Reparations for Southerners

[stevedeshazer]

The Internets, oh, the Internets....
=======================================================================


To: Southerners everywhere

The League of the South is considering petitioning Congress to conduct a thorough, non-partisan study examining the long neglected injustices arising from the war crimes committed across the South from 1861-1865 in violation of the U. S. Constitution, the Law of Nations, and U. S. Executive Order Number 100, whereby the private property of non-combatants was ravaged, burned, stolen, and destroyed as a deliberate policy of an unconstitutional war of invasion, conquest, and occupation.

Tens of thousands of individuals in the South are now signing petitions asking The League of the South to represent them as a class by exercising the people’s right of petition or by a suit at law for damages. We anticipate that a thorough and impartial Congressional investigation will reveal the necessity for a long overdue compensatory program of justice for people of all races in the South who were subjected to treatment during and after the War Between the States that resulted in little less than the barbaric dispossession and destruction of the Southern people and their way of life.

No reparations, no indemnification, and no “Marshall Plan” has ever been conceived or enacted by the United States Government. The United States Government now claims to be the moral monitor for the entire world; however, it cannot justify this position without first cleansing its own shield of the shame of war crimes and acts of vengeance against Southern Americans in action perhaps best described by General William Tecumseh Sherman, who said: “ . . . about 20% of our effort was against military objectives. The rest <80%> was sheer waste and destruction.” Sadly, such unconscionable depredations were all too common across the South during both the war and Reconstruction.

The League of the South plans to seek reparations from the United States Government for all Southerners and their families who suffered atrocities during the war and the years of military occupation that followed. If you agree with us or would like to participate in these actions, please sign our petition.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned
======================================================================
link here: http://www.dixienet.org/

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. They've already gotten reparations

Their roads are paved with the tax dollars of notherners. Southern states get far more fed money than say..CALIFORNIA.

[stevedeshazer]

3. Yup, and they don't even know it.

I'm not bashing the South here, I love it, and I always will.

But I will say that the "victim of the North" crap is all too common.

[ultraist]

5. That small fringe group does NOT represent the entire South

Nice backhanded attempt at South bashing. That group is obviously a bunch of freaks, perhaps even a subchapter of the KKK.

[stevedeshazer]

7. I resent your implication

I'm not bashing the South. I have a problem with the League of the South.

Nice backhanded attempt at Steve_DeShazer bashing.

[ultraist]

137. This is a KKK GROUP and your title reads reperations for SOUTHERNERS

That is very misleading as someone further down the thread pointed out.

WHY would you post this KKK group and say "FOR SOUTHERNERS"

And your first post said, "victim of the North" crap is all too common.'

It sure appears that you were implying the South when in FACT this is KKK group.

I'm not bashing the South here, I love it, and I always will.

But I will say that the "victim of the North" crap is all too common.

[stevedeshazer]

169. It was their title, not mine.

Whatever. Thanks for responding, at least you finally did that.

[ultraist]

143. "yup...victim of the North" WTF? This is a KKK group

http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/default.htm
Introduction
All Americans have a stake in effective response to violent bigotry. Bias-motivated crimes demand a priority response because of their special impact on the victim and the victim’s community. Failure to address this unique type of crime could cause an isolated incident to explode into widespread community tension. The damage done by hate violence crime cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim’s community, leaving them feeling
isolated, vulnerable, and unprotected by the law. By making members of communities fearful, angry, and suspicious of other groups — and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them — these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment
communities.

The urgent national need for tough law enforcement response as well as education and programming to confront violent bigotry has only increased over the past months. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorism, the nation has witnessed a disturbing
increase in attacks against American citizens and others who appear to be of Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent. Perhaps acting out of anger at the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks, the perpetrators of these crimes are irrationally lashing out at innocent people because of their personal characteristics – their race, religion or ethnicity. Law enforcement officials are now investigating hundreds of incidents reported from coast to coast
– at places of worship, neighborhood centers, grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants and homes – including vandalism, intimidation, assaults and several murders. The Anti-Defamation League is the nation’s leader in the development of effective programs to confront violent bigotry and prejudice. The League’s strength is its ability to craft national programming and policy initiatives and then to refine and implement them through our unique network of 30 Regional Offices. The national headquarters in New York houses extensive research archives and staff members with professional expertise in legal affairs and education. Complementing these professionals are ADL lawyers, educators and human relations professionals in Regional Offices throughout the country. Staff members in the field
closely track hate crime, study the trends in this criminal activity, and craft programs and initiatives to reduce prejudice, improve the response of the criminal justice system to hate
crime, and aid the victims of these serious incidents.
This Blueprint for Action is a compilation of ADL programs and initiatives that can be instituted more widely and replicated in communities across the country.
10

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[ultraist]

6. Guess what, I live in the South and don't live in a double wide

I happen to live in a very nice, large house. Not all Southerners are poor white trash.

[reichstag911]

10. sense of humor, now, folks...

...Given the coincidence of the red state support for Bush, and the conservative tendency to piss and moan about giving money to anyone other than them for perceived slights and injuries, allow a Yankee like me to throw a little barb down Red State Way. Many, many of the ignoramuses who vote for Bush do, after all, reside in trailers in areas that have never been considered intellectual/educational/cultural hot spots.

[ultraist]

18. Actually, you are mistaken about the income levels of Bush voters

Check the statistics. Bush received the majority of the upper middle and upper income voters while KERRY recieved the majority of those in poverty and lower income voters.

I will also add, that racism is very prevelant in Northern states, even though Northern states have a much lower percentage of Blacks. NY and CA had the highest Hate Crime rates.

As far as cultural hotspots, yes, NYC and SF beat any Southern cities in that area, but there are plenty of Rednecks in upstate NY as well as in CA. The midwest likely takes the cake for Rednecks though.

The KKK and other White Supremacists groups are not only in the South:

http://www.adl.org/learn/news/White_Wolves.asp
Connecticut White Wolves
Posted: April 2, 2004

Over the past two years, what began as a small collection of racist skinheads in Stratford, Connecticut, has grown into the largest and most active extremist group in the state. Known as the Connecticut White Wolves, the group describes itself as a "white nationalist skinhead organization" and promotes an ideology espousing hatred of Jews and racial and ethnic minorities. Members, though typically young, have been involved in a number of criminal acts in Connecticut and have forged ties with nationally recognized hate groups, including the National Alliance, the Creativity Movement, White Revolution and the Ku Klux Klan.

Origins
The White Wolves were founded by Kenneth and Matthew Zrallack, two brothers from Stratford. Ken Zrallack is the White Wolves' recognized leader, although the group initially made its presence known in the community in 2002, after Matthew Zrallack and another student appeared on the cover of Stratford High School's 2002 yearbook giving a Nazi salute. Around that time, the Zrallack brothers and a few of their friends set up a White Wolves Web site and an Internet message board called "The White Order" to attract new recruits and spread their message.

[tx_dem41]

19. If you believe that a significant number of Southern Bush

voters live in double-wides, you really show a complete lack of understanding of Southern politics and demographics.

[ultraist]

26. Jesse Helms and his rich and cohorts are the real power holders

[reichstag911]

40. Not his contributors, kids,...

...the ignorant sheeple that vote for him against their own economic interests. I am hardly ignorant of Southern politics or demographics. 40 years of it has brought this country to the brink of disunion or destruction, so I'm a little cognizant of its broad outlines and implications.

[tx_dem41]

44. If you aren't ignorant of it, as you say...

then why the post that is completely detached from the reality of Southern politics and demographics? You can assert whatever you want to in a post, but please realize its just a baseless assertion.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[tx_dem41]

58. Can the "Jethro" crap...

I think (but I'm not sure) that it's beneath you.

I wasn't addressing your "Red welfare state" (which by the way extends way outside the South) argument. I was attacking the cheap, throwaway line about "double-wides".

[reichstag911]

59. If it doesn't apply to you,

then why let it bother you? After all, who am I to you? It was, as you now seem to get, a throwaway line. The people to whom it does apply (and you would have to concede that there are many poor, ignorant red state voters -- maybe enough to have made the difference in the election -- who live in what we in Midwestern/Northern/Northeastern, urban America would consider substandard housing) are nowhere to be found on DU. Besides which, the legacy of the South is not a proud one to any but the most parochial or deluded. When the majority of the South adheres to genuine humanistic values, rather than the economic or superstitious dogma to which they now adhere, then the South will have something of which it can be proud.

We are where we are in large part because of the racist appeal of the repugs' "Southern strategy," which they've followed assiduously since Nixon. Add to that the faux Christianity of Bush to rope in the Rapture crowd, and it's a tough flock to outnumber. NCLB isn't going to educate the ignorant out of the Dark Ages, either, when it's drastically underfunded.

And, yes, I understand it extends well beyond the South, but this thread is about the South, not any fringe group in Montana, Utah, Idaho, etc. They are majority moron states (aka red), also, I concede, whose mouths are firmly attached to the public teat while they whine about welfare recipients among the less fortunate.

[QC]

78. If all you have to offer is "throwaway lines" and stereotypes,

then why not sit back and listen to those who actually have some idea of what they're talking about? You might learn something.

[BansheeDem]

161. Another ignorant post about the south ...

Besides which, the legacy of the South is not a proud one to any but the most parochial or deluded. When the majority of the South adheres to genuine humanistic values, rather than the economic or superstitious dogma to which they now adhere, then the South will have something of which it can be proud.

How about Savannah, Georgia being one of the first cities in the nation to fully integrate? I think is you who might be deluded - by a lack of factual material. I get so tired of these posts about the ignorant south and living in double-wides. If you took the time to research it, you would find that the southeast is one of the fastest growing areas in the country for the middle and upper-middle class. By your logic, I suppose we should disband Georgia State University, Georgia Tech, The University of Florida, and Embry Riddle. I mean - after all, why would us igor'ant rednecks need such seats of learning?

[ultraist]

60. The Civil War is over, why don't you get over it?

This North vs. South fight you are proposing is very destructive to the Democratic Party.

Where do you live? And why are trying to reenact the Civil War?

CHECK THE MAP to review WHICH STATES ARE RED and NOTICE the entire MIDWEST IS RED.

[Clark2008]

30. Thank you.

The Southern bashing on this board sometimes reaches ridiculous levels. Many DUers seem to forget that between 40 and 45 percent of us didn't vote for the asshole-in-chief - we're certainly not ALL red - it's just that the Electoral College paints us that way - literally.
If some DUers would use their vast "northern resources" and get their Yankee butts down here to help us spread the truth, we could change things around. (Note: I was being a bit sarcastic, but the sentiment is still accurate. We need your help down here.)
The problem with the South is that there are too few big cities with a variety in news and too few people out in the rural areas using the Internet(s), when they can get it, for anything but entertainment. They get their news from conservative radio stations on their drives from the country into the city for their work and that's all they know. They're not exposed to any other opinion.
In as far as this topic is concerned, that group is nothing but segregationists and I haven't known a REAL segregationist in my entire lifetime - I don't associate with people like that. And, believe me, I have tons of friends, so obviously, these reconstructionists are in the minority.

[ultraist]

33. DAMN Yankees! LOL!

Yes, they are radical freaks and radical freaks like this are ALL OVER THE NATION. For instance, I think Nebraska and Kansas are DANGEROUS places.

[Clark2008]

42. LOL. Well, I was being sarcastic about that "damn Yankee"

comment. Most of the people I happen to get crushes on are Yankees, so it's certainly an affectionate term. :)

[ultraist]

57. I know...my husband is from Ithaca, NY!

[Katarina]

77. Ummmm

Just because someone lives in a doublewide doesn't make them poor white trash either.

[QC]

81. Yep, the snobbery here is breathtaking.

The fact that so many on the "Left" have no problem with class prejudice just might be a big reason why the "Left" is teetering on the edge of irrelevancy in this country.

[Katarina]

82. Yeah, I hate these threads

I should know better than to click on them. I live in a doublewide. I'm not ashamed of it. I love my home. I'm definately not trailer-trash. I certainly no freeper. I've noticed that the majority of the republicans around here are people that moved here from the north. Go figure. :shrug:

[QC]

85. Yep, I live in Florida, too, and most of the northern transplants here

are knuckledragging, extra-chromosomed freeper Republicans. So much for the treasured DU myth that bringing in lots of carpetbaggers will turn us benighted Southerners from our evil ways.

[Blue Wally]

185. What part of Florida do you live in??

During the election, here in Broward County, the bigger and fancier houses tended to have Kerry-Edwards signs while the less pre-possessing houses had Bush signs.

[QC]

189. I'm in the Panhandle.

It's a whole other world than the southern end of the state, and full of Republicans, many of them new arrivals. Bush carried this county by more than 2:1.

[ultraist]

97. Then you should be opposed to the OP authors use of double wide

He is the one who used it to characterize people as trashy, NOT ME. I am bleeding heart liberal but if you want jump to conclusions about allies, go right ahead.

[Katarina]

100. I took what you said the wrong way

After reading more of the thread I realize I was wrong. I apologize.

[ultraist]

116. THANKS! No problem

I didn't really make my point as well as I could have with that post! LOL! I admit to being in reactive mode.

[QC]

102. Yes, I am opposed to his use of the term "doublewide

and that's what I thought I was responding to. I didn't say anything about you and didn't realize until just now that the post I was responding to was directed at you and not the OP. Sorry about that.

The trailer business around here really is getting old--as you pointed out in this thread, and as I have pointed out many times in other threads, poor folks went for Kerry. It's nice middle-class white people who went to good schools who foisted Bush on us. But that's the same demographic that dominates DU, so it's much more pleasant just to scapegoat the poor folks. It's always so much nicer to blame someone else.

[Blue Wally]

182. I never lived in a double-wide.

I have lived in a bunch of single-wides though (43x8, 50x10, 60x12). Worst part was the water heaters were usually too small to really take a good shower.

[ultraist]

94. I didn't say that. I was RESPONDING to someone else's use of "double wide"

Put it in context, his whole post was incinuating all Southerns were uneducated, poor, trashy types.

[RebelOne]

162. Deleted

[RebelOne]

163. EXCUSE ME!!!!

I live in the South and I live in a single wide. I happen to have a very good job, drive a nice car and my home is free of a mortgage. Most of us who live in mobile homes are not ignorant, foul-mouthed, beer-swilling rednecks. Please choose your words a little more carefully.

[Aristus]

4. Wait a minute: They are claiming violations of the U.S. Constitution

during the period of 1861-1865. Didn't they start a war (lasting from, um...1861 to, uh...let's see.....oh! 1865!) with us to show they were no longer bound by the U.S. Constitution? Didn't they draw up their own? :shrug:

Isn't this just sour grapes because we divested them of their "property": (human beings).?

Eat shit, you Confederate losers! :argh:

[Wright Patman]

15. The right to secede

was thought to be allowed under the Constitution by a considerable body of opinion during the first 70 or so years of the history of the United States. For example, people commonly said "the United States are" rather than "the United States is" during that era.

Every state in the affected area considered itself to be a sovereign nation. That's why Robert E. Lee chose his "country" of Virginia over being a general for Lincoln.

I don't agree with reparations, but I think a lot of blue staters need to recognize that Lincoln made a monumental error of historic proportions that has damaged the world tremendously over the past century.

If there were four (or more) countries on the North American continent rather than three, the U.S. would not now be a rogue superpower threatening to extinguish all life on earth through its marauding preemptive wars for control of natural resources in violation of well-settled international law.

[Trajan]

17. Lincoln made a monumental error ? ....

"I don't agree with reparations, but I think a lot of blue staters need to recognize that Lincoln made a monumental error of historic proportions that has damaged the world tremendously over the past century."

What, pray tell, was his monumental error ? ...

[Yupster]

74. This old history teacher

thinks Linoln is the most overrated presidennt in our history, and the way he blundered into the Civil War can be used as a diplomatic lesson .... well scratch that, I think Bush did use it as a diplomatic lesson for blundering his country into war.

No fan of Lincoln's here.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

90. So what should Lincoln have done?

The south was wrong. They illegally chose to secede.

You brought up the Hampton Roads Peace Conference. Could have ended the war early. The conditions were:

1.) Dispband the confederacy and go back to the union
2.) End the fighting
3.) Recognition of Emancipation

In exchange, the confederate officials would have leniency and the slave holders would get compensation for their lost slaves. But the SOUTH chose to keep fighting. They left after four hours. What the hell for?

[Yupster]

106. What Lincoln should have done

First, I think it was far from settled that the southern states seceeded illegally.

They seceeded from the union the same way they joined the union, by votes of their state legislatures. Some legislatures called special secession conventions, some had actual popular votes.

It was found to be illegal on the battlefield and later in court, so it is now settled law. It was not at all settled law in 1860.

So what should Lincoln have done?

Here are a few ideas.

He should have made sure he ran with a VP candidate from the other region of the country like the other three candidates running did, and like every president did for the 30 years before him. Hell, even the southern Democratic candidate Brekinridge got a northerner to run as his VP, and the northern Democratic candidate Douglas found a southerner.

He should have named prominent southerners that he wanted for his cabinet even if they didn't support him.

He should have campaigned in the southern or at least border states.

Once elected, he should have toured at least the border states instead of places like Buffalo. There were many pro-union areas of states like Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina. He never went to any of them.

He should have asked prominent southern politicians like Senators Davis and Benjamin to travel with him. I think they would have.

He should have given instructions to Senator Seward and the other Republicans on the Crittenden Committee rather than ignoring them.

He should have thanked and encouraged prominent southerners like Davis who stayed in Washington to work out a deal to keep the union together rather than go back down south to protect their political futures, rather than ignoring them.

He could have put on a full court lobbying effort to keep Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina in the union. Instead, he let Confederate VP Stephens run around Virginia without a counterbalance to convince the Old Commonwealth to leave.

Then we get to the Fort Sumpter Crisis which was the biggest F*&^up of all.

There could be no viable Confederacy if only the seven states had left in my opinion.

Tennessee voters had just narrowly rejected calling a secession convention by popular vote. Virginia was undecided as was North Carolina. Those were three of the four most populous states of the Confederacy.

Imagine Generals Lee, Stonewall Jackson, AP Jill, JEB Stuart, Jubal Early, Richard Ewell, etc all fighting for the union instead of against it.

The Fort Sumpter debacle was bad enough, but then unconstitutionally calling those southern states to provide troops to invade the other southern states was a blunder of Bushian proportions. All three states were soon out of the Union, and the Confederacy now had a population base large enough to field armies to challenge the US and a myriad of gifted generals to lead them.

Oh there was much Lincoln could have done.

The Civil War was far from inevitable.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

120. Like he did his second term?

That went down really well :eyes:

Also, what part of the civil war was, you know, the south's fault? You seem to be laying the blame all at Lincoln's feet. He didn't start the friction, it had been building since the constitution was signed.

[Yupster]

132. Absolutely

He seemed to see his error the second term and tried to bring southerners into his government even as high as VP. Better to recognize the error than not, but would have been a lot better before the war than after the bitterness of 600,000 deathschanged thinking dramatically.

It is too bad Lincoln was killed. I think things would have been better for everyone had he lived, including southerners. When Lincoln was killed, Jefferson Davis was with Johnston's army in North Carolina. Upon hearing of the murder, Davis immediately saw it as a disaster for the south. He knew Andrew Johnson from way back and had complete contempt for his intelligence, honor and judgement.

Of course I don't blame Lincoln for the entire war. There was plenty of blame to go around, and like you said, the pressure had been building up long before Lincoln came along.

I guess if I was forced to apportion blame individually for the war, I'd blame Buchanon first and Lincoln second. Guys like Rhett would be on the list too, and somewhere on the list would be Davis himself for he issued the final order to fire on Sumpter.

Of the group, it's always Lincoln who's lionized though, and I believe he badly mismanaged the secesssion crisis and therefore doesn't deserve half the credit he gets.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

149. Disagree. He brought the southerner in so he could get elected.

There was no Republican party the second time around and he didn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected after four years of civil war if he didn't bring someone to balance the ticket. He had to finish the war. At the same time, I do agree that he recognized a need for healing the nation and in that respect reaching out to the southerners after the war.

[Yupster]

152. Oh you don't believe that Andrew Johnson had anything to do

with Lincoln getting reelected do you?

He had no constituency. He didn't even win his own state which didn't even vote.

Lincoln's reelection was assured when Sherman took Atlanta and Sheridan burned down the Valley so that even a crow would have to pack a lunch if he flew across it.

After Olustee and Fort Pillow and New Berne and the Red River Campaign, it looked like Lincoln would lose his reelection. If Joe Johnston would have destroyed Sherman's three armies in the hills of northern Georgia, he would have. But it didn't work that way. Sherman outfought and outthought Johnston (and Hood) right out of Atlanta, Grant backed Lee into the trenches of Richmond and Petersburg, Sheridan burned the Valley, and Lincoln won big.

The election was won, or would have been lost on the battlefield.

The vice-presidential pick didn't have anything at all to do with it. Hell, after Atlanta fell, Lincoln could have named Clement Vallandigham his running mate and he would have won.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

160. His pick was required for him to even get the nomination.

[T Bone]

139. Candidates did not travel to campaign in those days !!

Campaigns were conducted from candidates front porches and reporters and supporters travelled from around the country to support & cover them. That was often done as late as 1920 ! So where you get this that "'Lincoln should have travelled throughout the south to 'campaign'" might just be so much crap. What website did you read this from?

[Yupster]

Yes it would be unheard of for candidates

to travel around and make speeches before the Civil War. Chuckle.

But wouldn't it have been cool if candidates, maybe even not for president but for lesser offices went around from city to city and made speeches together, maybe even had debates? Why we'd even name the debates after them. Nah - it could never happen. Lincoln never heard of such a thing. Candidates only campaigned from their front porches in those days.

Anyway, yes it is true that candidates did not jump from town to town making speeches like they do today, but it's also not true that they just sat on their porches, though in Harding's case it may pretty much be true.

Anyway, once Douglas decided he couldn't win the 1860 election, he spent the last three weeks in the border states urging them to not secede if Lincoln won. He also stayed there after the election touring in the midwest and border states and speaking tirelessly until the schedule broke him and he contracted typhoid fever. He was dead before the First Battle of Bull Run.

Once Lincoln did win, he took a tour of the north making speeches at the major cities of the north culminating with a great speech in Philadelphia and then the ride to Washington for the inaugural.

You don't think that tour might have done him a little more good visiting places like Knoxville, Salem (NC), Louisville (Ky), Charleston (Va)and Frederick (Md) rather than Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia? He was travelling and making speeches anyway.

As far as websites, this is just the aging mind of an old history teacher. I don't have resources to cite, and I may err in my remembrances.

[Blue Wally]

184. Not sure it would have been wise

Lincoln was spirited through Baltimore to get him to Washington safely for the inauguration. There were several assasination plots on-going at the time. The states that originally seceded all left between Lincoln's election in November 1960 and his inauguration in March 1861. Buchanan still was in charge then

Rather than concentrating on the loss of North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia to the Confederacy, look at some of the brilliant political and military manuevers by which Delaware, maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were saved for the Union and what is now West Virginia detached from Virginia.

[Yupster]

110. Because to President Davis

independance was non-negotiable. He did not think he had the right or the power to negotiate away his country's legally chosen existance to a foreign power.

His country's right to exist was not negotiable.

Agree or disagree, but that was his position.

[T Bone]

136. My guess on why the South chose to keep fighting

Someone told them they were only going to get 3/5 compensation for each slave they had held in slavery. That quote up thread that 'Lincoln blundered into the Civil War' is pure retro-psyops. The kind spouted on wacked-out revisionist libertarian gun-nut websites.

[Yupster]

148. I don't know what retro-psyops is

but are you insulting me?

If you want me to look at some website, give me a link and I'll offer my opinion.

The voters of Tennessee voted not to call a secession convention after Lincoln was elected. Then they voted 2X1 to leave. You may not think that was the result of Lincln's blundering handling of the crisis, but it sure doesn't sound like the result of a brilliantly executed sound strategy to me.

As far as the 3/5 part, no they never got that far in negotiations. Any deal that called for the CSA to give up its independance was a non-starter so they never got into any details. It's unclear whether Lincoln could have ever gotten anything like that through congress at that point anyway.

There were still hopes for negotiations in Richmond. I guess the best chance after that came with the Longstreet - Ord talks, which the Confederates hoped would become the Grant-Lee talks, but though a meeting was requested, it was never held. The collapse came shortly after that.

[fishwax]

23. of course, thousands might still be enslaved

and the axis powers might have won world war ii :shrug:

I've got to admit, I've heard plenty of people attack Lincoln in my day, but I didn't expect to ever see it on DU.

[Wright Patman]

67. Hello?

DU is Democratic Underground. Guess who was the first REPUBLICAN president in our history?

As for slavery, it might or might not have continued very long in the Confederacy, but eventually I believe either most of the slaves would have taken the Underground Railroad out of there or the institution would no longer have been viable due to the equivalent of today's "UN sanctions" being imposed on the CSA.

As it was, Lincoln won his bloody war, was promptly shot and for the next 100 years the retrograde Southerners imposed all but slavery on the so-called "free" blacks. So what did the damn war actually accomplish aside from killing 600,000 men and inspiring a lot of literature and movies?

As for the Axis powers and all that crap—well, I know for sure that U.S. involvement in World War I was another monumental error, this time perpetrated by the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

And without World War I, it is arguable whether World War II would have ever happened. I am growing more and more isolationist as time goes on. What would be wrong with this country at least scaling back to the "defense" budget levels of, say, China? China spends $50 billion (by a generous estimate) a year and we blow $420 billion. What is wrong with this picture? No wonder everything is made in China.

I still maintain that the North American continent would be a better place if we had more countries and fewer "superpowers."

[fishwax]

72. and DU deals with the reality of the 21ST CENTURY so hello yourself

DU is Democratic Underground. Guess who was the first REPUBLICAN president in our history?


Honestly, that's an incredibly silly (or is it asinine?) thing to say. You do realize that the Republican party of the 19th century was a different animal than it is today, right? The Democratic party of the time was devoted to defending slavery. The Republican party originated in order to stop it. Criticizing Lincoln for, of all things, being a republican shows no understanding of historical context.

Even if we grant the right of secession, the CSA was inherently an immoral regime. Slavery was one of the great human rights blights of the 19th century (and before).

As for slavery ... I believe either most of the slaves would have taken the Underground Railroad out of there or the institution would no longer have been viable due to the equivalent of today's "UN sanctions" being imposed on the CSA.

It's not like the Underground Railroad was an easy thing to hop on board. People died. It was a noble endeavor, but nobody saw it as a way to end slavery. Particularly since runaway slaves who made it to the north weren't free. Slaves caught in the north were returned to the south. And as far as I know, there was no such thing as the equivalent or even anything remotely near today's UN sanctions, and I fail to see how the secession of the south, had Lincoln not reacted militarily, would have led to their development. Sheesh.

Whether or not the South had the right to secede, war was all but inevitable. Had Lincoln said "Okay, you have the right to secede and keep human beings enslaved," things would not likely have gone peacefully, because of issues such as what would become of runaway slaves. The south would likely have reacted militarily to abolitionist raids in border states, for example, and there would have been considerable conflict over border states for decades to come.

It is, quite simply, delusional fantasy to presume that Lincoln is responsible for the Civil War in its entirety and that had he and the Union not reacted as he had, the Confederacy and the USA would have peacefully coexisted to the present day, giving us "four (or more) countries on the North American continent rather than three." But even if you grant that pipe dream, it doesn't mean we're in a better situation than having the U.S. as "a rogue superpower threatening to extinguish all life on earth." There's no such crystal ball for us to examine.

[fishwax]

73. Also, the logic of your WWI to WWII argument does not compute

You said (A) U.S. involvement in WWI was a mistake, and (B) without WWI, WWII might not have happened," therefore, you imply, (C) the "Axis powers (taking over the world) and all that crap" is no concern, even without the United States.

But even if I grant A and B, your conclusion does not follow. WWI happened began, was fought, and was largely completed without the U.S. involvement. So even if we grant the U.S. involvement was a mistake, that doesn't make WWI disappear. The U.S. did not cause WWI. Which really makes the second premise, true though it may be, completely irrelevant. And if that premise is irrelevant, then the Nazis "and all that crap" remain a problem.

[Wright Patman]

166. Even as a child

I never understood the fascination with war. I am not accusing you of fascination with it. But I do not think it is a good thing that the Civil War, World War I and World War II occurred.

Empire is not a good thing. The British empire was not a good thing nor was the attempt at a German one nor was the American "empire by another name" (spreading finance capitalism under the code name of "democracy") which has been attempted over the last 60 years or any other move toward "one world."

I believe in the principle of secession of states and peoples who are not able peacefully to coexist. It is still true today that there are several different cultures attempting to coexist in the U.S. The split is still seen most clearly between the Deep South (and I include Texas as sort of an "outre" version of the Deep South--the Deep South on steroids) and the more "civilized" areas up north contiguous to Canada. We are seeing some severe fraying right now. It is called the "culture wars" and it is how the neanderthals who took over the GOP 25 years ago have ridden back into power (perhaps permanently).

Here's a bit of irony for you. President Clinton bombed what was left of Yugoslavia for 78 days in the spring of 1999. It appears to me as if he facilitated the ultimate secession of Kosovo. He also aided Bosnia in 1995. He also facilitated arms deals to keep Croatia independent after it broke away from Yugoslavia and allowed U.S. mercenaries from MPRI to train the Croatian army, which 'ethnically cleansed' Serbs from its territory long before anyone had heard of Kosovo. So, by that logic, maybe Clinton is for the principle of secession also. I know he would never say that, but his actions speak louder than words. Clinton is a throwback to the mid-19th century Democratic Party.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

89. Parties change over 200 or so years.

If i had lived in 1860, I would have hoped I would have voted Republican.

[tx_dem41]

93. Why...

you must be the oldest surviving freeper/disruptor then! ;)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

95. I keep myself young on the blood of virgins

:D

[fishwax]

128. Isn't it bizarre?

I know this forum constantly attacks the republican party, but it's surprising to see attacks on the republican party circa 1860. :wtf:

This "poor innocent south" bullshit gets pretty old.

[Yupster]

142. Historians call this the

"Great Man Theory of History."

It's the idea that history makes significant changes based on the will or importance of one man or group or event.

There's truth in every historical theory, but I think there's more truth in the Marxist Theory of history. that theory says there is a flow to history that can be slowed, stopped or even turned for periods of time, but over time history flows in a certain direction.

Just as an example, the Great Man Theory might say that the New World was discovered by Europeans because of Columbus's dream and efforts. The Marxist historian (probably go by a different name today - been 25 years since I've been in college) would say that it was ridiculous, and it was inevitable that Europeans would settle and conquer the New World and that if Columbus didn't start it, someone else would.

In the same way, The Great Man Theory would say that the slaves were freed because Lincoln was willing to fight a horrible war to do it. The Marxist historian would say ending slavery was part of the flow of history, it was happening all over the world, and would surely happen in the USA too. Then you could argue about the when, but it wouldn't be hundreds of years.

Remembering back to history.

Then there's the Theory of Trotsky's Ear.

[fishwax]

150. Well, the post that I was responding to

was arguing that, were it not for Lincoln, we'd have some utopia with four (or more) countries in North America and that the United States wouldn't be the rogue superpower that it was, etc. I don't buy the Great Man Theory, but that was the context of my response. I never said that Lincoln was responsible for ending slavery.

Sure you can argue about the when, and it might have been hundreds of years, perhaps not. Truth is, slavery is still alive and well in the world today, including the United States, just not with institutional favor. There's no way to know for sure, and aside from the parlor game potential of discussing history that could have been (a pursuit I thoroughly enjoy), it doesn't matter much anyway. The flow of history is, after all, occasionally quite bloody.

[Yupster]

153. I enjoy the what ifs of history too

Just my own guess, but I think a gradual manumission would have been set up fairly quickly that would have freed the slaves with compensation to the owners over a generation. I'd say maybe something close to the Jamaica model.

I have a friend who is an A-A elected local official. One day I was in his office (I'm now his stockbroker) and we got talking history, and I asked him a what if question. If you were advising President Lincoln before the Civil War and you knew the future, would you tell him to invade the south knowing it would kill 600,000 people but the slaves would be freed in four years, or would you advise him to let the south go, if you were assured an end of slavery would happen in 20-30 years. He leaned back in his chair and then started and stopped speaking about three times. Finally he smiled and said he wanted to ask his wife what she thought at dinner. He called me back the next day, laughed and said they had a good talk last night and their decision was there's a time to wait, but when you've waited long enough and then waited too long, there's a time for the waiting to stop. They said they'd advise Lincoln to invade.

It was interesting to me anyway.

[T Town Jake]

155. As a REAL historian and not a mere dilettante, Yupster..

...I'll be the first to tell you that the Marxian theory of history is sheer horseshit from stem to stern. The "Great Man" analysis is far closer to the mark when it comes to an coherent analysis of the past. Period.

[Yupster]

156. Ouch - sorry for being uppity

And I guess you're right - I've been out of the classroom for 15 years now, so at this point I guess I am a dilettante.

You're probably far more accomplished than I, but I have some works I am still proud of today. I guess my proudest is being author of the teacher's edition of a major publishing houses' Sixth Grade World History textbook. I hope I really made a difference in a lot of kids' lives with that work.

Anyway, since I'm out of the business, I'm sure your accomplishments would stand tall like Joseph's sheaves of grain while mine, like his brothers' would gather round and bow down before yours.

As far as Marxist history goes, it doesn't surprise me that it's out of favor today. I'm sure it doesn't surprise you that it was all the rage when I got my degrees 25 years ago.

[T Town Jake]

158. Sheesh...

...does everything in this internet world require /sarcasm tags these days anymore?

Tone of text, Yupster - clues abound.

[Yupster]

170. Sorry T Town

I didn't detect the sarcasm. Just thought you were being a snob.

Apologies.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

87. It's right in the Constitution that they did NOT have the right to secede

Right here:

Article one, section ten, clause one of the Constitution states "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation". Article one, section ten, clause three of the Constitution states something similar. "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress shall, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".

They signed it, they had an obligation to follow it. They chose not to. Lincoln did the right thing. Period.

[Yupster]

135. That doesn't make any sense

That's telling states what they can and can't do.

The states all left the union, they thought legally.

Once they left the union, they could do whatever they wanted to. The Constitution of the USA wouldn't bind former states to anything.

An organization can have whatever rules it wants for its members, but once the members leave the organization, it's rules wouldn't mean crap anymore.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

147. They formed a confederacy

They formed it before they left the union verbally and did it on paper after they left the union.

Telling states what they can and can't do? Damn right. Those states signed the constitution, they were bound to it.

[Yupster]

151. Now I'm afraid I've lost your reasoning

Are you saying the former states still have to follow the US Constitution?

I'd just plain disagree with that on the theory that once you leave any group, you are no longer bound by its rules.

Or are you saying that the former states would not be bound by the US Constitution, but since they joined the Confederacy before they fomally left the Union, they'd still be bound?

If this is the argument, I'd say your dates are just wrong. South Carolina seceeded in December 1860 by unanimous vote of the legislature. The other six states seceeded in January 1861. They sent delergates to Montgomery to try to form a new government in mid-late February, and the Confederate Constitution was passed on March 15 (13?). I don't know how you can accuse them of forming a new giovernment while still within the union. The dates just don't match up.

As one example, when Virginia left the Union, General Lee was named commander of the troops in the state. However, he was named commander not of the Confederate troops, but of the Virginia state troops, and he was named commander not by the Confederate government in Montgomery, but by the state legislature of Virginia. Once Virginia joined the Confederacy he became a Confederate officer rather than a Virginia state officer and the troops were transferred to Virginia state service. (on edit, I mean Confederate national service).

[SemiCharmedQuark]

159. OK. If I say "I am no longer a citizen of america, I am free"

does that mean I have the right to do anything I want, break all the US laws I want because they no longer apply to me?

[Yupster]

172. Well yeah, if you renounce your

citizenship and are not in America, then you can break any US laws you want unless Bush declares you a terrorist and sends you to Guantanamo.

I think the better example though would be if the people of Puerto Rico voted for their independance. Would they be entitled to it, or would the US government have the right to invade them, burn their factories, tear up their railroads, kill off their livestock, impoverish them and force them back into the US fold.

The southern states thought they had an even better case because they left the union the same way they joined it, by votes of ther state legislatures. They didn't think that entitled their former government to destroy their new country.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

176. Yes, the poor poor southern states...

:eyes:

But they WERE in the United States. They were part of the United States.

Also, Puerto Rico is a territory, not a state. They did not agree to abide by the U.S. constitution, which the southern states all did.

[Blue Wally]

186. Unless you assume that they had the right to withdrawal

In which case that article would not apply to them.

Jefferson Davis really wanted to be tried for treason so that he could make the court trial a legal test of the right of secession. The north kept him locked up for a while then quietly released him, denying him his day in court.

[alarimer]

64. yes and what about their own war crimes???

Certain segments of the population have been holding on way too long to this.

[eleny]

8. By their logic

Can we deduce that they support reparations for slavery in the United States? Considering that what the South had was built on the backs of slaves.

[shreck]

22. Not just the south

those boats bringing slaves over here were yankee, the insurance and financial backing bringing slaves in was yankee. There's a whole boatload of blame to go around.

[ultraist]

46. exactly, revisionist history to serve a purpose

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

Early 19th century New Englanders had real motives for forgetting their slave history, or, if they recalled it at all, for characterizing it as a brief period of mild servitude. This was partly a Puritan effort to absolve New England's ancestors of their guilt. The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America.

African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.<1>

African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery.

Recent archaeological discoveries of slave quarters or cemeteries in Philadelphia and New York City sometimes are written up in newspaper headlines as though they were exhibits of evidence in a case not yet settled (cf. “African Burial Ground Proves Northern Slavery,” The City Sun, Feb. 24, 1993).

[fishwax]

141. Are you sure about Benjamin Franklin?

He was committed to the anti-slavery cause in the 1730s (before it was much of a cause, really), and was the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery in 1787. He was quite staunchly abolitionist for most of his life, and I haven't ever heard that he bought, sold, or owned slaves.

[Yupster]

75. When Jeff Davis took the oath of office

to become President of the CSA, there were seven slave states in the Confederacy and eight slave states in the USA.

[forgethell]

65. I think this was

inreaction to the slavery reparations issue, and is meant as a mockery of it. Just my opinion, but that's how I read it.

The whole reparations thing is ridiculous. Why should people who were not alive at the time of these events pay one red cent to other people who were not alive at the time?

[tx_dem41]

66. What if people are still benefitting to this day from slavery....

and the resultant Jim Crow era that only arguably ended 30 yrs ago?

[forgethell]

86. How would that be?

Slavery is over, except maybe among illegal immigrant workers in California and elsewhere.

But where slavery isn't over is in Africa. Perhaps the best way to pay reparations would be to do something about that, hey?

[tx_dem41]

92. I'm neither advocating for or against reparations....

but I am amazed that people are not aware that many of our "great" corporations that millions are shareholders of or employees of were built on the back of slavery. Also, most of our biggest insurance companies and banks were built on the slave trade. Its easy to google this and find reams of articles on it.

[forgethell]

101. But it's irrelevant

to today. Nobody alive was either a slave or a slave-owner. At some point wrongs become unrightable. Are we going to give America back to the Native Americans? Unlikely. Will Italy pay reparations to France and England for conquering them? Nope. Will the Turks and Arabs pay reparations to Greece and the Orthodox cchurch for their theft of their lands and the destruction of their historic churches? I won't hold my breath.

It simply does not matter what was done in the 19th cenntury as far as obtaining justice today. It is basically an extortion racket.

[tx_dem41]

104. Sigh, you didn't even read my post, did you?

If you aren't going to address that, I guess we have ended this discussion.

[forgethell]

131. Yes I read it.

I replied: It's irrelevant. As that has no meaning for you, let me simplify it: I don't care. It all happened too long ago.

[tx_dem41]

165. And thus,

the death of the Democratic Party in a microcosm.

Enjoy your private Social Security accounts.

[ultraist]

70. No, it wasn't in reaction to reperations

It is an undoing of revisionist history that made the North out to be pure.

I totally disagree that Blacks aren't still suffering from slavery and the implications thereof.

[forgethell]

88. I guess we're going to have to

disagree. I have no responsibility for slavery, and will not be held responsible through my taxes.

[tx_dem41]

96. Hey....

not everyone is a fan of personal responsibility around here. I guess that's ok. :eyes:

Better check the history of the companies that you (or your mutual fund) are invested in. Or the company you are employeed with. Or the companies you are consumers of. You might just be surprised.

[forgethell]

98. I'm still not

responsible for slavery. Never owned a single one. I buy what I need, and cannot worry about what happened 150 years or so ago. I work where I have to, and ditto.

[tx_dem41]

105. We all set our priorities in our lives.

Those things that are important to us. I guess ours differ.

[forgethell]

138. Yes, I guess they do. n/t

[AnnInLa]

9. Oh hell, ALL of us are entitled to reparations

because of something the gov't did at one time or another to one or more of our ancestral groups. I agree with the posters who said this is a fringe group or a group who is mocking the "Reparations for the Descendents of Slaves" effort.

[reichstag911]

43. We are?!? Where's mine?

:silly:

[ProgressiveConn]

11. Reparations?

They are lucky every slave owner wasn't executed for crimes against humanity.

[Yupster]

76. The deal Lincoln offered

at the Jampton Roads conference in Feb 1865 to Confederate VP Alexander Stephens was that if the CSA laid down its weaons by the end of March, then he would try to get reparations paid. --- to the owners of the slaves.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

91. Yes, in exchange for them letting their slaves go!

Hence ending slavery. But no, they decided they wanted to go ahead and fight to the death for "secession" or rather the right to own other people. One of the key parts of the offer was "acceptance of emancipation" but the Confederacy couldn't have that so the damn conference only lasted 4 hours.


Why did you leave that out?


Also, it's the Hampton Roads conference, not the Jampton Roads conference.

[Yupster]

107. Yes of course

the deal Lincoln offered the slaveowners was reparations for the value of the slaves -- I thought that was pretty obvious that the freeing of the slaves would be the other part of that deal. Sorry if that wasn't more clear.

I guess it would be quite a deal if Lincoln offered the slaveowners reparations and they got to keep their slaves too. Especially with Sherman marching pretty much unopposed through South Carolina and Lee pinned down in Richmond and Petersburg.

Also, sorry about the J and H keys. I hit them wrong a lot. I noticed in a post above I have General AP Jill. I meant Hill of course.

[Stop_the_War]

12. OMG!

HEY RACIST FREAKS! I WANT REPARATIONS FOR THE MILLIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO WERE BRUTALLY ENSLAVED BY THE REGIME OF THE CONFEDERACY!

[Yupster]

157. That was only four years

You'd get a lot more if you went after the USA. It had the same slaves but for 89 years.

[Blue Wally]

188. How many millions??

4,442,000 blacks, both free and slave, living in the US in 1860.

[Ian David]

13. I wish you'd be more clear about your reason for posting this.

I'm not making accusations or anything.

I'm just saying it would be helpful if your subject line was more like, "Crazy fringe southerners want reparations."

When I post stuff from anti-gay groups, I usually preface it with something like, "Anti-gay fundies say..."

[ultraist]

21. Yes, the OP says, "Southerners" not a fringe racist group

Not very accurate and quite misleading, IMO.

[stevedeshazer]

69. No offense, but DID YOU READ THE LINK?

You didn't respond to me earlier. I responded to you directly.

If you're going to bash me for posting, you ought to at least give me the courtesy of a response.

Thanks in advance.

[stevedeshazer]

68. My reason for posting this is

to shed the disinfectant of warm light on a fringe group.

Did you read the link? That's the title. "REPARATIONS FOR SOUTHERNERS". Their words, not mine. I did take out the all caps.

I frankly wish I hadn't posted it at all, because I've been accused (not by you) of being anti-Southern (I'm not), and it's turned into a ridiculous flame war of North vs. South when the subject is reparations.

If I posted something from, say, Fred Phelps, I wouldn't think I'd need some sort of qualifier to indicate theat I don't agree with him. Most folks here understand that.

However, I'll strive to explain more going forward. Thanks for the feedback.

[ultraist]

79. Ok, great! A clearer title would be nice. :)

Thanks!

[parsifal_e]

14. they can have there Reparations .....

and use them to cover 0.01% of reparations due to descendents of their former slaves.

this is a twisted world indeed.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[ultraist]

25. The Emancipation Proclamation was enacted the THIRD YEAR of Civil War

The North ALSO participated in slavery, in fact the Emancipation Proclamation was not enacted until the THIRD YEAR OF THE CIVIL WAR.

And even at that time, it was a partial enactment of the abolition of slavery.

BTW, Indiana is no longer considered a Southern state. It's a Midwestern state.

But I do agree, that the group in the OP is nuts!

[Swamp Rat]

27. That pic bothers you, doesn't it?

It fucking should.

:nuke:

[ultraist]

31. Of course it does

There are RECENT lynchings and I don't like the fact that my African American son could be targetted by some violent fringe group.

But, the facts are the facts. And to incinuate the racism is only a Southern problem, mimimizes it. Do you see my point?

[tx_dem41]

34. I see your point.

Racism is rampant throughout this country and to attempt to assign it to one region or one group is an attempt to minimize and marginalize it. (NOTE: I am not addressing that to Swamprat's post...it was a powerful and sobering graphic).

[Swamp Rat]

41. thank you

It is very ugly and I hate it, just as I do the pic in the initial post.

[Swamp Rat]

38. I see your point, but it has nothing to do with me and my point.

[ultraist]

49. K! We're cool!

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

45. Just as an aside, why is there no "League of the North"?

Why don't we see "Daughters of the Yankees" for "preserving" Yankee heritage and values?

Even if the north participated in slavery as you say, I don't see a lot of groups with thinly-veiled codewords like preserving and honoring northern "culture". Just sayin'.

[tx_dem41]

47. There isn't a need for one....

There are many Northern members in the League of the South. So, it would kind of be redundant, in a sense.

[Bluebear]

50. Ah. I think I am in the league of the east

But my roots are in the midwest. No check that they are in Hungary. I'm so confused as to what league to join.

[Swamp Rat]

52. I thought you were in the "Bluebear League"

;) :hug:

[tx_dem41]

53. Well, they have a New York chapter...

and to cover your midwest roots, they have chapters in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Also a NW chapter in Washington/Oregon/Idaho/Montana.

http://www.dixienet.org/

They appear to be equal-opportunity racists. ;) And, they also, sadly, appear to have appeal to a great many non-Southerners as well as Southerners.

[reichstag911]

61. Perhaps the League of Silly Walks...

...would be just right for ya! (Apologies to Monty Python for almost certainly misquoting them.) :crazy:

[tx_dem41]

62. I think that was the Ministry of Silly Walks.

http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/silwalk.html

:silly:

[reichstag911]

63. I knew I had it wrong.

And I also know there's a penguin on my telly! :silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:

[Swamp Rat]

51. Really?!? That's hilarious AND sad AND scary, all at the same time!

Really wierd. :crazy:

[Blue Wally]

187. There was........

It was called the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) and was the organization for union veterans. They also had ladies auxilliaries. They were pretty staunchly pro-north and it was said that G.A.R. stood for "Generally All Republicans" as they considered Democrats to be the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". The fatal thing for the GAR was that they allowed no new members from succeeding wars. They, and only they, had made the noble act of patriotism. As a result, as the years wore on, they became fewer and fewer until they totally dissappeared.

In the south, the maimed southern soldiers and the widows and orphans of the dead could recieve no pensions from a no longer extant government. The various support organizations of "sons" and "daughters" sprang up to hold fund raisers and the like to create nursing homes and to provide at least a minimal level of relief.

[Swamp Rat]

48. I see you modified your post... makes your point clearer to me.

Thank you, from a "Southerner" who knows our history well.

[AnnInLa]

20. Now chillun, let's not get into

THAT argument...the one about the stupid, no-culture South vs the elitist, effeminate North. Me thinks threads like this one just serve to divide us from the one thing that unites us! Sometime, we need to voluntarily end threads that seem too potentially divisive, dontcha think?

Oh, it's the weekend? Sorry, thought I was still in the classroom.

[Fenris]

24. The myth of the "Lost Cause" is alive and well.

[ultraist]

28. Yes, but it's dangerous to confine this racism & homophobia to the South

We shouldn't deny that racist homophobic extremist groups are ALL OVER this nation and growing. The Midwest is a real HOT SPOT for White Anti-Gay Supremacists.

This is Culture of Hate and Violence is growing and it is not ONLY a Southern problem.

[Fenris]

32. True. The West has been a hotspot for years as well.

The people above are neo-confederates, so I brought up the "Lost Cause" to remind people that this shit has existed since the end of Reconstuction and continues to poison Southern minds today.

/Southerner

[ultraist]

35. SOME Southern minds

The South also has a HUGE transplant population and with it being the #1 area in the country for business growth, we are seeing more and more transplants.

EVERYONE on my street, with the exception of one neighbor, is from the North and they are ALL Repukes.

People really lack an understanding of the New South and we wont win, if they cling to these old stereotypes.

[tx_dem41]

36. My guess is that League of the South membership touches on all

50 states as well as several countries.

[Clark2008]

56. Really? I'm Southern - born and raised - and it hasn't poisoned

my Southern mind.

If it had, do you think I'd have nearly 3,000 posts on this board?

:shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

37. So true!

Check out the number of hate groups in Okla-HELL-ma alone! Of course we also have Elohim City. That is just a scary place!

[lynne]

54. Agreed - especially since the lynching pic says -

- INDIANA.

The south it ain't.

[Stop_the_War]

29. These people already control everything in this country..

what fucking more could they want?

[ultraist]

39. And these Hate Groups are growing all over the nation!

The internet is making it easier for them too.
The stats noted here are outdated, it's even WORSE now!

http://www.misu.nodak.edu/research/Extremist1.htm
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, hate sites on the Internet grew by nearly 60 percent, from 163 in 1997 to 254 at the end of 1998 (Preston, 1999). In addition, nearly half of the more than 500 racist groups operating across the United States are using Internet sites spread their message (Preston, 1999). Ferber (1998) also found that there at least 250 hate sites on the Internet. Thus, creating and maintaining websites has become a viable means for hate groups and militias to disseminate information about themselves and their causes. Websites maintained by various hate groups and militias may contain a variety of information, including but not limited to: the purpose of the organization, the organizational structure, federal laws supporting their position, equipment needed, membership recruitment, upcoming events, and links to other sites.

[southlandshari]

71. on the other hand...

...plenty of organizations at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum around the South.

Hell, here's just a few in much maligned Alabama. I'd be willing to guess any of these has more supporters in this state than the atrocious League of the South.

Not sure why this was posted. But for those who want (or need) a more realistic and balanced view of the diversity of views in the Deep South, Alabama specifically, here goes:

http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp

http://www.tolerance.org/index.jsp

http://www.alarise.org/

http://www.alavoices.org/

http://www.foundationbirmingham.org/cmp.htm

http://www.bcri.org/index.html

[ultraist]

83. Excellent resources! Southern poverty law center is top drawer

Famous Southerners

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Daisy Bates
Rosa Parks
Henry, Patrick
Jefferson, Thomas
Madison, James
Washington, George

to name a few...there are many, many more!

[stevedeshazer]

114. Of course there are

My post was about reparations, and the group advocating such a policy.

[depakid]

80. I'll tell you what- the northwest will pay reparations

If the south will help us sucede or negotiate an annexation treaty with Canada. I'm certain we can come up with a mutually advantageous formula whereby we in the NorthWest will save beaucoup bucks through a short series of payments and allow us to institute universal healthcare for all of our citizens.

You all take this stuff to seriously....

[tx_dem41]

103. I tend to take 250 years of enslavement conducted by ripping

a group of people apart from their homes and loved ones, shipping them chained in the holds of ships halfway around the worlds, and them having them sold like animals very seriously.

I tend to take the establishment of an economy (that to this day people profit off of) based on that free use of slavery seriously. I tend to take the disenfranchisement and terrorizing of a group of people by the government for another 100 years very seriously. But that's just me, I guess.

If you wish to think of it as trivia, feel free. :eyes:

[depakid]

109. It's a crackpot website, for crissakes!

look at their "webring."

You give them more credit than they are due....

[tx_dem41]

115. I misread your post and what you were referring to.

Sorry for the rant I aimed at your direction. It wasn't called for.

[depakid]

117. That's cool

Coming from a southern family- several whom continue to insist that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, I understand the annoyance. ;-)

[southlandshari]

111. Is your grass REALLY greener?

If the Northwest U.S. is an oasis of peace and justice, I must have missed the revolution. I don't deny the South still has more than its fair share of racists and haters - but we are not alone.

The facts speak for themselves. States like Montana, Oregan, Washington and Idaho have long been a breeding ground for white supremecist groups, militias and other hate organizations. If you need links and stats, please respond. I'll do the research for you if you don't have the time - I sure hope you have the interest, though, in the truth.

I am NOT labeling all those in these and other NW states as bigots. Just pointing out the obvious - no state or region can be painted with such a naive and broad brush when it comes to ideology.

[stevedeshazer]

119. Respectfully,

I was not singling out the South. It so happens that this story originates there. It's about asking for reparations.

Every region of the country is afflicted with hate mongers.

You're saying the same thing here about the Northwest as I said about the South.

I don't understand the thin skin here from Southerners. I am just as critical of idiocy no matter where it comes from.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[southlandshari]

145. Hey!!! The same page

is where I think you and I will find ourselves here if we listen to each other. Please understand - my post on the northwest U.S. was in direct response to another post on how great it would be if the South helped the Northwest achieve annexation into Canada and thus save big bucks currently going out of that region and into subsidizing the economy in the southern states.

I understand (and posted this earlier) that your original post wasn't necessarily aimed at denigrating all Southerners. Your original post was in no way offensive to me as a Southerner. Some of the replies, however, have been thoughtless and simplistic by comparison.

You are right that my post said the same thing about the Northwest that has been said about the South. So no need for anyone to be defensive, right? Apologies on my end if I seem thin-skinned. I'm the first to admit the flaws of Southern history and our current state of affairs. But I won't smile and nod along with those who call all Southerners a bunch of ignorant sh#$kickers. I didn't count you in that number.

Peace?

[stevedeshazer]

154. Peace.

We are in agreement. :hi:

[BansheeDem]

164. You "were" singling out the south ...

I was not singling out the South. It so happens that this story originates there. It's about asking for reparations.

Prior quote from a reply by you ...

Besides which, the legacy of the South is not a proud one to any but the most parochial or deluded. When the majority of the South adheres to genuine humanistic values, rather than the economic or superstitious dogma to which they now adhere, then the South will have something of which it can be proud.

So, if you were not singling out the south, then why write the above reply? Feel free to explain the remark - or disavow it; either will be acceptable.

[depakid]

121. I was thinking more in terms of $$S and resources

than bigotry- although Western Oregon and Western Washington can't even be compared to the eastern sections of the states or to Idaho and Montana.

The bottom line is that the Northwest subsizies most of the Southern States, and it would be a good deal for us economically to pay some amount to be rid of that burden. It'd be a good deal for California, too- btw (though we don't want them coming with us to Cascadia or Baja Canada!

We'd rather sell them our water & power at inflated rates!

[southlandshari]

146. Thanks!

Once you make that distinction, I agree with you completely! The economic disparity when it comes to distribution of federal tax dollars is undeniable. And the most horrible thing is that states like mine - Alabama - continue to decrease the state $$ we raise for critically needed programs and services. Which eventually means we lose federal funding for legitimate things, yet the pork keeps flowing (ie Alabama getting a huge chunk of homeland security funding that could obviously be better allocated to more logical targets).

I just don't like the idea that all our friends and neighbors in other states would rather get rid of us than help turn things around. There are thousands of good Southerners ready to do the heavy lifting of getting our states on the right track - but that weight is a hell of a lot tougher to bear in the face of outside scorn and derision.

[Padraig18]

84. Two words: FUCK THAT!

:wtf:

[Zynx]

99. They had reconstruction and guess what: They deserved to suffer.

Rebellion must be swiftly crushed and not be treated kindly. Sure, the North had an obligation to reconstruct the South and we were kind enough to do so and get them back on their feet with full Congressional representation and electoral college representation. This group is just a bunch of white trash.

[ScaRBama]

108. All of this is just crap......

Who cares it will never get anywhere so why waste time worrying about it.

[ultraist]

113. It looks to be a White Supremacist Group

This shield from that whacked out group in the OP, resembles other white supremacist group symbols listed here at the Anti Defamation League : http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default_graphics.asp
Notice the rebel flag and the Latin words. superare=be above, have the upper hand, to overcome; veritate=truth

There is some anti Semitic code in that if you look for Bible verses with those words.




Some here are taking it to be representative of the entire South, which is extremely derogatory to those of us who live in the South and a misconception.

[stevedeshazer]

126. Instead of shooting the messenger for the umpteenth time in this thread,

How about criticizing the message? I didn't make it up.

[LiviaOlivia]

112. Dean visits Mississippi Tuesday

Interesting timing of this post. Just saying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3182019

[stevedeshazer]

123. What are you "just saying", pray tell?

Please explain.

[youngdem]

124. Just Saying?what?

BTW, I will be there tuesday.

[iwantmycountryback]

118. We let them be states again

That's plenty enough reparations. How about reparations for the millions of slaves they held before the war?

[ultraist]

134. This group is a KKK GROUP! This is not about "THE SOUTH"

[VOX]

122. Hey! No class-action lawsuits and no government handouts!

That's what the right wing says, day after day. And I know that the Deep South Red States wouldn't want it any other way! :evilgrin:

[RoyGBiv]

125. I'm not reading this thread ...

I know from the subjects I'll just get irritated and say something I regret saying.

However, I will offer a comment about the League of the South that may or may not have been covered in the above mess.

As I suspect others have noted, this is a fringe group, or more correctly stated a fringe that is working diligently to worm its way into the mainstream. It's been around for quite awhile now. I first encountered some of its associates back in 1995. A friend of mine maintains a very popular website that began, in part, as a response to some of the LotS's rhetoric and selective archival of documents, some of which were false or edited for effect, with regard to the reasons the American Civil War was fought. I myself have been involved in lengthy debates with some of its members in various contexts and at one time a portion of one of my websites was dedicated specifically to countering some of the drivel being passed off as history at their original website. (The current version is quite different from what it once was ... more professional.) Suffice to say, I'm pretty familiar with what they're on about.

Do not be fooled by the colors or the symbols. This group is only Southern in name, and its relationship to Southern historical remembrance organizations is tenuous and, on its part, a marriage of convenience. IOW, they use the symbols and the mythology of the Confederacy to promote a current political agenda that has only tentative ties to the actual Confederacy. There are similarities, of course, but as I said, these are matters of convenience. This group is not about "the South." It is about itself and promoting its own agenda.

That agenda is difficult to describe in full, because some of what they say they aren't quite as serious about as they pretend to be. The modern call for secession is one of these things. While I'm sure certain members and possibly even certain leaders actually do wish for this sort of possibility, few have any illusions about it taking place like it did in 1860. They talk that talk, but their walk is down a different path.

And that path leads to their real agenda, which is promoting a society based on what they define as racial purity, religious homogeneity, and rampant nationalism with government and private resources directed toward those individuals, groups, and corporations that promote these values. Thank 1930's Germany if you need a more direct clue where I'm going. They talk about wanting to secede. What they want is to worm their way into the mainstream channels of power and modify our laws and institutions so as to make their agenda easier to establish within the US as it exists. And they use the bait and switch technique to good effect. This reparations for Southerners thing is a sham, covering up a real goal they promote with their dollars that is just as odious but which will likely never be connected directly to them.

Long term, their idea of secession would be to redefine boundaries, creating a white, Christian (evangelical, fundamentalist protestantism) nation that ran everything, with "undesirables" sequestered in the desert somewhere. Think Warsaw ghettos on a grander scale.

They have friends in high places now.

[stevedeshazer]

127. Thank you, RoyGBiv

If you had read this entire thread, you'd see me being trashed for having posted it in the first place.

In posting this, I was attempting to shed some light on these guys. I know they are bigots, and their connection to the South is tenuous. It's so obvious.

You're so far the only one who seems to get it.

[RoyGBiv]

129. Not a problem ...

I actually saw the first few posts, which is why I decided not to read the rest of it. I thought I understood what you were getting at. Where it went from there is something of which I will remain blissfully ignorant. :-)

I've been sorta watching the LotS from a bit closer vantage point lately. The rise of Dubya has happened along with a much more focused LotS. It was a bunch of random idiots. The idiots in charge now are not so random. They are also quite good at what they do. If you run in certain circles, you can see their influence in places I never would have though they had a chance of infiltrating.

And when they do this, they get supporters, and money, which goes straight to some of the worst of the rightwing fanatics.

[ultraist]

133. Oh, really, read my first post on this where I said FRINGE group

And my other post with the symbol.

There are some who are talking about the South in general and YOUR OP says, "South"

THIS IS A FUCKING KKK SUBGROUP, JUST LIKE I STATED FROM THE GET GO!

Notice the time stamp on my first post on this thread:
"That group is obviously a bunch of freaks, perhaps even a subchapter of the KKK"

[proud_Kucitizen]

130. This is just too ridiculous.

Well if they want reparations and we give it to them shouldn't they be required to pay them to the slave descendants who were forced to work for years without wages.

I say we take up a counter petition to not allow them to sue for reparations. Surely we could get more signatures.

[ultraist]

140. This is not about the South, this is a KKK group

Don't let the title and the OP authors first post fool you.

[Swamp Rat]

144. WARNING! Repost of GRAPHIC pic.

This is what the confederate flag means to me:

[Bridget Burke]

167. Is Indiana a Southern State?

That's where the lynching occurred.

Someone who spends too much time at Klan sites found a prime example of idiocy to post over here. NOT representing the whole South.

Divide & conquer?

[Swamp Rat]

171. Your point is?

What Klan sites? Who spends time there? Who says this photo represents the whole South?

"Divide & conquer?" - Are you reading Niccolò Machiavelli's "Il Principe" or is this an accusation couched in a question that I am trying to hurt our DU community?

Bridget Burke, I posted this pic to a subtopic above, but it got deleted because it didn't have a warning. I was offered an opportunity to repost the pic if I added the warning, so I did. I posted it to the main topic because I wanted someone in particular to see it.

[tx_dem41]

173. I agree that it is a graphic that everyone should have to see.

Again, I'm glad you posted it. I'm just sorry that it has to be posted.

[Swamp Rat]

177. Yes it is VERY ugly and I hate that photo, among the many others I've seen

I'm a "Southerner" who chooses to look at this ugliness and embrace it, to own it, because it DID happen and it is part of our history (the posting of this pic does NOT preclude a discussion about slavery and abuses of the Northern states - hence the combo of a confederate flag and an event that took place above the "Mason-Dixon line"). The German people experienced a profound catharsis by doing this - I have German ancestry and still have family and friends there. Perhaps I am projecting what I learned from them? Perhaps, the truism 'those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it' is part of my modus operandi too.

This country desperately needs cathartic events/experiences to break us from a cycle of abuse.

tx_dem41, I'm sure you don't need to see these things to activate a latent 'empathy gene', but many Americans do. Plus, you and I and others MUST continue an open dialog if we are to conquer the demons of the past, present, and future.

:think:

On the other hand, I am an artist and do not have to explain myself. :) Here's another pic concerning Indiana that I finished last night. :D

[tx_dem41]

179. Am I correct in assuming that's

Gov. Mitch "Taxslasher" Daniels?

[Swamp Rat]

180. Very good catch!

I was "commissioned" by an Indianan to do it... of course, my art is free - no money is earned. :cry:

[redherring]

168. That's obviously a site similar to stormfront and vdare

Somewhere in the site, they talk about White superiority in terms of intelligence. They say that, while they won't go around measuring someone's head-size, they do hold that Whites are more intelligent. Or something like that. I'm just parapharasing
So obviously that's a racist site.

[IndianaGreen]

174. There is nothing holding this country together anymore

and I think that people on both sides of the ideological divide could agree to end this charade and go our separate ways. Let the Republic of Jesus go one way, and the rest join Canada or go somewhere else.

I am all for secession!

You do realize that all soldiers from blue states that secede will have to be sent home at once! No more wars for them.

[tx_dem41]

175. Nice thoughts...

if you are a blue-stater. Or do you just not care about us red-staters anymore? :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

183. Indiana is a red state

and we have a Nazi as our new governor.

[Swamp Rat]

178. Hey IndianaGreen!

Check out post # 177... :D HAHA! :D

[IndianaGreen]

181. Wow! That's my man Bitch Daniels!

What a dork!

Nice artwork, Swamp Rat.

[Yupster]

190. In 1860, the legality

of secession was unknown.

That's not true anymore today.

Secession is illegal, and would be followed by things like General Delay's March to make California Howl, and the burning of the Hudson Valley so thoroughly that a crow would have to pack a lunch to cross it.

It's been done. Better not to try it again.