There are Some Angry Southners Out There!

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:52 am

I found this that was supposed to be funny stuff about words only southerners say but the comments at the bottom are even more interesting. There are some angry southern people out there! :-3

Words Only Southerners Say | Pretty Southern

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:55 am

Here's another one.

Funny Jokes | Rules of the Southern Lifestyle Joke | Comedy Central

Post by **jones jones** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:36 am

Southerners I know never seem to get angry ... Guess they too laid back in the south.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:51 pm

We are a very laid back people Jj but on the subject of The Civil War, some folks can get pretty riled up.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:55 pm

Hope6;1449832 wrote: We are a very laid back people Jj but on the subject of The Civil War, some folks can get pretty riled up.

Short memories then?

What is it, six generations?

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:10 pm

The Civil War ended about 150 years ago. There are places down in some parts of the deep south that you really shouldn't go to this day if you are from the north. I know of a guy who was transferred by his company to Alabama, he went into a bar one night for a drink. He made the mistake of saying something and some of the locals heard his northern accent and they basically whupped his butt!! EEK!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:51 pm

Is that what they call 'The Bible Belt'?

When they get angry they belt you with their bibles?

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:00 am

LOL LOL yes I live in what they call the Bible Belt, it's a geographical thing I think. I've never seen anybody belting people with Bibles but who knows. LOL

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:03 am

Okay I googled the Bible Belt.

Bible Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **jones jones** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:59 am

Hope6;1449832 wrote: We are a very laid back people Jj but on the subject of The Civil War, some folks can get pretty riled up.

I'm reading "A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson virtually as we speak.

He wrote something that really took me by surprise. According to him at the time the Civil War began slaves made up one third of the population of the South. They, the slaves, offered to fight for the Confederacy but the seven slave states turned their offer down.

Paul Johnson claims that had the Confederate government accepted their offer they would most likely have won the war.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:01 pm

the slaves, offered to fight for the Confederacy but the seven slave states turned their offer down.

Only white boys get guns JJ.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:04 pm

" "The argument over whether blacks took up arms to fight for the government that enslaved them is a bitter one, but historians have busted this myth, Deaton said.

"It's just balderdash," he said.

.........................................."White officers did bring their slaves to the front, where they were pressed into service doing laundry and cooking," Loewen said."

Busted: 6 Civil War Myths | Confederate Flag & Slavery | LiveScience

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:21 pm

Y'allins keep referring to it as the "Civil War". Don't y'all know that its proper name is the Wah of Nothun Aggression? And it isn't over yet. There is just a lull in overt activity while true Southerners prepare to continue the fight for liberty. Just ask anyone in a bar in the deep south and they will explain it to you (at length).

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 pm

Wandrin;1449898 wrote: Y'allins keep referring to it as the "Civil War". Don't y'all know that its proper name is the Wah of Nothun Aggression? And it isn't over yet. There is just a lull in overt activity while true Southerners prepare to continue the fight for liberty. Just ask anyone in a bar in the deep south and they will explain it to you (at length).

It's a sickness, a mental disorder.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:28 pm

AnneBoleyn;1449902 wrote: It's a sickness, a mental disorder.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:03 pm

It always fascinated me that the Civil War was fought first in the churches, 25 years before the actual war began. The Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches were divided on the issue of slavery, basically on the same geographic lines that separated the two sides politically.

The northern churches held the traditional view, emphasizing the underlying principles found in the Bible, while the southern churches defended slavery using a more literal view of Bible passages and the biblical justification for slavery. Those differences in approach are still evident.

The three denominations split into their northern and southern groups, leaving the southern churches (and church members) feeling isolated. Not surprisingly, the politicians followed the same pattern.

I've often wondered how history would have changed had those major churches been able to work things out among themselves.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:47 pm

Wandrin;1449923 wrote: It always fascinated me that the Civil War was fought first in the churches, 25 years before the actual war began. The Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches were divided on the issue of slavery, basically on the same geographic lines that separated the two sides politically.

The northern churches held the traditional view, emphasizing the underlying principles found in the Bible, while the southern churches defended slavery using a more literal view of Bible passages and the biblical justification for slavery. Those differences in approach are still evident.

The three denominations split into their northern and southern groups, leaving the southern churches (and church members) feeling isolated. Not surprisingly, the politicians followed the same pattern.

I've often wondered how history would have changed had those major churches been able to work things out among themselves.

Hence why the Southern Baptists?

Forgive me, I'd never made the connection - thank you.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:51 pm

Hope6;1449795 wrote: I found this that was supposed to be funny stuff about words only southerners say but the comments at the bottom are even more interesting. There are some angry southern people out there! :-3

Words Only Southerners Say | Pretty Southern

Back when I took up Over The Road Driving was when the first time to encounter first hand Southern culture, and as driver that was limited.

First thing that caught me was dealing with a lady counter person, she would address me as HON, HONEY, DEAR, or other familiar term.

With that southern accent, lovely.

One thing , no matter what.

I DO NOT LIKE SWEET TEA!

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:40 pm

Here's another fact that might surprise you Jj. Of the total population of the South in 1860, only 25 percent of white families, owned any slaves at all, and one-half of those held fewer than five slaves.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:45 pm

LOL LOL Wandrin you are exactly right, it's a serious business to lots of folks. I find myself very interested in Civil War history because I have several ancestors who fought in it. Family history research is a hobby of mine. Another fact most folks probably don't know....half of all the battles fought in the Civil War were fought here in Virginia.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:50 pm

tude dog all I can say is Amen brother! I don't like sweet tea either! Yes we love our endearments around here, honey, sugar, sweetie, darling! LOL

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:15 pm

Hope6;1449963 wrote: tude dog all I can say is Amen brother! I don't like sweet tea either! Yes we love our endearments around here, honey, sugar, sweetie, darling! LOL

It has changed in a lot of the South.

In the mid-80s, we lived in Charlotte, NC.

When you went to a restaurant and asked for tea, you got sweet tea, iced. Even at the Chinese Restaurants.

on the late 90s, we were back in North Carolina, this time, Johnston County, East of Raleigh. Now, when you asked for Tea, you were asked, "Sweet or Unsweet?"

If you chose "unsweet" you got a glass of iced tea, and a handful of artificial sweeteners.

My wife drinks her tea unsweetened. More than once, we got that look, and the question, "Y'all not from around here, are you?"

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:43 am

Hope6;1449961 wrote: Here's another fact that might surprise you Jj. Of the total population of the South in 1860, only 25 percent of white families, owned any slaves at all, and one-half of those held fewer than five slaves.

With all due respect, do those numbers make it any less bad? Even non-slave holders approved the owning of other humans, despite their inability to afford them.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:45 am

One of the things that really confused me as a kid learning history was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Congress passed this law because some northern states were finding ways around the law of 1793, mandating the return of escaped slaves to their "owners". The law required police officers to arrest anyone they suspected might be an escaped slave with virtually no evidence required. Anyone arrested under suspicion of being an escaped slave was not allowed to ask for a jury trial or even testify. Anyone who gave food or shelter to a suspected slave was subject to imprisonment and fine.

Since no proof was required, beyond the claims of a slave owner, and no trial or court hearing could be held, free black folks were being essentially kidnapped and sent south to slavery. Any police officer who refused to arrest one was fined and those that did got bonuses.

This was the law of the land from 1850 until near the end of the Civil War.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am

Wandrin;1449990 wrote:

Since no proof was required, beyond the claims of a slave owner, and no trial or court hearing could be held, free black folks were being essentially kidnapped and sent south to slavery.......

Seems the Land of the free has scant regard for personal freedoms despite making a lot of noise about it all around the world.

Guantanamo Bay any one?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:04 am

Bruv;1449992 wrote: Seems the Land of the free has scant regard for personal freedoms despite making a lot of noise about it all around the world.

Guantanamo Bay any one?

Now Bruv, that's really changing the subject. I object to your scant regard comment.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:04 pm

AnneBoleyn;1449993 wrote: Now Bruv, that's really changing the subject. I object to your scant regard comment.

Reacting to previous post Annie...................did you want me to remain silent?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:31 pm

Bruv;1449998 wrote: Reacting to previous post Annie...................did you want me to remain silent?

I never want you to remain silent. I'd have nothing to complain about! ;-p

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:27 pm

Lars I hate unsweetened tea even worse than the sweetened kind. Yuck! I just don't like iced tea at all.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:33 pm

No Anne the numbers don't make it any less bad. The point I'm trying to make is that so many people think the civil war was all about slavery. With only 12 percent of the white families owning the majority of the slaves, if they were the only ones fighting there wouldn't have been much of an army. It was about the rights of the individual states. The southern states wanted to govern themselves without any input from any federal government. Basically they didn't want any Yankees telling them what to do. Slavery was one of the issues included in that.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:36 pm

Bruv, that whole business was 150 years ago. I think things are different now.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:37 pm

Wandrin that whole business back then was just messed up and really bad. I don't un derstand a lot of it myself.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:38 pm

Hope6;1450094 wrote: Bruv, that whole business was 150 years ago. I think things are different now.

I am afraid to take it off topic..................but Guantanamo Bay is current.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:47 pm

I don't know much about Guantanamo Bay but I don't think there's any slavery going on there...is it?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:56 pm

Wandrin;1449990 wrote:

Since no proof was required, beyond the claims of a slave owner, and no trial or court hearing could be held, free black folks were being essentially kidnapped and sent south to slavery.

Bruv;1449992 wrote: Seems the Land of the free has scant regard for personal freedoms despite making a lot of noise about it all around the world.

Guantanamo Bay any one?

Hope6;1450099 wrote: I don't know much about Guantanamo Bay but I don't think there's any slavery going on there...is it?

Its not about slavery anymore, many of the inmates of Guantanamo have spent years locked up with no charges.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:05 pm

I don't agree with people being locked up without any due process of law. It seems that a lot of things have changed in the name of fighting terrorism.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:11 pm

Hope6;1450104 wrote: I don't agree with people being locked up without any due process of law. It seems that a lot of things have changed in the name of fighting terrorism.

Today it's some guys with beards locked up for looking different and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Tomorrow it could be you or me.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:31 pm

Bruv;1450102 wrote: Its not about slavery anymore, many of the inmates of Guantanamo have spent years locked up with no charges.

Picking cotton?

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:56 pm

Hope, why is it that the flag displayed most often is the confederate battle flag, rather than the confederate national flag?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:15 pm

Wandrin;1450126 wrote: Hope, why is it that the flag displayed most often is the confederate battle flag, rather than the confederate national flag?

Because the Battle Flag looks cooler.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:28 pm

LarsMac;1450127 wrote: Because the Battle Flag looks cooler.

How many men (boys) would prefer this tatto

Over this?

Something about big X and sharp angles appeal to the average male.

Next time you go out to buy car oil or other things men usually purchase, check it out.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:33 pm

tude dog;1450128 wrote: How many men (boys) would prefer this tatto

Over this?

Something about big X and sharp angles appeal to the average male.

Next time you go out to buy car oil or other things men usually purchase, check it out.

I was asking because of the different things they symbolize.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:00 pm

Some interesting info on the Battle Flag

The Southern Cross–The Story of the Confederacy’s First Battle Flag | Washington Times Communities

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:06 pm

LarsMac;1450130 wrote: Some interesting info on the Battle Flag

The Southern Cross–The Story of the Confederacy’s First Battle Flag | Washington Times Communities

Thank you, a thoroughly interesting article.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:16 am

I have a Confederate flag it's packed away with my family history materials......I'll have to get it out and look but I think it's the battle flag with the x on it......that's pretty much all you can buy around here.