Snake6 wrote: .Ryan wrote: No, why would be get out on a day celebrating soldiers in an enemy nation's Army? We might as well have Rommel day..... Here, Lee and Jackson are not Enemy Generals here. They are Patriots.

So was Rommel...   I don't see Germany celebrating Rommel day either.

Snake6 wrote: Seriously though, Does Germany celebrate any holidays based on people?

I don't believe so - I think it's mostly Christian holidays.  Come to think of it, I am hard pressed to think of another country that celebrates "people holidays" like the US.

Apu wrote: Snake6 wrote: eliminator wrote: We have spirit week soon. We get to go to a movie and do cool stuff. We also have alot of days off! Fact: did you know that if you go to the bathroom for ten minutes every class every school day you will miss 25 school days. Isn't spirt week supposed to Homecoming Week? Football seasons over. .Ryan wrote: No, why would be get out on a day celebrating soldiers in an enemy nation's Army? We might as well have Rommel day..... Here, Lee and Jackson are not Enemy Generals here. They are Patriots. Yeah in the south its a whole different story, but the thing is, we can't have a holiday for half the country.

We already do, it's called MLK day. We do need to celebrate a Robert E. Lee day.

Snake6 wrote: .Ryan wrote: No, why would be get out on a day celebrating soldiers in an enemy nation's Army? We might as well have Rommel day..... Here, Lee and Jackson are not Enemy Generals here. They are Patriots.

Hey there smart guy, you don't live in the Confederate States of America. You live in the USA, the country that beat the CSA in the civil war, thereby ended the existence of the country. And, they aren't patriots. They fought to split the nation in which they lived, and freakin Lee was in the US Army and no doubt took an oath to that nation. That is inherently unpatriotic. The Civil War was the biggest cluster screw of reactionary idiocy in this country's history and the leaders of the nation that started the whole thing should not have thier own holiday. Idiot.

.Ryan wrote: Snake6 wrote: .Ryan wrote: No, why would be get out on a day celebrating soldiers in an enemy nation's Army? We might as well have Rommel day..... Here, Lee and Jackson are not Enemy Generals here. They are Patriots. Hey there smart guy, you don't live in the Confederate States of America. You live in the USA, the country that beat the CSA in the civil war, thereby ended the existence of the country. And, they aren't patriots. They fought to split the nation in which they lived, and freakin Lee was in the US Army and no doubt took an oath to that nation.(Alot of Officers in the American Revolution were former officers of the British Army. So when the US secedded from Britain, they join the American Army. I guess that doesn't make them Patriots)  That is inherently unpatriotic. The Civil War was the biggest cluster screw of reactionary idiocy in this country's history and the leaders of the nation that started the whole thing should not have thier own holiday.(Read your history my Firend. Go open up a text book before going on some wild-ass guesses. The Battle that opened the war was that of Ft. Sumter in South Carolina. After the CSA secedded from the US, South Carolina became the soverign territory of the CSA, the Old Abe decided he was not going to give the CSA what was rightfully thiers, so we took it by force.) Idiot. (So now you have to call people names because you dont have the facts to back up your statements. Classy)

The Declaration of Independence Specifcally states:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This is an Excerpt from the Dec. of Ind. This is the mandate on which the CSA seceeded from the Union. It is perfectly legal to seceed from a government which is imposing on your rights. The US was imposing on the Sates right to choose what is best for the people of that state.  Slavery never came into the eqaution until the Emacipation Proclaimation, Lincoln was pressured into annoucing the Emacipation by the Radical Republicans that controlled Congress. The fact of the matter is that States, prior to the War of Northern Agression had every right to seceed the Union at whatever time they felt that their rights were being imposed upon. Lincoln, refused these rights which the states were intitled to.

Snake6 wrote: This is an Excerpt from the Dec. of Ind. This is the mandate on which the CSA seceeded from the Union. It is perfectly legal to seceed from a government which is imposing on your rights. The US was imposing on the Sates right to choose what is best for the people of that state.

So what exactly was the US imposing upon the South?

The fact of the matter is that States, prior to the War of Northern Agression had every right to seceed the Union at whatever time they felt that their rights were being imposed upon. Lincoln, refused these rights which the states were intitled to.

Clark Kent wrote: Snake6 wrote: This is an Excerpt from the Dec. of Ind. This is the mandate on which the CSA seceeded from the Union. It is perfectly legal to seceed from a government which is imposing on your rights. The US was imposing on the Sates right to choose what is best for the people of that state.  So what exactly was the US imposing upon the South? The fact of the matter is that States, prior to the War of Northern Agression had every right to seceed the Union at whatever time they felt that their rights were being imposed upon. Lincoln, refused these rights which the states were intitled to. That's a little wishful thinking.  Is it your position that Alaska could, by vote of the Alaskan legislature, simply secede from the union?  All of the States ratified the Constitution, which provides for specific governmental principles.  You don't just get to leave for the heck of it. And, again, what were these rights that the States were entitled to that Lincoln denied them?

Why should'nt they be able to leave, the country is going to hell very quickly, and If they left the US they'd be much better off.

Hoytshooter wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Snake6 wrote: This is an Excerpt from the Dec. of Ind. This is the mandate on which the CSA seceeded from the Union. It is perfectly legal to seceed from a government which is imposing on your rights. The US was imposing on the Sates right to choose what is best for the people of that state.  So what exactly was the US imposing upon the South? The fact of the matter is that States, prior to the War of Northern Agression had every right to seceed the Union at whatever time they felt that their rights were being imposed upon. Lincoln, refused these rights which the states were intitled to. That's a little wishful thinking.  Is it your position that Alaska could, by vote of the Alaskan legislature, simply secede from the union?  All of the States ratified the Constitution, which provides for specific governmental principles.  You don't just get to leave for the heck of it. And, again, what were these rights that the States were entitled to that Lincoln denied them? Why should'nt they be able to leave, the country is going to hell very quickly, and If they left the US they'd be much better off.

Thats the best you could come up with?

.Ryan wrote: I'm always off on Fridays....

Ditto

.Ryan wrote: Uberhamster wrote: Apu wrote: Snake6 wrote: eliminator wrote: We have spirit week soon. We get to go to a movie and do cool stuff. We also have alot of days off! Fact: did you know that if you go to the bathroom for ten minutes every class every school day you will miss 25 school days. Isn't spirt week supposed to Homecoming Week? Football seasons over. .Ryan wrote: No, why would be get out on a day celebrating soldiers in an enemy nation's Army? We might as well have Rommel day..... Here, Lee and Jackson are not Enemy Generals here. They are Patriots. Yeah in the south its a whole different story, but the thing is, we can't have a holiday for half the country. We already do, it's called MLK day. We do need to celebrate a Robert E. Lee day. MLK Day isn't for half the country. It's for all of us to value the civil rights of American Citizens.....Well, maybe it is for half the country....

Yes, it is for half the country, becuase Europeans already had rights in America. We ( people of European descent) didn't need MLK for our civil rights, we already had them.

Uberhamster wrote: Yes, it is for half the country, becuase Europeans already had rights in America. We ( people of European descent) didn't need MLK for our civil rights, we already had them.

If you honestly believe that the civil rights movement did not benefit white Americans, I fear for you.  Seriously - tell me you are joking.  Please.

Snake6 wrote: Slavery never came into the eqaution until the Emacipation Proclaimation

Snake6 wrote: Clark wrote: So what exactly was the US imposing upon the South? The powers that be in the south at the time believed that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery immediately and completely.

In other words, the war wasn't about slavery, but it was about states' rights - in particular the state right to have slavery?

Lamest excuse ever.

EDIT - Dammit FB!

snake6 wrote: Clark wrote: Is it your position that Alaska could, by vote of the Alaskan legislature, simply secede from the union? (Yes, that is the way it should be. However it is not the way it is.)

Exactly - that's not the way it is.   It's wishful thinking.  It wouldn't be "legal" for Alaska to secede now, and it wasn't "legal" when the South tried to do it either.  Both clearly contradict the Constitution and the law of the land.

Snake6 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: I think you completely missed the point, Snake... No I didn't the war was not about the States Right to have slavery, as much as it was about the States right to Seceed.

So the South seceded because the US said they couldn't?  That's even dumber.

You yourself said, in direct response to a direct question, that the states' right in question was the right to have slavery. 

And how exactly did the US violate the rights of the South, Snake?  Oh yes - by threatening to outlaw slavery.  It all comes back to slavery.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors and denial.

And you just now claim that the South had the right to secede for any or no reason - but you said the opposite just a few posts ago, where you admitted that they did not have that right, you just thought they OUGHT to have had the right.  Claiming that the South had a right to secede is wishful thinking, disregard for the actual law, and more denial.

But on topic - clearly a Lee/Jackson day is a really bad idea, for about a zillion reasons.

Clark Kent wrote: Uberhamster wrote: Yes, it is for half the country, becuase Europeans already had rights in America. We ( people of European descent) didn't need MLK for our civil rights, we already had them. If you honestly believe that the civil rights movement did not benefit white Americans, I fear for you.  Seriously - tell me you are joking.  Please.

Tell me how it benefited White Americans.

Snake6 wrote: (The states had the right to seceed up until the War of Northeren Agression. In reality the threat of sucession was used quite often during congressional sessions, and taken very seriously. Look at the minutes from congress prior to 1861 on heated issues, you will see taht this threat was used alot. Since the War no state has threatened or even talked of succession.

I researched this matter a bit further, and it turns out I overstated my case.  Prior to the civil war there was in fact a bit of a constitutional discussion as to the nature of the constitution itself, with the "treaty" faction, believing that the states were the ultimate government entity, and they participated in the union at their discretion, and the "federal/unionist" faction (notably including Daniel Webster), believing that the ratification of the constitution was irrevocable.

I was aware that secession was threatened regularly, but was not aware that there was, at that time, a reasonable legal basis for that threat.  You were right, Snake, and I was wrong.

Now - secession is still brought up regularly, mostly by Alaskan officials, and Alaska has a large and powerful secessionist lobby.  There are also the loons in the Northwest that want to form http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/ - Cascadia , and various other groups in other states as well.  With the possible exception of Alaska, however, nobody takes them seriously anymore.

Not so elsewhere in the world, including China, Russia, and Canada, where the topic is very much alive.

In any event - I retract my statement that the CSA did not have any legal foundation for secession.  I don't necessarily agree that they had the right, and I certainly don't agree that this was at the forefront of the reasoning for the civil war, but I do agree that the CSA had a legitimate argument that they might have a legal right to secede.

Clark Kent wrote: Snake6 wrote: (The states had the right to seceed up until the War of Northeren Agression. In reality the threat of sucession was used quite often during congressional sessions, and taken very seriously. Look at the minutes from congress prior to 1861 on heated issues, you will see taht this threat was used alot. Since the War no state has threatened or even talked of succession. Now - secession is still brought up regularly, mostly by Alaskan officials, and Alaska has a large and powerful secessionist lobby.  There are also the loons in the Northwest that want to form http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/ - Cascadia , and various other groups in other states as well.  With the possible exception of Alaska, however, nobody takes them seriously anymore.

Hmm.. Ive never heard of the Alaskian thing before, if I had to guess it has something to do with Oil.

Uberhamster wrote: Tell me how [civil rights] benefited White Americans.

Well.  Let's start with the cynical.

Ever since Adam Smith started lecturing and writing, smart people have known that a free man (or woman) or more motivated toward self-improvement.  As he explains in detail in The Wealth of Nations, it benefits the entire nation that all members of that nation (or at least as many as possible) be motivated self-interested citizens free of the yoke of oppression.  This is a fundamental axiom of capitalism.

Translation:  The freer everybody is, the bigger the pie.  When a significant portion of your population is restricted or unmotivated, whether by law or custom, the GDP is reduced, to the great harm of everybody.  Slavery was an economic disaster for the South, one that we are only now beginning to recover from.  While the South with their slaves or Jim Crow quasi-slaves was keeping much of their population from being useful members of society, the North was taking advantage of their entire populace, which resulted in greater wealth for everybody.

It benefits men that women enter the workforce, because that creates more wealth for everybody.  It benefits white men that black men make equal wages, because they will now be motivated to better themselves, resulting in a better society for everybody.

Oppression is bad for business.  This is just basic economics.

And it also translates to social issues.  The single greatest predictor of crime, throughout the history of man, has been poverty.  If you fight poverty you are also fighting crime.  By keeping black people poor you are also creating a criminal class, to the detriment of all.

Oppression is bad for society.  This is just basic sociology.

Then there the not-so-cynical benefits to white folk:

Justice.  Jim Crow was wrong.  Jim Crow was evil.  Every single white man and woman that contributed to Jim Crow, every single white man and woman that even tolerated Jim Crow, were doing the work of evil.  It was morally wrong by any modern standard of morality, it was and is morally unacceptable for people to participate in this abomination.

The civil rights movement allowed white Americans to be free of the yoke of their own oppressive behavior.  White were trapped in an evil society, the same as the blacks.  The civil rights movement meant freedom for all.

This, of course, is the most important benefit - the simple result of truth and justice.

Back to more cynical benefits:  You can now marry a black woman if you choose and have a reasonable hope that your children will not be outcasts.  Everybody is more free to choose their friends, acquantances and mates than ever before.  This is a benefit for all, black and white.

And, of course, there is the international arena.  In the 60s there were only two Westernized countries that had Apartheid - the US and South Africa.  Not good company to be in.  We fought in WWII, in part to stop the "master race" fanatics - but we did so with our blacks carefully partitioned off in our military, and with our Japanese citizens carefully partitioned off behind barbed wire.  The rest of the world took very good notice of our hypocrisy. 

This contrast was particularly bleak against the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, where a black America (Jesse Owens) showed Hitler that blacks were just as good as whites.  Ironically, Jesse Owens was treated better in Hitler's Germany than he was at home in the United States.

What possible moral leg would we have had to stand on to invade Saddam if we were still legally oppressing our black citizens?  We would be the outcast of polite international society.  We would be subject to UN boycotts, and would not be invited to the Olympics.  Purely at a cynical level, it benefitted all Americans to be nice to black people, just so that the other kids would play with us.

But economics and international reputation aside, I hope you place the most weight on the most important point - it simply benefits everybody to do the right thing.  Jim Crow was evil, and the civil rights movement was arguably the most important change to happen to American society in the 20th century.

To say that it did not benefit white people is just tragically myopic.

Snake6 wrote: Hmm.. Ive never heard of the Alaskian thing before, if I had to guess it has something to do with Oil.

Yes and no.  Alaska is by far the richest state in the nation, per capita, and that makes it easier to discuss secession.  Most of the Southern states, for instance, are completely economically dependent on the rest of the country.  Secession would be an unmitigated disaster for Mississippe.  Alaska might be able to get by on their own due to their wealth.

But the secession movement has strength because of the population.  Most people that live in Alaska are fiercely independent, and don't necessarily view themselves as "Americans".  I know many Alaskans that moved there specifically to get away from the Federal government.

I believe the secessionist sentiment would exist in Alaska regardless, but the oil money makes it a rational position to take.

Sorry...   I get carried away on the soapbox...

Sneakys turn!! *I’m actually going to be serious this time* I’m a history nerd so I think i can contribute to this...

      The civil war was not started because of just Lincoln wanting to free the slaves; he didn’t really want to free the slaves at first his main goal was to keep the nation together and to stop the south from splitting away.

     There where however things that led to the civil war, like, the south had large plantations with many black people, thus few whites down south and since blacks couldn’t vote, the south didn’t have enough people to really make a huge difference in the house of representatives, and since there are also more states in the north they also dominated the senate so the south felt like they had absolutely no control of government.

    Then since the U.S. was the only civilized country in the world that still had slaves it was kind of embarrassing when foreign diplomats rode by where the slaves where sold, so the north wanted to outlaw the selling of slaves in Washington D.C. and this made the south mad because they felt that since they where a part of America they should get to have some of their culture in the capitol city.

    When slaves escaped to the north, northern anti slaver activists hid the slaves and gave them money and food to make it to Canada which of course angered the south.

    Also the story few people hear about, bleeding Kansas, it was a newly founded state and if the south controlled it they would then have more power in one of the branches of congress so they would have some power, of course the northerners didn’t want that so they also rushed to go settle the new state, and of course now you have 2 groups of extremist people willing to leave their homes for a cause now living beside each other where there is no law what so ever since its a new state, so of course people start killing each other and before you know it thousands of northerners and southerners are dieing trying to gain control of this new state.

    The last thing I’m going to talk about is John Brown, he was a 40ish year old man who was raised to deeply hate slavery which he did, his sons moved to kansas during the time of bleeding kansas and they started to fight for the north there, *keep in mind bleeding kansas was still long before the war had started* and his sons where started to hear about these new rifles recently developed... the sharps rifle, so they write a letter asking their dad john to send them some of these new rifles, well not only does he send some rifles, he sends an entire crate and tons of ammo, he also comes, he then starts to round up some friends and neighbors and they start to go on raiding missions of southern plantations the first one they walk in pull all the white southerners outside women and children included and shoot them at point blank one by one, then set the slaves free, he goes to the next one that same night and this time they kill all the white people with knives and other blades and they set the black free, anyways they keep doing this sort of thing gaining more and more men and support and the southerners are getting furious, john eventually tried to attack a military ammo and weapons dump and he is killed by the military after a long fight, and that is the last straw, the south is furious with all that has been going on and slowly one by one the southern states break away and the civil war starts.

    Not until well after the civil war starts does lincoln start to talk about freeing the black slaves, so the civil war wasn’t started about slavery it was about the south feeling like the fat kid in p.e. so they got pissed and killed people...

welp there we go... (and yes that is all true)

P.S. see now its all easy to read and stuff...

lol sorry...

EDIT: all better now...

Snake, your arguement would have a little more merit if there was a Malcome X Day and you were complaining about. Then you'd at least be comparing two sepratists.

I have a ton of respect for Robert E. Lee, however, he doesn't deserve his own day. People would rather not celebrate people who were famous for killing other Americans.

As for Ft. Sumpter, I think you'd have a problem if the Japanese, Germans, Philipinos, or Cubans fired on our military installations in their countries. Sumpter wasn't justified.

Snake6 wrote: rednekk98 wrote: As for Ft. Sumpter, I think you'd have a problem if the Japanese, Germans, Philipinos, or Cubans fired on our military installations in their countries. Sumpter wasn't justified. Actually it was. When South Carolina seceeded from the Union they told the Union Garrison at Ft. Sumter, along with all other Union Garrisons in SC to leave the soverign territory of South Carolina. Japan, Germany, Fance, England, South Korea, or wherever we have troops stationed can tell us "get the hell out" whenever they please, if they do tell us to get out, we are supposed to comply. That is the right of a soverign nation to decide what countries troops are stationed on its soil. The Same thing applies to Embassies. A country can PNG anyone they please from embassy staffs in thier country, for no reason at all. They could do this for the entire embassy if they wanted.

    *hypothetical example* If cuba heard we sent a couple Trident nuclear missles to our stations down there, they sure as hell better start fighten or theyre gunna die. *dont mean that as i support cuba, but if i where cubin that would just be common sence*

rednekk98 wrote: In that case, Gitmo in Cuba is the best example. We leased that area before Castro took over. We owned Ft. Sumpter before the CSA was formed, and still owned it when they fired on it. Cuba would not be justified with breaking the lease just as the CSA was unjustified in attacking a US military installation.

EDIT: sorry if thats kind of confusing

Would you rather us still be segragated in society?

Frozen Balls wrote: Did you read CK's post? The first half was about basic economics, principles older than this country. To be efficient, men must be free. With a portion of the population being inherantly unfree, thsi stymies the production potentials of our nation. Preoccupation with segregation drags everyone down. Free men produce the best results. Equal men produce the best results. A society of inequality will never reach its potential.

Again, you avoided my question. I'm not asking about the country, I'm talking about the White citizen. How did the civil rights movement help him?

Frozen Balls wrote: Everyone has more money under that idea. Also, perhaps, just perhaps, if your seemingly racist self can grasp this...the civil rights movement was about equality for minorities with white males. The benefits to society as a whole were what mattered. Did that ever enter into your brain? Did it? Or was your futureless self too busy beating up freshmen to learn anything.

You don't get it, I never said the civil rights movement was wrong, I never said I was racist. I'm trying to prove to you that the civil rights movement DID NOT BENEFIT WHITE PEOPLE. Therefore MLK day is for minorities only. It should not be a National Holiday.

Uberhamster wrote: Frozen Balls wrote: Everyone has more money under that idea. Also, perhaps, just perhaps, if your seemingly racist self can grasp this...the civil rights movement was about equality for minorities with white males. The benefits to society as a whole were what mattered. Did that ever enter into your brain? Did it? Or was your futureless self too busy beating up freshmen to learn anything. You don't get it, I never said the civil rights movement was wrong, I never said I was racist. I'm trying to prove to you that the civil rights movement DID NOT BENEFIT WHITE PEOPLE. Therefore MLK day is for minorities only. It should not be a National Holiday.

For the south, it made em get off theyre lazy asses and do some work too. It also caused the whites to have to sell some of their land cuz they couldnt handle all of it without slaves, thus making room for new people to move in, which is good for government and econamy, it also created jobs on plantations and farms which is also good for econamy

Uberhamster wrote: You don't get it, I never said the civil rights movement was wrong, I never said I was racist. I'm trying to prove to you that the civil rights movement DID NOT BENEFIT WHITE PEOPLE.

I'll summarize my post in short words for you:

Civil rights for black people = more money for whitey.

Civil rights for black people = whitey not being evil all the time.

Civil rights for black people = less crime in whitey's society.

How much plainer can it get?

_sneaky_, were're talking about the civil rights movement of the 1960's, you're off by about 100 years with the ending of slavery.

What DJrock means by go conservatives worries me. Last I knew conserative politics was about a minimalist government, which stays out of people's lives and doesn't oppress them. I would think by that logic ending legislation that persecuted people would be a victory for conservative politics, however it seems to me that "conservative" politics now seem to mean legislating morality(we know better, so we can tell you who to screw) in the same way liberalism means legislating away stupidity(we know better, so we decide how to spend your money). My political beleifs seem to be slanting ever farther towards libertarian.

__sneaky__ wrote: Uberhamster wrote: Frozen Balls wrote: Everyone has more money under that idea. Also, perhaps, just perhaps, if your seemingly racist self can grasp this...the civil rights movement was about equality for minorities with white males. The benefits to society as a whole were what mattered. Did that ever enter into your brain? Did it? Or was your futureless self too busy beating up freshmen to learn anything. You don't get it, I never said the civil rights movement was wrong, I never said I was racist. I'm trying to prove to you that the civil rights movement DID NOT BENEFIT WHITE PEOPLE. Therefore MLK day is for minorities only. It should not be a National Holiday.   it did benifit whites, it stoped slavery, so white people didnt go to prison for trying to free slaves, and it shut up the activists. For the south, it made em get off theyre lazy asses and do some work too. It also caused the whites to have to sell some of their land cuz they couldnt handle all of it without slaves, thus making room for new people to move in, which is good for government and econamy, it also created jobs on plantations and farms which is also good for econamy

What the hell are you talking about? This thread has nothing to do with abolishing slavery. When black people were freed, it wasn't called the civil rights movement. Read up on your history.

Clark Kent wrote: Uberhamster wrote: You don't get it, I never said the civil rights movement was wrong, I never said I was racist. I'm trying to prove to you that the civil rights movement DID NOT BENEFIT WHITE PEOPLE. I'll summarize my post in short words for you: Civil rights for black people = more money for whitey. Civil rights for black people = whitey not being evil all the time. Civil rights for black people = less crime in whitey's society. How much plainer can it get?

Yes it made White's richer because all the blacks worked for him. But they already did before the civil rights movement, so nope.

'Whitey not being evil all the time' doesn't help white people, it helps minorities, so nope.

I'm pretty sure MORE crime happened after the civil rights movement because blacks could pull the race card, so nope again.

Sorry, you lose.