binding contract suddenly expires.  

Just how many years have to pass before the unlisted expiration date kicks in?
Is this expiration date related to changing attitudes, or just the passage of time?

In the past, courts have held that legal contracts are not degraded by the passage of time.
If you sign a contract, you're bound by that contract, no matter how much time passes.

This could be BIG.
Just think about how you could claim the 30 year contract you signed to buy a house has expired because you signed it years ago.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:18:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
To me, it's an interesting question (apart from all the North-South bickering), since the entity that made the deal back in the 30s doesn't actually exist anymore.

Peabody college was essentially taken over by Vandy, and as such I'm sure Vandy has the right to do whatever they want with the assets.  Granted, I guess they still have to follow contracts entered into by Peabody - but this contract seems vague in that it just specifies that the plaintiffs paid for part of the building, but doesn't say anything about alterations to the building.  (If that were the case, no renovations or modernizations of the building would ever have been possible, right?)

Vandy certainly could tear down the building if they wanted to make room for a new medical building or something.  


Plus, an interesting question to me is: WHO paid for the rest of the building back in the 30s?  Why is it that the Daughters of the Confederacy get to have veto power over what happens to a building that they only partially paid for?  Maybe they should just have a partial "vote" in what happens to the building, based on the proportion they paid for.



Is this some veiled attempt to get back on topic?



I thought I would at least try.

My fiancee actually knows Chancellor Gee a little - he is a really nice guy.



How dare you try to get this thread back on track, you silly Dutchmen.

ALL threads on ARFCOM which contain the words "Confederate," or "Confederacy" must degenerate into mindless bickering over who started the Civil War and which sides was in the right.

That is ARFCOM's First Law of Argumentum ad Nauseum.




I am embarassed that it took one of my own cadre of genius psychopoliticians to put me in my place.  
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:25:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JPPJ:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.


+1



But, did they win?

www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/images/americanflag.jpg

=

#1



No.

But if a civil war was fought today, the SOUTH and TEXAS would kick the north and Cali's ass (North v South & Texas v Cali)  We would do this easily, rapidly, and without much effort.  You guys are much to "diverse," and that would work against you . . . .  Have you seen any of the recent statistics of where the gun owners in the country are? where the firearms culture is centered? where a tradition of hunting is still big?  HINT: it isn't the North.

Personally, I've never had a problem with northern guys, but no one can doubt that the majoity of them (anti-gun types (not the ones on this board)) have been emasculated in the name of political correctness.




Amen brutha!! Represent the Texas ARFCOM!

Ben
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:49:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.



No they don't. They were rebellious criminals. They aligned themselves with an illegal government They fought for a "country" that by the grace of God and the blood of heros does not exist anymore.

Actually, "they" for the most part were illiterate farmers who owned little, if any, property, and took no steps on their own to break away from the Union. They weren't all criminals, just like every German soldier in WWII was not a Nazi, and every Vietnam veteran is not a war criminal. I don't much care for the worship of Confederate generals and politicians, as they were in part wrong for starting the war in the first place. However, to imply that soldiers who fought honorably for whatever country they were citizens of do not deserve respect borders on being quite offensive.

My great-great-grandfather was a soldier in the Confederate Army. He owned no slaves(although others in his family did) and joined the Confederate Army after Georgia had quit the Union. Unlike present day Americans, men in those days seem to have felt it dishonorable not to fight when their country or state was at war, hence his enlistment. Does that make him a criminal, unworthy of any recognition for serving his country, even though his country lost and no longer exists?
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 4:55:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

But, did they win?

www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/images/americanflag.jpg

=

#1




Did we win in Viet Nam?    
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 4:59:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

My fiancee actually knows Chancellor Gee a little - he is a really nice guy.




He may be indeed but his wife is a first class classless bitch. She flew their American flag at halfmast after the election, in a home paid for by Vanderbilt, NOT their private home.

An insult to Americans, an insult to Veterans, an insult to the flag. What a cunt.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 5:51:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BobCole:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

My fiancee actually knows Chancellor Gee a little - he is a really nice guy.




He may be indeed but his wife is a first class classless bitch. She flew their American flag at halfmast after the election, in a home paid for by Vanderbilt, NOT their private home.

An insult to Americans, an insult to Veterans, an insult to the flag. What a cunt.




I dunno - I think it's a little harsh calling a man's wife a "cunt" for doing something with her flag that many people here on arfcom MIGHT have done if Kerry had won the election.  I'm not saying YOU would have, but I'm sure there are some here who would have.

The fact that the home is owned by Vanderbilt (which is a private, not public institution) is kind of a moot point - it is part of his compensation package, and as such is his and her HOME while he is chancellor.  However, my understanding is that the flag was only at half for a little while, and was raised up to full pretty soon.


But I will agree with you that she is apparently a pretty odd and quirky woman - based on some of the stories I have heard.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:08:57 PM EDT
A simple solution would be for Vanderbilt to "Buy-Out" the contract.  Pay the DAC the original donation plus interest.  They can name the building the W.E.B. DuBois Hall and the DAC can put up something somewhere else.  But if they were too cheap to build a new dorm they could name anything they wanted then this is probably not an option.  Anyway, I don't think it is an honor having a memorial where it isn't wanted.  If they want to erase part of their heritage then that's their business.  I think a person is not whole by being selective about their heritage.  I've visited the graves a Slaves and Union POWs in Dallas Co. and Confederate Veterans in Elmore Co.   I've been to Booker T. Washington's grave on Tuskegee Univ., the Viola Liuzzo Memorial on S.R.8, the house that was John Bell Hood's HQ in Cherokee Co., and one of the startting points of the Trail of Tears.  It's all part of our heritage.

Here's a quiz for Ya'll....

Was California ever a slave state
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:13:15 PM EDT
WHAT AN IDIOT!  
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:26:18 PM EDT
But, did they win?

Nobody won... both sides lost so much.

As far as whether it was legal or illegal to secede... when the Colonies told King George to FOAD I am sure it was illegal from old George's point of view.

Remember, the winners of wars can always rewrite the rules after the fact.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:26:21 PM EDT
At this point....Who gives a fuck!   The industrialized yankee scum won and now we have the UN to deal with...thanks alot you centralized government loving blue hat pinko's.  

Im disgusted by multicultural bias.  Go fuck yourselves...you know who you are.


-HS
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:28:25 PM EDT

The Emancipation Proclamation itself had little immediate effect upon slavery — except as territory in Confederate states came under Union control. Slaves in the border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia) which remained loyal to the Union were not affected, and slavery there was federally legal until the ratification of the thirteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865. Secretary of State William Seward commented on this by remarking, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Had any seceding state returned to the Union, they could have kept slavery — at least temporarily.


And we all know the war was fought to end slavery......
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:34:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rockymass:
WHAT AN IDIOT!  hr


Care to elaborate rockymass, or are you talking to yourself
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 4:26:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dobk:
A simple solution would be for Vanderbilt to "Buy-Out" the contract.  Pay the DAC the original donation plus interest.  They can name the building the W.E.B. DuBois Hall and the DAC can put up something somewhere else.  But if they were too cheap to build a new dorm they could name anything they wanted then this is probably not an option.  Anyway, I don't think it is an honor having a memorial where it isn't wanted.  If they want to erase part of their heritage then that's their business.  I think a person is not whole by being selective about their heritage.  I've visited the graves a Slaves and Union POWs in Dallas Co. and Confederate Veterans in Elmore Co.   I've been to Booker T. Washington's grave on Tuskegee Univ., the Viola Liuzzo Memorial on S.R.8, the house that was John Bell Hood's HQ in Cherokee Co., and one of the startting points of the Trail of Tears.  It's all part of our heritage.

Here's a quiz for Ya'll....

Was California ever a slave state



It is now, isn't it?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 4:38:37 AM EDT
This is just like Stalin's Soviet Union as far as the way we are purging history.

I'm surprised they haven't actually gotten out razors and black markers to excise history books that are already in circulation!
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 4:56:03 AM EDT
I'm constantly amazed by the people who think the Revolutionary war was justified but the civil war was not.  It boggles the mind.  They were fought for very similar reasons, both economic and political.

Whether the South was right or the North was right, however, is immaterial.  The fact remains, that the constitution and the underlying principles behind it (reserved rights and separation of powers) was effectively dismembered by a President who was more concerned with Federal power than personal liberty.

For those of you who claim "The South was responsible for all the deaths in the Civil war" I say this:  Who invaded who?  The South was not intent upon claiming territory from Northern state.  Nor was it interested in a war with the North.  The war was caused by the northern President prosecuting an undeclared war.

Does the Constitution discuss secession?  No not really.  The only prohibition it makes to states is that they cannot form new states from parts of other states nor may they make treaties with eachother.  None of the states violated this, because they voted in each state legislature to secede from the Federal Government of the United States of America first.

So the basic question is this: Does a state under the constitution of the United States of America have the right to secede?  According to the constitution, YES.  Why?  Because all powers not specifically mentioned or reserved to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people! Including Secession! That is probably the single most important underlying idea in our constitution, because it guarantees all the rights you enjoy which the framers of the constitution failed to mention specifically.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:27:18 AM EDT


For those of you who claim "The South was responsible for all the deaths in the Civil war" I say this: Who invaded who? The South was not intent upon claiming territory from Northern state. Nor was it interested in a war with the North




Have you ever been to Gettysburg? Did the Union army drag General Lee to Pennsylvania just to fight him?

Burl1
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:31:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By burl1:


For those of you who claim "The South was responsible for all the deaths in the Civil war" I say this: Who invaded who? The South was not intent upon claiming territory from Northern state. Nor was it interested in a war with the North




Have you ever been to Gettysburg? Did the Union army drag General Lee to Pennsylvania just to fight him?

Burl1



I've been to Gettysburg.   Gettysburg was at the END of the war.  The North invaded the South first.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:40:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 5:41:33 AM EDT by drache]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By burl1:


For those of you who claim "The South was responsible for all the deaths in the Civil war" I say this: Who invaded who? The South was not intent upon claiming territory from Northern state. Nor was it interested in a war with the North




Have you ever been to Gettysburg? Did the Union army drag General Lee to Pennsylvania just to fight him?

Burl1



I've been to Gettysburg.   Gettysburg was at the END of the war.  The North invaded the South first.



Gettysburg was the South's effort to get the Northern army OUT of the south to stop its invasion.
Then prove they could destroy said army and offer a peace treaty to Lincoln.
Since they lost the battle, that didn't happen, but that was the intent.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:53:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 5:54:45 AM EDT by burl1]

Originally Posted By drache:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By burl1:


For those of you who claim "The South was responsible for all the deaths in the Civil war" I say this: Who invaded who? The South was not intent upon claiming territory from Northern state. Nor was it interested in a war with the North




Have you ever been to Gettysburg? Did the Union army drag General Lee to Pennsylvania just to fight him?

Burl1



I've been to Gettysburg.   Gettysburg was at the END of the war.  The North invaded the South first.



Gettysburg was the South's effort to get the Northern army OUT of the south to stop its invasion.
Then prove they could destroy said army and offer a peace treaty to Lincoln.
Since they lost the battle, that didn't happen, but that was the intent.



I not saying that one side or the other invaded the other first but if you believe that the army of the South would have just left Pennsylvania to do as it wished if they had won at Gettysburg you are an idealistic person. Had the North not have won the war the whole United States of America would have been the Confererate States of  America. I'm not saying that would have been all bad as I'm sure the leaders of the South would have done much good, I'm just making the point that they would have ran the North as they wished, not just went home and minded their own business.

Burl1
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:10:49 AM EDT
OMG, where to start?

You southern guys HAVE to get your heads out of your collective asses.  Look, it's been over for almost 150 years.  GET OVER IT!

Second, it's ironic that all of the revisionist history that you guys are spewing lately continually is in a thread partially entitled "Rewiting History."

Third, as to

The Civil War started as a States Rights issue.
, that is the big lie.  (You do the research & prove me wrong.  No one ever heard that bullshit until about 15 years ago.)

Fourth, we can't possibly have thread about the Civil War without using the other big lie:  The War of Northern Aggression.  HAHAHAHAHA.

Fifth,

But if a civil war was fought today...
.  Let me reiterate:  GET OVER IT!  It ain't gonna happen.

How can you southern guys look yourselves in the mirror every morning with your huge, overarching ignorance?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:42:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By Jfor:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By FRO:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Plus, "LOSER" would take up a lot less space.



The confederate forces of that war deserve honoring just as much as the union forces.



No they don't. They were rebellious criminals. They aligned themselves with an illegal government They fought for a "country" that by the grace of God and the blood of heros does not exist anymore.



Somebody doesn't know there history very well. The Civil War started as a States Rights issue. They were not criminals. The North and the South in the mid 1800's were so diametrically opposed to each other , that they basically were two different countries.  Just like we bitch and moan today about what the federal government does because of the influence of business and money. The North during that time period had ALL the wealth. So they were able to influence the federal government to make laws that were good for them. The South finally said enough is enough. They seceded, from the Union. Slavery did not become a reason for the Civil War until the Emanciapation Proclomation. The South lost war. Was brought back into the Union. And the rest is history.



They seceded illegaly from the union. They rebelled against the Federal Govt.. They fired the first shots. Re-write history if you want. Honor them if you feel the need. It doesn't change a thing. The south is responsible for every death related to the civil war. They started it. They lost. Her soldiers were mercifully forgiven. Be thankful for that and let it go.



Wow, such anger and ignorance. So your saying if some day the US gov't decides to take our guns, tell us where to work, live and what to drive we have to do it? Since they are the gov't we would have to do it because rebellion would be "illegal"?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:43:03 AM EDT
It always cracks me up in these arguments when you look at where the majority of name callers and writers of derogatory smart ass comments come from.  

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top