221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm all for celebrating other countries' holidays on an unofficial basis (aka if its potato day that means its time for booze), but an offical holiday? Further, they were in rebellion. What part of TRAITORS do they not understand? I'm all for re-enactments, etc. etc. but this is just stupid.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090204/D964E6FO0.html
Bill would require paid Confederate holiday in SC
Email this Story
Feb 3, 7:32 PM (ET)
By JIM DAVENPORT
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
"Every municipality and every citizen of South Carolina, should be, well, forced to respect these two days and learn what they can about those two particular parts of our history," Ford said Tuesday.
In a state steeped in a segregationist past, "there's no love in this state between black and white basically," he said. That's not apparent at the Statehouse, where black and white legislators get along, "but if you go out there in real South Carolina, it's hatred and I think we can bring our people together."
Lonnie Randolph, president of the state conference of NAACP branches, objected to that reasoning.
"Here Senator Ford is talking about the importance of race relations by forcing recognition of people who did everything they could to destroy another race - particularly those that look like I do," Randolph said. "You can't make dishonor honorable. It's impossible."
Ron Dorgay, a Sons of Confederate Veterans member from Elgin, said race relations have moved far from hatred but he hopes Ford's bill brings more understanding of the state's past.
"Even in school systems, they don't teach the correct history," Dorgay said.
Local governments, meanwhile, are seeing green, not race, when it comes to adding holidays to their calendars.
Large and small counties would put up more cash to cover holidays they don't now recognize, largely for law enforcement and emergency worker overtime, municipal and county association lobbyists said.
Only 10 of the state's 46 counties recognize Confederate Memorial Day and only 27 observe the more benign Presidents' Day.
Greenville County, one of the state's wealthiest and most populous counties, doesn't offer the Confederate holiday. The Judiciary Committee said the county would spend $156,900 to add each holiday to its calendar. Much smaller Laurens County would spend $37,080.
Ford dismissed the costs.
"The good outweighs any kind of rationale you can come up with," he said before the subcommittee sent the bill forward to the full Senate Judiciary Committee for debate, which won't happen until at least next week.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, supports the bill - and holding back chunks of the more than $300 million the state sends local governments each year.
Counties and cities "should be respectful of that as political subdivisions of the state," said McConnell, a Civil War re-enactor who runs a Charleston Confederate wares gallery and on Tuesday fretted how new junk metal collection legislation might affect his cannon. "If they don't want to be a subdivision of the state, then don't take the money."
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
I want a Celebrate Me holiday!
M.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Losers don't get to celebrate losing.
No Confederate holiday.
You have July 4th.
5030
Post by: Grignard
First off, I really don't care what reason I have a day off. Any day I get paid for doing nothing at all is good, I don't care for what reason.
This man is just trying to stir the pot though. It seems like he has some sort of bone to pick or chip on his shoulder, and he is trying to make some sort of point by doing things to get people's ( and organizations ) attentions, like the NAACP.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Government employees get too many holidays, and I can't imagine adding a controversial one to the mix. He'd get less resistance if he pushed through a bill letting employees use a floating holiday, vacation, or leave without pay to honor the holiday.
And I think all businesses should give veterans the day off on Veterans Day. When I'm king (and everyone should hope that never happens), that's one of the first rules that I'd pass.
131
Post by: malfred
If Juneteenth isn't a holiday, why would this be?
2700
Post by: dietrich
I once tried claiming that I was a Wican and asked for Halloween off as a holiday, but offered that I would come work on Christmas day, when no one else was in the office, and 'work' that day instead. My boss didn't go for it.
And just to make it clear, I'm totally joking..........
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
I don't understand why the traitors still get to wave thier flag around let alone ask for a holiday. I can let slide re-creating battle were brother slew brother. But Isn't it time that the south, Along with the rest of America, Left the messy past behind. A few people still believe that the "South will rise again." For once I'm with Frazz 100%!
2700
Post by: dietrich
sexiest_hero wrote:For once I'm with Frazz 100%!
Is that the first or second sign of the Apocalyse? Yesterday, I had to agree with Shuma - that might have been the first.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
i do find it funny, and mildly ironic that the senator pushing for this bill is black... pushing for a bill to honor a segment of the country who turned traitor, in order to try and keep black people enslaved... irony doesnt begin to describe this to me.
of course, i only get federal holidays off, and unit 4 day weekends whenever the commander says we do, so it doesnt bother me to have time off... lawmakers on the other hand, i think do not work enough, they sit about yakking, and not conducting anything remotely productive to the governance of a state/country.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
I think It's the 3rd I saw a couple of birds flying backwards the other day......
5030
Post by: Grignard
sexiest_hero wrote:I don't understand why the traitors still get to wave thier flag around let alone ask for a holiday. I can let slide re-creating battle were brother slew brother. But Isn't it time that the south, Along with the rest of America, Left the messy past behind. A few people still believe that the "South will rise again." For once I'm with Frazz 100%!
You know, I can take exception to someone calling people who are in my family traitors. That is not the correct interpretation there. If that is the case, all americans traitors to the British crown. Civil war isn't treason, it is civil war.
There is a world of difference between someone walking down the street in a white hood and someone who has the stars and bars on their truck.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Respectfully,
They were traitors to the United States of America. Later they were pardoned. However, its an accurate statement. I'm ok with that and I had relatives from both sides in the conflict. I am proud of my Southern heritage but also ok to look at what happened dispassionately.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Frazzled wrote:Respectfully,
They were traitors to the United States of America. Later they were pardoned. However, its an accurate statement. I'm ok with that and I had relatives from both sides in the conflict. I am proud of my Southern heritage but also ok to look at what happened dispassionately.
And I also fairly point out to people that at least half of the people at the time living where I am from were Unionists. Thats not the point. I don't equate treason and rebellion, unless you're defining treason as to whether or not you win.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There shouldn't be a holiday just for confederates. It should remember all war dead equally.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Frazzled wrote:
I'm all for celebrating other countries' holidays on an unofficial basis (aka if its potato day that means its time for booze), but an offical holiday? Further, they were in rebellion. What part of TRAITORS do they not understand? I'm all for re-enactments, etc. etc. but this is just stupid.
Mississipi already lets state employees off for Confederate Memorial Day. I only know this because that happened to be the day that my wife went to get her new Driver's License
after we got married.
Grignard wrote:You know, I can take exception to someone calling people who are in my family traitors. That is not the correct interpretation there. If that is the case, all americans traitors to the British crown. Civil war isn't treason, it is civil war.
There is a world of difference between someone walking down the street in a white hood and someone who has the stars and bars on their truck.
The American Civil War was treason though. The issue was that(aside from Texas, Virgina, and New York) is it legal to secede from the Union. The Constitution says nothing about secession but does mention "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..."
The secession of the states neither alters nor abolishes the government, so the Union saw the secession as rebellion and not a separate sovereign nation(the fact that no foreign power would recognize the Confederate States was taken as evidence of this). As the arguably rightful government saw it as rebellion, it is in fact treason.
After the war, Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
And yes, we could be seen as traitors to the crown aside from the fact that we seceded from the Empire and were recognized as a sovereign power by foreign states.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Grignard wrote:You know, I can take exception to someone calling people who are in my family traitors. That is not the correct interpretation there. If that is the case, all americans traitors to the British crown. Civil war isn't treason, it is civil war.
There is a world of difference between someone walking down the street in a white hood and someone who has the stars and bars on their truck.
Frazzled wrote:Respectfully,
They were traitors to the United States of America. Later they were pardoned. However, its an accurate statement. I'm ok with that and I had relatives from both sides in the conflict. I am proud of my Southern heritage but also ok to look at what happened dispassionately.
And I also fairly point out to people that at least half of the people at the time living where I am from were Unionists. Thats not the point. I don't equate treason and rebellion, unless you're defining treason as to whether or not you win.
He said they were traiters to the united states, which they were. Just as my ancestors, the border reivers, were traitors to king james the 1st. The term traitor by itself is not a derogatory term. For example Oskar schindler was a traitor to the nazis, I doubt many view that as a derogatory remark.
So it's not unlikely people are going to wonder why you have taken offense to it.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Grignard wrote:
, all americans are traitors to the British crown.
*files away for when the day comes.....*
...carry on...nothing to see here...
So....you don't have a day in rememberence of the civil war already then ? I was about to type that seems odd but I guess we don't have days comemorating our civil war/similar either.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Frazzled wrote:
I'm all for celebrating other countries' holidays on an unofficial basis (aka if its potato day that means its time for booze), but an offical holiday? Further, they were in rebellion. What part of TRAITORS do they not understand? I'm all for re-enactments, etc. etc. but this is just stupid.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090204/D964E6FO0.html
"Here Senator Ford is talking about the importance of race relations by forcing recognition of people who did everything they could to destroy another race - particularly those that look like I do," Randolph said. "You can't make dishonor honorable. It's impossible."
LOL this me laugh. It's not like he was telling jews to clebrate Adolph Hitler. The Confederacy was formed due to issues about the rights of indivudual States versus the Union as a whole. Slavery wasn't a major concern to EITHER side until Licoln (more likely his advisors) hit upon the idea to get them to revolt, hence the emancipation proclamation.
Now we can all agree that slavery is a bad, bad, thing, but it WASN'T the cause of the civil war, and the Confederacy wasn't fighting against the freeing of all the slaves (who weren't all black, or even non-white. Indentured servitude may have been prettied up but it was still slavery), nor were they out to 'destroy another race'. They just wanted industrialization.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
dietrich wrote:I once tried claiming that I was a Wican and asked for Halloween off as a holiday, but offered that I would come work on Christmas day, when no one else was in the office, and 'work' that day instead. My boss didn't go for it.
And just to make it clear, I'm totally joking..........
Legally he has to give the day off. I use religion as a way to get my D&D day off every week. "Religious purposes"(hey I DO game religiously!). Not only do they HAVE to give you the day off, but they aren't even allowed to ASK about your religion if you don't mention what it is.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Legally he has to give the day off. I use religion as a way to get my D&D day off every week.
 ...really ? That's golden !
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
So, in Judaism, Friday is the Sabbath. One would assume that Jewish employees have Fridays off? Or do they not really bother?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Er, Saturday is the Sabbath MDG.
The argument that slavery is not issue is belied by the fact that the election of the first Republican (an anti slavery party at the time) immediately led to secession.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Sorry. My mistake.
Could have sworn it was the Friday. Perhaps thats Islam instead, or just the feotid imaginings of my mind.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
The court case mentioned above is from 1869, and the American Civil War ended in 1865. So clearly the rights of states were not so clearly defined in 1861. I think calling secessionists "traitors" is misusing the word, and giving very short shrift to the seismic issues facing 1860 America.
You will find no greater celebrant of Abraham Lincoln than I. He is the greatest single "thing" (person, place, invention) my country has ever produced, save our Constitution. But the men who opposed him did so on their own principle, and their own belief in what the law of the land dictated. They were wrong, and they paid the price for it. The country as a whole did. Read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address for a nice, tidy little rundown.
They should not get the holiday because, as I said, LOSERS.
And second, they have thye day. It is called Veteran's Day. They even have a back-up called Memorial Day.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Starts Friday night from memory...when the first stars appear in the sky "officially", until the same time Saturday.
5030
Post by: Grignard
whatwhat wrote:Grignard wrote:You know, I can take exception to someone calling people who are in my family traitors. That is not the correct interpretation there. If that is the case, all americans traitors to the British crown. Civil war isn't treason, it is civil war.
There is a world of difference between someone walking down the street in a white hood and someone who has the stars and bars on their truck.
Frazzled wrote:Respectfully,
They were traitors to the United States of America. Later they were pardoned. However, its an accurate statement. I'm ok with that and I had relatives from both sides in the conflict. I am proud of my Southern heritage but also ok to look at what happened dispassionately.
And I also fairly point out to people that at least half of the people at the time living where I am from were Unionists. Thats not the point. I don't equate treason and rebellion, unless you're defining treason as to whether or not you win.
He said they were traiters to the united states, which they were. Just as my ancestors, the border reivers, were traitors to king james the 1st. The term traitor by itself is not a derogatory term. For example Oskar schindler was a traitor to the nazis, I doubt many view that as a derogatory remark.
So it's not unlikely people are going to wonder why you have taken offense to it.
Looking at it that way, I suppose I can see that. The orignial argument though *is* stupid, I think the idea of allowing people to use a moving holiday is a better idea. Like I said, this is just someone who is stirring the pot. I don't know what this guy's alterior motive is, or even if it is a motive more than attention, but there is some reason for it. I presume it is to do just what he's done, to get the attention of someone like the NAACP and make a scene. Stirring the pot.
2700
Post by: dietrich
The guy's alterior motive is most likely to draw attention to himself so when he runs for a bigger office in a few years, people know the name. Well, that's my cynical answer.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sorry. My mistake.
Could have sworn it was the Friday. Perhaps thats Islam instead, or just the feotid imaginings of my mind.
yep, you're thinking Islam. Even if you never look at a calendar over here, you always know when its friday, because of the increased number in PA system uses, for the call to prayer and preaching over the "vox-horn"
besides, we all know from many different history lessons that Traitors and Heroes are determined largely by the winner, and therefore the history writers.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats true.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
How is this thread you have closed
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/229240.page
any off topic or useless compared to this one? Other then this is your thread [mod] right?
1309
Post by: Lordhat
reds8n wrote:Legally he has to give the day off. I use religion as a way to get my D&D day off every week.
...really ? That's golden !
Yeah but it only really works if you apply for the position that way, I.E. "what days can you work?" "everyday but saturday, I need the day for religious reasons."
Also be sure to add in days you want off every year, such as halloween, or GamesDay if you can be certain it's going to be held on the exact same date every year. It's much easier to claim religous purposes at the beginning of employment, than suddenly after several months (or years!). Even then if you tell your employer 'I've been converted, and I need new days off.", said employer has to give them to you, by US law. However if they're at all reluctant about it, or you had to hang them over the 'lawsuit barrel' to get it, be prepared to be terminated the first time you're late.
Also it could be MUCH easier if you work for a large corporation; Just go to the human resources dept. and talk to them about it. They're there for situations like "I don't want to talk to my supervisor because I have converted to an unorthodox religion and I'm afraid I may endure undue grief if I ask for this directly." That way your schedule change comes down from 'on high', no choice and no undue questions. The threat of losing your job for an arbitrary reason is still there, though; If your religion interferes with the job the campany wants to to do, they'll find a way to get rid of you and hire somebody else with less restrictive shedule needs.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Confederates don't get holidays.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Posters were flaming each other heavily. That is not occurring in this thread yet. Whats the problem Luna?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sorry. My mistake.
Could have sworn it was the Friday. Perhaps thats Islam instead, or just the feotid imaginings of my mind.
The sabbath starts on Friday afternoon -- I don't know the proper time.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Frazzled wrote:
Posters were flaming each other heavily. That is not occurring in this thread yet. Whats the problem Luna?
Dont see how the other thread needed to be closed, seems like valid discussion . But then im just a baka
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sorry. My mistake.
Could have sworn it was the Friday. Perhaps thats Islam instead, or just the feotid imaginings of my mind.
The sabbath starts on Friday afternoon -- I don't know the proper time.
Thanks KK. Thats a bear for conersatives Jews-my understanding they can't operate machinery at that time as it constitutes work. Time to go annoy a comrade with useless questions...
1309
Post by: Lordhat
What's a baka?
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Lordhat wrote:What's a baka?
baka = stupid , dumb , idiot , fool , silly
baka dayo! atashi
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kilkrazy wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sorry. My mistake.
Could have sworn it was the Friday. Perhaps thats Islam instead, or just the feotid imaginings of my mind.
The sabbath starts on Friday afternoon -- I don't know the proper time.
Sunset.
A new Jewish (and medieval pre-clock) Day starts from sunset to the following sunset. Symbolic as light follows darkness.
514
Post by: Orlanth
I think a Confederate holiday is more likely to help than to hinder. The Confederacy is old news and a part of US history. A little like the Wars of the Roses. actually honouring the memory of the Confederacy as history within the United States helps. I can imagine that many in the south find that there are minority holidays for example Martin Luther King day. But there is not one for the men of the South.
If the Confederacy was a more active political rather than historical force then it would be dangerous. It is not like the provisional Confedarate army is still or has recently been involved in terrorism. It is no more controversail than the Yorkists and Lancastrians, Royalists and Parlaimentarians are today here.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think a problem that threads through it though Orly is that the KKK and other racist elements effectively pre-empted the use of the Battleflag, making it synonymous with racism.
Don't get the Baka reference but I think something is being Lost in Translation, so ok.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
I can't see how you can justify a holiday which sends up a subject of war, unless it is remembering the loss of life like British armistice day, which this blatantly isn't having gone so far as to pick a side. It's not even celebrating southern identity as it's clearly labeled with a militant branding.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well this is the US. We celebrate foreign military victories as well (if by celebrate means we use it as an excuse to drink). Bastille Day, Cinqo de Mayo, etc. all are an excuse to party.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
funny you mention cinqo de mayo, as we're pretty much the ONLY country that celebrates that one.
whatwhat, if im not mistaken, armistice day is on Nov. 11th??
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Well I don't know if it's a british thing then but our outlook on war, particularly the first and second world war, is often as tragedy rather than celebration. Even D-Day celebrations, which we do have, have a very sombre feel to them. I'd say from my travels in europe that the continent is much the same also. probably something to do with it being on our own soil.
And yes Armistice day is on november the 11th where a minutes silence is upheld on the eleventh hour.
221
Post by: Frazzled
See if you understood the awesome power of tequila, chips and a good queso, you too would be all in favor of constant celebrations of Cinco de Mayo. Viva Mexico!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Yeah, i thought that Armistice Day lined up along with what we Yanks call Veterans Day. Of course, we have expanded that holiday from one of being purely WW1 memorial, to honoring living Vets of any war that was fought by the US.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Well yeh Armistice day over here has since and is more and more becoming a day to reflect on the loss of life in all war not just ww1. But in difference to your own it's more encompassing of the loss of life on both sides it seems.
221
Post by: Frazzled
We do not mourn the dead of our enemies here.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
He said they were traiters to the united states, which they were. Just as my ancestors, the border reivers, were traitors to king james the 1st. The term traitor by itself is not a derogatory term. For example Oskar schindler was a traitor to the nazis, I doubt many view that as a derogatory remark.
So it's not unlikely people are going to wonder why you have taken offense to it.
A traitor is someone who reneges on a self-proclaimed affiliation, and is an intrinsically derogatory remark.
Oscar Schindler was not a Nazi, and therefore was not a traitor.
The Confederates were traitors in a strictly legal sense as they openly renounced membership in the United States of America. However, one could also argue that the United States had betrayed the values on which it was founded; making the Union the traitorous party.
At the same time, the notion of a Confederate is nonsensical as there is no Confederation to be a member of. You can't have a holiday in honor of a group that doesn't exist.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
offs
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
The values didn't stand up to the wording of the constitution, the values were wrong, hence the amendments. I can imagine that many in the south find that there are minority holidays for example Martin Luther King day. But there is not one for the men of the South.
I don't understand this statement, MLK got a day because He was a historic American. Calling it a minority holiday holiday because he was may be a little unfair. MLK was a man born in the south, and washington was born in Virginia. Here's a list of federal holidays,
New Year’s Day
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Washington’s Birthday
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Columbus Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
Two people from the south, one from overseas, And non for the north or the west.
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
I always celebrate Elvis's birthday, even though I don't know when it is.
5030
Post by: Grignard
sexiest_hero wrote:The values didn't stand up to the wording of the constitution, the values were wrong, hence the amendments. I can imagine that many in the south find that there are minority holidays for example Martin Luther King day. But there is not one for the men of the South.
I don't understand this statement, MLK got a day because He was a historic American. Calling it a minority holiday holiday because he was may be a little unfair. MLK was a man born in the south, and washington was born in Virginia. Here's a list of federal holidays,
New Year’s Day
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Washington’s Birthday
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Columbus Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
Two people from the south, one from overseas, And non for the north or the west.
I've never understood the problem with MLK day, to me it is another day state employees like myself don't work. Fine with me. I know people who feel that "their race" somehow got cheated and needs a holiday ( And these are not only Caucasian people either!), but I can't imagine getting worked up about it.
I just don't care.
2700
Post by: dietrich
To me, MLK was a man who fought for equality of all people, not just a specific group. I realize that he focused on rights for minorities, but to me, if we're not all equal then we're all at the lowest standard.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
dogma wrote:At the same time, the notion of a Confederate is nonsensical as there is no Confederation to be a member of. You can't have a holiday in honor of a group that doesn't exist.
Why not?
MLK and Columbus are dead, we still celebrate them.
5030
Post by: Grignard
dietrich wrote:To me, MLK was a man who fought for equality of all people, not just a specific group. I realize that he focused on rights for minorities, but to me, if we're not all equal then we're all at the lowest standard.
Eh, there are all kinds of discrimination, and you can say what you want, but we all know the focus was on Black/white racial tensions, as is everything in this country. Probably most Americans don't realize there are all manner of Caucasian minorities, and they probably don't realize, for instance, Gypsies are the largest cultural minority in Europe. What about poverty, which is really what racial tensions boil down to today, or what about weight discrimination.
I don't feel like he did anything for me, but if it floats people's boat, make him have a holiday. Why him other than Malcom X or, and here is what it should be, those three black kids that got killed in Mississippi, I don't know, that is up to whoever makes these rules.
Nothing to me *shrug*
5030
Post by: Grignard
Orkeosaurus wrote:dogma wrote:At the same time, the notion of a Confederate is nonsensical as there is no Confederation to be a member of. You can't have a holiday in honor of a group that doesn't exist.
Why not?
MLK and Columbus are dead, we still celebrate them.
Many many people have died. Being dead is not a reason to have a national work holiday.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Frazzled wrote:Respectfully,
They were traitors to the United States of America. Later they were pardoned. However, its an accurate statement. I'm ok with that and I had relatives from both sides in the conflict. I am proud of my Southern heritage but also ok to look at what happened dispassionately.
Please to define how they were traitors. The civil war was not a war of race so I refuse to get into the MLK argument. The civil war was a war about states rights and an economic system that was unfair to one-half of the nation at the time. The Southern states seceeded, then after following all the proper forms and Diplomacy, they excercised their right to declared war upon those they viewed as hostile oppressors. A traitor betrays His or Hers government(Selling state secrets, revealing troop deployents, ect...). Excersising ones right to stand up against what is percieved as tyranny is not betrayal, it's more like revolution. Also, there was no set constitutional definition of what would be betrayal at the time. The Constitution itself having built upon the original articles of confederation actually could be seen as implying the right of succession. Haven't chosen a side on this one yet. Just hate when an issue is clouded by demonizing. I will say that my first impression would be that it wouldn't be any worse than Guy Faulkes day. And thats a day about one who could actually be defined as a traitor. I generally have no problem with promoting the rememberance of history as long as it's factual and not political hot buttoning. edited for spelling
5030
Post by: Grignard
focusedfire wrote:Frazzled wrote:Respectfully,
They were traitors to the United States of America. Later they were pardoned. However, its an accurate statement. I'm ok with that and I had relatives from both sides in the conflict. I am proud of my Southern heritage but also ok to look at what happened dispassionately.
Please to define how they were traitors. The civil war was not a war of race so I refuse to get into the MLK argument. The civil war was a war about states rights and an economic system that was unfair to one-half of the nation at the time. The Southern states succeeded, then after following all the proper forms and Diplomacy, they excercised their right to declared war upon those they viewed as hostile oppressors.
A traitor betrays His or Hers government(Selling state secrets, revealing troop deployents, ect...). Excersising ones right to stand up against what is percieved as tyranny is not betrayal, it's more like revolution.
Also, there was no set constitutional definition of what would be betrayal at the time. The Constitution itself having built upon the original articles of confederation actually could be seen as implying the right of succession.
Haven't chosen a side on this one yet. Just hate when an issue is clouded by demonizing. I will say that my first impression would be that it wouldn't be any worse than Guy Faulkes day. And thats a day about one who could actually be defined as a traitor. I generally have no problem with promoting the rememberance of history as long as it's factual and not political hot buttoning.
This is a good point, though I don't want to get into this argument, though I disagree that there was *nothing* to do with race, even by association.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
"The civil war was a war about states rights and an economic system that was unfair to one-half of the nation at the time. The Southern states succeeded, then after following all the proper forms and Diplomacy, they excercised their right to declared war upon those they viewed as hostile oppressors."
The issue here is that the states had no right to succeed, thus were never a country, and therefore, had no grounds for diplomacy. There are some rights states don't have. I find it ironic that they veiwed anybody as hostile oppressors.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Grignard wrote:
Eh, there are all kinds of discrimination, and you can say what you want, but we all know the focus was on Black/white racial tensions, as is everything in this country. Probably most Americans don't realize there are all manner of Caucasian minorities, and they probably don't realize, for instance, Gypsies are the largest cultural minority in Europe. What about poverty, which is really what racial tensions boil down to today, or what about weight discrimination.
I don't feel like he did anything for me, but if it floats people's boat, make him have a holiday. Why him other than Malcom X or, and here is what it should be, those three black kids that got killed in Mississippi, I don't know, that is up to whoever makes these rules.
i agree that MLK was doing his speeches and travelling, ultimately for all human rights, not just blacks in the south. i think that Malcolm X did not get a holiday because of the 2 civil rights leaders, MLK was a christian, mr. X, a muslim. Additionally, MLK preached peaceable solutions, whereas malcolm X was more militant about gaining civil rights.
It's something of a personal beef with Columbus Day, but i dont think that He should get a holiday, as he didnt really find the US, that honor goes to the Vikings. But, apparently no matter how much truth is brought out in history, we cant allow "white men" to have too many holidays, as if most of the latino population is going to sympathize with columbus? Maybe its just too much to ask to "fix" the American history books, that still insist on Columbus "finding" these new lands.
personally, i have ZERO problem with weight discrimination, if you're very overweight, thats your problem, you put yourself in that situation. Don't get me wrong, if you are abit, erm, plump, but you are happy with that, then i have no problem. i start having problems when you start complaining about how big you are, and how its other people's fault, whether its mcdonalds, burger king, the government, or the wife's cooking (ok, the wife can be blamed for that, along with many other things  ), just own up to you being lazy. And yes, if you make it damn near impossible for someone to sit next to you on an airplane, then yes you SHOULD have to buy two tickets!
Just a quick note on the fat people thing... there is a large difference between a "big" person and a "fat" person.. a big person, is someone who is large, possibly fat, but they are athletic, dont complain about their weight, and if they decide they dont want to be as large any more, they figure out how to eat better/ excercise. a fat person, in my book, is one who is generally lazy, and complains about their plight, they probably cant hold down a job, and they blame everyone but themselves for their appearance.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orkeosaurus wrote:Why not?
MLK and Columbus are dead, we still celebrate them.
Because they represent ideas that are a part of what it is to be a citizen of the United States of America. The notion of being a Confederate is a direct contradiction to being a United States citizen.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses... 
Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Perhaps a comprise could be in order. Perhaps northern states could get the 5th of July off (as well as the 4th) to commemorate Gettysburg?
Its not a bad idea in theory maybe we in Britain could get a similar day off. I propose 14 June to commemorate the royalists getting thrashed at Naseby or perhaps 18th June in celebration of putting that short Corsican back in his place!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Too hot. We need to find a battle that occurred in the early fall to have a proper party. Have to space out these things.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Frazzled wrote:Too hot. We need to find a battle that occurred in the early fall to have a proper party. Have to space out these things.
Antietam?
It was a Northern victory in September. Or perhaps the body count was a bit to high to 'celebrate' that one?
3081
Post by: chaplaingrabthar
All Americans are traitors to Britain. Especially the Founding Terrorists.
I'm a Brit, and even I know that the above is hyperbole with only the merest grain of truth to it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1. Antietam would work. The temperature is breaking at that point. Historically Lincoln needed a victory before he could proclaim the emancipation proclamation and IIRC that was it.
2. Chaplain-you do realize all you Brits are traitors to his Highness, the Emperor of Rome don't you? Just because the Roman Empire fell a few hundred years ago is no reason to forget your obligations...
5470
Post by: sebster
dogma wrote:A traitor is someone who reneges on a self-proclaimed affiliation, and is an intrinsically derogatory remark.
Oscar Schindler was not a Nazi, and therefore was not a traitor.
The Confederates were traitors in a strictly legal sense as they openly renounced membership in the United States of America. However, one could also argue that the United States had betrayed the values on which it was founded; making the Union the traitorous party.
I don't think they were traitors. If they'd launched surprise attacks at Union strongpoints before. I think there has to be an act of betrayal for slavery to really mean something. Oskar Schindler was a German, who took government contracts to support the war effort and used them to subvert resources and protect Jews. He was clearly deceiving the German government and was a traitor. Good on him, not all traitors are bad people.
However. The Civil War was about slavery. It was about slavery. It was about slavery. They were really, really concerned about a Northern president taking away their right to own slaves, because they really, really wanted to keep owning slaves. So much so they when they published their constitution it consisted of the US constitution, with minor administrative changes, 'state's rights' jammed into the preamble and this little beauty placed front and centre;
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"
This was after Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia all passed declarations of independence identifying slavery as their primary cause. Then there was the cornerstone speach given by Confed VP Alexander Stephens; in which the cornerstone of the new government 'rested upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth'.
Now the North, you could successfully argue didn't wage the war to free slaves. They fought to maintain the Union. But the South originally fought the war because they were afraid a Norther president would take away their slaves. It's explicit in the constitution of the Confederation.
Because they really wanted to keep their slaves. So much so they started a civil war over it.
5470
Post by: sebster
Wow, I'm glad I didn't read that while it was open. That was some closely packed together crazy in there.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Frazzled wrote:I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses... Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.
Don't know your Texas history then. Texas joined the union with the right to seceed. And no I don't think thats prima facie for treason. I think its prima facie for accepting a defeated foriegn enemy into your country as a newly conquered or re-conquered territory. It's standard to practice to make anyone wishing to be a citizen swear alleigance. @Hero, The early framework of our country was that it was voluntary participation. That in itself allowed the right to succession. Your sense of Irony, I fear, is skewed by how this subject has been demonized. Your going with the thought that the oppressed cannot be oppressors themselves. Truth told, more someones oppressed the morel ikely they are to find a way of putting someone in a position underneath them in an abusive manner. Now the south had already been doing such since the british tyrrany. A lot of the later plantation owners came over as endentured servants then they themselves or their descendants later became slave owners. You want irony, look at the north/south relationship. Where you had an anti-slavery movement but the same people continuously pushed for unfair economic legislation that gave them the lions share of the profits from the labour system they opposed. Now the only reason I brought up slavery was in response to your irony jab. The only time race really entered the civil war as an issue was the Emancipation proclomation. A proclomation that only freed slaves in the south, not ones legally held and owned in the north. Lincoln was looking to start a slave revolt to help in the unions war against the confederacy. It is this reason that the black community largely holds to the belief that they weren't truly free until Dr. King. Edited for spelling
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
dogma wrote:Because they represent ideas that are a part of what it is to be a citizen of the United States of America. The notion of being a Confederate is a direct contradiction to being a United States citizen.
Then why does it matter whether or not the organization still exists?
Surely there are organizations that have done good in the past and but longer exist, and organizations that exist today causing nothing but problems.
221
Post by: Frazzled
focusedfire wrote:Frazzled wrote:I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses...
Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.
Don't know your Texas history then. Texas joined the union with the right to succeed. And no I don't think thats prima facia for treason. I think its prima facia for accepting a defeated foriegn enemy into your country as a newly conquered or re-conquered territory. It's standard to practice to make anyone wishing to be a citizen swear alleigance.
@Hero, The early framework of our country was that it was voluntary participation. That in itself allowed the right to succession.
Your sense of Irony, I fear, is skewed by how this subject has been demonized. Your going with the thought that the oppressed cannot be oppressors themselves. Truth told, more someones oppressed the morel ikely they are to find a way of putting someone in a position underneath them in an abusive manner. Now the south had already been doing such since the british tyrrany. A lot of the later plantation owners came over as endentured servants then they themselves or their descendants later became slave owners.
You want irony, look at the north/south relationship. Where you had an anti-slavery movement but the same people continuously pushed for unfair economic legislation that gave them the lions share of the profits from the labour system they opposed.
Now the only reason I brought up slavery was in response to your irony jab. The only time race really entered the civil war as an issue was the Emancipation proclomation. A proclomation that only freed slaves in the south, not ones legally held and owned in the north. Lincoln was looking to start a slave revolt to help in the unions war against the confederacy. It is this reason that the black community largely holds to the belief that they weren't truly free until Dr. King.
Hey I made the best grade in the school, you whipper snapper! Of course when I took the class, Texas history had only made it to 1895…older than dirt, its not just a job, it’s a lifestyle choice
Yes Texas could Secede, as written in its constitution and agreed to when merged with the US (as well as the ability to split into five states, how cool is that). But it was the only state that could do that.
The Constitution says nothing about states leaving. They attempted to break away. Ion doing so they actively attempted to destroy the union and kill US forces and commandeer US property. That’s treason. Its always treason until the moment you win-then its independence. Just ask Santa Anna.
5470
Post by: sebster
focusedfire wrote:Don't know your Texas history then. Texas joined the union with the right to succeed. And no I don't think thats prima facia for treason. I think its prima facia for accepting a defeated foriegn enemy into your country as a newly conquered or re-conquered territory. It's standard to practice to make anyone wishing to be a citizen swear alleigance.
@Hero, The early framework of our country was that it was voluntary participation. That in itself allowed the right to succession.
Secede. Prima facie. Secession.
Not looking to criticise, just fyi.
Now the only reason I brought up slavery was in response to your irony jab. The only time race really entered the civil war as an issue was the Emancipation proclomation. A proclomation that only freed slaves in the south, not ones legally held and owned in the north. Lincoln was looking to start a slave revolt to help in the unions war against the confederacy. It is this reason that the black community largely holds to the belief that they weren't truly free until Dr. King.
Except this isn't slightly true. Not a word of it.
The Confederate constitution was almost a direct copy of the US constitution, with administrative differences and a new part stating the new govt couldn't stop a state owning slaves. The corner stone address, considered the core speach in the independence movement, used as that cornerstone the idea that black men were subservient to whites and that slavery was natural. That was the cornerstone of the idea of rebellion. The four states to declare their independence first (I forgot Mississippi earlier) all cited slavery as the core reason.
It was explicitly about slavery. The North's response wasn't about slavery, but in the South was the absolute dominant issue.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Starts Friday at sundown and goes till Saturday evening. That may be why the confusion.
As far as the Civil War, it was over states rights, but which state right was being threatened? Slavery. It was also about which states could be made into slave states. Was it as simple as the north thinking slavery was immoral and trying to help the slaves? No, but the right of states to keep Slavery as an institution against federal intrusion was the core of the problem.
3081
Post by: chaplaingrabthar
Yup, the Sabbath is sunset to sunset. At least hat's what my crazy Christian sect (we keep the Old Testament Holy Days) believes.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Ensis Ferrae wrote:It's something of a personal beef with Columbus Day, but i dont think that He should get a holiday, as he didnt really find the US, that honor goes to the Vikings. But, apparently no matter how much truth is brought out in history, we cant allow "white men" to have too many holidays, as if most of the latino population is going to sympathize with columbus? Maybe its just too much to ask to "fix" the American history books, that still insist on Columbus "finding" these new lands.
Yeah, I agree on Columbus Day. That guy does not deserve a holiday. Coming over here, enslaving and killing tons of people, not knowing that this isn't India...
Also, Columbus was Italian, so that's not "Latino" at all.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Orkeosaurus wrote:Yeah, I agree on Columbus Day. That guy does not deserve a holiday. Coming over here, enslaving and killing tons of people, not knowing that this isn't India...
Also, Columbus was Italian, so that's not "Latino" at all.
far as i've ever read in any history books, he was sailing under the Queen of Spain's banner, so while he may have been originally from Italy, he is still more associated with the Spanish.
of course, how the hell you confuse India with the carribbean, i will never know. At least the Vikings knew what they were doing when they were sailing, and discovering new lands.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Because Europeans had never been to either in any recorded way. Its like us sending an expedition to the moon, landing on a planet adn discovering its a completely different planet.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
sebster wrote:Secede. Prima facie. Secession.
Not looking to criticise, just fyi.
Thank you, I've been relying on spellcheck a little to much lately. 
Upon reviewing the above mentioned documents I admit that race/slavery was one of the issues for secession for some states. But it was an issue only under the unions violation of states rights along with unfair restrictions on trade and actual property ownership(non-slave related).
As to slavery being the dominant issue I still disagree. Each state had its own causes for grievance. It does seem that the south felt that the north was using the slavery issue to openly violate its own laws, and to also use the issue to unfairly under-represent the states that maintained a legalized slave status. This seems to be the source of contention from the southern states point of view. Not so much that slavery was their issue but that it was the Northern states excuse to unfairly and unconstitutionally oppress the South.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Actually I think Ahtman put it more succinctly.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Frazzled wrote:Hey I made the best grade in the school, you whipper snapper! Of course when I took the class, Texas history had only made it to 1895…older than dirt, its not just a job, it’s a lifestyle choice
Yes Texas could Secede, as written in its constitution and agreed to when merged with the US (as well as the ability to split into five states, how cool is that). But it was the only state that could do that.
The Constitution says nothing about states leaving. They attempted to break away. Ion doing so they actively attempted to destroy the union and kill US forces and commandeer US property. That’s treason. Its always treason until the moment you win-then its independence. Just ask Santa Anna.
Did you have School Marm Jenny, too. 
The constitution had no provisions for them staying, either. How can one violate a law that doesn't exist? Also the Unions reaction to the secession seems to indicate that the states had some right to do so.
221
Post by: Frazzled
focusedfire wrote:Frazzled wrote:Hey I made the best grade in the school, you whipper snapper! Of course when I took the class, Texas history had only made it to 1895…older than dirt, its not just a job, it’s a lifestyle choice
Yes Texas could Secede, as written in its constitution and agreed to when merged with the US (as well as the ability to split into five states, how cool is that). But it was the only state that could do that.
The Constitution says nothing about states leaving. They attempted to break away. Ion doing so they actively attempted to destroy the union and kill US forces and commandeer US property. That’s treason. Its always treason until the moment you win-then its independence. Just ask Santa Anna.
Did you have School Marm Jenny, too.
The constitution had no provisions for them staying, either. How can one violate a law that doesn't exist? Also the Unions reaction to the secession seems to indicate that the states had some right to do so.
Er, respectfully, no. The armies they sent down seem to indicate they had an issue with it.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Yes, they had an issue with losing their cash cow but they handled the entire situation as if the state had some right to seceed.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The ones that had an issue sided with the original secesh states. The rest shut up and sent troops.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Ensis Ferrae wrote:far as i've ever read in any history books, he was sailing under the Queen of Spain's banner, so while he may have been originally from Italy, he is still more associated with the Spanish.
Well, that's fair.
He still wasn't a Latino though. And he killed and enslaved a bunch of people that were native to Latin America.
I think most Latin American countries named it "Discovery Day" or something, because they didn't like Columbus.
of course, how the hell you confuse India with the carribbean, i will never know. At least the Vikings knew what they were doing when they were sailing, and discovering new lands.
Exactly. Vikings never get the credit they deserve for their seamanship. Just drinking beer and worshipping Thor.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Actually he was. Latino as in Latin as in Italian. He's OL (Original Latin).
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I think it's time we dedicated a song to Politicians everywhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nll8-kSlq6c
Also one for Transformer Fans!
241
Post by: Ahtman
Ensis Ferrae wrote:i agree that MLK was doing his speeches and travelling, ultimately for all human rights, not just blacks in the south. i think that Malcolm X did not get a holiday because of the 2 civil rights leaders, MLK was a christian, mr. X, a muslim. Additionally, MLK preached peaceable solutions, whereas malcolm X was more militant about gaining civil rights.
Or it could be that Malcolm X was more of a regional figure than MLK. If you had gone to California and said MLK's name they would have known who you were talking about. Malcolm X would have gotten you a puzzled look. He was well known in parts of the midwest and parts of the north east but was not really a major player on the national scene. He became much better known after his death. He was also a much more complicated figure that is still divisive even among those who admire him.
that honor goes to the Vikings.
How do you discover something that is already known? If I take a trip to England can I rename the country because I am discovering it for the first time, regardless of the fact people have been living there for quite some time? The Vikings didn't "discover" the western hemisphere, they were the first Europeans (that we know of) to make to make trips there.
As far as not understanding how one could confuse the Caribbean with India, well get rid of the idea that there is such a thing as the Caribbean and it becomes fairly easy to understand.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Ahtman wrote:How do you discover something that is already known?
I discovered a Burger King near my campus. Someone else probably knew it was there before me.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
On the subject of Malcolm X and Dr King....
Look at the major shifts in the 20th Century. Womens Suffrage, you had the Suffragists, who were peaceful, and the Suffragettes, who were more...direct (Kings Horse anyone?) Dr King and Malcolm X in a perverse way, needed each other. I think it was ultimately inevitable that the Blacks would get the vote. Malcolm X made Dr King seem the better candidate for negotiation. And yet Malcolm X and his more radical approach threatened to take over should the more peaceful Dr King be sidelined...
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Slaves in the Border States controlled by the north throughout the war were not freed until six months after the war ended and were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation. The south may have seceded to maintain their slave based economy but the war was about bringing them back into line until breaking the south economically by ending slavery became a necessary war tactic.
The disparity of how black troops were treated was interesting. Blacks fighting for the south were given full pay and fought in mixed units, not so for those fighting for the north.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, that's fair.
He still wasn't a Latino though. And he killed and enslaved a bunch of people that were native to Latin America.
I think most Latin American countries named it "Discovery Day" or something, because they didn't like Columbus.
of course, how the hell you confuse India with the carribbean, i will never know. At least the Vikings knew what they were doing when they were sailing, and discovering new lands.
Exactly. Vikings never get the credit they deserve for their seamanship. Just drinking beer and worshipping Thor.
i did not deny or refute that he enslaved, or besicked (i know its not a word, but he spread disease and illnesses to the locals) the natives. so yeah... if all it takes to get a holiday named for you is to kill off tons of people, and generally enslave them for "the greater good" then there should be a sight more holidays for those types of people 
another thing that the US history books "taught" me in school, was that the Vikings found Iceland and Greenland "by accident" and that they navigated the same way feudal Japanese did (by keeping the shore in sight). which through my own reading, is quite frankly wrong. ohh, and originally, it was Vinland, not Greenland. Additionally, the Vikings have recently been thought to have extended their influence into regions that now have cities such as Moscow and Istanbul (tho the Istanbul thing, i know it used to be constantinople)
241
Post by: Ahtman
Ensis Ferrae wrote:besicked (i know its not a word, but he spread disease and illnesses to the locals)
It's not, but it should be.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:another thing that the US history books "taught" me in school
Isn't part of growing learning that most of the stuff you were taught as a kid was a load of  ? To be fair it isn't just US history books that do this. Like Japanese history books that say that one day Japan was minding it's own business and the US for some unknown reason decided to be mean to them and stop shipping them oil. So, with a sigh and a heavy heart these peaceful people had to attack the US.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
yes school systems are all faulty in one regard or another, but its another matter entirely, when me, as a high school junior can tell my teacher flat out that the book is wrong in one regard or another..
seems like the board of education should have a panel to check the truth behind statements made in "textbooks"
sorry.. Ahtman, i am rather mesmerized by your avatar sometimes
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Additionally, the Vikings have recently been thought to have extended their influence into regions that now have cities such as Moscow and Istanbul (tho the Istanbul thing, i know it used to be constantinople)
Constantinople was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine. The Rus were a Norse tribe though.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The Byzantium emporer's had a mercenary Norse unit as guard-very fearsome evidently. Russia yes, the Norse heritage is celebrated in Russia if I remember correctly.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hey, all I know is that we native sons of Virginia celebreate Lee-Jackson Day every year.
And as a Virginian, I'm going to tell you all that Robert E Lee was no "traitor".
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're right. He was a Traitor with a capital T. The only thing that saved his neck was he was kept around to try to quell the guerrilla activities that were still going on.
A miracle of generalship and from what I understand a truly decent man. However, as President I would have swung him from a tree.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Frazzled wrote:You're right. He was a Traitor with a capital T. The only thing that saved his neck was he was kept around to try to quell the guerrilla activities that were still going on.
A miracle of generalship and from what I understand a truly decent man. However, as President I would have swung him from a tree.
like the old tire swing me dad and i made when i was a kid?? sounds like fun!!
i should point out that many warfare innovations were brought about during the Civil war, such as trigonometry being used to calculate artillery fire. so regardless of whether you view the southerners of that time to be traitors or not, the war itself, in the long run helped us maintain a sort of "superior" position in world politics.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Boy, I oughta shoot you!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
lol, i am naturally putting on my most sarcastic showing with the tire swing bit
221
Post by: Frazzled
I must warn you john, we have tested Genghis Connie's "Flingshot I" pumpkin slingshot. Yes, it can also be used to shoot water balloons out to 50 feet. No supersoaker water gun can match my water balloon launching uber pwonage!
MUAHAHAHA!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Fine.
I'll just get the hose!
3081
Post by: chaplaingrabthar
JohnHwangDD wrote:Hey, all I know is that we native sons of Virginia celebreate Lee-Jackson Day every year.
And as a Virginian, I'm going to tell you all that Robert E Lee was no "traitor".
Actually agreed on General Lee, morally he was not a traitor. Factually, he was.
And yeah Lee-Jackson Day is the Friday before Martin Luther King Day, but it's not a proper holiday as nothing closes (except DMV, but screw them)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
When I lived in VA, Lee-Jackson Day was *our* holiday when the Feds celebrated MLK day.
Lee-Jackson Day replaces MLK day.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:Fine.
I'll just get the hose!
That won't help you John. Like everything else, texas hoses are bigger! (of course we're in a drought so nothing will be coming out of the hose but hey its the thought that counts)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
We're in a drought, too.
But our hoses are thicker, and that's what *really* counts.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
I'm confused Why would it replace MLK day? Couldn't you get two holidays? Isn't that better?
4121
Post by: Aztralwolf
If everything that "deserved" a holiday got one... well no one would ever work. How about a holiday for the majority of my ancestry? We could call it NINA (No Irish Need Apply) day! People seem to forget that every race of people has been mistreated in one way or another, and honestly to this day even kind hearted people will display a strange form of stereotyping and racism. Saying hey your black, or white, or whatever is technically wrong. You might call me a white guy, but I am predominantly Irish by ancestry. Do we need to celebrate the confederacy? I won't say absolutely no, sometimes remembering a mistake is the best way to learn from it. I am not saying the south was entirely wrong, nor right. It was a turbulent time in this country, something to learn from... and rather then focusing on things like this from the past we should be looking forward to the rough times right in front of us, though we should never forget what we have left behind us.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Irish have St. Patty's Day.
@Frazz, You seem to have missed the point that I made about there being no Law maintaining forced membership in the union.
I again ask, "How can someone be guilty of a crime if there is no law dictating that such actions are in fact a crime?"
There was no law stating that the Souths actions would be considered treasonous. So how can they be traitors?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@sexist: It just *does*.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Frazzled wrote:
Yes Texas could Secede, as written in its constitution and agreed to when merged with the US (as well as the ability to split into five states, how cool is that). But it was the only state that could do that.
Virginia and New York both have it written into their state constitutions that they are allowed to secede, as well.
5470
Post by: sebster
focusedfire wrote:sebster wrote:Secede. Prima facie. Secession.
Not looking to criticise, just fyi.
Thank you, I've been relying on spellcheck a little to much lately.
Yeah, I do the same.
Upon reviewing the above mentioned documents I admit that race/slavery was one of the issues for secession for some states. But it was an issue only under the unions violation of states rights along with unfair restrictions on trade and actual property ownership(non-slave related).
As to slavery being the dominant issue I still disagree. Each state had its own causes for grievance. It does seem that the south felt that the north was using the slavery issue to openly violate its own laws, and to also use the issue to unfairly under-represent the states that maintained a legalized slave status. This seems to be the source of contention from the southern states point of view. Not so much that slavery was their issue but that it was the Northern states excuse to unfairly and unconstitutionally oppress the South.
Yeah, the North wasn't some noble neighbour looking to end slavery, and that's where it gets complicated. But in terms of the motives of the South its pretty clear. Or as you put it in your next post;
focusedfire wrote:Actually I think Ahtman put it more succinctly.
Yeah, he does that quite a bit around here. The sod .
5470
Post by: sebster
Ensis Ferrae wrote:i should point out that many warfare innovations were brought about during the Civil war, such as trigonometry being used to calculate artillery fire. so regardless of whether you view the southerners of that time to be traitors or not, the war itself, in the long run helped us maintain a sort of "superior" position in world politics.
Half a million dead seems a heavy toll for minor ratio improvements in a field that was pretty much completed by the medieval period.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
not saying that a field artillery "improvement" was the 'best' thing to come out of the war, there were naval fleet commanders who developed tactics for assaulting coastal defenses that actually saved a large portion of their fleet., thus saving many lives.
War is a long history of tragedy, of course its probably even worse if you are fighting people who, less than a year ago, were your neighbors and countrymen.
of course, it may just be me, but it seems that innovation seems to follow a simple formula: build a bigger or better weapon, use it on the enemy, the enemy in turn builds tougher armor to defend against that weapon, whilst developing a new weapon thats better than the one used on them, and so on and so forth.
5534
Post by: dogma
Innovation is built on rivalry, but rivalry manifests itself outside of violent conflict. Many of the greatest advances in art, architecture, and engineering occurred because group 'x' felt the need to upstage group 'y'.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ensis Ferrae wrote:not saying that a field artillery "improvement" was the 'best' thing to come out of the war, there were naval fleet commanders who developed tactics for assaulting coastal defenses that actually saved a large portion of their fleet., thus saving many lives.
War is a long history of tragedy, of course its probably even worse if you are fighting people who, less than a year ago, were your neighbors and countrymen.
of course, it may just be me, but it seems that innovation seems to follow a simple formula: build a bigger or better weapon, use it on the enemy, the enemy in turn builds tougher armor to defend against that weapon, whilst developing a new weapon thats better than the one used on them, and so on and so forth.
Technological innovation is built around competition, but its also built around long term stability. While war is a hyper competitive environment so you get lots of development, most innovation tends to be re-engineered concepts and the like. But big steps forward, starting with entirely theoretical concepts and decades of development, just doesn't get changed by war. A war won't bring us a quantum computer any quicker.
I think war just accelerates specific technologies ahead a few years, but doesn't really do anything to the overall rate of progress.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
sebster wrote:Technological innovation is built around competition, but its also built around long term stability. While war is a hyper competitive environment so you get lots of development, most innovation tends to be re-engineered concepts and the like. But big steps forward, starting with entirely theoretical concepts and decades of development, just doesn't get changed by war. A war won't bring us a quantum computer any quicker.
I think war just accelerates specific technologies ahead a few years, but doesn't really do anything to the overall rate of progress.
granted, but in some cases, many of the technological marvels of today were borne from war. The modern GPS unit, while IMHO is no substitute for a map and compass, was generally developed because of the difficulties in using said map/compass while in a moving vehicle. Computer networks within the military structure led to the creation of the internet.
and i believe that some technology was definitely changed by war, without the decades of research. Think of the Jet fighters that we now have, during WW2, Germany and the US (and probably just about anyone with an air force) were trying to develop a better fighter, a German designer had the idea to make a rocket powered aircraft, they had no idea whether or not it would fly and eventually they came up with the Me-262, which is not rocket powered, but rather jet...also there was a project in the US that involved trying to bomb the main industrial hubs of Japan, using bats. The problem with loading a bat was the weight it could carry... in a matter of weeks they took a theory, and came up with Napalm. Of course, the bat project was never used in combat, as the program got canceled in favor of the Manhattan Project.
also, if im not mistaken IV bags are now plastic because of Vietnam, or Korea.. since glass bottles with life saving fluids freeze easier, are harder to pack, and break more easily than a plastic bag. But, if someone can show when/how the plastic IV bag came about, then please do share
5534
Post by: dogma
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
granted, but in some cases, many of the technological marvels of today were borne from war. The modern GPS unit, while IMHO is no substitute for a map and compass, was generally developed because of the difficulties in using said map/compass while in a moving vehicle. Computer networks within the military structure led to the creation of the internet.
But the mathematical models which underpin GPS would not exist without Einstein's theory of relativity, and that was the final result of Pax Europa.
The internet is kind of a funny thing because it was directly tied into scientific research during the Cold War, and while most research was connected to the military due to budgetary allocations it was most certainly a period of peace.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
and i believe that some technology was definitely changed by war, without the decades of research. Think of the Jet fighters that we now have, during WW2, Germany and the US (and probably just about anyone with an air force) were trying to develop a better fighter, a German designer had the idea to make a rocket powered aircraft, they had no idea whether or not it would fly and eventually they came up with the Me-262, which is not rocket powered, but rather jet...also there was a project in the US that involved trying to bomb the main industrial hubs of Japan, using bats. The problem with loading a bat was the weight it could carry... in a matter of weeks they took a theory, and came up with Napalm. Of course, the bat project was never used in combat, as the program got canceled in favor of the Manhattan Project.
The idea of a turbine engine had been around since the mid-19th century. It took a war to see the idea put into practice on a large scale, but it isn't as though the Germans spontaneously discovered the jet engine. In fact, the first jet aircraft was designed by a British engineer in 1929, though it was never actually produced.
Napalm, while it was a chemical formula of necessity, was just a modern realization of the concept behind Greek Fire. Something which had been around since Byzantium.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
also, if im not mistaken IV bags are now plastic because of Vietnam, or Korea.. since glass bottles with life saving fluids freeze easier, are harder to pack, and break more easily than a plastic bag. But, if someone can show when/how the plastic IV bag came about, then please do share
Same thing here. Plastic had existed for some time, but no one was willing to foot the bill for its enhanced durability vis a vis glass. The military had a significant need for such an improvement, and so paid the extra money.
The government, and the military, are major forces in modernizing consumer goods because they have the capacity to pay what is always a very high initial cost. This frequently requires deficit spending, and so is normally only justified in times of war. At least in our history.
4121
Post by: Aztralwolf
focusedfire wrote:Irish have St. Patty's Day.
Oh c'mon not like I really care but seriously... St. Patricks Day is a generic excuse to wear green and get bombed, it doesn't actually mean anything to anyone. I dare you to ask joe schmoe off the street who St. Patrick was. 9/10 times you will get a dumb answer. But again I don't really care I was just trying to make a point about there being too many holidays.
3081
Post by: chaplaingrabthar
I'm waiting for Saint Solar Macharius' day myself.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Grignard wrote:
Eh, there are all kinds of discrimination, and you can say what you want, but we all know the focus was on Black/white racial tensions, as is everything in this country. Probably most Americans don't realize there are all manner of Caucasian minorities, and they probably don't realize, for instance, Gypsies are the largest cultural minority in Europe. What about poverty, which is really what racial tensions boil down to today, or what about weight discrimination.
I don't feel like he did anything for me, but if it floats people's boat, make him have a holiday. Why him other than Malcom X or, and here is what it should be, those three black kids that got killed in Mississippi, I don't know, that is up to whoever makes these rules.
i agree that MLK was doing his speeches and travelling, ultimately for all human rights, not just blacks in the south. i think that Malcolm X did not get a holiday because of the 2 civil rights leaders, MLK was a christian, mr. X, a muslim. Additionally, MLK preached peaceable solutions, whereas malcolm X was more militant about gaining civil rights.
It's something of a personal beef with Columbus Day, but i dont think that He should get a holiday, as he didnt really find the US, that honor goes to the Vikings. But, apparently no matter how much truth is brought out in history, we cant allow "white men" to have too many holidays, as if most of the latino population is going to sympathize with columbus? Maybe its just too much to ask to "fix" the American history books, that still insist on Columbus "finding" these new lands.
personally, i have ZERO problem with weight discrimination, if you're very overweight, thats your problem, you put yourself in that situation. Don't get me wrong, if you are abit, erm, plump, but you are happy with that, then i have no problem. i start having problems when you start complaining about how big you are, and how its other people's fault, whether its mcdonalds, burger king, the government, or the wife's cooking (ok, the wife can be blamed for that, along with many other things ), just own up to you being lazy. And yes, if you make it damn near impossible for someone to sit next to you on an airplane, then yes you SHOULD have to buy two tickets!
Just a quick note on the fat people thing... there is a large difference between a "big" person and a "fat" person.. a big person, is someone who is large, possibly fat, but they are athletic, dont complain about their weight, and if they decide they dont want to be as large any more, they figure out how to eat better/ excercise. a fat person, in my book, is one who is generally lazy, and complains about their plight, they probably cant hold down a job, and they blame everyone but themselves for their appearance.
On the first point that is why I don't think MLK did as much as we think. I don't think anything would have changed until there was that subtle threat of violence to back up that "nonviolent resistance".
On the second part, at risk of derailing the topic, which apparently I'm good at, it isn't fair to assume that it is always someone's fault they are obese. Research shows that most people will eat what is put in front of them, and don't necessarily have a cut off point. Also, you can't assume that people's bodies utilize energy the same way as everyone else. I can attest to this not because I am obese, but because I am not. My ex ate the same meals I did for two years, and lived more or less the same lifestyle. At the time I never exercised, though I run on a regular basis now. I was slightly overweight at the time, but she never could get her weight below 280, and she was probably more active than me at the time. Now, I'm definitely not one to say the government should be regulating what I choose to eat or not, but I think a blanket statement that obesity is always "your fault" is unreasonable.
Frazzled wrote:I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses...
Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.
Having a gun to your head is great encouragement to swear allegiance.
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
Grignard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses...
Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.
Having a gun to your head is great encouragement to swear allegiance.
Don't forget the assassination of Lincoln. That act horrified both the north and the south alike. Many likely swore allegiance to disassociate themselves from those particular Confederates who went so far as to kill a sitting head of state.
12489
Post by: orkishlyorkish
reds8n wrote:Starts Friday night from memory...when the first stars appear in the sky "officially", until the same time Saturday.
Almost right
It starts from around sunset or i think like you said when the first 3 stars appear and ends about 25 hours and 5-10 minutes after that when it's fully dark.
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
What the hell. I always celebrate January 8th. (Elvis's birthday.) I dare you to stop me!
12061
Post by: halonachos
Vietnam and korea were also responsible for a certain silver piece of adhesive, yes that's right, duck tape. Not "duct tape" duck tape.
Personnally I think that you can group the CSA dead with others on memorial day. Memorial day honors the fallen, but doesn't say which fallen to honor so if you are so inclined to honor them, go ahead.
Also, many southerners were poor and didn't own slaves, its just that some had 100+ slaves. Of course there were middle-ground slave owners who had maybe 1 or 2, but the vast majority of families owned no slaves. They fought at the hope of maybe one day owning a slave as they thought it was part of the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.
|
|
