gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6585044

Oh my.

Are_grits_groceries  (1000+ posts)        Sat Sep-19-09 08:55 AM
Original message
 
Let's just get it the F*** over with! 

I'll start. I'm going down to Charleston today with my rifle, and I'm going to fire on Fort Sumter.

Too many people in this effing country seem intent on refighting the Civil War. So far it has been done rhetorically. However, it seems we get closer to the real thing every day.

Fools on one side say "Secede!" and fools on the other say "Let them!"

There are a lot of people in the South who don't start the day by singing Dixie and reading lists of their ancestors who fought. We try to put the war in a historical context and leave it there.

We can't, and it's not just because of the wingnuts down here. Every day on DU there is some variation on a screed about how awful the region is, was, and apparently always will be. No mention is made about the people who fight here every day for justice or about any progress that has been made.

There are loons here who will always be on the edge and wish for a return to a world that never was. There are others who don't want that, and try to keep on keeping on. As the older generation with closer ties to this thinking die away, we keep pushing to move beyond division and use "the better angels of our nature."

The loons are louder, but they have they are losing ground and to make up for it they make more noise.

Then "kaboom," EVERYBODY down here gets blasted about how terrible we are. The war is brought up and tied around our necks once again. We can't effing deal with the newer methods of attack, because we are saddled with the "Lost Cause."

Somebody wants an apology. Well, I'm sorry slavery was ever used here. I'm sorry that we started that stupid war that cost everybody a great deal. I'm sorry for the years of Jim Crow, and for the continuing ignorance. Will that do? Is there some other requirement?

Know this though. If it wasn't Fort Sumter it would have been somewhere. Somebody was going to start the whole boiling mess, and a war was coming because the South wouldn't change. We wouldn't change quickly enough to free people who never should have been chained to begin with. We were on the wrong side of a moral issue, and just too foolish and stubborn to change ourselves. Somebody was going to "fire that shot" somewhere.

No matter how you try, you can't rain shit down on just Joe Wilson and his ilk by bringing up the war. You are raining it on everybody with the broad brush used. Then everybody gets their back up when that shit hits, and we are called apologists for the Confederacy. I won't defend the indefensible, but everyone and everything is tied together.

I try to sort it out but no matter what the initial purpose was, I feel slapped too.

DU should be a place to sort out differences with some decorum. Forget that. If attacks on the South weren't made so often, then it wouldn't be so hard to swallow.

The loons down here are spoiling for a real fight, and they seem to have enough counterparts in other areas of the country that feel the same. Once again, it doesn't seem to matter about the collateral damage to everybody else.

So I'm going to start off the whole pile of shit again, and pray that the whole country doesn't get blowed up. It seems to be coming. People can't forget the war on either side.

Are_Grits_Groceries will be living in the swamps for a long while.

orpupilofnature57 (1000+ posts)        Sat Sep-19-09 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. Antebellum Complex vs Superiority complex

Turbineguy  (1000+ posts)      Sat Sep-19-09 08:59 AM
Response to Original message

2. I don't think it's about who has a better idea.

It's about destroying the country. The Civil War was fought for a reason. One side or the other would prevail. This time, nobody will prevail.

Oh, I dunno.  Somebody will.  I dunno who, but somebody.

[JohnnyReb]

Oh, I dunno.  Somebody will.  I dunno who, but somebody.

This time, those defending states rights will prevail.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This time, those defending states rights will prevail.

It's bigger than states rights, sir.

It is a sad day that any American would say, "Just leave me my rights and I'll go."

Either rights are rights or they are not. This isn't a matter where we take our ball and go home because doing so would only leave the original tyranny in place and undisturbed, segregated only by the thinnest of borders while milios of others would be trapped.

We say that these lunk-heads dream of making the US into a shadow of Cuba and Venezuela. Could you, sir, countenance such a nation at your border?

I know I couldn't, so we might as well go for the whole prize.

And just how much US soil would we concede to a foreign invader and still call ourselves honorable men? I see no reason to secede--or concede--a single acre to such people who would betray the principles that they so avariciously abused.

[franksolich]

I still think the best thing to do would be compel all of the primitives to move to Vermont, concentrating them into one area, moving out the decent and civilized people from that state.

This forced emigration should be okay with the primitives; after all, the primitives have no problem with Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, Saddam, Fidel, Danny, Yugo, Mugabe, &c., &c., &c., having done this, forcing people to move.

And then after the primitives are all in Vermont, and the decent and civilized people out, tying the state to the rear of an aircraft carrier, pulling it through the St. Lawrence Seaway out into the Atlantic Ocean, and then docking it down in Cuba.

And then the decent and civilized people from Vermont, left behind, could be given some great lakefront real-estate, on the shores of New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, somewhat adding--only a little bit, but some--to the red populace of those places.

[JohnnyReb]

It's bigger than states rights, sir.

It is a sad day that any American would say, "Just leave me my rights and I'll go."

Either rights are rights or they are not. This isn't a matter where we take our ball and go home because doing so would only leave the original tyranny in place and undisturbed, segregated only by the thinnest of borders while milios of others would be trapped.

We say that these lunk-heads dream of making the US into a shadow of Cuba and Venezuela. Could you, sir, countenance such a nation at your border?

I know I couldn't, so we might as well go for the whole prize.

And just how much US soil would we concede to a foreign invader and still call ourselves honorable men? I see no reason to secede--or concede--a single acre to such people who would betray the principles that they so avariciously abused.

Like the last Civil War, this one will also be "Winner Take All".

[BlueStateSaint]

I still think the best thing to do would be compel all of the primitives to move to Vermont, concentrating them into one area, moving out the decent and civilized people from that state.

This forced emigration should be okay with the primitives; after all, the primitives have no problem with Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, Saddam, Fidel, Danny, Yugo, Mugabe, &c., &c., &c., having done this, forcing people to move.

And then after the primitives are all in Vermont, and the decent and civilized people out, tying the state to the rear of an aircraft carrier, pulling it through the St. Lawrence Seaway out into the Atlantic Ocean, and then docking it down in Cuba.

And then the decent and civilized people from Vermont, left behind, could be given some great lakefront real-estate, on the shores of New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, somewhat adding--only a little bit, but some--to the red populace of those places.

Hell, Coach, a lot of the displaced Vermonters could move only a few miles east for that lakefront property--on Lake Champlain.

[franksolich]

Hell, Coach, a lot of the displaced Vermonters could move only a few miles east for that lakefront property--on Lake Champlain.

That's exactly what I'm thinking, sir.

It might crowd up your area, and Carl's area a little bit, all of these displaced decent and civilized people from Vermont, but on the other hand, you'd get the benefit--admittedly, a small one, but a benefit nonetheless--of having more red neighbors.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Missing topic.

[franksolich]

Missing topic.

Not sure what you mean, sir.

[USA4ME]

Not sure what you mean, sir.

Thread's gone down the $kimmer hole.

.

[franksolich]

Thread's gone down the $kimmer hole.

Oh.

I thought it was some error I made.

That's just the way I am; if something goes wrong, I first look to see what I did.

[AllosaursRus]

Thread's gone down the $kimmer hole.

.

What a surprise! I think the statement about the rifle doomed it from the start. lol!

[The Village Idiot]

Like the last Civil War, this one will also be "Winner Take All".

The south had no intention of invading or taking over the North. They just wanted to be left alone. It was winner take all to the north.

[GOBUCKS]

I still prefer the method already put into motion by God, i.e., moving all moonbats, faggots,
and other democrats into the portion of California west of the San Andreas, and then dumping
the whole mess into the Pacific Ocean.

That part of California is already irreparably contaminated, saturated by
the AIDS virus.

Vermont, on the other hand, would be a beautiful corner of our country if only the
moonbats could be eradicated.

[Freeper]

The south had no intention of invading or taking over the North. They just wanted to be left alone. It was winner take all to the north.

Exactly the south didn't give a damn what the north was doing they just wanted to be left alone to do their own thing. I believe it was Rebel who said it wasn't a civil war it was a failed revolutionary war.

[Carl]

The south had no intention of invading or taking over the North. They just wanted to be left alone. It was winner take all to the north.

The north at the time sort of needed the food production of the south as well.

[Broederbond]

I still think the best thing to do would be compel all of the primitives to move to Vermont, .............

They may well put you on a Res or maybe just in a corrective labor camp in Alaska instead. Never underestimate an enemy.

[crockspot]

I'm already on Lake Champlain. I ain't giving up my three acres for no DUmmy, no how.

[Freeper]

I'm already on Lake Champlain. I ain't giving up my three acres for no DUmmy, no how.

Would you give it up if they are hot female DUmmies? 

[Chris_]

Would you give it up if they are hot female DUmmies? 

Name one.  One that is actually on the DUmp.  No fair naming some bubbleheaded hollywierd idiot who just THINKS like a DUmmy.  They have to be REAL DUMMIES.

[Freeper]

Name one.  One that is actually on the DUmp.  No fair naming some bubbleheaded hollywierd idiot who just THINKS like a DUmmy.  They have to be REAL DUMMIES.

I was waiting for someone to say none exist. 

[ReaganForRushmore]

It's bigger than states rights, sir.

It is a sad day that any American would say, "Just leave me my rights and I'll go."

Either rights are rights or they are not. This isn't a matter where we take our ball and go home because doing so would only leave the original tyranny in place and undisturbed, segregated only by the thinnest of borders while milios of others would be trapped.

We say that these lunk-heads dream of making the US into a shadow of Cuba and Venezuela. Could you, sir, countenance such a nation at your border?

I know I couldn't, so we might as well go for the whole prize.

And just how much US soil would we concede to a foreign invader and still call ourselves honorable men? I see no reason to secede--or concede--a single acre to such people who would betray the principles that they so avariciously abused.

Well said

[The Village Idiot]

The north at the time sort of needed the food production of the south as well.

Thats called international trade 

[The Village Idiot]

The north at the time sort of needed the food production of the south as well.

I think slavery would have died in the Confederacy within 25 years anyways.

[USA4ME]

I think slavery would have died in the Confederacy within 25 years anyways.

No doubt.  The USA industrial age ushered out the need to have slaves.  Besides, slavery was ending all over the world.  The USA was the only significant nation that went to war with that as part of the issue.  If the railroads had been run into the South like they had done so in the North the whole war might have been avoided, the economic and political reasons behind all of that being an interesting study.  But that's a whole other topic I don't care to start getting into a fuss over with anyone.

.