| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Seriously? | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2011 10:02 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Seriously Member
|
It seems that all we care about is the past. Joining the SCV, telling of what my family went through, and or "pissing and moaning" about what the North did to our country. What does it really matter when we allow them to do it? When do we get serious and have the passion of a Jeff Davis after all other avenues have been exhausted. Didn't our President say that even though we lost the war the issues of the war will come back again? Aren't they here? NO! I'm not advocating something horrible but can't we be much more outspoken than only speaking on discussion boards inside websites that only we read? I say "Jeff was Right!" Will we really rise again?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2011 10:25 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
Didn't our President say that even though we lost the war the issues of the war will come back again? "our President"? Who might that be? Unless you're 150 years old, it's not Jefferson Davis. "can't we be much more outspoken than only speaking on discussion boards inside websites that only we read?" Perhaps you don't appreciate the irony of you expressing this by posting on a discussion board inside a websites that only we read? On another thread you moan that a certain topic received 6500 views. You expressed this by making a post, which obviously would have made it 6501. Congrats. Chill out.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2011 10:39 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Seriously Member
|
Yes you are right. By the way; Do you think that if John B. Hood had more of a backing from the Southern States could the South have lasted a bit longer? What do you think would have happened if Lee would have prevailed? I'm chilled...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2011 10:46 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
We have a John Bell Hood category elsewhere on the board. Feel free to post your question there. While I don't do "what if's", someone may.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 12:57 am |
|
5th Post |
|
pender Member 
|
Seriously wrote: It seems that all we care about is the past. Joining the SCV, telling of what my family went through, and or "pissing and moaning" about what the North did to our country. What does it really matter when we allow them to do it? When do we get serious and have the passion of a Jeff Davis after all other avenues have been exhausted. Didn't our President say that even though we lost the war the issues of the war will come back again? Aren't they here? NO! I'm not advocating something horrible but can't we be much more outspoken than only speaking on discussion boards inside websites that only we read? Seriously, I really like this Discussion Board. That is why I am here to discuss the the war of 1861-1865. Talk about my ancestors that fought in the war. I do believe the title of this board is Civil War Interactive Discussion Board. That is what we do around here, since I have been on. Yes some of us like football. But how does liking football turn one northern? I and my family is as southern as they come. But if you want to get down to it. My good ol southern ancestors served beside some good northern ones in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Proud to be an American, and southern by the grace of God. Yes I believe Jefferson Davis was right. So do I believe that the cause the average confederate soldier fought for was right. But the issue was settled by force one hundred and fifty years ago. After the war most southerners swore allegiance back to the United States. I do believe history shows that they paid in blood in all of this countrys wars to give you the right to have free speech in what you believe. Pender
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 02:01 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Seriously Member
|
Pender, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my nonsense. I like you have a family that have fought in most if not all our countries wars. I was shocked to find that my fathers family came to this country from the country we now call Germany to fight against the colonists. They later moved from New York to an area called Tejas (Texas). In my arrogance I wish I could find an a family connection to the Battle of the Alamo, Goliad, or something else. The Germans largely sat out out those battles and the most of struggles against Santa Ana. Actually it was not until the war of northern aggression that my families name found itself in another battle for it's independence. Reading you'll find that most folks of German ancestry in Texas voted against succession. So we both love our families history and communicating it on educational and enjoyable websites such as this. Perhaps I chose the incorrect day or website to wonder, "When is Jeff Davis correct"? When do those that love our history embody the passions or our ancestors at the voting box? Do we continue to allow the ideals of Chicago (Lincoln/Obama)to bomb and burn our families into submission of oath again? I believe in that oath as my father did when he took it before joining the military and fighting in WWII. I believe it as my brother did who remains somewhere in Southeast Asia. I do not think that Lincoln believed it the same as I (Yes, I know it was not the same words to the pledge) nor do I believe our current president believes it. When are the ideals of a Jeff Davis correct?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 03:17 am |
|
7th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
Modern politics are not allowed on this board. Please read the rules: 3) Modern politics are off-limits. Period. Don't try to sneak it in sideways or any other way.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 02:23 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
What are the major differences between the United States and the Confederate Constitutions? Does the CSA Constitution allow for free elections where the majority rules? HankC
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 03:25 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
In the case of presidential elections, the US Constitution does not mandate majority rule, at least in the popular vote. As seen in the elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000, the winner does not always win the popular vote. In more than a dozen other presidential elections, the winner had less than 50% of the popular vote. The only majority mandated is the majority of votes in the Electoral College.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 03:48 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
the population determines the electors. The majority of electors determine the president. At every level the majority rules. The percentage of popular vote skews the electoral vote share. 53% or higher of the popular vote typically translates into an electoral college landslide...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 04:12 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Those who would prefer a pure democracy where the winner of the popular vote would win the presidency (And I am not one of those) would disagree that : "At every level the majority rules".
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 04:38 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
probably so, but it's a multi-level process: the Missouri ballot wording reminds one that your vote is for the 'Presidential Electors for John Doe'. The electors receiving the most popular votes then get together and vote. The person receiving the majority of their votes becomes president. there are two bases of a democratic republic: 1) 'one man - one vote' and 2) committees (Senate, Congress, City Council, Board of Supervisors, et al) are elected to do the heavy lifting, again using the 'one man - one vote' principle...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 05:42 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
pender Member
|
IMO, I don't see how you can argue democracy. When the majority of the southern population is forced to stay in the union at the point of a bayonet. The majority of the south clearly wanted out of the union. Pender
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 12:27 am |
|
14th Post |
|
barrydancer Member 
|
pender wrote:IMO, I don't see how you can argue democracy. When the majority of the southern population is forced to stay in the union at the point of a bayonet. The majority of the south clearly wanted out of the union. A majority of white Southerners, maybe. When you consider the four millions of newly emancipated freedmen and the significant numbers of Southern Unionists, the majority of Southerners might have been perfectly fine staying in the Union.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 12:35 am |
|
15th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
barrydancer- If the majority of southerners had been in favor of staying in the Union in 1861, there wouldn't have been millions of freedmen, because the institution of slavery would have continued for awhile longer. As Mr. Lincoln said many times, he wasn't inclined to interfere with slavery where it already existed.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 01:26 am |
|
16th Post |
|
barrydancer Member
|
Texas Defender wrote:barrydancer- True. I was assuming that Pender's comment was referring to the Reconstruction South.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 01:43 am |
|
17th Post |
|
pender Member
|
Barrydancer, I was referring to the 1861 south. When thier wish was to just be left alone. But also I would argue the post war white south could find no democracy in reconstruction. Pender Last edited on Fri Aug 5th, 2011 01:48 am by pender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 01:56 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
One wonders how long the 11 confederate states would have remained together until they split again...and again...and again...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 02:42 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
pender Member
|
Yes one does. They never had the chance, due to Lincolns aggression. Pender
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 05:04 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
Perhaps a third item should be included: 3) defeated parties accept the election results but I thought that was obvious 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 04:09 am | Page: 1 2 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > About this Forum - Start Here > Introductions > Seriously? | Top |
