(04-17-2009 08:44 AM)Derby Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 01:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  USF is already a nationally known brand name. A name change now would only confuse the issue...

The University of San Francisco?

The University of San Francisco hasn't been relevant since Bill Russell played there, and they've never been known for football...

South Florida has been - recently too...

Wow! This thread has gone from University names to expansion to civil war. How about this question. If Texas secedes from the union how does that effect college football?

Quote:(2) Any supposed "immoral" actions by the North are completely outweighed by the immoral and, frankly, crimes against humanity that were the crux of the Southern argument for state sovereignty: owning and enslaving people. We can argue all day about whether the South had the technical legal right to secede, but there is absolutely no moral ground whatsoever for protecting slavery. The fact that they also had the technical legal right at that time to only count African-Americans as 3/5 of person doesn't make it morally right. The fact that every oppressive regime in history (i.e. Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, etc.) changed laws to make their actions technically legal didn't make any of their actions morally right. I'm a lawyer, and I'll be the first to tell you that the fact that just because a law is in place doesn't mean that it is de facto morally right - the number of ridiculous laws that have had to be struck down in this country due to overbearing and morally corrupt politicians is frightening.

ARE WE REALLY ARGUING WHETHER THE CONFEDERACY'S INTERPRETATION OF STATES' RIGHTS IN 1861 OUTWEIGHED THE FACT THAT THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THOSE STATES CARED ABOUT STATES' RIGHTS WAS TO KEEP SLAVERY??? It was wrong on every single level and America is a whole lot better off as a result of the North winning the Civil War because slavery was eradicated (even if that were the ONLY reason alone). That isn't history book propaganda - this is about as clear of a fact as there is in American history.

--Historically, its not hard to poke holes in that arguemnt. The idea that Slavery is the end all cause of the civil war is convenient, but harder to justify when you consider there were slave STATES that stayed in the Union and non slave holders who fought with the Confederacy. Certainly, slavery had a part to play in starting the war, but there were also economic reasons. Certainly both parties had huge disagreements over the idea and size of foreign tariffs.

The idea and issue of States Rights was not purley a Southern Invention to protect slavery. The basis goes back to the Kentucky and Virginia resolution that was authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to protect the states from what they considered an overbearing federal government. The first region to consider secession in US History was New England during the war of 1812


In essence, this is the difference between liberals and conservatives today. Libs see the federal government has a means to solve societial problems. Consveratives see big government as something that can be used to limit freedom in a Big Brother /1984 type way. That's would made the Bush administration so frustrating and why the recent tea parties was refreshing to many Conservatives

Jackson

The folks from the north hold the issue of slavery of the head of the south like a club. The emancipation of slaves was actually a minor issue at the time. It wasn't so popular with many Yankees either. Most of the nation was fairly divided on the issue, except in the south, which needed the large labor force to make the land profitable...

The Civil War was mainly about how much power the national government had over state rights. The emancipation groups used the issue for their war propaganda, and this raised Abraham Lincoln to such highly remember status, when his administration performed poorly in almost every other aspect of government. Their propaganda has clouded the nation's memory of the main issues central to the War between the States...

Now that we've discussed this ad infinitum, let's move on...

(04-18-2009 02:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The folks from the north hold the issue of slavery of the head of the south like a club. The emancipation of slaves was actually a minor issue at the time. It wasn't so popular with many Yankees either. Most of the nation was fairly divided on the issue, except in the south, which needed the large labor force to make the land profitable...

I understand your point, but I don't think that all of the Southern States can be painted with the same brush strokes. The Southern states with the largest plantations (the deep south) were not divided on the issue of slavery; but the mid south states, like North Carolina and Tennessee, were not as firm on the issue as the States in the deep south. A lot of reasons may have existed for the difference, but the main one seems to be that North Carolina and Tennessee had many smaller family farms that were being hurt badly by the larger plantations in the deep south. And even within states there were some divisions, because from the stuff that I have read, it appears that Eastern North Carolina and Western Tennessee were far more pro-slave (probably due to the plantations in those areas); then Middle and Western North Carolina and Middle and Eastern Tennessee. All of this probably explains why Tennessee and North Carolina were the last of the Southern States to enter the war and the first of the Southern States to return to the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The founding fathers helped to setup the south's economy. Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all owned slaves and had plantations. If you want to hold the sledgehammer of slavery over people's heads, you should take it to where it deserves - in the founding of the nation...

The Articles of Confederation, which would have freed the slaves, given Indians the rights of citizens, and allowed everyone - including women - the right to vote, was not signed by the founding fathers because it gave people too much freedom, and not enough power to the government.

This document was central to the alliance between the Iriquois Confederation and the Colonists. After the Articles of Confederation was rejected, Benedict Arnold turned to support the British, and 6 of the 7 nations of the Iriquois followed Arnold. Of the 7 nations of the Iriquois, only the Oneida remained loyal to the Colonists. For their loyalty, they were nearly wiped out by the Colonists to punish them for the 6 tribes that followed the British...

The Constitution came along later, and it was written so that rich white land-holding men got their freedom, their vote, and their right to the persuit of happiness, while the rest of the population was kept in serfdom. It also had a stronger central government, a dispute which led to the events surrounding the Civil War. The Civil War was a symptom of a sickness that began in our nation's founding...

And throwing up Civil War citations from Wikipedia is irrelevant. Historians still debate much of what occurred during that time period, and no 2 will agree. A good bit of information was destroyed during Reconstruction, although why they called it Reconstruction is beyond me. Reconstruction destroyed what industry there was in the south, and nearly everything owned by southerners was stolen by carpetbaggers, or burned to the ground by Reconstructionists...

The Post Civil War period in the south was merely legalized theft by northerners. The freeing of slaves was an afterthought there too. The Reconstructionists were more concerned about how much money they could make by taking whatever they could steal...

(04-19-2009 08:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Post Civil War period in the south was merely legalized theft by northerners.

I classify the post-Civil War period in the South as a time of intentional subverting of the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution by the Southern States for the better part of 100 years. The Southern States were still doing their damndest to take away God-given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from certain "classes of citizens" until things were finally rectified in the 1960s.

The actions POST-Civil War over several generations take away any claims by Southerners of "moral superiority" over Northerners.

(04-19-2009 03:00 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(04-19-2009 08:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Post Civil War period in the south was merely legalized theft by northerners.

I classify the post-Civil War period in the South as a time of intentional subverting of the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution by the Southern States for the better part of 100 years. The Southern States were still doing their damndest to take away God-given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from certain "classes of citizens" until things were finally rectified in the 1960s.

The actions POST-Civil War over several generations take away any claims by Southerners of "moral superiority" over Northerners.

\

The truth is Northerns got to steal the Sothern capital legally, so they say! Remember Northerns made all their money on the slave triangle selling slaves in the West Indies and the South! In fact Brown College was built by slaves! Sorry fellows but Northerns were no more noble than Southerns! It was all about money!

(04-19-2009 03:00 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(04-19-2009 08:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Post Civil War period in the south was merely legalized theft by northerners.

I classify the post-Civil War period in the South as a time of intentional subverting of the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution by the Southern States for the better part of 100 years. The Southern States were still doing their damndest to take away God-given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from certain "classes of citizens" until things were finally rectified in the 1960s.

The actions POST-Civil War over several generations take away any claims by Southerners of "moral superiority" over Northerners.

That isn't quite the case. If you want some proof, here it is...

Here's an excerpt...

Quote:Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.
From Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America.
Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation, October 28, 1861

NOTE: Tahlequah is the man for whom the western Cherokee Nation's Capital City, Tahlequah, OK is named.

(04-18-2009 02:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The emancipation of slaves was actually a minor issue at the time. It wasn't so popular with many Yankees either.

Federal soldiers were generally recruited by appeals to "preserve the union" and "punish Southern traitors". Lincoln would have had very little success filling an army for the purpose of freeing slaves in the South.

(04-19-2009 08:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Post Civil War period in the south was merely legalized theft by northerners. The freeing of slaves was an afterthought there too. The Reconstructionists were more concerned about how much money they could make by taking whatever they could steal...

Reconstruction also caused serious damage to racial relations in the South.

True. The racism of the south was upfront and in your face. Northern racism was disguised in many forms...