sob

Or to suggest that Northern soldiers were fighting over slavery, when they went home and made laws specifying that former slaves couldn't settle permanently in their states.

I'd also like to see an explanation for the 65,000-90,000 slaves who fought for the Confederacy.

flstf

Yeah I'm sure some adjustmants could be made. I know that nowadays some companies give money to sports franchises and cities in order to get stadiums named after themselves. When I was in Seattle Safeco bought the rights to name the Mariners stadium Safeco Field. They didn't build the structure like the DOC just gave them $10M or so as I recall. I wonder how much they would give Safeco back if they wanted to rename it?

jorgelito

Well, Houston terminated the name rights of Enron and didn't give any money back I think.

I'm sure some accountant could figure out the pro-rat for 'services rendered'. Maybe after 7 years, they'll get nothing. I think the Daughters of the Confederacy got a bargain anyway.

Or maybe they could turn it into a sorority house. Preferably one that honors the mission statement or is closer to the Daughters of the Confederacy, like the Southern Belles (I'm not sure if this is a real org or sorority but hopefully you get the idea). That way, they could preserve the name, it would still be choice (choose to live there) and they could swap with a existing sorority house or build a new dorm.

I think that would be a good compromise, everyone saves face and no one's rights gets trampled on..

On a side note: Would anyone be offended if someone endowed a dorm and named it "Yankee Pride"? We need to be a bit careful when it comes to policing this type of thing. (at least I think so).

flstf

I assume you are equating the display of the CSA battle flag as something offensive to some people like giving someone the finger would be. I hope you also understand that tearing it down offends those of us who wish to honor our ancestors bravery as well.

It is truly a shame that the memory of these brave men should be tainted because some radical minority hate group like the KKK have displayed it. It is disappointing that some people have let the actions of a few hate groups determine the meaning of the symbol.

Once people decide the symbol is negative they begin to re-invent history. As an example of this just read some of the misinformed posts in this forum.

jb2000

Perhaps, but it bears noting that this isn't a case of anyone filing suit against Vanderbilt to get the name change or a law or court saying they had to change it. This is simply a case of the University deciding that it was no longer in their best interest to retain the name, and whether or not they had the right to make the change or what could be done about it.

The Stadium deals are a little different. For one, they are not considered gifts, donations, or otherwise in the least. They are paid advertising, and the deals are written with all of the appropriate legalese to cover these kinds of situations, something obviously lacking in the contract this article covers. In the case of Houston, reclaiming the naming rights was a mutually agreed path, and while I'm sure the team and stadium were no longer eager to be associated with Enron, the biggest reason is that Enron obviously was no longer able to maintain the payments on the rights. All of it was covered in the contracts, and so there wasn't really any issue to it, they just went ahead and did it.

Josh

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

jb2000

I'm not sure that I do understand the offense at 'tearing it down'. I mean, sure, if they were litterally tearingit down and treating it disrespectfully, sure, but that's not the case here. Let me be clear, as I understand it, the symbology we are discussing (primarily the name 'Confederate Memorial Hall' to be clear) is specifically related to the CSA or Confederacy, which is a very time-specific entity. It did not exist outside of the years 1861-1865. The Confederate flag and Confederate symbology does not reflect southern history prior to this period, although it would of course be silly to ignore the importance of those years on the history of the south. It is fair to say that no time before or since better represented what the 'south' means to a lot of people.

The defense that we need to maintain these symbols to honor the dead doesn't really hold water. Symbols aren't needed to maintain honor. Germany honors her war dead without needing to display Third Reich symbology or give Nazi effects any kind of place of honor to maintain the honor of those soldiers who fell for their country.

I make the comparison to Nazi Germany not to try and say that the CSA rivalled Hitler's evil or even was that kind of country at all. It is because, like the CSA, the Third Reich was a very time-specific entity. The flag of Nazi Germany, like the flag of the CSA, was not a historical symbol, but instead one crafted during the period and which only flew over a very brief and delineated period of history.

With these kind of symbols, it is hard to tell somebody to ignore the bast body of what they stood for and allow them to be displayed as some kind of memorial. The simple fact is that a lot of people do not want those types of things memorialized. They don't want to honor what they consider a criminal and treasonous confederacy which rose up in arms against their nation, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens. They don't want to honor the fact that this was done primarily over whether or not states should have the right to maintain slavery or whether the federal government had the authority to interfere in states affairs on that matter, even if it was a matter or precident and/or principle.

In the end, most people understand that symbols aren't really used to maintain the honor of the deceased, but instead to keep alive the ideals that they stood for. Given that these ideals are in a great number of ways counter to what many Americans hold, and to those upheld in our Constitution, when it comes to public places of honor, it is not necessarily appropriate to put Confederate symbology up.

In the case of this school, they are a private institution and have the right to fly Confederate flags if they desire. They also have the right to do the opposite.

Josh

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

smooth

Josh, you have very leveled opinions.

I can't remember specifics on where we disagree or not, but I would enjoy reading your thoughts regardless of whether your points differed substantially from mine.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness in the politics board.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

flstf

I guess this is where we disagree. You refer to the Confederacy as rising up in arms against their nation. Their nation was the Confederacy since they seceded from the Union. They wanted self rule something that up until that time was considered their right as long as their state legislatures voted to. It was the North who took up arms to prevent them.

It required the state legislatures to vote them into the Union and it was understood that those same legislatures could vote them out of it. If the North would not have taken up arms to prevent it there wouldn't have been the death of thousands. In my opinion and many others the North was wrong to do so. All they had to do is let them go.

I'll admit the South wanted to rule themselves including the right to have slaves but that was not what the war was about. We have already discussed what the leaders of the Union thought about slavery including the right to own them in the North even after the Emancipation Proclimation banned it in the South. Do you really think the Union cared one way or another except for political leverage? Don't you think Lincoln would have asked/made Grant free his slaves instead of keeping them till long after the war ended?

So that is why we don't see what is wrong with honoring these brave young men and boys for fighting for their homeland. They were not treasonous and criminal. Many people then and now think they were in the right, just outnumbered and ill equipped.

If intelligent folks like yourself do not see the honor in what these soldiers did and why we might want to remember them, then I am going to resist posting much more on the matter. Like ShaniFaye I've said about all I can.

Superbelt

To clear some things up: Sorry to have applied "fuckwad" to the entire south. I will limit it to those only wo fought for the continuance of slavery, not the average soldier who was just doing his duty for his state. I won't apologize beyond that though.

I would like some sources stating that slavery was well and alive in the north after the war.
Everything I have learned has taught me that it was outlawed in the north long before the war even started. This was the main reason for the Dred Scott case. Please give me a citing of this.
Also cite for me Grant owning slaves after the war ended.

to the end of what you said flstf: We can honor the soldier, but that is done at their gravesite. Explain why these soldiers deserve buildings named after the political substance (a the current flying of their war banner) that they once fought for while the many German soldiers who died for the Nazi regime do not.

To anything anyone has tried to ask me since friday afternoon, please if you want me to answer, ask it again. I don't get on much at all on weekends. If you don't think it's been significantly explained yet, please question me.

Superbelt

I found something interesting in my research also that I would like to share. It is the "Paradox of Democratic Secession" Seems logical to me.

There lies another difference between the American Revolution and the American Civil War.
The revolution was an act of creating a democracy as the colonies had no power of democracy to begin with.
The Confederate States were performing an action that was antithetical to democracy.

Then there is this one:
In essence it is: "We let you be part of this democracy, therefore we are permitted to keep you in it.


The situation the southern states were in was like in a court case were someone writes up a personal contract with someone that if he fails in the goal he has to forefeit his firstborn to the other half of the contract.
The Judge will say, though the contract states it, you have no legal right to do this.

The same goes to secession from a democracy. You can state it in a contract that you hold the right to seceede, but the definition of democracy prohibits it.

flstf

We will disagree till the cows come home as to why I feel they should be remembered with memorials, etc.. and you may not. My main feelings on the subject are in some of the previous posts. While I respect much of what you write in these forums I see no reason to fully address your Nazi comparison. One was a regime planning for world conquest and the other just wanted self rule.

jb2000

Perhaps it was missed, but I took great pains to explain in detail that I do not disagree that the South had the right to secede. You claim that it was the North, but do not address the fact that the war began with the siezure by force of arms of Federal (Union) property by Southern troops. If that doesn't constitute rising up in arms, I don't know what does!

I agree that if the North had accepted the siezures and relinquished the rights to its property without due process, that there would not have been a war. But can you realistically expect any nation on earth to allow its territory to be violated without response? Do you not feel that the President has the responsibility to act in defense of US territority when it is siezed?

And I have agreed that the slave issue was merely the spark, and during the war was used by the north as a moral banner, not necessarily representative of what the real aims of the war were, much like the moral banner of liberation we wave in Iraq today. This does not change the fact that the issue was a critical part of the war, the victory by the Union led the the end of slavery much quicker than had the South seceded peacefully or won the war.

I thought I was very clear in separating the honor of the soldiers themselves from the symbology of the nation they fought for. I don't believe there was any lack of honor in fighting for their states. They did their best to sacrifice in the best interest of their homes, families, and communities. There is no dishonor in that.

The fact that the CSA may have acted wrongly in perpetrating the war should not be heaped upon the shoulders of the men who fought in its army. Soldiers fight for their homes. It is on the shoulders of their leaders to use them wisely.

If you can not understand this distinction, I apologize for not making it clear enough. Perhaps it is true that for some the honor of the individual soldier and the symbology and motives of his nation are inseperable. However, if you at all feel I am attempting to dishonor the southern or soldier or say that it is inappropriate to honor them, then you are truly wrong.

Josh

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

flstf

Thank you Josh for your well thought out post. I still think the North was just as responsible if not more than the South for this war however your ideas are reasonable and I think I understand where you are coming from.

Those of us with close ties to the South sometimes get upset with all the negativity associated with what we consider an honorable heritage. If I were the descendant of slaves I most probably would feel very differently. But then I think I would be just as offended by the way the whole country treated my ancestors as well.

MoonDog

Hehe, my post got squashed by a Mack truck!
I defer to the Southern secession/Civil War discussion...

CShine

The South is fully to blame for starting the Civil War, period.

The island upon which Ft. Sumter rests was never, ever part of the state of South Carolina. It is a man-made island which was created by the authority of Congress in the 1820's for the expressed purpose of building the fort. It was ALWAYS federal government property from the beginning and South Carolina never had any credible claim to it.

The South legitimately seceded from the Union and formed their own nation. President Jefferson Davis then ordered General P.G.T. Beauregard to demand the surrender of Ft. Sumter and to seize it by force if that demand was refused. This constitutes an act of war under any definition of the term. As a legitimate nation which had seceded from the Union, the South had NO RIGHT to demand Northern territory nor to seize it. Furthermore, the North could not possibly ignore a hostile nation on its border which had deliberately attacked it, seized a federal base, and was then proceeding to begin a massive military buildup. To do nothing in the face of a direct attack from a hostile and growing power would've been stupidity in the extreme.

The Confederacy would've had legitimate grounds to demand recognition and respect from the North had it simply chosen not to attack Ft. Sumter. As said before, that attack constituted an act of war under any definition of the term ever invented. In so doing, they lost any hope of saying that they had peaceful intentions. The Confederacy brought the Civil War upon itself. No nation with an ounce of sanity would allow one of its military installations to be seized by a neighbor without responding with its own military. To do otherwise would have been practically asking the Confederacy to attack again. The Confederates should've kept their fingers off the trigger and they would've had a leg to stand on. When they fired the first shot they brought the war down upon their own heads.

flstf

As usual there's two sides to this.

Superbelt

1) How is your source able to make the decision that the ships were war ships and not supply ships?

2) The land is an island and was never a part of Carolina property to begin with

3) Do you see the similarity to Guantanamo Bay?

jb2000

flstf,

Thank you for the further information. The question of whether Ft. Sumter was ever S. Carolina land (as posted by others) is not meaningful. Noone denied that it was a Federal fort, and by the same token, I don't think anyone can argue that it would have made sense, had the South been recognized as independent, for the fort to remain in Federal hands. The fact that it was created by Federal mandate or whatever doesn't change the fact that being in a S. Carolina harbor, for it to not become S. Carolina territory would be untenable.

If it is true that warships were sent to Fort Sumpter, and that this provoked a response by President Davis, then I don't see how this changes the idea that the South, by taking military action to seize the fort, initiated hostilities. The fort was already a military facility, heavily armed and garrisoned. The arrival of warships did not transform it, even if they added to its military strength. Such an addition would seem warranted given the threat that was percieved from Southern forces (and bourne out to well-founded, given events that unfolded).

That negotiations were ongoing, including Federal promises to hand over the fort, only adds to the South's culpability in this matter. As I have cited before, the secession was only declared in January of 1861. Fort Sumpter was seized in IIRC April of 1861. That amount of time is hardly enough to determine that non-violent and/or legal methods had been exhausted to achieve both independence and the hand-over of facilities.

It may well be true that the Federal Government would have not recognized Southern independence, and that any plans for peaceful handover of Fort Sumpter were destined for failure. However, given the time-scale, we will never know, as the South never gave either of those possibilities enough time to come to fruition. In their haste, for whatever reason, they jumped the gun and started a shooting war. For this, they do deserve to be considered the instigators of the shooting war that became the Civil War.

Let me clarify: this does NOT mean that I hold the South solely or fully responsible for the war. The bon-fire had been building for a long time, and a lot of people figured it was an inevitability. On both sides, but especially in the South, there was almost relief upon the start of hostilities, as it was figured they could get started and get it over with. Naturally, both sides saw it as a short war that was coming and that it would be over quickly in their favor. In the above study, I am merely recognizing that it was the South that actually took the action of lighting the match, if you will.

Josh

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

Mephisto2

This is an interesting discussion. I've been an (armchair) Civil War buff for years, and I've never had any doubt that

a) The war was, on a fundamental level, about slavery
b) That Lincoln did carry out some illegal actions, but justified them in his desire to save the Union. As most Northerners agreed, there was not much opposition to this.
c) That the legality of secession is a murky area, but arguing over it is meaningless. The South always knew the North would fight to preserve the Union

It's interesting to see that this topic still engenders such feelings and mixture of interpretations today.


Mr Mephisto

flstf

I think jb2000 answered sufficiently in the quote that follows from a previous message .
The question of whether Ft. Sumter was ever S. Carolina land (as posted by others) is not meaningful. Noone denied that it was a Federal fort, and by the same token, I don't think anyone can argue that it would have made sense, had the South been recognized as independent, for the fort to remain in Federal hands. The fact that it was created by Federal mandate or whatever doesn't change the fact that being in a S. Carolina harbor, for it to not become S. Carolina territory would be untenable.
Yes I do. I don't know much about the history of Guantanimo Bay but it would seem that the analogy doesn't help my assertion that South Carolina was justified. A short search for info on Guantanimo turned up the fact that we still believe we are leasing it. I assume Castro would have resisted if he had the means to do so.

CShine

Quite the contrary, it's the ONLY thing that has any meaning regarding who had a right to it. If South Carolina had ANY legitimate grounds to claim that they could secede then they could ONLY claim to take the lands within its borders. They did not have any claim to territory that had always lain outside their borders, yet they presumed to do just that. They had no more right to Ft. Sumter than they did to Boston harbor. The fact that the fort was strategically significant to the operation of the harbor did NOT confer to them the right to shoot at it, much less seize it. Doing so was AN ACT OF WAR.

sob

So was sending ships in order to begin an invasion.

By your logic, we would have "started" WWII against Japan if we'd shot down any of their torpedo bombers before they hit Pearl Harbor.

sob

The concept you bring up is that a contract can not be based on illegality. I prefer to use a different example than yours: an employment contract in which it is specified that the employer is not required to pay an hourly employee overtime, no matter how many hours the employee puts in.

There are very clear laws prohibiting the practice above, unlike the act of secession, on which there were no prohibitions. In fact, as was earlier stated, three states demanded that right, and the other ten acceded.

Let's review:

First you said in an earlier post that (Post #38)

You followed that up with (Post #42)

Ergo, if you are to be believed in regard to the above, and in regard to your comments regarding democracy in #90, our Constitution is an illegal contract.

Therefore, the South was within its rights to terminate the contract.

Please note that it is not my position that the Constitution is an illegal contract. I am simply pointing out what I see as a flaw in your argument.

I should also note that you seem to waver between saying the states had a right to secede, and saying they had no such right.

sob

That's one reason I've enjoyed this thread--because many of us see some parallels between that time and the present.

I'm not clear if the positions above represent the way you feel today, especially in regard to a).

Although no one would say slavery wasn't an important component of (gig inserted here) the "War for Southern Independence," it has always appeared to me that the fundamental cause was clearly an intolerably overbearing central government. The financial aspects have been covered to some extent here, but not as much as I'd like.

b) The NORTHERNERS might have agreed, but the Southerners would (and still do) react quite differently. You tend to take it personally when an army steals your possessions (silverware and livestock, not slaves) and destroys your crops, in order to have your family starve in your absence. The words "Never Again," borrowed from another cause, seem appropriate here.

I also tend to contrast excusing "some illegal actions" of Lincoln to the flamebait thread I saw earlier in which someone delivered a rant because, for security, the parade participants weren't supposed to fix their gaze on President Bush.

Examples from that thread:
These statements were about directing your gaze. I haven't seen a word from either author in regard to the wrongness of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. If Bush followed Lincoln's example, a great many people on TFP would be locked up under "martial law" without official charges or a trial.

Habeas

At least Bush hasn't ignored the chief justice of the US Supreme Court!

Superbelt

I can't get to everything you said, but I will by at least monday night.o one of your questions:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...hlight=Lincoln
From me:Mr Meph:[qote]Lincoln, without a doubt, stands head and shoulders above all others in my mind. Without his dogged determination and leadership the United States may have ceased to exist as we know it today. He had his faults, but they were minor to what he achieved; the preservation of the Union and the Emancipation of the Slaves.
[/quote]
Neither of us specifically cite Habeas Corpus but we both allude to it in a manner that is obvious to anyone who is even remotely well read in American Civil War History.
So, we are on record to this.

sob

Well, I cited it, but you apparently didn't read it. Lincoln didn't suspend the Constitution. Here it is again:

Habeas, the Constitution

Just for emphasis, as you can see above, the Supreme Court restored Habeas Corpus after the war. Lincoln was hindered in doing so, since he happened to be dead at the time.

By the way, does it meet with your approval for a president to rule the Union "as a dictator in wartime?"

Thanks in advance.

jorgelito

This is really interesting as it starts to bring up"the ends justifies the means" type of argument. Also, I feel it's heading into "slippery slope" territory of double standards.

For example: Would we find it ok if Bush suspended habeas corpus in the interest of "national security"? Would he then become one of the greats years from now? It's probably too soon to tell, one of the inate problems with the study of history.

sob

That was the point of my question.

Brace yourself for the replies you're about to receive.

Superbelt

Lincoln was one of the greats in hindsight, not at the time. His decisions, though blatantly unconstitutional proved to be, I believe good decisions in the best interest of the nation.
I, and many like me, contend that Bush will not hold up to the test of time as Lincoln did.

Justsomeguy

I'm glad to see that college priorities are right on track !

Tophat665

Look, maybe the south should try seccession again. Take Texas when you go. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

<small>Why oh why couldn't we just let these people go when we had the chance? Gee, thanks Abe. Screwed by republican president #1</small>

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

The_Dunedan

We tried that once, seems we got shot, bombed, and occupied straight out of the idea!

I think this time we should just kick New York, Massachusetts, California, Illinios, and Connetticut out!

Konichiwaneko

I need the north there to remind me why i"m happier down here.

__________________

Superbelt

You also need us here to award you our federal taxes

The_Dunedan

More like you need us here to pay those Federal taxes. You folks pay more per-capita, but we pay far more in dollar amount, as I understand it. Not to mention grow most of your food, produce most of your electricity, produce and refine most of your petro-chem, mine most of your coal, bauxite, graphite, and building-stone, and provide you with cheap labour.

Superbelt

sob: I didn't waver, I have completely changed my position after reading the philosophy of the paradox of democratic secession.
The document would not be made illegal because of an agreement made before the signing of the contract. The signers should have realized they would have had no true right to secceed before signing. They would still be bound by the contract but would be barred from performing the illegal action that they were granted from outside the contract.

I take the position that once the states became one nation, individual states do not have the right to break away because they are american citizens first and state resident second. We don't go abroad and identify what state we are from, we identify that we are americans.
The south attempted to seceede because of decisions our government was making were unfavorable to them. Tough titty, under the umbrella of democracy we vote on issues as a nation and make decisions that affect us all. They knew this going in, they shouldn't have expected to be in the drivers seat on every issue forever. It is just not realistic and not democratic.

We are and always were american citizens, by the time of the civil war, everyone who was alive was born an american citizen. We make decisions together, the south did not even try to get together and vote with the rest of the nation on whether or not they would be allowed to leave (the only way they could seceede in a democracy) as such, they didn't have the right.

on Habeas:
You could make a case that suspending a part of the constitution is the same as suspending the whole thing. For a president to suspend any one part of it makes the rest of it just as vulnerable.

dunedan:
What the hell.
We pay more per capita and we have more people, that means we pay more in dollar amount as well.
But I never want this nation to be broken apart anyway. We need the south and midwest for their food production and the south and midwest needs the NE and West coast for our economic strength.
BTW, I am from PA, we have plenty of coal, building-stone, etc up here as it is.

Per dollar given to the Fed, this is how much each of these states get back. Those are the ten highest.
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

But this a whole different issue that we already covered here.

smooth

So I'm sitting here reading my copy of the constitution again for my legal reasoning and it hits me:

a lot of people don't really know what the constitution says. Sometimes they think they do, because they have some knowledge of the amendments. But the actual Articles? I think not...

Apparently, habeas corpus can be suspended according to the constitution, and my definition of treason seems to adhere to the definition embedded in the constitution.

So there's my thoughts on the matter, I must admit I was happy they meshed with the document that created our nation.


...back to studying.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

fibber

" We don't go abroad and identify what state we are from, we identify that we are americans."
-Superbelt

Just for the record..... we do In Texas.


I miss the Oilers.
-fibber

smooth

lol, likewise for us Californians.
At least, my friends who travel internationally recommended I follow that advice when abroad.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

irateplatypus

just as a sidenote (i hope this hasn't been said in this thread already):

i'm in alabama for a short while... i actually heard someone call the "civil war" the "war of northern agression" in plain speech. that is to say, without the aire of the expression being a novelty of any sort. also, a person i met down here originally from Maine has told me he was once kicked out of a bar once the patrons heard his northern accent. wow.

alabamans (alabamians?) have been great to me so far... but i sure was surprised that any of that sentiment was still around.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill