Every day it gets tougher to be black

You sound like a racist...

 

Well duh...I am white and from the south.

 

BUT WAIT!
If you purchase this product today before 3 PM, they'll throw in, for free, a product that will enlarge your "manhood" two inches. The women will flock to your door. Guaranteed or your money back.

 

Yes, it is. I'll do some research on this but offhand, I believe in 1865 and throughout his presidency, President Andrew Jackson offered amnesty and pardons to confederate soldiers (although it could have been applied to officers only) for participation in the rebellion but as I remember it, they had to apply to receive it…what- did you seriously think that those who participated in the rebellion weren't considered traitors at that time??? You think that people 'up North' were peachy keen with the situation?

 

You won't need that, just the 'new' hair alone will have women dropping their drawers for ya.

 

charles,
Yes, I seriously haven't thought the Confederates were traitors. Rebels, yes. Traitors no. Maybe that is a distinction without a difference.

The Federals were worried they would no longer be able to dictate market price for the agricultural goods from the south. That is what upset them the most. Not the rebellion...

 

Well, I confess that I would need to delve deeper into the economic analysis but I believe you are referring to the 'tariff' controversy that pre-dated the Civil War. However, the primary reason for secession (and I think seven southern states did it before Lincoln was elected) was to maintain the institution of slavery, at the same time when abolitionists were picking up support in the North. Clearly, it was a conflict in the making for several 'reasons,' but just keep in mind that when you pick up the gun, the bodies will hit the floor, and then you better have it very very clearly in mind exactly what you did it for, and it better be good, real good. I just don't see the 'real good' part of it and i never did; I believe Lincoln would have worked something out with the South, to avoid war, but again, the issue of slavery would have forced his hand sooner or later, not of his own accord, but from the will of the people. Frankly, I am quite surprised that slavery lasted as long as it did in the U.S.

 

Tariff...funny word.
It was agrarian vs industrial. The North wanted to impose its will on the South. Slavery aside, the South stood no chance.
Read if you aren't feint of heart or too entrenched: "I'll Take My Stand-the South and The Agrarian Tradition," that is if you can find it.

Slavery was not sustainable in the South. Most people knew it. To distill the reason for the Civil War to that one issue is to misunderstand the politics and economics of that time. The industrial age was upon us and the North needed cheap raw materials and cheap labor to stuff into that furnace to keep it going. The South had an abundance of both, but only if those pesky agrarians could be dealt with.

 

Anyway I got off topic a bit. So let me quote my cat, he's black by the way: "It is hard being a black cat living in a white cat's world." He reminds me of this fact every day.
I am glad that he doesn't steal my Slim Jim's though.

 

You write as if it was an accompished, permanently etched-in-stone done deal that there was a 'South' and a 'North' before the Civil War; of course, there is a 'dividing line,' and that was the institution of slavery. You call it 'agragrian v. industrial.' I don't know, maybe it's just me, but what I see on the table since 1789 was the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution. I don't see any reference to 'North' and 'South,' do you? By the way, I happen to find many references, historically speaking, to agriculture in the 'North' long before the Civil War.

What 'will' was being imposed on the 'South' as you see it? Am I missing something or was there a U.S. House and Senate that voted back then, and congress included elected representatives from the 'South'. Perhaps you are referring to the courts?

 

at this point, there's simply no point in picking that fight, i agree. it's a hypothetical that really could only have come true 100 years ago.

 

uh, yeah. armed rebellion against one's own government or country is the very definition of treason. doesn't much matter what your motivation is.

the colonies were treasonous... but they won.

 

That's only qualified by which side you were on, the winning side or the losing side.

We call ISIS terrorists, I'm certain they don't call themselves that. Same difference.

 

Duty not 'right' the government has no rights.

 

I believe you have your Andrews mixed up.

 

That was quite eloquent, Sir Nigel.
But allow me to take this opportunity to point out another bit of irony. It's been said many times that the Dung Beetle has no basis for determining people's feelings and character, even after reading thousands of their posts. But some of the same people saying that believe they have the ability to assess his "white guilt" based on his written word on the same forum. Surely you can see how you can't have it both ways (not you in particular. I can't remember if you have or haven't said that one can't judge others based on what they write).

I've asked myself the same question occasionally. I tend to think of a traitor as someone who helps or joins the enemy. Not someone who just wants to leave. Not saying I'm right, it's just how I have always thought of it. A logical argument could easily change my mind.

 

So are the countries that want to leave the EU traitors?

 

You said it *is* a done deal, not it *will be*. Big difference there big boy.

I say it's only a "Done deal" after the State House and Senate vote on it.

 

is the EU a sovereign entity?

 

Racists, you fucking idiot. They wanna maintain their slave owner status against the rising tide of freedom and liberty, and gawdammit they'll shoot you dead for not embracing their freedom and liberty ways! :tut: