Bill would require paid Confederate holiday in SC

[Chris_]

Bill would require paid Confederate holiday in SC

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.

*snip*

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.

MORE

DUmmie heads will assplode when they see this.   

[thundley4]

I can see his reasoning in making it a state holiday, but I don't think cities and counties should be forced to give the paid day off.

[formerlurker]

Meanwhile in the North, the daughters of the anti-American Revolution submitted a petition to honor General Benedict Arnold with a paid state holiday............


 
 

[Rebel]

Meanwhile in the North, the daughters of the anti-American Revolution submitted a petition to honor General Benedict Arnold with a paid state holiday............


 
 

How in the hell are the two even remotely comparable?

[formerlurker]

How in the hell are the two even remotely comparable?

Everything the American Revolution tried to accomplished was almost destroyed by an opportunist traitor who pledged his loyalty to another country. 

Everything the American Revolution accomplished was almost destroyed by a few states who aligned with other countries to destroy our Constitution and Union.   

You view the confederacy far different than I do apparently. 

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I see it even worse.  It was a criminaly stupid enterprise that would have stoped republican government forever had it succeeded.

[Jim]

do y'all not get off for Lee-Jackson-King day like we do in Va ?


(Thats Robert E. and Stonewall for you yankees).

[Splashdown]

 

[Chris_]

Everything the American Revolution tried to accomplished was almost destroyed by an opportunist traitor who pledged his loyalty to another country. 

Everything the American Revolution accomplished was almost destroyed by a few states who aligned with other countries to destroy our Constitution and Union.   

You view the confederacy far different than I do apparently. 

That's a bit of a "broad brush" you're using there...been reading the yankee history books?

Everything the American Revolution accomplished will be destroyed in a few months by The One if he gets what he wants.

[Rebel]

Everything the American Revolution tried to accomplished was almost destroyed by an opportunist traitor who pledged his loyalty to another country. 

Everything the American Revolution accomplished was almost destroyed by a few states who aligned with other countries to destroy our Constitution and Union.   

You view the confederacy far different than I do apparently. 

 

The confederacy wasn't TRYING to destroy the United States NOR was it trying to destroy the US Constitution. We were a UNION of states. A few decided to dissolve their union. It was perfectly legal.

....and I'm about ready to secede from moonbat states once again. If you're living in one, so be it.

[formerlurker]

The confederacy wasn't TRYING to destroy the United States NOR was it trying to destroy the US Constitution. We were a UNION of states. A few decided to dissolve their union.

While Russian ships sat in our ports....... waiting.......


We should have a holiday to celebrate the Confederacy's complete failure, or wait - my bad, we already do.     Lincoln's birthday.   



 

[Rebel]

Lemme guess, you think the war was about slavery, right? ...and you think Lincoln was right to invade a sovereign nation, right? What part of "Union" do you not understand? We didn't found this country as "America". We founded it as the "United States of America", of which that union could be dissolved at any time by the majority of the people in the state.

Am I to assume you think we should have just bent over and taken it from the English as well? Or was that just? Am I also to assume that you don't think the state, prior to joining said union, would have left any avenue to leave once the union wasn't in it's best interest?

There's a reason "The War of Northern Aggression" is a better fit. You could have kept your precious ****ing union. The South wanted no more part of it and I'm starting to get to that point now.

[Chris_]

Lemme guess, you think the war was about slavery, right? ...and you think Lincoln was right to invade a sovereign nation, right? What part of "Union" do you not understand? We didn't found this country as "America". We founded it as the "United States of America", of which that union could be dissolved at any time by the majority of the people in the state.

Am I to assume you think we should have just bent over and taken it from the English as well? Or was that just? Am I also to assume that you don't think the state, prior to joining said union, would have left any avenue to leave once the union wasn't in it's best interest?

There's a reason "The War of Northern Aggression" is a better fit. You could have kept your precious ****ing union. The South wanted no more part of it and I'm starting to get to that point now.

From zero to "It was all the North's fault" in 60 seconds.

No one saw that coming.

;)

[dutch508]

From zero to "It was all the North's fault" in 60 seconds.

No one saw that coming.

Geez, gator. You need to relax.

[formerlurker]

Lemme guess, you think the war was about slavery, right? ...and you think Lincoln was right to invade a sovereign nation, right? What part of "Union" do you not understand? We didn't found this country as "America". We founded it as the "United States of America", of which that union could be dissolved at any time by the majority of the people in the state.

Am I to assume you think we should have just bent over and taken it from the English as well? Or was that just? Am I also to assume that you don't think the state, prior to joining said union, would have left any avenue to leave once the union wasn't in it's best interest?

There's a reason "The War of Northern Aggression" is a better fit. You could have kept your precious ******* union. The South wanted no more part of it and I'm starting to get to that point now.

No, it was about profits...... from slavery.     

I am going to venture to guess that we disagree on pretty much every single facet of this issue, and have really don't want to go round and round on a topic that has been beaten to death.   



   

[Rebel]

No, it was about profits...... from slavery.     

I am going to venture to guess that we disagree on pretty much every single facet of this issue, and have really don't want to go round and round on a topic that has been beaten to death.   

 

...and where do the profits from the northern slave-holding states fit into your equation?

[Chris_]

...and where do the profits from the northern slave-holding states fit into your equation?

Reparations?   

[formerlurker]

The engine of the South's economy was slaves.  Without them, the South's economy fails.   You can yada yada yada until the damn cows come home about states rights superseding federal government, but at the end of the day it was all about money, and the ill-conceive actions of the confederacy put our country at grave risk and vulnerability.    

Russian ships in the ports of both coasts watching like vultures for the North to fall.    Britian and France licking their chops over the endless possibilities surrounding America splitting into two countries.     We were so dangerously close to losing everything, it angers me just thinking about it.  

We are at far ends of the table on this argument.   I really think we should just let sleeping dogs sleep.  

 

[Rebel]

The engine of the South's economy was slaves.  Without them, the South's economy fails.   You can yada yada yada until the damn cows come home about states rights superseding federal government, but at the end of the day it was all about money, and the ill-conceive actions of the confederacy put our country at grave risk and vulnerability.    

And? The North had NO moral ground on that issue. As for how we made our money, that was none of the federal government's concern. You're using today's ****ed up federal oppression to argue your point. It doesn't work. Not if you know anything about history or how this country was "supposed" to be founded.

Russian ships in the ports of both coasts watching like vultures for the North to fall.    Britian and France licking their chops over the endless possibilities surrounding America splitting into two countries.     We were so dangerously close to losing everything, it angers me just thinking about it.  

Russian ships on BOTH coasts? Ok, I'm gonna call bullshit until you show me a link. Vitus Bering didn't discover the continent of NA until the middle of 1700. ...but they're just all the sudden going to be in California and all up and down the eastern seaboard by 1861?

As for Britain and France, I'm pretty sure Britain wanted no more part of the United States after getting their asses handed to'em and I'm fairly sure France took a lesson from that as well. [/quote]

The secession is legal. Maybe instead of offering conjecture, you can provide me with an educated reason as to why you think it wasn't. As far as I'm concerned, the North did to the South exactly what the ****ing Brits did to the colonies.

[Rebel]

BTW again, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, all northern states and ALL slave-holding states.

[formerlurker]

Russian ships on BOTH coasts? Ok, I'm gonna call bullshit until you show me a link. Vitus Bering didn't discover the continent of NA until the middle of 1700. ...but they're just all the sudden going to be in California and all up and down the eastern seaboard by 1861?

As for Britain and France, I'm pretty sure Britain wanted no more part of the United States after getting their asses handed to'em and I'm fairly sure France took a lesson from that as well.

The secession is legal. Maybe instead of offering conjecture, you can provide me with an educated reason as to why you think it wasn't. As far as I'm concerned, the North did to the South exactly what the ******* Brits did to the colonies.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200707/ai_n19432176

I think you can guess how I think about Russia coming in 'peace' to support the North.   

They came here for our warm water ports, and to be close to Europe in case they needed to wage war over Poland.    However, should the North fall, and oops would you look at that -- all dressed for battle and no where to go.   

The British Empire was known for its diplomacy wasn't it?   Imperialism such an overrated term used to describe their history.  Britain supported the South initially because?    Napoleon, also a man of considerable restraint.....   

The outcome of the Civil War resulted in a strengthening of U.S. foreign power and influence, as the definitive Union defeat of the Confederacy firmly demonstrated the strength of the United States Government and restored its legitimacy to handle the sectional tensions that had complicated U.S. external relations in the years before the Civil War. The renewed strength of the U.S. Government led to the defeat of French intervention in Mexico, and hastened the confederation of Canada in 1867. Union victory also ensured continuing support for the international abolishment of racial slavery.
As the Confederacy collapsed, U.S. leaders were able to shift resources to resisting French intervention in Mexico and to deploy troops along the Texas-Mexico border. U.S. pressure, combined with Mexican resentment and military success against Emperor Maximilian ultimately compelled French Emperor Napoleon III to end his imperial venture in Mexico.

In the north, fears of a resurgent United States and calls by some U.S. politicians for the annexation of British North American territory allowed Canadian politicians to overcome their own sectional differences, while also spurring British parliamentary leaders to urge a stronger central government in British North America, especially after Irish-born Civil War veterans launched several unsuccessful raids into Canada. This resulted in the British North America Act of 1867, which united Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Subsequently, in 1870, Canadian Prime Minister John MacDonald successfully convinced the British Government to cede the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company to Canada, crushing the hopes of U.S. expansionists who hoped to acquire those lands for the United States. Although it took considerable negotiation, the U.S. Government was also able to obtain restitution for claims stemming from the attacks on merchant shipping by British-built Confederate warships such as the Alabama.

The renewed international image of the United States also helped Secretary of State William Seward in his attempts to acquire additional territory in the postwar period. In 1867, Seward succeeded in purchasing Alaska from the Russian Government. Seward also sought to acquire territories in the Caribbean, and to negotiate permission to build the Panama Canal. The postwar period also saw attempts by U.S. political leaders, including Seward, to resettle freed slaves abroad in either Mexico or Brazil, but the governments of those countries dissuaded Seward from these efforts. However, Brazil, where slavery remained legal until 1888, did become a magnet for disaffected Confederates angered by the end of slavery in the United States. Between 3,000 and 20,000 former Confederates resettled in Brazil, although a considerable number returned to the United States. However, William Lidgerwood, the U.S. Chargé d'Affaires in Brazil, recommended that passports be denied for those who had renounced U.S. citizenship. By doing so, Lidgerwood created a class of stateless people, because some former Confederates had renounced their Brazilian citizenship in order to return to the United States. Although many former Confederates were eventually able to return, some remained in Brazil and continued to advocate the proslavery cause.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw/106556.htm

As for the legality -- the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederacy for damn good reasons.   Had they stayed in place we would look like South America, major problems because they can't support themselves.  Unworkable where absolutely nothing would have gotten done.  The states ratified the Constitution and as such bound themselves to it and the Republic.  Leaving not an option -- it wasn't a club.   We are a great country because we are a Republic.   We are everything we are today because we are a Republic.   Period.  End of story. 

     

[formerlurker]

As for the border states and that slave thing, yeah they weren't stupid enough to join the confederacy were they?   

[formerlurker]

The secession is legal.

Because?   You reading confederate history books?

[Rebel]

Because?   You reading confederate history books?

 

Tell me, where in the US Constitution was is specifically written that a state, who's majority wanted to dissolve the union with the fed, was prohibited? You do realize the Constitution was a limitation on the federal government, right? You do understand what a "union" is, right? You have read the 10th amendment, right?

Also, and I don't know why you keep dodging this, why in the HELL would a state enter into a union, of which it had NO ability to leave, after what had JUST happened with England? Tell me you're not that obtuse.

[Chris_]

:whatever:

Tell me, where in the US Constitution was is specifically written that a state, who's majority wanted to dissolve the union with the fed, was prohibited? You do realize the Constitution was a limitation on the federal government, right? You do understand what a "union" is, right? You have read the 10th amendment, right?

Also, and I don't know why you keep dodging this, why in the HELL would a state enter into a union, of which it had NO ability to leave, after what had JUST happened with England? Tell me you're not that obtuse.

That's not really an argument.  Entering into the union was contractual -- the USC deals with the relationship between the People and the Government.

To try to use the 10th Amendment as a penumbra to essentially void the contract the individual states made to join the union is disingenuous at best.

If States could just come and go as they pleased then what would be the point of the Country?  It would just be a loose confederation -- which may be what was desired by the South but would not be a very effective way to run a country.

And had they succeeded, the South would probably be like Bangladesh.  There was not industry and the crops have been grown elsewhere --- at greater efficiency.  And the entire world would have refused to trade with them due to the slavery thing.  It would have been terrible and today you would be a recipient of CCF instead of the creator of the emerginf best Conservative thinkplace on the web.