Friday, May 25, 2012

The Sons of Confederate Veterans

February 27, 2010 by  
Filed under confederate


Pictures taken from around the State of Mississippi of the Sons of Confederate Veterians in actions. Photos courtesy of The Lowry Rifles. The Gainesville Volunteers, and the Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterians.

Comments

25 Responses to “The Sons of Confederate Veterans”
  1. DurhamRebel says:

    for what reasons are you proud of being a yankee? im not looking for a fight im just curious.

  2. Conorbond says:

    dude the war is over for everyone we fight to save and protect our heratage

  3. BroadCastTuber says:

    I’m a proud YANKEE!

    Go North/Union!

  4. MrPontiusPilate says:

    “The expansion of slavery was incidental in that regard”

    sad

  5. MrPontiusPilate says:

    That wasn’t the smart thing to do and that wasn’t the right thing to do.

  6. MrPontiusPilate says:

    Then hot heads one night blew the whole thing up by attacking US troops at a US base, fort Sumter. Instead of letting the problem cool down, they escalate into war.
    Of course federal troops were in Forts Moultrie and Sumter. They were on duty. They had been there for a generation or more ever since South Carolina sold the land to Congress and US tax money paid for the forts to be built.
    It would be like if the Texas militia attacked Fort Hood.

  7. MrPontiusPilate says:

    They quit the one thing the founders ensured for us, the union of all the states under the Constitution. They wanted to destroy the whole thing because they couldn’t deal with the democratic process when they didn’t have complete power over legislation.
    So well to do men, part of the 6% of the south that actually owned slaves, that actually dealt with tariff costs, let personal motives effect the lives of millions of southerners and voted for dismembering the entire republic.

  8. MrPontiusPilate says:

    Like so often happens in our Republican, since the early days of the founders, one region or interest, was losing power to another temporarily more dominant region or interest in the halls of Congress. Thus willing its values and interests within the decisionmaking process.
    This is one of the most basic precepts of our republican system. Instead of dealing with it, and letting their interests(slavery, tariffs, states right’s) get put through the democratic legislative process. They quit

  9. MrPontiusPilate says:

    No it’s a tragedy and everyone was involved.
    I don’t believe that the war was fought by the northern states to defeat slavery nor do I think that the southern people fought, strictly, to defend slavery. The truth is a lot more convoluted than that.
    I believe that the war was fought because cooler heads didn’t prevail, especially in the south. The slaveholding agricultural states, most of them southern, were faced with a political dilemma, which threatened their status as a voting block.

  10. darthroden says:

    No you never said there was a moral imperative for them…..although that would make a better claim for the argument of a holy crusade to “make men free”…a crusade that I might point out ended with a hundred years of segregation and “gentlemen’s laws” with absolutely NO peep at all from those same so-called liberators.
    A hundred years of history being white-washed, omitting key roles of black men in keeping America a land of “freedom”.

    Go on, keep trying to convince me. You’re doing so well

  11. darthroden says:

    Okay you want grasping at straws, try this one….

    I refuse to accept that the same “winners” who wrote this history of the US, the very same people who, until very recently practically covered up all major African-American participation in key events in both the founding and the building of this country, I might add…would during a mere four years fight a moral crusade to free black men and women, only to abandon them to Jim Crow.
    Wake up brother, its all a big joke!

  12. darthroden says:

    You may believe what you wish to believe, I have nothing to prove to you.

  13. darthroden says:

    Sir,
    I have not only just refuted your facts, but I have offered a counter argument.

    Oh and FYI…MY ANCESTORS FOUGHT ON BOTH SIDES! Not to mention the fact that my own father (who also honored his Southern heritage) marched with Dr. King himself. Oh and that I myself teach African-American history.

    I think under those circumstances, you may find me more than able to refute what you are telling me.

  14. MrPontiusPilate says:

    Of course you are white and you’re hiding it now to try and prove a point.

  15. MrPontiusPilate says:

    When did I ever say that there was a moral imperative for them?
    Is that all you have? attacking a straw man?

  16. darthroden says:

    I will of course wait while you offer me an apology for your presumptions about my racial mixup as well….not that I expect anything of the sort from you.

  17. MrPontiusPilate says:

    “The politics of States Rights needed to expand simply as a means of balancing out the Northern ideals of centralized government”

    So in order to do this you spread slavery, completely shredding the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration. That makes moral and legal sense.

  18. darthroden says:

    Well having answered your question, let’s see if you can answer one of mine….assuming you can.

    Can you prove that there was any sort of moral imperative on the part of so-called “free state” Northerners to make certain Kansas was slave free?
    As I understand it, the subject was as much racial there as well…only in this case it was the so-called “free state” folks who wanted to make certain the territories “stayed white”….in short, they wanted NO BLACKS in the territories PERIOD!

  19. darthroden says:

    Very well, here’s the substantive facts.

    The politics of States Rights needed to expand simply as a means of balancing out the Northern ideals of centralized government. The sole purpose was to make certain that the North was not able to outvote the Southern States on matters concerning State Sovereignty and separation of powers.
    The expansion of slavery was incidental in that regard.

  20. MrPontiusPilate says:

    Of course
    You play games like a child instead of using facts to refute my claim that slavery was not on it’s way out. No wonder your effeminate feeble ancestors lost the war.

  21. darthroden says:

    Oh you can eh? Humm then try and predict exactly what my next response shall be….this should be cute.

  22. MrPontiusPilate says:

    “I’ve never seen anyone totally own themselves as bad as you just did…thanks for making my day!”

    So cute. A simple tactic used by simple people. I can read you like a book.

  23. MrPontiusPilate says:

    I noticed that you attacked part of my comment that was not integral to my idea. Do you stiil have nothing substantive to counter with?

  24. MrPontiusPilate says:

    I see that I put you on the defensive. This pleases me.

  25. darthroden says:

    “@ MrPontiuePilate
    “Wow that sounds like it was made up. Slaves had nothing to worry about then. Because a white kid 150 years later retrospectively thinks that all would be alright. All they have to do is wait for the good white man to take his sweet time.”

    LMFAO! Oh man when you make a mistake you sure go whole hog don’t you?
    Want in on the joke….I’M NOT WHITE MAN!
    I’ve never seen anyone totally own themselves as bad as you just did…thanks for making my day!

    Keep it Flying!

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers