US TRAGEDY IN THE SIXTIES & SIXTIES

[rigney]

I took this thread from another topic, not to plagiarize but to show how things don't differ much in time.

 

#2 Yesterday, 09:01 PM lemur

Organism It sounds like there is little hope for any kind of democracy since the main interest of the protests seems to be economic. An elected CEO whose job is to secure as much economic gain as possible is not leading a democracy but a corporation. For democracy to occur, I think the protests should be directed toward economic power in the private sector and the government should be petitioned about lack of access to economic resources.

 

Few of us "are not guilty" of making assumptions, accusations and innuendoes when not fully informed of or understanding the embodiment of a particular piece of history. Especially, if those half truths happen to fit our purpose. Tragedy is something we link much more readily to than happiness. Is this video very different than what is happening in today world? If so, will you explain?. This was a tragedy of the 1860s. Kennedy was a more recent tragedy of the 1960s.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIJaxu3w4-U&feature=player_embedded#!

Edited February 3, 2011 by rigney

[Marat]

Thanks for that interesting film. I notice that about four minutes into the clip, there was a scene of a Black veteran of the Civil War who was wearing a Confederate uniform. Remarkable as it may seem to those who incorrectly interpret the Civil War as a struggle primarily about slavery, many Blacks actually served with the Confederacy against their 'liberators' from the North. The reason was that the war originated as a struggle for states' rights against the federal authority, and it only took on the character, gradually and in part, of a war against slavery following the Emancipation Proclamation after Gettysburg. Some Northern troops even rebelled against their officers when they first heard about the new theory that the war was being fought to free the slaves. Slavery also persisted even after the Emancipation Proclamation in the border states which had joined the Northern cause. So even though in the modern, race-obsessed context, everyone naturally factors the Civil War into our current preoccupations, that was not the historical reality.

 

It is also remarkable that there could have been so many survivors to attend the 75th reunion meeting of Civil War veterans. Discounting for the many who could not endure, could not afford, or did not want to travel to the meeting, the fact that about ten people could be found who were all over 90 is surprising (out of the circa 120,000 veterans of the battle?), and argues against those who overestimate the modern gains in life expectancy.

[jackson33]

Actually there were many "free black's", even land and/or slave owners in "slave states", before the CW. In fact slavery in the colonial days began from a court action favoring a black land owner. Until then many people gained passage to the Colonies under "Indentured Servitude" idea, including blacks and even if involuntarily brought here. As the clip showed, there were many Blacks that fought and they fought on both sides, for various reasons...

 

 

And there you have it, folks. Before this court case, there was no such thing as a "slave". There were only indentured servants. Therefore, The first legal SLAVE owner in America was BLACK.[/Quote]

 

http://adifferentsky.forumotion.net/t3786-the-first-legal-slave-owner-in-america-was-black

 

The Republican Party, however was formed (1856) and ran under the abolition of slavery banner. The Southern States looked at this as a State Right, to decide. Over the years, I've debated this both ways and IMO both are valid arguments.

 

I don't know, but 2500 of the millions involved to live into their 90's, doesn't surprise me. I knew a few of them and they were a hardy bunch, with stories most today would never believe.

 

Yes rigney, thanks for the short film which brought tears to my years, especially when Americans killed in that war popped up...624,511. My surname, not very common accounted for 1066 of them, then living in Virginia. They also had a plantation, held onto that plantation until the 1960's, with a hundred or more sharecroppers, who simply would not leave.

 

I'm not sure how your linking this to lemur's comment, especially the second sixties, but if your saying freedom comes at a cost, yes they have. What worrisome to me now, is what will happen when getting the freedoms lost back again and the cost...

[rigney]

Actually there were many "free black's", even land and/or slave owners in "slave states", before the CW. In fact slavery in the colonial days began from a court action favoring a black land owner. Until then many people gained passage to the Colonies under "Indentured Servitude" idea, including blacks and even if involuntarily brought here. As the clip showed, there were many Blacks that fought and they fought on both sides, for various reasons...

 

 

 

 

http://adifferentsky.forumotion.net/t3786-the-first-legal-slave-owner-in-america-was-black

 

The Republican Party, however was formed (1856) and ran under the abolition of slavery banner. The Southern States looked at this as a State Right, to decide. Over the years, I've debated this both ways and IMO both are valid arguments.

 

I don't know, but 2500 of the millions involved to live into their 90's, doesn't surprise me. I knew a few of them and they were a hardy bunch, with stories most today would never believe.

 

Yes rigney, thanks for the short film which brought tears to my years, especially when Americans killed in that war popped up...624,511. My surname, not very common accounted for 1066 of them, then living in Virginia. They also had a plantation, held onto that plantation until the 1960's, with a hundred or more sharecroppers, who simply would not leave.

 

I'm not sure how your linking this to lemur's comment, especially the second sixties, but if your saying freedom comes at a cost, yes they have. What worrisome to me now, is what will happen when getting the freedoms lost back again and the cost...

 

There was no linking to anyones comments jackson. The tragedy of both eras is something we had best keep in mind. Today there are folks on both sides of the ledger who would rip this nation apart, if for nothing more than to prove their point. Pain, suffering and being destitude is nothing new and something that will never end. If there is a God, he or she will sort it all out, not us. Each day we fight for supremicy and a breath of fresh air. Enjoy it while it's yours. Edited February 4, 2011 by rigney

[Pangloss]

Remarkable as it may seem to those who incorrectly interpret the Civil War as a struggle primarily about slavery, ...

 

The reason was that the war originated as a struggle for states' rights against the federal authority, and it only took on the character, gradually and in part, of a war against slavery following the Emancipation Proclamation after Gettysburg.

 

So even though in the modern, race-obsessed context, everyone naturally factors the Civil War into our current preoccupations, that was not the historical reality.

 

This is actually a synopsis of a modern debate involving the reframing of the context of the American Civil War to make it suit modern political issues. In my opinion the argument is deeply flawed and a misrepresentation of the political landscape of the time. One could just as easily state that the Civil War was the result of "growing pains" from the expansion of the American frontier, or the rise of technology approaching the dawn of the industrial age. The simple fact of the matter is that by 1860 the slavery issue underlay and undermined every other concern facing the country.

 

So important was slavery to the Southern states that they embedded the institution directly into their new nation's constitution. (source) I believe many states' individual constitutions from that period also reflect protections for the institution.

 

The reality is that as the country began to grow, with new states added to the union, the slavery question became divisive because it underlay a power struggle between the existing states as well as providing an ideological platform for slavery proponents and opponents. Each new addition made the situation worse. This went on for decades. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Missouri Compromise in 1820. The Nullification Crisis in 1832. The Wilmot Proviso. The Compromise of 1850. Every single politician in the United States at the time of the war governed within a political environment that had been struggling with slavery as the central issue of American politics for almost their entire lives.

 

Slavery wasn't the issue? Slavery was the ONLY issue. Even the phrase "elephant in the room" doesn't do it justice. There was nothing else on the political landscape that even came close to its level of importance at any time after the 1820s. Nothing.

[Marat]

But look at the fact that the nation almost broke up in 1838-1839 over the protest of some Southern states, most notably South Carolina, over a national tariff policy which the South felt favored the North. General Winifield Scott was even sent with the army to keep a watchful eye on South Carolina's secessionist moves. If South Carolina had tried to step out of the Union then, the Civil War would have begun then -- long before the slavery issue was yet a major national topic of debate. It is no coincidence that the Civil War eventually actually began with South Carolina's actions, which can be seen as just an extension of what was already starting to happen there in 1838-1839.

 

If slavery was the major issue of the Civil War right from the beginning, why were there anti-Black riots in New York City after the War came to be reinterpreted as a fight to free the slaves? Why did some Michigan troops rebel and refuse to continue fighting after the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did Lincoln hesitate until after he gained additional political capital by winning the major battle of Gettysburg before turning the War into an anti-slavery endeavor? Why did border states which joined the Northern cause during the War get to keep their slaves for the duration of the War?

 

A further interesting question is whether the War really ended slavery at all. When slavery was in effect, people worked on plantations for free room and board but no wages. After slavery was abolished, people worked on plantations for minimal wages adequate only to pay for the same type of room and board they had for free as slaves. The only difference between slavery and its abolition was that in the former case there was no wage economy and room, board, and clothing were just exchanged directly for labor, while in the latter case slaves were paid (say) two cents a day and paid two cents a day to buy their own food, shelter, and clothing. Some Marxist historians even argue that the essential point of the war was that the North wanted to mobilize the inefficiently employed agricultural laborers of the South (the slaves) so that they could be imported to serve the rising industrial system of the North at slave wages. In this era before safe working condition legislation and minimum wage or hours of work legislation, the difference between being a slave in the South and being an exploited industrial laborer in the North could be small.

[rigney]

But look at the fact that the nation almost broke up in 1838-1839 over the protest of some Southern states, most notably South Carolina, over a national tariff policy which the South felt favored the North. General Winifield Scott was even sent with the army to keep a watchful eye on South Carolina's secessionist moves. If South Carolina had tried to step out of the Union then, the Civil War would have begun then -- long before the slavery issue was yet a major national topic of debate. It is no coincidence that the Civil War eventually actually began with South Carolina's actions, which can be seen as just an extension of what was already starting to happen there in 1838-1839.

 

If slavery was the major issue of the Civil War right from the beginning, why were there anti-Black riots in New York City after the War came to be reinterpreted as a fight to free the slaves? Why did some Michigan troops rebel and refuse to continue fighting after the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did Lincoln hesitate until after he gained additional political capital by winning the major battle of Gettysburg before turning the War into an anti-slavery endeavor? Why did border states which joined the Northern cause during the War get to keep their slaves for the duration of the War?

 

A further interesting question is whether the War really ended slavery at all. When slavery was in effect, people worked on plantations for free room and board but no wages. After slavery was abolished, people worked on plantations for minimal wages adequate only to pay for the same type of room and board they had for free as slaves. The only difference between slavery and its abolition was that in the former case there was no wage economy and room, board, and clothing were just exchanged directly for labor, while in the latter case slaves were paid (say) two cents a day and paid two cents a day to buy their own food, shelter, and clothing. Some Marxist historians even argue that the essential point of the war was that the North wanted to mobilize the inefficiently employed agricultural laborers of the South (the slaves) so that they could be imported to serve the rising industrial system of the North at slave wages. In this era before safe working condition legislation and minimum wage or hours of work legislation, the difference between being a slave in the South and being an exploited industrial laborer in the North could be small.

 

No where in this post was I trying to bring slavery into the mix. The whole idea was to say that throughout history not everyone has ever been satisfied at the same time. Again! pain and suffering of the poor and destitude, is as prevelant today as measels, mumps and chickenpox. The people in Egypt want a change! Right now they don't give a damn to what, just change. Obama put it in the same prospective. "Change"! But to what? How, or can we even deal with such a radical upheaval if it comes to this country? The war between the states was not to be taken out of context, only to visualize what can happen. Edited February 4, 2011 by rigney

[Pangloss]

But look at the fact that the nation almost broke up in 1838-1839 over the protest of some Southern states, most notably South Carolina, over a national tariff policy which the South felt favored the North.

 

The underlying issue behind that long series of incidents, known as the Nullification Crisis, was slavery. Slavery is why the North and South were split over the tariff issue.

 

The tariffs, designed to favor manufacturing companies in the North, actually harmed the South, which provided 80% of Europe's cotton. Europe produced finished garments and shipped them back to the States for sale, but under a 40% tariff, that meant slower sales. And the underlying foundation of the cotton industry was slavery. Thus, the underlying cause of the tariff crises was slavery.

 

 

If slavery was the major issue of the Civil War right from the beginning, why were there anti-Black riots in New York City after the War came to be reinterpreted as a fight to free the slaves?

 

Because of the draft. That's why they're called the Draft Riots of 1863. It's true that, in that place at that time, white working men saw free slaves as a potential threat to job security, much as people see illegal immigrants today, which is why blacks were killed during that riot. But what caused them to riot was the war and the draft. The riots happened in the days following the arrival of casualty lists from the Battle of Gettysburg.

 

But sure, slavery wasn't the major issue for every single American; what it was was the underlying cause. You might as well be asking why pro-Mubarak supporters are showing up in Cairo today. What individual people think or don't think about current events isn't always directly related to causes.

 

Many people of that era (possibly the majority) thought blacks mentally inferior -- even some abolitionists like Ben Franklin thought so. It's not hard to see why, given the few and far-between examples of intelligent blacks they got to see. I've always thought that Frederick Douglass's most important influence was the fact that he showed the people of that era that African Americans could be just as intelligent and analytical as white Americans.

 

Anyway, as with the tariff issue, the underlying cause of the draft riots was the war, and the underlying reason for the war was slavery. Even without the war they might have rioted over a sudden influx of black workers from the South, but had there been no slavery during the 50 years prior (because, say, no cotton gin), society might have been integrated already when Europeans immigrated to the Northeastern states.

 

 

Why did Lincoln hesitate until after he gained additional political capital by winning the major battle of Gettysburg before turning the War into an anti-slavery endeavor?

 

The Emancipation Proclamation was announced in the fall of 1862, and took effect 7 months before the Battle of Gettysburg. I wonder if you may be referring to the Battle of Antietam. The reason why he waited for that debatable but promotable victory (after telling his cabinet over the summer that he was planning the proclamation) was that he needed the momentum to carry the point over opposition from Democrats. Who, by the way, still managed to pick up 28 seats in the House that fall.

 

Why did Lincoln make such a move knowing it would hurt him with voters? Part of the reason was foreign policy. He knew European nations, dependent on cotton, might eventually come in on the South's side. The proclamation instantly won tremendous support for the North in places like London and Paris. It was a key nail in the South's coffin.

 

But if the proclamation was so unpopular at home then you should be asking yourself why Lincoln won re-nomination and re-election two years later. It took time -- most of 1863 and 1864, while American boys kept dying in staggering numbers -- to turn that opinion around, but it eventually the proclamation gave the war a cause and meaning that was not lost on the people of the North.

 

 

Why did some Michigan troops rebel and refuse to continue fighting after the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

They weren't the only ones, but what's stunning about the socio-political environment following the Emancipation Proclamation is how little outrage or rebellion there was. He waited so long because he thought it would be his undoing. Turned out the country was pretty much "there" already.

[Marat]

There are both proximate and distantly underlying causes for all phenomena, but oftentimes the most explanatory power is to be found in the proximate causes, since these operate not only as material causes, but also through their power over the consciousness of the participants in the events. Thus in the case of the 'cause' of the Civil War, while you could say that slavery was an ultimate cause, the operative cause at the beginning of the War and in South Carolina's threatened secession decades earlier in most people's minds was states' rights. When Lincoln first became President he was not saying anything about plans to abolish slavery, yet the Southern states were still responding to his election by voting to secede from a Union where their perceived rights and interests would not be respected.

[Pangloss]

Okay, let's talk about how the concept of states' rights made out in the Civil War. Seems to me that, as a check against federal power, IT LOST, for that time and forever after. According to Ken Burns, the Civil War made us begin to refer to the this country as a singular noun. Prior to the war people would say "the united states are going to ________". After the war it became "the United States is going to _____". The country decided that states would NOT be allowed to determine a course substantially different from the rest of the country.

 

Add to that the irony that modern states' rights advocates don't have the support of the people. Oh sure, people will toss the phrase around whenever the federal government does something they disagree with, but then they'll demand federal intervention when a state does something they disagree with. Popular opinion on such lofty ideological concepts is as fickle as Sarah Palin's grasp of politics.

 

So the precedent, using the Civil War as an example of the fight for states' rights, is pretty untenable.

[lemur]

There was no linking to anyones comments jackson. The tragedy of both eras is something we had best keep in mind. Today there are folks on both sides of the ledger who would rip this nation apart, if for nothing more than to prove their point. Pain, suffering and being destitude is nothing new and something that will never end. If there is a God, he or she will sort it all out, not us. Each day we fight for supremicy and a breath of fresh air. Enjoy it while it's yours.

The question is whether it would have been worth it to abdicate the war to prevent deaths if doing so would have required giving in to slavery. It may be legitimate to accept slavery in exchange for one's life, but then what? Where do you go from slavery? Do you devote your life and the life of your slaves to maximizing the happiness of free people? Do you simply give up your will to consciousness and obey what you are told as narrowly as possible? Do you avoid questioning orders when your sanity tells you they are questionable? How far do you go to respect the property rights of your master?

 

 

 

 

Okay, let's talk about how the concept of states' rights made out in the Civil War. Seems to me that, as a check against federal power, IT LOST, for that time and forever after. According to Ken Burns, the Civil War made us begin to refer to the this country as a singular noun. Prior to the war people would say "the united states are going to ________". After the war it became "the United States is going to _____". The country decided that states would NOT be allowed to determine a course substantially different from the rest of the country.

If states' rights to check federal power had lost completely, there would be no post-bellum state governance. The Kansas-Nebraska act was supposedly the big issue of states' rights in question, in that it allowed popular sovereignty to determine the legality of slavery by majority vote on a state-by-state basis. Supposedly, Lincoln refused to accept that slavery should be decided at the state level. It is sometimes assumed/extrapolated that he did this because he didn't want to have "a nation divided," but I think it was a universal issue for him and if he would have had global jurisdiction, he would have opposed slavery globally. I have the sense that Lincoln was just doing what he believed was correct in the position he was in; i.e. take every measure possible to achieve maximum good. I think he overweighed the validity of local sovereignty versus universal rights and saw that local sovereignty of a majority shouldn't eclipse universal rights to freedom. Today it is of course more difficult to assert universal rights as an individual because of widespread recognition of UN human rights as an authoritarian document that transcends anyone else's claims to universal human rights. In reality, however, there's no reason someone like Lincoln shouldn't be able to make their own claim to some universal right(s) on the basis of reason.

[rigney]

lemur

Posted Today, 03:04 AM

The question is whether it would have been worth it to abdicate the war to prevent deaths if doing so would have required giving in to slavery. It may be legitimate to accept slavery in exchange for one's life, but then what? Where do you go from slavery? Do you devote your life and the life of your slaves to maximizing the happiness of free people? Do you simply give up your will to consciousness and obey what you are told as narrowly as possible? Do you avoid questioning orders when your sanity tells you they are questionable? How far do you go to respect the property rights of your master?

 

 

There are hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why slavery should never have begun here in America. But every thing from religion to simple greed played a huge part in the practice. And while every reason can be debated, it's likely slavery itself would have faded away quietly as America began a new cultural and second undustrial revolution in the late 1800s. But, destroying an antebellum culture of the south did nothing to enhance the former slaves lot. For most of them, their lives went from slavery to depravity as their standard of living plummeted to squalor. History will show that things actually were made much worse for them. And while it took another hundred years to acquire this freedom, it still isn't totally resolved?

Where there had been in most cases a measure of congeniality between owner and slave, at the wars end there was nothing left in most cases other than an out and out hatred. Most southern land and slave owner lost everything, money, land and slaves. Fair?, hell yes! But the freed Blacks gained little more than empty promises and another hundred years of torment and torturous freedom. Those perpetrating and bringing the war to fruition, made a killing. Had we, as winners in 1865, proceeded to kill off the remaining few million southern whites, I'm sure there still would be some stones left unturned to haggle over, even today. But, like everything else; as a simple conjecture, what if the south had won the war? Then what? But of course, the same arguement could be applied, had Genghis Kahn, Hitler, Tojo, or perhaps even the muslim breotherhood of today would take over the world? Do we have a plan for that?

Edited February 5, 2011 by rigney

[Marat]

The Radical Republicans probably had the best solution at the end of the Civil War, which was to subdivide the property and wealth of the great southern plantations and redistribte it among the newly-freed Blacks as just compensation for their unfairly remunerated labor in building up that wealth. This would have avoided much of the political controversy over racism and affirmative action which followed later, since the compensations would have been made and the cost of that compensation would have been taken directly from those who profited from the injustice.

 

The Northern victory in the Civil War certainly made the defeat of the antebellum Southern states' rights movement possible, which helps support the thesis that the war was essentially about states' rights. The Constitutional amendment which put the nail in the coffin of the Southern states' rights movement is often called the 'federal supremacy' clause, and is expressed in the ability of the post-civil war amendments (starting with the 14th) to impose the protections of the Bill of Rights (one right after the other has gradually been incorporated into this provision over the years) on the states, like it or not.

[lemur]

There are hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why slavery should never have begun here in America. But every thing from religion to simple greed played a huge part in the practice. And while every reason can be debated, it's likely slavery itself would have faded away quietly as America began a new cultural and second undustrial revolution in the late 1800s.

The books I read said that Lincoln held the view that slavery was a dying institution and should be allowed to fade away on its own. Then, it was supposedly the Kansas-Nebraska act that allowed it to expand into new territories by allowing the majority of each new state to determine the legality of slavery, which changed his attitude. I also read that citizens would register to vote in new states in order to sway the government in favor of slavery. This is logical, if you think about it, considering how lucrative cotton and other cash-crop farming were. Plus, the advent of industrial power for processing and shipping of raw-materials was logically increasing the demand for agricultural raw materials, which would have increased opportunities for all free people to benefit from productive slavery. In other words, the slave economy was booming because industrialism was. The question is why plantation owners would have freely chosen to begin paying their workers and allowing them more freedom of self-determination if their competitors were managing slaves successfully at a lower cost? Granted, if it was seen to be cheaper to hire free farm-hands and managing them cost less as well, I think you're right that slavery would have gone away because of economic non-viability. Still, I don't think you can underestimate the strength of cultural traditions and expectations in social relations. It is hard to go from bossing someone around as your slave to treating them with respect as a free individual with the choice to accept a job or not. Even still today, there is a harsh public ideology of chastising people into taking jobs that are offered to them regardless of their opinion about the job. Yes, people are ultimately free to take a job or leave it, but there are numerous benefits designed to make people's lives significantly less comfortable if they choose to hold out for a good job. Anyway, the point I was originally making was that I read Lincoln only chose to actively fight slavery because it was expanding instead of fading on its own.

 

 

But, destroying an antebellum culture of the south did nothing to enhance the former slaves lot. For most of them, their lives went from slavery to depravity as their standard of living plummeted to squalor. History will show that things actually were made much worse for them. And while it took another hundred years to acquire this freedom, it still isn't totally resolved?

As I said, you can't underestimate social tradition. I think it was uncomfortable for people to develop respect for people they viewed as slaves. They found it socially proper to regard slaves as lower people, the way nobility may find it proper to regard their subjects as "lower stock." Older people and corporate managers also often find it proper to receive deferential treatment and treat their "subordinates" accordingly. Restaurants and retail businesses are often successful for treating their customers as royalty. In short, there are lots of institutions where people would become uncomfortable and even upset if they had to respect others as equals. It's odd that slavery and racial identity became such a special case of inequality.

 

Where there had been in most cases a measure of congeniality between owner and slave, at the wars end there was nothing left in most cases other than an out and out hatred. Most southern land and slave owner lost everything, money, land and slaves.

When people accept their servitude graciously, it can be endearing to their masters who will in turn show appreciation. If/when the servant expresses a desire for freedom, the master may feel that the servant is doing this to undermine the master's livelihood. Look at what would happen today if everyone who worked in minimum wage jobs said they no longer wanted to do so. Business owners and investors would be upset because they would lose their means of profiting from employing low-wage personnel. They would either have to man their businesses themselves or drastically restructure - and many would probably complain that the employees should be grateful for the opportunity to work and make money that they were given. Slave owners/masters probably had similar views, e.g. that the slaves had land to farm and places to live so why should they want to be free?

 

Fair?, hell yes! But the freed Blacks gained little more than empty promises and another hundred years of torment and torturous freedom.

Yes, but that wasn't caused by their emancipation. It was due to a negative reaction to that emancipation by those who didn't like the idea of equality for former slaves.

 

Those perpetrating and bringing the war to fruition, made a killing. Had we, as winners in 1865, proceeded to kill off the remaining few million southern whites, I'm sure there still would be some stones left unturned to haggle over, even today.

Sometimes people want to blame people's children and grandchildren for their actions, but it's not really legitimate. The reason it seems to be is that people often take sides with their parents and grandparents and refuse to be critically objective from their own perspective because they feel uncomfortable with judging/admitting their parents' flaws. Feelings of honor, blood-ties, etc. lead people to side with each other, regardless of right and wrong and you get factionalism, which is imo how many wars occur. The killing (and other dying) of that time-period is sadly extreme. I think that many former soldiers died of things like infections and/or were addicted to morphine. I don't know if the economic problems that followed the war were more a result of destruction and disenfranchisement or just the fact that plentiful slave-labor was no longer available. It has occurred to me, though, that the ante-bellum period involved a lot of migration from Europe and that many people joined the war effort to receive citizenship. Then when you consider the number of casualties of Union soldiers compared with Confederate, it's almost as if the war was set up to thin out the immigrant population, using Confederate soldiers as the executioners. Obviously it would be conspiracy theory to claim that was an intentional purpose of the US civil war, but it does seem to have had that effect, among others.

 

But, like everything else; as a simple conjecture, what if the south had won the war? Then what? But of course, the same arguement could be applied, had Genghis Kahn, Hitler, Tojo, or perhaps even the muslim breotherhood of today would take over the world? Do we have a plan for that?

Probably the Confederate states would have continued to use plantation slavery for agricultural production. Europe would probably have enjoyed higher levels of material consumption and possibly averted the two world wars. It depends on how much cotton-farming and other economic exploitation colonialism could have continued bearing. Is it possible for the global economy to perpetually grow without interruption? No, I don't think so. I think cultural changes have to take place and spread to result in economic restructuring that makes it possible to sustainably prosper. I don't think materialist consumerism has reached that point yet, so I don't see how it would have reached it if slavery had continued.

Edited February 5, 2011 by lemur

[Pangloss]

If states' rights to check federal power had lost completely, there would be no post-bellum state governance.

 

Of course. Which is why the modern states' rights debate is about gray areas and differences of degree, not unilateral, ideological posturing. Put another way, the phrase should never come up, because whether or not an issue should be controlled at the state or federal level is not something that we can determine by hollering "states' rights". That phrase doesn't open a reasoned debate, it only accuses an opponent of incomprehension, and inaccurately at that. It implies that no other argument can be reasonable because the founders meant for that thing (whatever's being debated) to be controlled at the state level, when in fact they don't know that at all.

 

Not that you would know this from listening to Fox News or MSNBC, or the right or left wing punditsphere. This is a big part of why Sarah Palin will never be elected President of the United States, by the way. The other major component being that that constant attack mode of hers gives her about as much sex appeal as a shriveled old shrew. Hillary Clinton has more sex appeal falling down on airplane ramps than Sarah Palin when she's pontificating about the evil of liberals. But I digress.

[rigney]

'Pangloss'

The other major component being that that constant attack mode of hers gives her about as much sex appeal as a shriveled old shrew. Hillary Clinton has more sex appeal falling down on airplane ramps than Sarah Palin when she's pontificating about the evil of liberals. But I digress.

 

Mmmm-Mmmm!

I can't argue your concern that Sarah's "constant attack mode" is a lack of presidential diplomacy, tact and aplomb, but depicting her as a shriveled up old shrew compared to Hillary's stumbling down an airplane ramp? Really! You'll simply have to do something about that astigmatism Lad. For a moment, I too forgot the subject.

Edited February 6, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

Of course. Which is why the modern states' rights debate is about gray areas and differences of degree, not unilateral, ideological posturing. Put another way, the phrase should never come up, because whether or not an issue should be controlled at the state or federal level is not something that we can determine by hollering "states' rights". That phrase doesn't open a reasoned debate, it only accuses an opponent of incomprehension, and inaccurately at that. It implies that no other argument can be reasonable because the founders meant for that thing (whatever's being debated) to be controlled at the state level, when in fact they don't know that at all. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; To this day most things that were or are considered "State Responsibility", REAMIN SO. What the Federal has been doing, arguably during the CW, but surely since the Progressive movements of the early 20th Century was first altering the intent of the Constitution by amendments, followed by legislative decree from FDR onward. Amendments were a legal means for change but legislative decree is NOT and the means the Federal has used to intrude into those State Rights. Briefly argued this is done by collecting taxes from people of the State and then returning a portion, under conditions with penalties for not conforming.

 

Not that you would know this from listening to Fox News or MSNBC, or the right or left wing punditsphere. This is a big part of why Sarah Palin will never be elected President of the United States, by the way. The other major component being that that constant attack mode of hers gives her about as much sex appeal as a shriveled old shrew. Hillary Clinton has more sex appeal falling down on airplane ramps than Sarah Palin when she's pontificating about the evil of liberals. But I digress. [/Quote]

 

First, I'm sure very few would have thought Barrack Obama would be elected President in February of 2007. Second, have you completely forgotten the anti Bush rhetoric by all Candidates running in the 2006 and 2008 elections, in some manner continuing to this day. Third, Palin is the typical politician by speaking to her audience. Off hand I'd say she did a pretty good job, with her assistance in getting the US House back, gaining 6 Republican Senators elected, the Governorships gained and 680 Republicans added to the various State Legislatures.* Forth, I'm feel sure she is as qualified as our current President (regardless her sex appeal) and has the history/qualities to attract a qualified and more compatible, less divisive administration (Staff) matching the current population than even Bush 43. Fifth and most important, she has the name recognition that goes with the traditional winners, IN Party.

 

Having said all that, she or whomever the Publicans Nominate is expected to be up against a B$ campaign chest and the seated incumbent of the office. Currently other than her, I don't know anyone that could compete, that would try in 2012 (many too new to challenge).

 

*Approximately 82.5 million people voted.[2] The Democratic Party suffered major defeats in many national and state level elections, with many seats switching to Republican Party control. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained six seats in the U.S. Senate, expanding its minority, and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races,[3][4][5] to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974.[5] This left Republicans in control of 25 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

 

Sorry if off topic, but "sex appeal as a shriveled old shrew" really drew my attention...

[Pangloss]

Pangloss; To this day most things that were or are considered "State Responsibility", REAMIN SO.

 

When vaguely phrased that way, the point is extremely debatable.

 

 

I'm sure very few would have thought Barrack Obama would be elected President in February of 2007. Second, have you completely forgotten the anti Bush rhetoric by all Candidates running in the 2006 and 2008 elections, in some manner continuing to this day.

 

Actually the Audacity of Hope was published in 2006. That entire book is an appeal to moderates.

 

Note that I'm not accusing Palin of using inappropriate rhetoric. What I'm accusing her of is throwing herself at the the base. Yes, all candidates push appeal to base during this phase. The difference is that Sarah Palin has pushed it so far that in my opinion she will never be able to capture any respect or interest from the moderate middle. None.

 

It's not a statement of fact, it's just my opinion. You're certainly welcome to think otherwise.

[lemur]

Of course. Which is why the modern states' rights debate is about gray areas and differences of degree, not unilateral, ideological posturing. Put another way, the phrase should never come up, because whether or not an issue should be controlled at the state or federal level is not something that we can determine by hollering "states' rights". That phrase doesn't open a reasoned debate, it only accuses an opponent of incomprehension, and inaccurately at that. It implies that no other argument can be reasonable because the founders meant for that thing (whatever's being debated) to be controlled at the state level, when in fact they don't know that at all.

 

Not that you would know this from listening to Fox News or MSNBC, or the right or left wing punditsphere. This is a big part of why Sarah Palin will never be elected President of the United States, by the way. The other major component being that that constant attack mode of hers gives her about as much sex appeal as a shriveled old shrew. Hillary Clinton has more sex appeal falling down on airplane ramps than Sarah Palin when she's pontificating about the evil of liberals. But I digress.

I think most political discourse has become devoted to propagating assumptions and normalizing/naturalizing policies and positions more so than having actual open critical discussion. People are more interested in protecting and/or pursuing their interests by whatever means, rather than achieving more reasonable forms of governance and society. Even the idea of "reasonability" has become co-opted to support certain political agendas or be against others. People struggle for legitimate authority as a means to dictate culture. Any attempts to legitimate radical cultural freedom and truly independent individual self-determination are met with insistence about what is "realistic." There is not much will to foster real freedom from institutions because those institutions have become too central a part of too many people's lives and livelihoods. In fact, I still can't understand why so many people voted for Obama on a platform of "change," when it is so clear that the main purpose of changing the government was to re-invigorate an economy where the majority has the financial means to resist any "change" they don't want to embrace, even if that means being dependent on oil and economic exploitation (which the left is supposed to be against).

Edited February 7, 2011 by lemur

[jackson33]

Actually the Audacity of Hope was published in 2006. That entire book is an appeal to moderates. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; His appearance at the 2004 Democratic Convention was his starting point. "The Audacity of Hope" a book derived from a Reverend Wright Sermon, was published in late 2006 and didn't start selling well into 2007, still less than half a million by September 2007, 67K the first week. Palin "Going Rouge" sold 469K the first week, which didn't compete either of the Clinton's books, which sold more the first week.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2394891/posts

 

Note that I'm not accusing Palin of using inappropriate rhetoric. What I'm accusing her of is throwing herself at the base. Yes, all candidates push appeal to base during this phase. The difference is that Sarah Palin has pushed it so far that in my opinion she will never be able to capture any respect or interest from the moderate middle. None. [/Quote]

 

She has been promoting local candidates and their bases, but is in no way a moderate. Neither by the way is Obama IMO. I have to believe it was moderates that put those people into office (my last post) or if you prefer Reagan Republicans and further believe the Democratic Party, along with a loyal media are fighting.

[Pangloss]

That's fine, but the date of his book shows him appealing to moderates in the same time frame that Palin is failing to do so.

 

She has been promoting local candidates and their bases, but is in no way a moderate.

 

Exactly.

 

Neither by the way is Obama IMO.

 

Of course you don't think so, but you're not one of the moderates who will determine the next president. We won't be voting for Sarah Palin.

 

BTW, if Sarah Palin were to become President she would have to represent liberals and progressives and members of the media too. That means listening to their concerns, finding common ground, and implementing solutions that assuage the majority (NOT her base). That's the job. And she's shown zero sign of being capable of it, even to the extent of deliberately insulting large swaths of the American voting public.

 

So she will never be President.

[rigney]

That's fine, but the date of his book shows him appealing to moderates in the same time frame that Palin is failing to do so.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Of course you don't think so, but you're not one of the moderates who will determine the next president. We won't be voting for Sarah Palin.

 

BTW, if Sarah Palin were to become President she would have to represent liberals and progressives and members of the media too. That means listening to their concerns, finding common ground, and implementing solutions that assuage the majority (NOT her base). That's the job. And she's shown zero sign of being capable of it, even to the extent of deliberately insulting large swaths of the American voting public.

 

So she will never be President.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if she refuses to run at all. Sarah is a right wing republican, not a radical; but with no vacillation. She knows that, and the American people know it. It took Obama two years and an ass kicking last Nov. to realize that a president and his majority only lead, not demand. Any president, even a guy like Mubarak can grow accustomed to that feeling of colonial servitude, but a nations people will eventually run the circus. Even with an excellent cabinet and a majority in both house and senate, the people must still be recognized and heard.

Books? Personally, I believe Palin actually wrote hers. And Obama? His short and suggestively clandestine life has been so diversified, I have no idea where he really stands, making me unsure if he wrote his book or not? But then, I am a "middle of the roader", with a slightly right leaning attitude.

Edited February 8, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

Of course you don't think so, but you're not one of the moderates who will determine the next president. We won't be voting for Sarah Palin.[/Quote]

 

Pangloss, the Tea Party ground swell movement is made up moderates, independents and those referred to as Reagan Democrats. That Tea Party effectually was responsible for what happened in the 2008 Elections, the largest shifts in both Federal and STATES political party control. Then some of the Obama Base is fractured from both those not thinking this administration has gone far enough left and those moderates/independents, that feel were mislead. Frankly, you have yourself, an Obama Voter have indicated being mislead.

 

With that in mind, the TP movement basically represents, less Federal Government, fiscal responsibility, a return to States Rights and above all Constitutional Governance. Do you honestly believe Obama has to date believed in any of these principles?

 

BTW, if Sarah Palin were to become President she would have to represent liberals and progressives and members of the media too. That means listening to their concerns, finding common ground, and implementing solutions that assuage the majority (NOT her base). That's the job. And she's shown zero sign of being capable of it, even to the extent of deliberately insulting large swaths of the American voting public. [/Quote]

 

Just as every person in modern day America, that has run for and been elected President, what they say or claim they WILL do, has been flawed by their actions/policy after taking office. It's the nature of the Office and our political system. This includes Obama, whom by actions in his first two years makes his apparent moves to the right today seem disingenuous, even though he has defaulted on many campaign promises to his base.

 

That's fine, but the date of his book shows him appealing to moderates in the same time frame that Palin is failing to do so. [/Quote]

 

I would disagree that his books indicated he is either a moderate or trying to appeal toward them, frankly quite the contrary. I'm not aware of any groundswell of support for Reverend Wright or in fact for his Father in his second book "Dreams of My Father".

 

So she will never be President. [/Quote]

 

I think your old enough, to know better than to "Never say never". She has done well, as the Governor of Alaska, energizing a Nation running with a sure to be loser (talk about moderate or flip/flopper), as a paid speaker and author and no less a rock star to this modern electorate as Obama WAS.

 

As said before, whom ever is the 2012 Republican Candidate, Romney, Huckabee, Jebb Bush, Christie or Palin (the current apparent leading people), it's going to be tough. Unions and their money control many State Politics and any sitting President has always had the advantage going into the election.

[Pangloss]

With that in mind, the TP movement basically represents, less Federal Government, fiscal responsibility, a return to States Rights and above all Constitutional Governance. Do you honestly believe Obama has to date believed in any of these principles?

We were discussing Sarah Palin, not the Tea Party movement. I disagree with the TPM over states rights. President Obama certainly supports fiscal responsibility and the Constitution. My problems with this administration are strictly issues-based, not ideological. You're missing it, jackson.

 

I would disagree that his books indicated he is either a moderate or trying to appeal toward them, frankly quite the contrary.

Great, then you should have no trouble showing us a few quotes that indicate immoderate positions. Here's one that does the opposite:

 

"There's the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager's abortion, and the millions of waitresses and and temp secretaries and nurse's assistants and Wal-Mart associates who still hold their breath every single month in the hope that they'll have enough money to support the children that they did bring into the world.

 

"I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be accomplished, to admit the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point. They don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal, but they recognize the difference between dogma and common sense, responsibility and irresponsibility, between these things that last and those things that are fleeting.

 

"They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them."

How would you interpret that quote, jackson? Please, tell me all about how this is an example of a staunch ideologue appealing to a radical base, just like Sarah Palin.

[john5746]

Is this video very different than what is happening in today world? If so, will you explain?. This was a tragedy of the 1860s. Kennedy was a more recent tragedy of the 1960s.

 

Well, nothing like the Civil War has happened to America since then, but unfortunately, there seems to always be something like it or worse happening somewhere in the world.