The more things change,...

[misanthrope]

...the more they remain the same.

Pick up the Mobile Register and find the following poll results about Southern delusion in regard to the Civil War:
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1114939162190560.xml
Bear in mind, too, that the Southern heritage activist quoted in the article, Ben George, consorts with Klan and Neo-Nazi peripherals and has gone so far as to erect confederate battle flags on empty lots in black neighborhoods just to harass the residents.

Then, you turn a couple pages over in the same paper and you stumble upon the following article: http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1114939506190560.xml

And most who read them will never see the connection between the two pieces, between the code phrases in the headlines and in the bodies that reveal a larger arc behind it all.

Will anyone here ever learn?

[peacebaby3]

1. I saw this today in the Register.

Unbelievable.

It was about State's Rights - the right of the States to own slaves!!! All of this talk about tariffs, economics, the Constitution, etc. all goes back to slavery and the need of the South to own slaves to continue their agricultural economy.

Have none of these people ever read Alexander Stephens' (the vice president of the confederacy) "Cornerstone" speech on March 21, 1861?

Here's a direct quote regarding what the government of the Confederacy was founded on:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

The rest of it is just as disgusting. Here's a link:

<http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76>

It just goes back to if something is repeated enough, people will actually start to believe it.

[BamaLefty]

2. More RW Hypocrisy

A) So the Civil War was fought over states rights, and that was supported.

But now...

B) We need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

A or B?

[southlandshari]

4. Hey, BamaLefty!

Have you finished your homework for tonight yet?

[Syrinx]

6. Shari, Leave that boy alone!

He needs to have his fun! ;)

[jody]

3. I believe states' rights was a major issue. Certainly slavery was

a catalyst but the conflict between the emerging industrial north with its emphasis on strong central governments versus the agricultural south with its emphasis on individual and states' rights was also a major factor.

Remember each state was a sovereign entity as expressed in our Articles of Confederation and states' rights were protected in our Constitution by our senate where Alabama's 4.5 million people have the same vote as California's 35.9 million.

The vestiges of that conflict divide our nation to this day. That's why Republican's are trying to overturn the filibuster rule.

The U.S. Constitution says three-quarters of our states must approve changes to our fundamental laws by amending the Constitution. Recent history proves that activist judges either liberal or conservative can change our laws through interpretation of our Constitution just as effectively and more easily than amending our Constitution

Frist and his cabal want to appoint federal judges by having only 50 percent of our states’ senators, plus Vice President Dick Cheney, approve such appointments and, through their interpretations, change our laws. A worst case scenario would allow senators representing less than 16% of our population to appoint a federal court for life and change laws more easily than amending the constitution.

If Republicans win on the filibuster rule, then state's rights are dead as well as the inherent, natural, inalienable rights of individuals.
:shrug:

[misanthrope]

5. As someone above said...

...it was about "states' rights" in as far as those states' right to own slaves.

And the preeminence of racism to the secession is of utmost importance as the secession arguments from each Southern state's legislature will attest.

Having lived my life in the South, I can say that people here are clannish, tradition-bound and thin-skinned. I can see how it would be very easy to incense many to rush to a war in which they stood to gain little to nothing.

I'm not saying the rest of the nation was filled with abolitionists, or even that all the abolitionists acted with the utmost empathy toward slaves, but slavery was indeed the crux of the issue.

Slavery was an artifact of a system that was passing away in America and the South, much as it still does, was the last to catch to the winds of change. As the northern U.S. moved into the Industrial Age, and found a steady and cheaper stream of workers to exploit in the form of immigrants, the South held on to her slaves.

And the chain of woes that brought is as manifest today as it was 100 years past.

[jody]

7. Your reply limits states' rights to slavery. The cause was much more

complicated than that including the right of states to secede from the Union, a right that was never brought before SCOTUS. In fact, some made the argument at the time that SCOTUS does not have the right to rule on such matters, each state retained the right to continue or reject its membership in the union. The Articles of Confederation clearly recognized that each state remained a sovereign entity and the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution speaks to the vestiges of power that each state retains as a sovereign entity after they ratified our Constitution.

Like you, I've read many books on the causes that led up to the war between the states. Every author of books on the topic brings a certain bias to their work and each must accept and reject facts, opinions, and conjectures from the mid 1800s. In my opinion, slavery was the catalyst that caused a simmering conflict over several major issues between the urban North and rural South to boil into a full fledged war.

[misanthrope]

8. Wars are about one thing:...

...power.

Bearing this in mind, what powers were at stake in the years preceding the Civil War?

[jody]

9. The emerging power over the economy of the industrial North versus

the declining power through capital intensive farming in the rural South. The net effect was that government was being dominated by money-interests in the North.

Certainly slavery was wrong and was a major cause of the war between the states but that should not detract from the power struggle to control our government. That struggle continues unabated by wars until today we have a government of multinational corporation, by multinational corporation, and for multinational corporation.

So far, it looks like multinational corporations are way ahead on points.

[misanthrope]

10. I wholeheartedly concur...

...about the friction between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Also, think about the differences between these regions today, culturally, socially and politically. Now consider that the state of communications and transportation technology at that time only led to greater isolation and it's not hard to see what happened.

The issue was certainly complex and there were a myriad of contentious points between the regions. But, it seems there can be little argument that slavery was indeed the central crux to the entire set of affairs. As stated, the arguments from the men who ultimately decided for secession identify that motivation with little ambiguity.

I cannot stand Southern apologists and am thankful every single day that the war took place. As bad as things are here now, they would be much more so had someone not attempted to force us out of that feudal system. Now if we could just do something about the vestigial mindset, we'd be getting somewhere.

[jody]

11. "Now if we could just do something about the vestigial mindset,"

I'll drink to that! :toast: