Pat Robertson still fighting the Civil War

[Goathead]

The most devastating conflict of the period was not between nations but within our own nation. I refer to the Fratricidal conflict called by historians the "Civil War" but which those in my home state of Virginia refer to as "The War of Northern Aggression."

http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/UNDisappointing.asp

Read "War of Northern Aggression" as blue state intellectualism.
In the same speech, Pat also says that human beings would rather live under the rule of oppression than live in a world of chaos. Why do I get the feeling that Pat is priming Americans for the Fourth Reich?

[NVMojo]

1. this dude needs to be given his own island with no infrastructure on it ..

[The Zanti Regent]

70. Why?

The South won the civil war in 2000!

[Virginian]

2. would rather live under the rule of oppression than live in a world of cha

"In the same speech, Pat also says that human beings would rather live under the rule of oppression than live in a world of chaos."
Is he talking about Iraq? I thought he wanted to get rid of Saddam.

[itzamirakul]

29. I think Robertson means that...

a bunch of racist Murkans would prefer the living under oppression if it guaranteed that segregation would return. They might be slightly oppressed, but at least the "chaos" of having equal rights would be ended.

[JohnnyRingo]

3. Those "Massachusetts Liberals" are liable to come down there and ...

..screw up his tele-scam.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Pat's Final Solution:

[madrchsod]

5. .he`s a fuck`n crook

hit up hundreds of thousands of people for donations for his tv station and his ministry. then after making hundreds of millions in tax free money ,he sells his tv network/programing and makes more millions. he takes that money and invests in diamond mines and other "religious endeavors".

[gnofg]

32. you forgot

the ponzi scheme he was running for selling red sea mud. He used to advertise this on Limbaugh. He is a complete crook

[Ilsa]

59. He had Red Sea mud? For real?

I wonder if he paid Israel, Egypt, Yemen, the Saudis, Jordan, and Sudan,etc for it. Can you simply steal mud from someone else's sea?

I wonder what mystical properties he claimed it had, or was it only a souvenir? What if it really wasn't from the red sea?

[tabasco]

6. If Jesus ever comes back ...

the first thing he will do is smite false prophets like Robertson.

[GarySeven]

7. Sorry, folks, it was not a "civil war"

At best it was an insurgency. The CSA was an organized government; in fact Lincoln recognized it as such when he blockaded Southern ports. One does not "blockade" one's own ports - that is an action reserved for hostile agencies under international law.

[happyslug]

12. That was a misnomer

While Lincoln referred to the Blockade as a Blockade for Northern Newspapers (Who wrote it up as a Blockade) Lincoln told European Governments he had CLOSED THE PORTS. Thus by international Law Lincoln NEVER blockaded the Southern Ports, all he did was enforce his closure of those ports.

Lincoln NEVER recognized the Southern Government nether did any other Government. He did talk to Representatives of the South as representatives of an insurgent group but not as Representatives of a independent Government. Lincoln was a politician who NEVER closed any door all the way, he kept all of his options open including negotiating with the Southern Leadership until the Surrender in April 1865.

Thus it was a Civil War, a regional based Civil War but a Civil War.

[GarySeven]

18. Sorry, you are wrong

It is pretty well established that Lincoln made an error by declaring the ports "blockaded" - an error that Kennedy, BTW, was careful not to repeat during the Cuban "quarantine." Lincoln's action forced Britain, for example, to grant the Confederates status as belligerants, which of course allowed the continued construction of Confederate ships of marque in British ports.

I suggest you read the several Supreme Court cases collectively referred to as the "prize cases." Of course the Taney court upheld Lincoln's actions, but I include for your information the dissent by Justice Nelson:

" I am compelled to the conclusion that no civil war existed between this Government and the States in insurrection until recognized by the Act of Congress 13th July 1861; that the President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war or recognized its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States and consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a blockade under the law of nations."

Incidently, the view that the CSA was a sovereign nation was endorsed, de facto, by the federal government which OCCUPIED the Southern states as a conquered territory, ruling it under military law for 13 years. It can be presumed that no nation can legally convert "states" into "military districts" UNLESS those states had been transformed into foreign territories in the meantime (which occurred when the CSA was established.) Lincoln never recognized the sovereignty of the CSA simply because he never considered the states to have departed the union. However, that view was explicitly rejected by the federal government when it chose to convert the states into military territories and subject them to military rule. This was an "honor" that not even such enemies as Germany and Japan received.

Thus it is inescapable to conclude by these facts of law and acts that this was a sovereign nation that was invaded and its territory seized by the U.S. government.

[happyslug]

22. So you are confusing the Power of the Presidency and Congress

Even Lincoln admitted that everything he did between March 4th, 1861 and July 13th, 1861 was ILLEGAL UNLESS CONGRESS BACKED UP WHAT HE HAD DONE. Congress DID back up what Lincoln did and thus Lincoln's Actions were "Legal".

You are getting into the Concept (Which Lincoln Rejected for it would have cost him the war) that the PRESIDENT could run Military operations independent of Congress. EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE LINCOLN HAS MAINTAINED THEY HAD THE RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO ORDER MILITARY ACTIONS INDEPENDENT OF CONGRESS. While Lincoln rejected this concept, the Courts since Lincoln's time have ruled his actions to defer to Congress was for political purposes only and Lincoln was WRONG from a Constitutional point of View (i.e. he had the power to act as President independent of Congress).

At the end of the Civil War the Supreme Court finally ruled on the issue can a state secede and followed the result of the Battle Field and said NO. Since the South had REBELLED against the US Government the US Government had the Right to determine HOW those states were to be admitted back in the Union. So the South was occupied, but more to protect the voting rights of the newly freed slaves than anything else. Without the occupation the Rights of the Ex-slaves to Vote would have been infringed (as it was after 1877). The Civil War freed the Slaves and you could not just free them and leave loose in the hostile environment that was the post-Civil War South. No, the Blacks had to be educated, protected when voting, protected as to the property they owned etc. This should have continued until the South accepted the fact Blacks were both Free and equal, but the North gave up in 1877 and the North did not get back interested in Civil Rights until the 1950s.

As to England recognizing the South, Prior to 1860 the main source of Cotton for England's Cotton Mills was the American South. Thus you had a large group of businessmen who lobbied for English support of the South to protect they Cotton imports. Lincoln undermined this by confiscating any Cotton the Union Troops captured and shipping it to England, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was aimed more at England than the Slaves. He was going to force England to BACK SLAVERY, SOMETHING ENGLAND HAD TECHNICALLY OPPOSED SINCE 1835 (When England abolished Slavery in its colonies).

Thus the English ruling elite wanted to support the American South, but the English people did not. Unlike the US and Iraq in 2003, England decided it needed popular support at home to go to war in North America and Lincoln's Proclamation forced England to face the fact it would be fighting for SLAVERY. No matter ow the English newspaper spinned the American Civil War, the popular opposition to English support for the American South did not decline during 1861-1865. Thus the only support the English Elite could do was to permit the buying to arms, the loaning of money and the Building of Ships for the American South.

You should read some GOOD histories of the American Civil War not the popular stuff you see in most book stores. The Southern point of View of the Civil War is taken in 90% of the Books on the Civil War FOR THE SOLE REASON THE SOUTH WILL BUY SUCH BOOKS. The North has long since forgotten and forgiven the Civil War (The Forgiveness started in the 1880s and continued till the 1950s when the last Union Civil War Died, if you READ the stores of the effort at forgiveness after the Civil War it is almost always the NORTH, or ex-Northern Soldiers, that made the move, not the SOUTH or the Southern Vets). The South get hung up on little technical aspects of the WAR for the South do not what to address the issue of Human Slavery which was the reason the war was fought.

[GarySeven]

24. You're still wrong ...

1. Lincoln's statement about the illegality of his actions "unless" Congress backed him up was more or less tongue in cheek; analagous to Our Leader's stated preference for dictatorships. Lincoln knew that in the political reality of his day that ratification of his policy by politicians was a fait accompli. Political votes are not necessarily constitiutional and neither are politically motivated Supreme Court rulings, see: Bush v. Gore.
2. Supreme Court justices have been (for reasons noted above) reluctant to get into public debates with the president over his supposed inherent war powers. However, whenever they rule on extremely broad wartime measures, such as detainment of Japanese Americans or longterm detention without status of hositile combatants (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004) they have limited those powers.
3. Despite your evident concern for my literacy, I have read White v. Texas (1869) and don't find its expressed expansion of the federal authority over state authortity as comfortating as you do.
4. The notion that the occupation of the South was to ensure the voting rights of previously disenfranchised individuals is somewhat risible. Yours is the same argument advanced by Bush to invade Iraq; that the rights of the Iraqi people are to be protected. The real interest in Iraq, as it was in the South, was to facilitate the theft of its sovereign property, both real and mineral. Perhaps you have heard of the term "carpetbagger."
5. Actions of the present are frequently judged against actions of the past. Illegal actions in the past can thus be used to justify illegal actions of the future. Getting "hung up on little technical aspects" can sometimes prevent the camel from getting more of his muzzle under the tent and finally in bed with you. Perhaps you want to wake up next to George Bush; I don't.
6. Thank you for forgiving us about the Civil War. I presume that your statements about the deficiencies of Southern literacy and historical knowledge are meant to somehow prove how expansive that forgiveness reaches, but being a dumb country hick I just can't follow your reasoning.

[itzamirakul]

31. Obviously, you still believe in states' rights concerning

slavery. Just can't get over that lost property, huh?

[GarySeven]

38. Well, I was referring to factories, farms and other assets ...

seized by federal authorities and handed over to new Northern owners for their exploitation, but I see you would rather argue about the South's original and exclusive sin of slavery. I suppose, then, it would do little good to riposte that slavery remained legal in the north for several years after the end of the war while we were an occupied territory. And there is the little matter of Northern banks, investment firms and factories profiting from slavery for several decades before that. But, no, let's forget about all that. Let's just say that the South is and never will be anything else but a region for scorn and ridicule - and while we're doing that, let's also just go ahead and write off any possibility of Democratic resurgence, since the Democrats "down here" aren't worth alliance because we dare to think a little differently from the enlightened - and always racially tolerant - North.

[Paladin]

41. Scorn and Ridicule.......

...are what you deserve for clinging to ancient grudges and conflicts. If you're a "down there" Democrat, how about dragging yourself into the 21st century? We've got a few problems to deal with, and your help might prove useful. Or is re-thinking tactics at Cemetery Ridge for the umpteenth time more your style?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Goathead]

61. I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong

There was indeed a Cemetery Ridge in the Battle of Gettysburg. Seminary Ridge was held by the Confederacy. Cemetery Ridge was held by the Union. So I believe you need to get YOUR facts strait before you start throwing out accusations.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Goathead]

78. Tisk tisk

Just just can't admit that you are wrong can you? Pick up a history book and read it, you might learn something.

[itzamirakul]

42. I don't care if you are a Democrat or not...

you still haven't gotten over the loss of southern "property" which was its slaves.

And, on that note, I have no doubt that people like you would support a return to that sorry state of affairs,no matter what party you belong to. This constant cry of "innocence" when it comes to slavery being the main reason that southerners cannot turn loose their loss of the Civil War is sickening.

As far as the North's complicity...New York and several other states had outlawed slavery as far back as the 1820s. Yes, there WERE northern businessmen who made money off of southern slavery after that period, but I would liken them to the DLC leaders and Zell Millers and other Democrats who are willing to sell out their party for personal gain.

And, I am not arguing with you about what you rightly call the "South's original and exclusive sin." Arguing with apologists for the Civil War is moot.

The South got exactly what it deserved at the end of that war. May the cruelty of the Civil War slave masters torment their apologists throughout eternity!

[GarySeven]

46. Yes, only the south is to blame

only us. mea culpa. Mea culpa maxima, ad infinitum.

Because we exist you may feel superior.

[Debs]

50. Didnt the

South start the war by attacking Ft Sumpter? How in the world does that make it a war of Northern aggression? When I briefly lived in the South, I couldnt believe that they still thought the civil war was a serious issue.

[GarySeven]

68. Yes. The South started the civil war. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. There was a war. The South started it. The war was about slavery. Slavery was wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

There is plenty of blame to go around for slavery and for racism. Yet for some reason you folk in the north seem to think that Southerners invented slavery and are the sole owners of racism. There was barely a single white person alive in the United States that wasn't a racist in the 1860s; the attitudes toward slavery and racism present in the South during the Civil War was pretty universally accepted. Northerners practiced slavery and they have indulged in racism just as long as anyone in the South did. In fact, racial intolerance, bigotry and racial violence have persisted in the North and the West some 40 years after the Civil Rights Act.

We did not invent slavery. We were not the only racists. We tried to be independent; had we succeeded, slavery and racism would have continued in the South and it would have continued in the North. It would have continued had there been no war at all.

[itzamirakul]

57. Regardless of who is to blame, it is only...

southerners like you who want to keep fighting the Civil War. You claim to be in favor of equal rights but I bet you would sacrifice any rights that black people have at the drop of a hate.

Even today, southern white children are being taught that "slavery wasn't so bad," in fact it was a "pleasant contract between master and slaves, who lived more comfortably than poor whites." I bet you are one of those who expouses this view.

Yeah, try working nearly naked in the hot sun from dark to dark, including 8-10 hours in the boiling sun, dragging a baby along on a bag of cotton behind you. Some pleasant life! Try being dragged out of your cabin and raped by either the slave owner or his overseer.
Try having your foot chopped off because you dared try to escape.

The only property that whites lost that they couldn't get back was their slaves. Anything else, they could rebuild.

Face it, your side lost the damned Civil War. And I hope the torment of the Abu Ghraib-style torture that those southern slave owners inflicted on those black people roils their souls in the worst kind of hell for eternity.

[GarySeven]

72. Why do you think it is "I" who keeps fighting the Civil War?

YOU are the one who won't let it go. YOU keep punishing the South for its singular effort at independence. You do it every time you attack a Southerner on this board; you do it precisely because he claims to be a Southerner.

In your mind, it is impossible to be both a Southerner and a progressive liberal thinker. You think that if someone identifies with the South, is even proud of his heritage, it is somehow a sacrilege to both the concepts of liberalism and patriotism. Well, it isn't. It is a paradox. A mental abstraction. An idealized concept that requires intelligence, brains and a fluidity of thought to comprehend.

Listen. The Civil War was wrong. Slavery was Evil. I don't defend either; I don't - and no Southerner here - condones either. What I will defend is my right to my heritage and to a history that actually existed in the precise terms in which it existed. I will not cede that to you, expecially if you or others use imprecise terms that have the effect of making my region a cartoon - a region of stereotypes behind which you can hide all your faults and in doing so ignore them.

Slavery and racial prejudice were not and are not the sole fault, possession or attitude of Southerners. You want to think it is exclusive to us because that enables you to hold us in contempt and forget your own sins. In this regard you are very much similar to the Conservatives who see the only problem with America is that certain people (liberals) claim the right to be Americans.

You must accept the paradox that a Southerner can stand up for his heritage, warts and all, and still abhor and revile the past and past attitudes. It is OUR heritage, not yours. It is your efforts to define FOR US how we should feel about it that causes the friction to continue.

Grow up and learn that being an American is a complex and deep thing that embraces sometimes conflicting passions. It is what separates Americanism from all other ideologies and what makes it compatable with the larger goals of liberalism.

[itzamirakul]

84. Since "WE" won the Civil War...

there is no further need for this discussion. I do not NEED to re-fight this war of Southern TREASON against the United States of America.

WE WON! Keep believing those STUPID lies that your ignorant families and racist teachers taught you...it will NEVER do you ANY GOOD....

WE WON!

[burythehatchet]

58. scorn and ridicule for rednecks is the BEST I can do

sorry

:shrug:

signed,
another ignorant yankee

by the way I pray for the United States of Canada and you can have Jeebusland.

[Yupster]

66. When I think of a Civil War, I think of

two groups vying to claim the same government. Like the Russian Civil War from 1917-21 or the Chinese Civil War throughout the 1930's and 40's.

This was not the case in 1861. Jeff Davis was not trying to become President of the USA. They were just trying to leave.

I'd call it a war of secession instead of a Civil War.

Of course I could be completely wrong, but that's what I think of when I hear Civil War.

[NYC]

8. I'll take the chaos

over the oppression anyday.

[jmm]

9. Of course he's still fighting the civil war,

he'd love for this nation to regress about 140 years.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[jdj]

19. well.

um I hate to point this out, but I have thought recently as a southerner who grew up hating the racist south, that all those people who used to say "the south will rise again" while I was growing up, would point to this election as revenge if there ever was any.

It's really sad.

And part of the reason that there is still some lingering resentment is that many of the union soldiers were essentially terrorists to the southern civilians. These stories are passed down in families, even in the mountains where I am from, where no cotton grew.

Cold mountain has some tale of how the soldiers tormented and stole from the innocent civilians, it is a good portrayal of why the hatred still today of "yankees" and just why it was that so many mountain folk didn't give fuck-all about that stupid war.

[GarySeven]

26. History has proved that war WORKS

Whether they have been defeated or not, every nation that has chosen war (or every insurgency) during the past 160 years has ALWAYS won, eventually. Think about that while you're sitting in front of your Japanese-made computer. Y'all.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Debs]

51. My God

You must be kidding. We chose the War in Vietnam, it takes a serious committment to ideological blindness to say we WON. Saddam chose war in invading Kuwait, exactly how would you say he won? The Germans chose war in WW2 did THEY win? I urge you to take a vacation from planet wingnut and visit Planet Earth. We have a good climate and some fine restaurants here

[GarySeven]

75. The IRA has Eire; the PLO has Palestine ...

Japan controls electronics and the Euro is worth more than the dollar. You don't understand the politics of war, which means you should get a job in the current State Department. I hear they have a pretty good cafeteria.

[Debs]

81. Which has

Exactly NOTHING to do with the refutation of your ludicrous statement that war WORKS... Whether they have been defeated or not, every nation that has chosen war (or every insurgency) during the past 160 years has ALWAYS won, eventually. NOTHING. Try to keep up

[GarySeven]

86. I like your symbol of Che Guevara ...

I assume you use it in the spirit of revolutionary thought and action - like the Confederate battle flag is to some a symbol of rebellion - and not because Che was a revolutionary proponent of asymetric warfare who would absolutely disagree with you. In fact, the entire nation of Cuba stands as refutation to you.

[knight_of_the_star]

11. He shows a VERY selective memory in this speech

"To insure the European balance of power, Lord Canning of England persuaded President James Monroe of the United States to issue what we know as the Monroe Doctrine, which declared North and South America off limits to European powers. The Monroe Doctrine was honored because it was backed first by British power, then until the Cuban Missile Crisis, by the power of the United States."


Last time I checked, that was Monroe's idea. The British offered to make a joint declaration but the Monroe administration said no, we want to do this on our own, thank you. The reason it held up was because the British had a vested interest in allowing the revolutions in New Spain to destroy the Spanish New World Empire to break up their hold on that hemisphere.


"With balance of power politics in place in Europe and with the incredible ascendancy of British economic power and its resulting naval power the Nineteenth Century is considered a time of relative peace, which we call the Pax Brittania."

Of course this is ignoring little scuffles like the re-unification of Italy, the unification of Germany and the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War, and not to mention a whole host of smaller colonial wars fought either by Europeans to expand their holdings in Asia and Africa or by proxies against eachother. The famous charge of the light brigade at Balaclava was in this time period in fact. That and you had national arms races all over the place between the European powers to keep things in check. On the European continent, you had that peace kept because of massive forces of arms keeping it in check, not because of some "Pax Britannica."

"Our intellectual dreams were shattered by an assassin's bullet at Sarajevo."

Bullshit. World War I was a war that was just begging to happen. The assasination of the Archduke was the pretext, but if that had not happened I am willing to bet that any one of the member nations of the Central Powers or of the Triple Entete would have found a pretext for war. The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century was a time of great nationalism and militarism, a BAD combination, combined with statesmen and leaders who sought ways to expand their power bases.

"The most devastating conflict of the period was not between nations but within our own nation. I refer to the Fratricidal conflict called by historians the "Civil War" but which those in my home state of Virginia refer to as "The War of Northern Aggression.""

Again, selective memory. He ignored the other wars I mentioned in that period probably because it wasn't white Christians killing eachother.

""Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set."

But had not mankind at the beginning of the 20th Century proved itself superior to its fathers? And could not the ancient landmark of belief in man holding rights as a unique creation of God be discarded with impunity? Could we not now embrace human peace and human progress as an ineluctable part of our advanced humanity?"

This from the mouth of a man who claims the Bible is the infallible word of God? Something should be done with that quote ASAP. I think it says in Leviticus, among MANY other things, "Proclaim your liberty and let it ring forth throughout the land."

"Never has a war spawned such a bloody aftermath. An ailing president of the United States virtually ignored the Versailles Peace Treaty while he gave such of his strength as remained to the formation of a League of Nations to insure a world safe from war. Perhaps it is one of the tragic ironies of history that the punitive provisions of Versailles paved the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler and World War II ...even as the League of Nations was dying of impotency."

I'm betting he's saying that about Wilson because he was a Democrat and for no other reason than that. Wilson, if he were alive today, probably would agree with Robertson on a lot of "social issues". As an aside, he didn't ignore the Versailles Treaty, he pulled out of the process because it was obvious that the European powers who had done most of the fighting, bleeding, dying, and suffering WANTED the punitive treaty and with the minor and late role the US played in the conflict, he had little bargaining power to work with.

"Following the carnage of World War II, the world yearned for lasting peace. As was the case with a feeble Woodrow Wilson who looked beyond the immediate reality of the treaty of Versailles as he sought to grasp the elusive goal of peace on earth through a League of Nations, once again a terminally ill president of the United States brushed aside the immediate reality of post-war Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Manchuria to seek the long range goal of lasting peace."

He seems to like talking about the ailing Democrat thing. I love how he ignores that FDR did ten times what Reagan is credited of doing. I also find it rich that a man who supposedly places so much stock in faith in the divine is someone who is going to lambast another for reaching for the stars.

"It is instructive to note that his rhetoric and actions were in no way directed against the Soviet Union, which had brutally repressed freedom fighters in Hungary under cover of the Suez Crisis."

He is showing his racism again. There were freedom fighters who struggled against colonial powers for DECADES in Africa and Asia, but I forgot, they're nonwhite heathens, so they don't count. Also, the Suez crisis wasn't a cover for the suppression of Hungary. SImply put, the military Eisenhower built was so heavily dependent on the A-Bomb that he only had a sledge hammer in his toolbox, he didn't have anything discrete enough to assist the Hungarians.

"According to one historian, when he spoke, he denounced the Zionist-U.S. conspiracy and called not merely for the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations but for its "extinction". The assembly gave him a standing ovation when he arrived, applauded him throughout, and again rose to its feet when he left. The following day the U.N. Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly gave a public dinner in Amin's honor."

Not sure about the dinner, but I think it bears noting that Israel HAS broken numerous UN directives and ignored the entreaties of the Assembly many times more than Iraq ever has and that Israel, outside of the US and Western Europe, because of who backs them and how they came to be, is not well-liked.

"I call for a new "Community of Democratic Nations" which would be open to all nations whose governments have achieved legitimacy because they embrace democratic processes.

When a nation was able to move from totalitarianism or dictatorship to true democracy for a specified period of time it would become eligible for membership in the Community of Democratic Nations.

With a new Community of Democratic Nations the artificial distinction of first world, second world, and third world status should be eliminated. There would no longer be East to West, and Non-Aligned. The international institutional dynamics flowing from the anti-colonial period would be superceded by the new reality of the emerging Twenty-first Century."

And what will happen to the UN? How will this help further the cause of world peace if you end up with again two major competing power blocs?

[Peter Frank]

13. Of course you're right but...

...focus your energies on the real reservoir of power.

Challenge every anti-American effort endorsed by Bush!

[neebob]

14. That speech is from 1987

Of course Pat is still completely nuts.

[Goathead]

15. There is a current link to it

on the CBN site. I guess the folks at CBN like to wax nostagia when they think about dismantling the U.N.

[mitchum]

16. Robertson is not worth the worms that will eat his putrid corpse

How I hate that two-bit grifting sonofabitch

[jdj]

20. Well if that isn't the perfect label.

I had forgotten that one.

Grifters is right as rain, they are ALL Grifters from hell.

[Skidmore]

17. Evil like him will live forever...

only the good die young.

[Bigmack]

21. I'm only sorry the Union won!

Imagine the US without the South.

Falwell and Robertson and their like would be spreading manure with mules rather than spreading poison with TV.

[Tsiyu]

23. Oooh Lordy. What have you started?

Forget blue and red, folks.

Some are still caught up in gray and blue.

[GarySeven]

25. Why would you say that?

[Tsiyu]

27. Oh, jess cuz I live in the South and...

there are those who would rather remember a war fought against each other than all the wars fought together as brothers ....

[Elise]

35. I don't find that helpful

Please remember that there are many in the South who are liberal just as there are many in the North who aren't.

It's time to realize that this is indeed a mobile society and what we need to do is organize liberals/progressives/radicals all over the country!

[Tsiyu]

37. I guess I don't find the arguments above

between the pro-Confederacy and the pro-Union folks to be helpful either.

I just hear those same arguments all the time. Maybe you don't understand my point? We are at war TODAY, friend. Shouldn't we focus on THAT rather than rehashing all the battles and legislation and personalities during the "War of Northern Aggression?"

And no doubt many liberals live in the South. Cripes. Did i say otherwise? My little Tennessee mountain went for Kerry.

But I'm sick of hearing about the goddamned Civil War. And Pat Robertson is a monkey's ass.

[GarySeven]

40. Sorry, you're wrong ...

You are insulting monkey's asses.

Not enough can be said about liberalism's suicidal tendencies. Why would northern liberals want to alienate southern liberals? Yet they seem compelled to do so whenever we speak about our region; usually to dare us to justify an event that did happen 150 years ago. I find it interesting that they continually use the Civil War as an excuse for not building aliances with Southern liberals and then blaming us for not "getting over it."

BTW, How did you feel when the Right told us all to "move on" after the stolen election?

[Tsiyu]

44. the problem I have with the "Hell No, we won't forget" crowd

is that many of them conveniently "forget" the civil rights struggles of OTHER SOUTHERN HUMAN BEINGS that took place 100 years later and that these same folks can often be heard to say "get over it" to those who were lynched, enslaved, denied rights and persecuted in the name of LIBERTY FOR ALL SOUTHERN PEOPLE.

Today's struggles are enough. If saying that people might want to focus on Iraq versus Antietem offends a Southern liberal, then I would say they are too easily offended. But I don't think saying that offends Southern liberals. I believe saying so only offends those humans ( Southern and Northern) who want to keep the Confederacy alive. And, uh, I AM a Southern liberal. Duh!

And you are correct when you say I am wrong. Monkey's asses everywhere are pissed at me right now....

[GarySeven]

48. The people who supported slavery and opposed civil rights

were CONSERVATIVES.

Oddly enough, many people who supported States Rights, and Southern independence, were Jacksonian Democrats, which is a variety of liberal which still exists down here in quite numerous quantities. They believe(d) the Southern people should determine their own fate, which is as consise a definition of liberalism as I can think of. Of course, the main states' rights the Southerners of the 1860s ultimately defended was the conservative cause of slavery. That was our great sin and ultimate mistake, for which - I assure you - we have paid for, many times over, like leasing a washer from a rent-to-own store.

The northern tendency not to recognize the peculiar nature of the Southern liberal - and perversely lump us together with the Conservative lumpen - is what galls me. Comprehending the Southern paradox requires education and intellectual flourishes which are lost on people capable only of unnuanced thought. Unexamined assumptions are not, evidently, the sole province of the Conservative mind; many northern liberals seem to have that trait in common with them.

[Debs]

52. And YOU

Are a MORON. I tell you what, after 130 years I will be willing to move on from the stolen elections. My company needed experienced people to run trains on the part of railroad they bought from the SP and I lived for nine months in Louisiana. I was treated better by the people there than the guy from New York (by way of Albequerque) and the others from the midwest, because I was from California which technically never entered the war so I wasnt a Yankee, at least thats how they saw it. You guys really need to get a life

[Walt Starr]

28. The response to those who call it "The War of Northern Agression"

is simple.

"No, it was the War of Southern Treason."

[Elise]

34. Absolutely.

That slogan's been around longer than either one of us.

[Yupster]

69. Treason?

That seems awfully harsh.

There are people on DU every day saying some group of states should leave the Union. So they're all traitors?

Anyway, treason is a very serious crime that a person is charged with, indicted, tried and convicted of. At that point they become traitors.

Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee were indicted on treason.

They were never given their day in court to prove their innocence.

Lee didn't want a trial. He just wanted to live a quiet dignified life.

But Davis demanded a trial which was his Constitutional right. He had a high priced group of northern abolitionist lawyers to defend him financed by Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley. His defense was that secession was legal and was legally executed, so therefore how could he be a traitor?

The government stalled for years before finally shelving any plans to try him, even though northern public opinion demanded someone hang for the 350,000 northern dead. Finally they allowed Vanderbilt and Greeley to bail him out of jail though he remained indicted.

The problem was the case was not nearly air tight. What if in the end the Supreme Court ruled that secession was legal? What do you do then? Put Davis back in Richmond and say sorry? No, better to just leave him indicted forever without ever giving him his day in court to prove his innocence.

That way 150 years later some guy on an internet website can call him a traitor even though he was never tried for the crime even though he wanted and even demanded that trial.

How'd you like to be arrested for sexual abuse of a child and then have the government indict you but never put you on trial though you were sure you could quickly prove your innocence at the trial?

And what would you think when some moron called you a child molestor five years later because you were indicted for the crime? I bet you wouldn't be so quick to decide guilt without trial in that case.

[VioletLake]

30. You get that feeling because that's what he's doing.

The Right is making every effort to murder humanity's democratic impulse.

"Human beings would rather be oppressed..."

"The master/slave relationship makes the world go 'round."

"The Democratic Party is dead."

Evil cacasuckers...

[0007]

33. Has anyone ever noticed that Pat Robertson has a mouth full

of smegma when he talks?

[USA_1]

39. Reich Wing Telebangelist James Dobson Joins Robertson

Dobson threatens to take away Democrats Senate seats if they do not support Bush's plan to stack the US Supreme Court with fellow reich wingers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/politics/01dobson.html

Again, the problem here isn't the reich wing Republican tactics. The real problem is the continued Democratic party passivity. Its refusal to swing back at this type of Nazi style threat is what has undermined the DNC and the nation's democracy.

I am betting that the DNC will do absolutely NOTHING to counteract this reich wing Nazi threat. The Supreme Court will be stacked with reactionaries and we will all suffer political repression and more war as a consequence.

[onecitizen]

43. My theory has been..........

for some time now, that they never got over losing the Civil War. They continue to fight it every day. THEN, add the New Deal to it, they have been living in a nightmare (at least in their eyes).

[PROGRESSIVE1]

45. Lincoln was to kind. He should have wiped out the South and...

we would not have these problems (Robertson) today.

[GarySeven]

49. What a nice thought.

Do you kiss your yankee mother with that mouth?

[Debs]

53. Yes

But unlike you inbred southerners I dont use my tongue

[GarySeven]

74. Well, I am devastated by the awesome power of your intellect.

I concede. Obviously, it is only I who is keeping the civil war alive. I apologize for living and thank you for enlightening me with the self-evident force of Northern superiority.

[Debs]

82. I am

A counterpuncher you dont want to go 15 rounds stay out of the ring. You are the one that started being insulting and rude. Who is a monkey ass again? You dont think my response was intellectually stimulating but perhaps your snide and glib comment was? Get over yourself

[Annus Horribilis]

54. "The War of Northern Aggression"?

LOL...do they really call it that in the South?

[Tsiyu]

56. Oh yes, My friend

and many are well versed in every nuance of the situation. They want to be viewed as a Sovereign Nation. Which is fine. But at some point, shouldn't you make up your mind about whose you are - the Confederacy's or the US's?

[Ilsa]

60. Occasionally I see it in a LTTE here in South TX. n/t

[Yupster]

71. A couple years ago in an elementary school in town

there was a printed display of the flags of Texas.

I was taken aback by the dates. There was the Stars and Bars but the dates under it was 1861-1870 !

The logic I guess was that in 1861 the people of Texas voted to leave the Union and join the Confederacy by about a 4-1 vote. Texas was readmitted to the USA in 1870. So what were they between 1861 and 1870? Whatever company made these mats decided they were Confederates, occupied Confederates from 1865-1870.

This was just five years ago or so.

[Solon]

55. General Response to thread: EVERYBODY CALM DOWN!!!!

Jesus H. Christ on the Cross, why the fuck do we have to rehash this goddamned civil war every time somebody says something stupid about north/south, red/blue? The Civil War was fought for 2 reasons, money and trade. Now before I get slammed, I not Southern, but I'm no Yankee either, I'm from Missouri, I'm neutral. :)

My family has been in this state since before it was FOUNDED, and today it is one of the more divided states in the union, politically and geographically. Just like it was during the Civil War, when some sides of my family fought for the Union, and others for the Confederacy. That war was about a bunch of landed gentries, Nobles in everything but name, who found there way of life slipping away do to economic dead end that was slavery. Combine that with Northern Industrialists who want more sources of cheap labor that cannot be found because of slavery, and you have a recipe for disaster waiting to happen. How many poor southern whites owned slaves during the Civil War, none, thats how many.

That was a war of a bunch of rich people on both sides trying to use the poor on both sides to preserve there fortunes. Hundreds of thousands of troops died for the dollar both Yankee and Confederate. No more no less, this is not to minimize the righteous anger that many citizens felt about slavery and that abborent system, it was the most obvious cause, and the one used by the south to win support for their cause. You think that southern Nobles said, "We rich people need your help to keep our property, fight for us!" Hell even the north didn't have that much support to just demolish slavery, most Northerners were ambivalent about it, it was to "Save the Union" more than anything else, at first at least, that was the call on most Yankee troops.

This was a war about two ways of life that collided since the beginning, the rural, nostalgic, and ultimately failed, southern way of life, versus the northern industrial, urban way of life. One won out, in the end, and that was inevitable. So when I see people in my area wave around a Confederate flag, or Southern Pride, they are talking about a way of life where 95% of them lived little better than the black slaves of the time. I don't see why anyone would want to defend a way of life that never was for the majority, but only for the rich. This goes for blanket generalizations of Red/Blue that many here make. This is a stupid argument, OK now FLAME AWAY!

[bloom]

62. ....

"So when I see people in my area wave around a Confederate flag, or Southern Pride, they are talking about a way of life where 95% of them lived little better than the black slaves of the time. "

So maybe it's the descendants of poor whites with (perceived) status to lose.

Not that I defend it - but it's not like it is inexplicable - the so called "Southern Pride" they don't want to give up. (Southern defensiveness seems more like it).

[mrdmk]

63. I said the same thing last week and was slammed for it

The problem as I see it are two fold, 1) Religion is a controlling force that keeps the masses predictable. This controlling force is ruled by the few who like power and to stay in power. Pat Robinson is no different from any other human in this regard concerning his lust. 2) Some people in power use the emotion of anger and fear to use as a common point for them to stay in a leadership role. The one way this is accomplished is by pointing out irrefutable differences between people rather than what people have in common. This seems chicken, yet it is effective.

The big thing about Pat Robinson is that a lot of people see him as a man of god and assume he cannot do any wrong.

Here is a post about a booklet used in a southern private school for quote, unquote educational proposes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2867654


Here is the start of my response to what the civil war was about:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2867654#2867834

[hfojvt]

65. I was going to say the same thing about calming down

The Civil War is perhaps another thing besides religion, race, and sex which can be used by the ruling classes to keep the lower classes fighting among each other instead of working together to improve life for all of us.
I do have some flame for you, when you choose to dis the "rural" way of life. In 1880, the North, as well as the South, was still rural. Cities and industry were the way the future turned out, and the trend even then, but rural farmers were still the majority.
Also, I do not like to see the label "inevitable" attached to the trajectory of the past, and more than I like to see it used to justify decisions in the present.

[Solon]

77. I meant it in a historical context...

as far as the effects of the Industrial Revolution were having on day to day life around much of the western world. I didn't "dis" the Rural way of life, I dissed the way of life of Southern Land and Slave owners, this did not constitute nearly a majority of southern citizens.

[GarySeven]

73. Amen.

You are 100 percent right. It is a conflict between urban and rural values. Somehow the rural values are always regarded as the less advanced and it is somehow the South that gets labelled as the sole place where such attitudes flourish.

When the Northern Liberal can let the Southerner embrace or reject his heritage on his own terms, instead of dictating to the Southerner those terms, then we might move on and stop fighting this nonsense. The blood of slavery and the sin of racism is part of our whole national heritage and not the sole province of the South.

[Debs]

83. Northern libs are dissing

You but you call them Yankees, notice the North doesnt still call you REBS. The chip is on YOUR shoulder, get over yourself

[artemisia1]

79. Amen!

Thank you. Can we now fight the current war? Last year we re-fought Vietnam. Are we going to re-fight the Civil War this year? Goodness sakes.

[SemperEadem]

64. human beings, generally speaking, may not mind

but Americans, who've never had a memory of any kind of formal foreign occupation, wars of religious intolerance and out and out gun battles in their front yards will not go quietly into oppression..

Robertson must be confusing the Jews of the old testement with americans of today. I think that they'd prefer chaos to oppression. Their pride wouldn't suffer it.

[agincourt]

76. Just watch that asshole,

take a big collection for the tsuami and then use it for his own business purposes, just like he did for Rwanda. We I think of corrupt men, he makes the top 10 list, next to Homofhobwell and president Hee Haw.

[earth mom]

80. Wow

this thread has gotten a little out of control. First I want to say that Robertson is scary as hell and should be watched like a hawk.

I saw the movie Cold Mountain last night and what surprised me was the terrorism by Southerners of other Southerners. I was also struck by the fact that in some ways things just haven't changed all that much in the 150 years since.

Sometimes, (even though I'm not crazy about this idea), I can't help but think that the only solution is to divide the country in two. Or better yet-turn all 50 states into separate countries. Because at this point it's beyond obvious that this country has just gotten too big and too unwieldy to be managed fairly, honestly or without corruption.

If we all can't agree after 150 years, when will we ever agree?

[Yupster]

85. South versus south

The southerners who lived in cities or plains were pretty united to leave the Union. The city folk considered tariffs unfair to them and thought slavery was threatened by Lincoln's election though he told them it wasn't.

The people of the plains were scared that they would lose slavery which was their economic lifeline, or so they thought.

However, there were also people who lived in the hills.

They had no big plantations, trade, or slaves. They were often fiercely pro-union, and a Civil War was fought within the Civil War in the mountain regions of the Confederacy. In mountainous western Virginia, the people even broke away and formed a new state because of it. Heavy fighting also took place throughout the war in eastern Tennessee, and western North Carolina. The fight was between the Johnny Rebs of the cities and plains against the Billy Yanks of the hills.

The Confederates called their enemies the "hillbillies" and the name has stuck.