Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
texas is definitely a fun state to visit. i don't think i could live there long term, but dallas and austin both were superb times.
however, some of the people i work with currently maintain that texas is more 'southwest' and not the 'real' south.
is that how texans feel?
I can't speak for Texans, because I only know a few. But the impression that I get from Texans is they are EXTREMELY proud of their state. In fact; we joke about how they would love to build a fence along the MX border and just keep going around the whole state.
Our winter home is in Mission. It has to be 90% Mexican. But both the whites and Mexicans are incredibly friendly and talkative. I love the Southwest and their culture.
I can't speak for Texans, because I only know a few. But the impression that I get from Texans is they are EXTREMELY proud of their state. In fact; we joke about how they would love to build a fence along the MX border and just keep going around the whole state.
Our winter home is in Mission. It has to be 90% Mexican. But both the whites and Mexicans are incredibly friendly and talkative. I love the Southwest and their culture.
that's true. i think in general cali and texas are the only two states in the union that could become its own country if they were pushed to and it was the last resort. other states wouldn't be able to do it as successfully IMO.
That first part is only your take on history. The states of the Upper South didn't mention slavery at all, and in the Lower South, many other issues were mentioned.
To say slavery was not an issue at all would be foolish of me. However, historians have never been able to agree on its precise role and likely never will. And I am not going to spend a lot of time on it either for that reason. To say however that the Confederacy was formed only to preserve slavery overly simplifies a complex issue (although likely for some wealthy planters it may have boiled down to only that). However, many other Southerners feared that slavery was only the excuse for future attacks on the principle of state's rights. As Jefferson Davis said "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form." But for the vast majority of Southerners, the only stakes at issue was defending his state and homeland against invasion.
As far as how blacks feel about it, may I ask your credentials to speak for all blacks on the subject? I say that because you insist that there are "none". Anyway, my own experience is that most don't give a damn one way or another. At least here the South. Here are at least two articles you might read sometime which refutes your blanket statement:
that's the thing though. my exposure to the south has been in cities. lived in memphis, and now in wilmington. my exposure to living in the north, was living in wilkes-barre, PA, and working with guys from upstate NY. also, VA is a southern state, but living most of my life outside DC in VA, I was exposed to lots of diversity. the only time I was every exposed to racism in VA was in rural areas. also, to be fair, when you experience racism in mississippi, and alabama, it goes both ways. there is mutual hatred. I experienced this a little bit in memphis when we would work in mississippi. whites hated me because I didn't hate blacks, and blacks hated me because I was white. it was all sorts of fun!
Evern been to Richmond? You know the state CAPIAL?
Are you sure you really want to get into this with me, a native Texan? Not that that makes me, by any means, an expert on Texas history, but it does call into question your own expertiese on the matter.
Be that as it may, for a brief time, after Texas initially seceded, and had not yet formally joined the Confederacy (which was still in the process of being formed), it was, by definition, an independent Republic once again.
Your statement it never could have done so is simply your own take on the whole issue of secession, which is a different subject in most ways.
Since my family was in Texas before the Civil War, no problem "Texas Native" LOL. Give it your best shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Whaaat? Are you asserting that officers cannot resign their commissions? I am sure THAT is news to those in the military....
As a former officer in the regular Navy, I can assure you that your resignation has to be accepted even today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
And this "arms against their country" thing? They weren't in the same country anymore. No more than the British Colonists who took up arms against England were still in the same country. Or Texians against Mexico.
They would have been hung as traitors had they lost. Ever hear the phase, "We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
For one, we were not a "united" states as thought of today. Even government documents and such didn't refer to it that way. They usually said "THESE" united states. Not "THE" It was just a given that one owed their first loyalty to their own state and home. More to the point, the Southern states did not wish to seperate themselves from the ideals of the Constitution or DoI. But rather, from a polticial connection with northern states that only by default kept the name United States. There is a huge difference here.
No, it wasn't treason. And recognition of that simple fact, regardless of how much you want to trumpet it otherwise, is the real reason it would not have been productive to try those Southern leaders on such a charge. As Salmon Chase, and records cited earlier bear out, to have done so would have made complete fools out of those who wanted to do so.
The Johnson thing you mentioned is just after the fact, and to try and salvage something from what was groundless to begin with. How does one "pardon" someone (other than superficially legally) for a "crime" they never committed to begin with?
You finally got something right. They weren't pardoned for a crime they didn't commit. They were pardoned for treason and they gladly took the pardons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Now if you would like to argue the legality of secession? Then, fine...bring it on!
The legality of secession was decided. At the South's choice of venues -- the battlefield. Another colossally dumb move.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
