The People You’re Allowed to Hate by Pat Buchanan

[bobbyw24]

“This was a recognition of American terrorists.”

That is CNN’s Roland Martin’s summary judgment of the 258,000 men and boys who fell fighting for the Confederacy in a war that cost as many American lives as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined.

Martin reflects the hysteria that seized Obamaville on hearing that Gov. Bob McDonnell had declared Confederate History Month in the Old Dominion. Virginia leads the nation in Civil War battlefields.

So loud was the howling that in 24 hours McDonnell had backpedaled and issued an apology that he had not mentioned slavery.

Unfortunately, the governor missed a teaching moment — at the outset of the 150th anniversary of America’s bloodiest war.

Slavery was indeed evil, but it existed in the Americas a century before the oldest of our founding fathers was even born. Five of our first seven presidents were slaveholders.
But Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America.

At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1861 the first shots of the Civil War, Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy.
Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk.

SNIP

Why are they vilified?

Because they are Southern white Christian men — none of whom defends slavery, but all of whom are defiantly proud of the South, its ancient faith and their forefathers who fell in the Lost Cause.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/04/08/the-people-youre-allowed-to-hate/

[furface]

People it's acceptable to hate:

1. White Christian men
2. Arabs
3. Muslims
4. Confederate soldiers
6. The French

People who under no circumstances can you criticize:

1. Wealthy people in the banking industry (antisemitic)
2. High salaried government workers and pension recipients (support teachers, police officers, firefighters, prison guards)
3. People who volunteer to be foot soldiers to enforce the NWO (support the troops)

[torchbearer]

this reminds me of last night's south park.
let's find mohammad so we can steal the goo that makes him immune to criticism.

[furface]

let's find mohammad so we can steal the goo that makes him immune to criticism.

It's not acceptable to criticize Muhammad in America? I think the article is talking about something different.

[torchbearer]

It's not acceptable to criticize Muhammad in America? I think the article is talking about something different.

the episode is referring to how for some people it's ok to criticize, but some people- are immune to anything critical. Mohammad is the ultimate immunity. You can't even draw his image without dire consequences.

[furface]

This view of Muhammad isn't enforced by the American media like the way the confederacy is portrayed as an eternal evil.

[torchbearer]

This view of Muhammad isn't enforced by the American media like the way the confederacy is portrayed as an eternal evil.

I could see the media connecting the confederacy to islamic extremist.

[furface]

Probably. The South Park episode sounds funny, though. I just think it's dealing with a subtly different.

[daviddee]

...

[furface]

You can add Fat to the top list. Fat can be used in civil conversation the way N*gger was for a few hundred years.

I admit I've made fun of big people in the past. I feel bad about it, though. It is still socially acceptable to do it.

[lester1/2jr]

fat can be changed, skin color can not

[Daamien]

Our new government [the Confederacy] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, 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.Cornerstone Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens
March 21, 1861

The Confederacy itself should not be celebrated, as it very plainly advocated against fundamental human rights for all individuals. It disappoints me when people associate southern pride with the Confederacy, which is a blight on the South's very strong and diverse history and culture.

While the principles of states rights and secession are important, we should not propagate associating them with the negativity of the Confederacy. The Confederate States of America was another federalized government and existed after state secession, not in direct conjunction with the right of state secession.

Therefore, I urge you to reject the notion that we should celebrate Confederate "heritage". Virginia should celebrate state heritage instead.

[RM918]

fat can be changed, skin color can not

So if they invented something that turned black people into white people, it'd be totally fine to keep calling black people ******* and taking away their rights?

[spudea]

He declared it Confederate History Month. NOT Virginian History in the Confederacy.

I acknowledge Virginia seceeded not in defense of slavery but not to be forced to fight their neighbors (which happened anyway, ironic).

But calling it Confederate History Month requires mentioning slavery as a main cause.

[Brian4Liberty]

I could see the media connecting the confederacy to islamic extremist.

No doubt. It seems to be part of new propaganda attack by the left. If you have seen Rachel Madcow lately, she is drawing up quite a scenario.

It goes something like this:

disagree with Obama = disagree with government = government protester = anti-government activist = anti-government terrorist = terrorist

That allows them a convenient way to link bad things to Tea Parties and limited government advocates. :rolleyes:

[revolutionisnow]

the episode is referring to how for some people it's ok to criticize, but some people- are immune to anything critical. Mohammad is the ultimate immunity. You can't even draw his image without dire consequences.

http://i41.tinypic.com/10prdpc.gif

[kahless]

Cornerstone Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens
March 21, 1861

The Confederacy itself should not be celebrated, as it very plainly advocated against fundamental human rights for all individuals. It disappoints me when people associate southern pride with the Confederacy, which is a blight on the South's very strong and diverse history and culture.

While the principles of states rights and secession are important, we should not propagate associating them with the negativity of the Confederacy. The Confederate States of America was another federalized government and existed after state secession, not in direct conjunction with the right of state secession.

Therefore, I urge you to reject the notion that we should celebrate Confederate "heritage". Virginia should celebrate state heritage instead.

Where does the quote come from since it does not appear to be in the Cornerstone Speech.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

[lester1/2jr]

So if they invented something that turned black people into white people, it'd be totally fine to keep calling black people ******* and taking away their rights?

well fat people got that way through unhealthy living. unlike homsexuality, its not natural!

[RM918]

well fat people got that way through unhealthy living. unlike homsexuality, its not natural!

So if it were possible that someone chose to be black or allowed themselves to be without stopping it, it'd be alright to ridicule them, call them ******* and take away their rights?

[Daamien]

Where does the quote come from since it does not appear to be in the Cornerstone Speech.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

I just looked at your link and it is there, 10th paragraph (odd you couldn't find it, considering that paragraph contains the phrase "corner-stone" which is what the speech is named for):


Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, 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.

Pretty hateful.

[kahless]

I just looked at your link and it is there, 10th paragraph (odd you couldn't find it, considering that paragraph contains the phrase "corner-stone" which is what the speech is named for):



Pretty hateful.

I am not disagreeing with you and that was not what I was asking.

Right after "March 21, 1861". All the text after that which starts with "The Confederacy itself should not be celebrated". I can not tell if that is your commentary or are you quoting from some speech since none of that appears in the link. I would normally think that is your commentary but with the heading above and they way your wrote I thought you were quoting the speech.

[nate895]

Alexander Stephens was considered a pariah among many Confederate leaders...

Almost any VP in the history of this country has been a kind of compromise to appease different groups of people. In Stephens the Confederate government was able to appease both the remaining Unionist sympathies (Stephens opposed secession right up until Georgia had seceded) and "Slavocrat" sympathies. It should also be duly noted that most of the Cornerstone Speech has to do with tariffs, taxes, and the possible success of the Confederate government. Slavery was a small section of the speech.

I am not defending the fact that most Southerners (and even more Northerners) were racists, but I do think that the general attitude in the South would have led in the general direction of equality with less divisiveness had there not been war. The War and Reconstruction really screwed up race relations in the South to the point that it probably set them back 50-75 years or more.

[Inflation]

Go Pat Go !!!

Paul / Buchanan 2012 !!!

[SovereignMN]

Go Pat Go !!!

Paul / Buchanan 2012 !!!

I like Pat. I worked for him in Iowa back in 1996 and voted for him in 2000 but no, he's not a VP candidate for Dr. Paul in 2012. He's got too much baggage for the people we need to reach.

[nate895]

I like Pat. I worked for him in Iowa back in 1996 and voted for him in 2000 but no, he's not a VP candidate for Dr. Paul in 2012. He's got too much baggage for the people we need to reach.

Not to mention it does nothing for the age issue...

[Icymudpuppy]

So if it were possible that someone chose to be black or allowed themselves to be without stopping it, it'd be alright to ridicule them,
Yes, free speech


call them *******
Yes, free speech


and take away their rights?
No, no person shall be denied liberty without due process of law.

[Daamien]

It should also be duly noted that most of the Cornerstone Speech has to do with tariffs, taxes, and the possible success of the Confederate government. Slavery was a small section of the speech.

A small section? The speech was named after the line where he calls slavery the cornerstone of the Confederacy. I'd venture to say calling something the cornerstone of a institution's philosophy is a lot more relevant than banter about taxation.

[anaconda]

God I love Pat Buchanan. I just wished he hadn't been such a freak on certain social issues.

[nate895]

A small section? The speech was named after the line where he calls slavery the cornerstone of the Confederacy. I'd venture to say calling something the cornerstone of a institution's philosophy is a lot more relevant than banter about taxation.

The speech was named after that part of it, but it still only a few paragraphs of a rather long speech. Also, you still have one man's opinion who has little power and who was opposed to the whole idea of secession in the first place. He was always one of the biggest defenders of slavery in the South. His entire argument against secession at the Georgia Secession Convention was that it would destroy slavery. Most of the people who ended up voting "yes" on the measure at the convention acknowledged that his argument was probably true, but secession had to take place in any event. Southerners, while they didn't want to give up their slaves all at once, they also didn't want to keep them forever. They were willing to give up slavery from very early in the war in exchange for independence. The North and the Europeans never went along with it.

At the very end of the war, albeit too late to do any good, the Confederate government passed a law that any slave who signed up in the Southern army would have his entire family freed. The bill would have had the effect of emancipating at least half of the slaves had recruitment goals been reached, and in the month that it was in place, the Confederate government was already a third of the way there, and almost every able-bodied slave in Richmond was in active duty by the time the war was out, and according to some Union testimonials, they were the fiercest fighters. One Union officer testified that a company of blacks held his whole brigade off from a supply train in early April for three full charges until they finally were overran. The only reason it wasn't passed sooner is that it was thought it wouldn't pass Constitutional muster, but the Confederate Congress didn't really give a hoot about the CSA Constitution concerning those issues past mid-1864.

Edit: Even Stephens was a part of the last few delegations that offered full, immediate emancipation of all slaves to the US government in exchange for independence.

[RM918]

Yes, free speech


Yes, free speech


No, no person shall be denied liberty without due process of law.

'Alright' does not mean 'legal', at least it didn't used to before the government started taking over morality. I think anyone who intentionally and constantly ridicules someone due to some mental or physical characteristic is a piece of shit and should go directly to hell. Doesn't mean I think the state should fine them or throw them in a cell, however.

[Daamien]

My point in bringing up Stephens is to demonstrate the validity of the widely-accepted notion that advocating slavery was a founding principle (not the only) for the Confederate States of America (not the prior secession based on states rights). Therefore, the Confederacy should not be viewed glowingly as something to "celebrate" by the Governor of Virginia or really any Southerner. The southern secession movement can be celebrated as part of state history and should avoid association with the Confederacy which was another federalized government. Do you disagree?

[nate895]

My point in bringing up Stephens is to demonstrate the validity of the widely-accepted notion that advocating slavery was a founding principle (not the only) for the Confederate States of America (not the prior secession based on states rights). Therefore, the Confederacy should not be viewed glowingly as something to "celebrate" by the Governor of Virginia or really any Southerner. The southern secession movement can be celebrated as part of state history and should avoid association with the Confederacy which was another federalized government. Do you disagree?

Absolutely.

You still have one man's opinion whose purpose in the Confederate government is appeasement of a couple of political factions. Even he ended up being supportive of emancipation eventually, so it is highly doubtful that the major purpose of the Confederate government was to protect slavery. The purpose of the Confederate government was a recognition that as single states they would be totally overwhelmed by the power of the Union. Their only hope for survival was unity at least on matters of foreign and defense policy.

[Daamien]

You don't see slavery as a principle of the Confederacy? Have you even seen the Confederate Constitution?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

Article 1
Section 9
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Article IV
Section 2
(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article IV
Section 3
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

I bolded one part in particular that demonstrates how slavery was explicitly institutionalized and protected by the federal Confederate government which would supersede state laws. Notice how ownership if slaves is called a "right".

I have the opinion of the Vice President and a founder of the Confederacy as well as the actual Confederate Constitution. You meanwhile provide nothing but unsubstantiated claims that slavery existed out of "appeasement". The irony of defending a federalized government, the Confederate States of America, as a protector of states rights is slightly amusing.

The Confederacy should not be confused with states rights and secession. Again, there is no reason to "celebrate" the federalized Confederacy when you can "celebrate" the secession movement independently as a legitimate states rights issue. Do you disagree on this? If not, then do you believe that independent states should be able to seceded without forming a federalized union afterward?

[nate895]

You don't see slavery as a principle of the Confederacy? Have you even seen the Confederate Constitution?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America


I bolded one part in particular that demonstrates how slavery was explicitly institutionalized and protected by the federal Confederate government which would supersede state laws. Notice how ownership if slaves is called a "right".

I have the opinion of the Vice President and a founder of the Confederacy as well as the actual Confederate Constitution. You meanwhile provide nothing but unsubstantiated claims that slavery existed out of "appeasement". The irony of defending a federalized government, the Confederate States of America, as a protector of states rights is slightly amusing.

The Confederacy should not be confused with states rights and secession. Again, there is no reason to "celebrate" the federalized Confederacy when you can "celebrate" the secession movement independently as a legitimate states rights issue. Do you disagree on this? If not, then do you believe that independent states should be able to seceded without forming a federalized union afterward?

Now you're building a strawman and burning it down. I never said that the Confederate Constitution didn't protect slavery, I just said that slavocracy wasn't the major purpose of the Confederate government. Furthermore, you misrepresent the Confederate Constitution on the matter. It never supersedes state laws on the matter, only that territorial governments must protect slavery. Also, as I have pointed out before, there were several overtures throughout the course of the war from the Confederacy to both the Union aggressors and the European powers for recognition on the grounds of emancipation. The Confederacy was willing to trade slavery for independence, so that leads to the idea that independence was a higher ideal than slavery. Otherwise, why would they be willing to trade slavery for it?

Furthermore I never said slavery itself wouldn't exist outside appeasement, I said that the reason for Stephens appointment to the vice presidency was to appease Slavocrats and left-over Unionists (primarily Unionists). Slavocracy was the idea that slavery should continue in perpetuity because slavery was somehow vital to either the Southern way of life or liberty itself. That was a minority viewpoint in possibly every Southern state, with the only possible exception being South Carolina. Davis himself educated his slaves for freedom, even educating them in the law and having a court system on his plantation where the slaves would elect the prosecutors and defense attorneys, and the only power Davis had as judge was to judge the worthiness of evidence and reduce the sentence of the slave jury if he found it overly harsh. With that being the POTCS, I highly doubt that the entire purpose of the government of the CSA was to protect slavery in perpetuity.