The Confederacy: America's Worst Idea

[neverforget]

http://www.historynet.com/the-confederacy-americas-worst-idea.htm

In December America will mark a unique and largely embarrassing anniversary: 150 years ago a group of South Carolina politicians called a convention of "the people" and voted themselves out of the Union. Within weeks, six more states in the Deep South joined them and the United States was brought to the brink of war. The secessionist states hazarded all: their own future and that of their children and their children's children; slavery itself, on which the bulk of their wealth depended; and the fourth largest economy in the world.

Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders cast secession as a wholly constitutional move designed simply to restore government to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Davis would enshrine that version of the South's motives in his postwar memoirs and it became a staple of the mythology of the Lost Cause. The goal of secession was merely to protect the rights of "sovereign" states from "tremendous and sweeping usurpation" by the federal government, Davis wrote. "The existence of African servitude was in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident." All too many historians fell for the pitch. In doing so they lost sight of the true nature of what the Confederates attempted to do: build a modern antidemocratic nation dedicated to the proposition that all men were not created equal. There can be no doubt about their intentions. What they wanted was a proslavery country.

--snip--

Sound familiar? Not that the Republicans want to go back to the Confederacy or anything, but the rhetoric is strangely familiar. State's rights! Restore the government to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Ugh. These jackasses just hate that a Democrat is President but that he's part African American, makes them go bat shit crazy with rage. Maybe they do want the Confederacy back..........

Anyway, read the whole article. It's very good. I can't believe the 150 year anniversary of the Civil War is just about upon us. Let's hope that is the only Civil War we fight.

[MellowDem]

1. I don't see what's "embarrassing" about it...

putting such history into modern context and emotional appeals is irrelevant and besides the point. Looking back, you could say every country on Earth has an embarrassing history, very embarrassing indeed.

Technically, the whole US didn't even go in on that particular Confederacy.

If you want to get more to the point though, you should talk about the Articles of Confederation. The Confederacy was a rebellion that was mostly about maintaining the biggest part of the southern economy, cheap labor. Now that sounds very familiar, just over another subject. I would imagine the Confederacy would have adopted federalism of some sort eventually, because it was well proven that the Articles of Confederation did not work. All the problems that led up to the ratification of the Constitution are what you need to talk about. Because of the Civil War, it is not as good of an example to look at the Confederacy.

[handmade34]

2. also...

http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/1338

James Loewen's new book; haven't read it yet but heard an interview with Mr. Loewen discussing it... very good.

"Most Americans hold basic misconceptions about the Confederacy, the Civil War, and the actions of subsequent neo-Confederates. For example, two-thirds of Americans--including most history teachers--think the Confederate States seceded for "states' rights." This error persists because most have never read the key documents about the Confederacy...Later documents in this collection show how neo-Confederates obfuscated this truth, starting around 1890. The evidence also points to the centrality of race in neo-Confederate thought even today and to the continuing importance of neo-Confederate ideas in American political life..."

...I just finished up the summer working in the Southern States; (with TX and LA) NC, SC and AL. The attitude is still heavy in places

[nemo137]

12. I've been lucky enough to see James Loewen speak a couple times

I'll keep an eye out for this one.

[Kalyke]

40. Sigh... they DID secede because of states rights.

Now hear me out.

Yes: the truth is that the Powers-That-Be - the very wealthy who owned slaves - obviously did not want to give up their prosperous lifestyles by having to pay farmhands actual money; however, the vast majority of Southerners who fought in the war were not rich and did not own slaves.

Why would these poor people fight in a war that held no importance for them?

Because they were told by virtue of the wealthy-owned media that the issue was over states rights. They were told by virtue of the wealthy-owned media that the people of the North were anti-Constitutional scalawags who were being sent to the South to pollute the land with their industrial ways (well - that actually turned out to be so, but, oh, you get my drift). They were told by virtue of the wealthy-owned media that their way of life was being threatened and they must act NOW (sounds like the Wall Street bail out, doesn't it?)

So - yes, I would argue with James Loewen about his assumptions. He may be correct in that, in reality, the Civil War wasn't fought over states rights, but, the reality in the minds of many a poor Southern soldier, was that, yes, it was fought over states rights. It's not that attitude is "heavy" in the South - it's that it is what our great- and great-great grandfathers told us because that is what they believed, pure and simple.

FWIW, THIS same type of propaganda is the very same reason Republicans have been able to control the South. Never mind that most Southerners are very poor and that Republican politics favor the very wealthy - just as they did in the late 1800s. The fact is that the chasm between rich and poor in the South is greater than in the North, making it easier for the wealthy elite to brainwash the simple (under-educated) poor. It's that way today. We have fewer educated middle class willing to listen outside the Republican propaganda box and spread that word to our working poor comrades. Hell, we just have fewer educated middle classers.

[Bryn]

51. Thank you! +10000

The North need to see this truth instead of blaming the South totally.

I am a native of Florida. Guess what? The rich Northerners came down and did a great damage to Florida by building ugly high rise condos along the coastline, taking Florida beaches away from people, grabbing up lands, building more and more of their ugly stuff, getting rich from stealing the lands with their filthy money. Barf!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. Many people *believed* the Iraq war was about stopping terrorism

But I would hope history teachers of the future would not repeat that crap.

[Sherman A1]

78. Precisely

It took more than just the very wealthy to fill the ranks of the Confederate Army. They had to sell the idea through the "states rights" issue or it may have been hard to put an Army in the field. So it was both and I don't think that anyone really doesn't understand that. States Rights were the veneer that covered the issue of the Southern Economy which included the use of slave labor. I had a GG-Grandfather who served in the 28th NC Infantry with his brother for a bit from a fairly poor, backwater area that had very few slaves. He deserted after some 9 months and took his family to IL, his brother was not so lucky being caught by the Home Guard and executed while home at a corn husking. That they deserted tells me they were perhaps somewhat disenchanted with dying in a war for someone else's profit

[raccoon]

76. Thanks for the link--I'll look for that book. nt

[Just One Woman]

3. In the south

I see the confederacy alive here in the south. I too am embarrassed. I am even more concerned that I see a conflict coming again.

[deaniac21]

10. You are quite the prognosticator.

[loudsue]

25. I live here, too. The conflict is already here, and it keeps growing.

Obama being elected was too much for some people who had voted for the democratic ticket for a long time. It's enough to make you sick.

It seems to be less obvious in the cities, but the rural areas are like a wasps nest that has been disturbed.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. So long as they ignore the entire Constitution they were right...

The Articles of Confederation

[provis99]

5. Very good article, but the comments at the article are embarrassing

Looks like the comments were done by a bunch of neo-Confederate cavemen.

[neverforget]

7. It's really sick knowing that people still defend the Confederacy....

[AlinPA]

6. We had a two hour discussion about what would have happened if the war wasn't fought and

the south went their way with secession. Or what would have happened if the war had been won by the south. That was a very interesting discussion- lots of scenarios, some agreements but no real consensus.

[VioletLake]

8. Spike Lee made a compelling movie about your 2nd scenario:

http://www.csathemovie.com/

[AlinPA]

9. Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

[AspenRose]

74. I found it on YouTube

watching it myself...

[Ter]

11. Wasn't that a comedy?

Any real serious movies about what would have happened? I think we would have had slavery until maybe 1885 at best, and segregation until maybe 1985, 1990. Two countries today, left and right.

[VioletLake]

14. I don't know if the movie was intended to be a comedy,

but it does have its funny parts. It is serious enough though, satisfying enough as an answer to your second question, and worth watching.

[Caliman73]

24. Not necessarily a comedy. A mockumentary

It was satire, but the scary part is that it took a great deal of information from documentation about the plans that Confederates had about spreading slavery into Latin America, about the prevailing medical and social sciences of the time, and about attitudes that were prevalent during the civil war that continue today.

I am sure that the Southern ideals were unsustainable, but the country would be very different today if the confederacy had won, and like they say in the film, they were a few key victories away from getting the backing and funding they needed to match and surpass the North's war effort.

[MedicalAdmin]

20. Slight edit

Spike Lee didn't make the movie --- his production company presented / distributed / promoted it.

Not quite the same thing. All Spikes movies are 40 acre and a mule productions.

[VioletLake]

54. Thanks for the correction, MedicalAdmin. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Spike produced this film, which was 'made' or directed by

Kevin Willmott, who also wrote the screenplay. Great picture.

[VioletLake]

55. I see that now. Thanks, Bluenorthwest. nt

[Capn Sunshine]

13. I'm strating to think that the idea that you can punish the Dems by not voting is right up there

In the annals of bad ideas. The net net every time is we lose more power and get shoved further to the right.

[Kahuna]

80. I keep repeating that over and over. That argument is apparently

falling on deaf ears.

[CanonRay]

15. If we had let the south secede,

they'd have been begging to re-join in 20 years. Their economy would have been a wreck, and they'd probably be fighting multiple slave revolts, and been an international pariah. Just MHO.

[neverforget]

16. That's probably a good prediction of what could have happened.

Also the slaves and women would see freedom to the North and wonder why they don't have it. The potential for unrest is massive considering that only white men had power and they were by far a minority.

[DemocracyInaction]

18. I'm a member of a Civil War Roundtable

We've often brought up that question. Neither women nor slaves would have up and revolted because they were kept in the dark. BUT, there had been slave uprising in the Carribean and the southeners were afraid of it breaking out (just reading an account of a southern woman who actually had freed her slaves but was always scared something would happen--there were a tremendous number of slaves by that time in the south). I maintain since those states from the get-go were fighting among themselves over what powers Davis, et. al, should have that had they won or been let go that they soon would have dissolved their confederacy and been at each other's throats (tarrifs on goods moving through, etc.). However, the biggest problem would have been that they would have been individual nation-states and easily picked off. Remember during all this the French came into Mexico and were keeping an eye over the border to see if they could invade.

[ieoeja]

35. Had we let them go, the Confederacy would have started a war anyway.

As a separate country, they would have lost the ability to send law enforcement into the United States to recapture slaves.

The United States would have no longer been forced to return slaves to the Confederacy.

They would have been banned from renting their slaves for use in the United States.


The true irony of that "states' rights" argument is that it was the free states, not the slave states, that had their rights more frequently infringed upon by the federal government over the issue of slavery. So if they really did secede over states' rights, they must have viewed their secession as punishment for their earlier transgressions!

"Whereas, the state of Alabama, in collusion with other states, has infringed upon the rights of the several northern states, and
"Whereas, the state of Alabama has infringed upon those rights repeatedly, and
"Whereas, the state of Alabama deems itself incapable of rehabilitation on this issue,
"Therefore, the state of Alabama must secede from the United States of America to ensure and protect the rights and powers of those states remaining within the union.
"In summary, we're just not good enough for y'all. So we're going to let you go and hope you find a better state; one more suited for ya'."

[DemocracyInaction]

17. Bet you don't know these following points:

The literacy rate in the Reb army was in the 30th percentile (most being the officers). The rate in the Union army was in the 90th.........thus, Grant made the remark that at least his soldiers could read a newspaper and know what they were fighting for.

Before session the south "owned" the government in DC. They and the border states had the majority in both houses and the majority electoral votes. They were scared that if other states came into the union as "free", they wouldn't be able to rule the school anymore.

Some things just never change..........

[Gaedel]

19. They didn't have a majority

Population gains in the north had given the northern states an absolute majority in the House. In the Senate, the slave-holding states were hanging (by their fingernails) on a tie.

While the underlying cause of the tension between the regions was slavery, the immediate cause of secession was the new lands to the west. The slave holders were practicing "slash and burn" agriculture. They were depleting their soil and wanted to just move on into the western states for new land with their slaves. The northern states wanted the land in the western states to be "free soil" and have the land reserved for white homesteaders.

The Whigs in the south wanted to have the planters adopt scientific agriculture so that they could keep their existing lands productive. The Kansas-Nebraska Act probably began the slide to war (and the fracturing of the Democratic Party). Shortly after the south left the union, the Homestead Law and the Morrill Land Grant Act (establishing agricultural colleges in every state) were quickly passed by Congress.

The southern states were also against public works and without them, the Transcontinental Railroad was authorized by Congress. An interesting part of the CSA Constitution was that a spending bill had to be proposed by the president then congress could act on it. They were trying to eliminate pork barrel projects.

[DemocracyInaction]

23. If you add the border states

to the southern states they were able to hold a tight grip on the Congress. That's why one of the first things the Confed did was to forbid public monies to basically be spent on any modern transportation, etc. They hated industrialization and they hated the people pouring in from Europe because they thought them inferior people. It took a hell of a lot for Lincoln to hold on to those border states...that is why the Union did not march to war to "free the slaves" but to "preserve the union". Lincoln had the power to simply abolish slavery in the south once they became an enemy of the state BUT he had no right to free them in states (border)who were still part of the union and who still had slaves since that would take an act of Congress. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the southern slaves and he hoped that the border states would kinda get the message and free their own slaves in fear that freed slaves (after the war) would come into their states and do it on their own.

[Gaedel]

33. Congressional Reaportionment after the 1850 Census

1850 (took effect in 1852 elections)

North (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT)--92 seats in the house, 18 senators

West (CA, IL, IN, IA, MI, OH, WI)--52 seats in the house, 14 senators

South (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA)--66 seats in house, 22 senators

Border (DE, KY, MD, MO)--24 seats in house 8 senators


House
North plus West = 144 representatives
South plus Border = 90 representatives

Senate
North plus West = 32 senators
South plus Border = 30 senators

1860 census didn't take effect in apportionment till 1862 elections

[Confusious]

58. One of the reasons for succession was loss of power

fewer slave states were coming into the union, california and Oregon, and the south knew their time was up. They had lost control of the house a long time ago, they were going to lose control of the senate, and Lincoln was elected without one southern state.

they feared soon they would loose their "property"

[Confusious]

57. The Mexican American war started it all

northerners and southerners began quibbling over slavery in the new territories.

The wilmont proviso was the first time that north and south split along sectional lines, which outlawed slavery in the territories. After that it got worse on an exponential scale every year 'til 1861.

reading "The impending crisis" for my us history 1845-1861 class.

[Gaedel]

64. Might I recommend?

"Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War" by Marc Egnal, 2009, Hill and Wagnal,
ISBN 13: 978-0-8090-9536-0

While not downplaying the issue of slavery, the author shows how economic issues in both the north and the south led to the rise of the GOP in the north and the decline of the Whigs in the south which set the political stage for the sectional split.

It was primarily the strength of the Democratic Party in both the north and the south that sustained the compromises that kept secession under control from 1835 to 1860. With the emergence of the Republican Party in the north (caused more by economic issues than slavery) that weakened the northern wing of the Democratic Party and led to southern dominance within the party leading to the Douglas and Breckenridge split in 1860 that sent the election to Lincoln.

Good read.

[Scruffy1]

27. From where I sit they won

Just look at some of the cretins in the senate. Demint, Bunning, Sessions, Shelby, Coburn, Imhoff, etc. And the Dems kiss their ass and treat them with respect. They don't even call them liars when they lie. Some Democracy. It's just all a sham and a fraud. They south controlled the Senate from about 1887-1965 and has run it like a fiefdom every since. Senatorial holds, holding up nominees, voting against cloture on every vote. these fascist assholes are making a laughing stock of out Republic, but that's there job. But it is the Democrats who piss me off.
they spineless ones are so afraid of offending anyone. It's just a rich, white gentlemans club and a total failure like it pretty much has been from day one of the constitution Even FDR never got one thing through the Senate after 1937.

[raccoon]

21. Lots of Southerners didn't want to secede. Check this out:

Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War
By David Williams
Publisher: New Press (August 1, 2008)
ISBN-10: 1595581081

From Publishers Weekly


This fast-paced book will be a revelation even to professional historians. Pulling together the latest scholarship with his own research, Williams (A People's History of the Civil War), a professor of history at Valdosta State University, puts an end to any lingering claim that the Confederacy was united in favor of secession during the Civil War. His astonishing story details the deep, often murderous divisions in Southern society. Southerners took up arms against each other, engaged in massacres, guerrilla warfare, vigilante justice and lynchings, and deserted in droves from the Confederate army (300,000 men joined the Union forces). Unionist politicians never stopped battling secessionism. Some counties and regions even seceded from the secessionists. Poor whites resented the large slave owners, who had engineered the war but were exempt from the draft. Not surprisingly, slaves fought slaveholders for their freedom and aided the Union cause. So did women and Indians. Williams's long overdue work makes indelibly clear that Southerners themselves played a major role in doing in the secessionist South. With this book, the history of the Civil War will never be the same again...

http://www.amazon.com/Bitterly-Divided-Souths-Inner-Civil/dp/1595581081

[DemocracyInaction]

26. Many of the southern officers

..including Robert E. Lee did not want secession. It was the work of some fire-eating politicians like Ruffan (sp.?)---I believe he killed himself at the end of the war. James Longstreet, Joe Johnston did not want it. Towards the end, there were governors, politicians, etc. that were trying to make a deal with the Fed government to come back into the fold, a number of them never having wanted to go in the first place. That war started off as half-assed as Bush going to Iraq and everything would be over within a week. The politicians sold those people a bill of goods. They did not educate the poor whites just like they didn't educate the slaves---afraid they would get "thoughts" into their head. I truly wonder what would have happened if the poor whites had received a basic education. Would they have gone along with the planters?

[theHandpuppet]

31. Let us not forget the Southern Unionists, mainly of the Appalachians

Who contributed nearly 200,000 men to the Union Army.

[Kalyke]

41. Thanks!

I just posted about how poor whites resented the large slave holders, but were sold on the war because of states rights.

Some scholars are wrong when they assume that, just because the war was actually fought for slavery, that it wasn't actually fought for slavery in the minds of most of those who actually fought it.

(Confusing....?)

The reality is that most soldiers fought on the basis of states rights because that is what they were TOLD they were fighting for and that's what their families continue to believe.

It's not that much different than our attacking Iraq to "combat terrorism" when, in actuality, it was to provide rich oil reserves to private gasoline companies.

[CanonRay]

73. Sam Houston tried hard to keep Texas from seceeding

[raccoon]

22. And if the Brits had won, people would be saying that the American Revolution was America's worst

idea.

I'm not defending slavery, simply pointing out that history is written by the victors.

If the Brits had won, Benedict Arnold would be a hero, and Nathan Hale a traitor.

[hfojvt]

29. sometimes I wonder about that Revolution

Canada is just as free and independent as we are and they never had to rebel.

But then how do we get the Louisiana purchase without being separate from Britain. Do we end up with a Quebec in Louisiana/Missouri? Arret, merci.

[Spike89]

49. Interesting idea

The first thought that pops into my mind when reading your post "Canada is just as free and independent as we are and they never had to rebel." is "sure, they didn't have to rebel because we did." If you've got siblings, you're probably aware of the dynamic--the eldest child often blazes the trail for the younger ones.

Perhaps England allowed Canada to be free and independent because we showed them that they didn't really have a choice.

[hfojvt]

53. that's possible, of course,

except for the other fact. England, too, is just as free as we are.

Again, though, it is hard to know how much of a factor the American and French revolutions had on politics in England either.

[Spike89]

71. Yeah, alternate history can make you dizzy

I think it was Heinlein who said (I paraphrase) "When it is time for steamships, steamships will be built" What he meant of course is that when the time becomes ripe for a development it becomes inevitable. The US revolution "may" have caused England to rethink its colonial policies, but if we'd not rebelled, Canada might have. Maybe they'd have moved in that direction with just the French revolution as incentive, or maybe England would have had the revolution itself, sparking France...

The point is probably that the European governments were at a point in history that made it inevitable that democracy and personal freedom would arise as a major political force. I like to think the world right now is poised for a post-industrial revolution and nothing the corporations do can stop it. Delay it maybe, but there is no stopping the fact that the age of capital-intensive factories is ending.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

59. since all of our neighbors had already abandoned slavery, Im pretty sure the Confederacy would still

be embarassing.

Yay...these "patriots" broke away to establish a country where they could own, rape and murder other people...a practice the north,Mexico,Canada and England had already abandoned as morally wrong decades earlier.

[JCMach1]

28. Tea Partiers are worse...

at least if was stupid to try to hold on to the system you profited from. That at least makes logical sense.

There is little about the tea party that rises above just plain STUPID.

So yeah, the Tea Party is like Confederacy Lite

[Terry in Austin]

30. Confederacy, secession, states rights are proxy issues

At bottom, these are about racism. The shame of the Confederacy was its institution of slavery and the legacy of racism in the ex-Confedrate South.

In the same way "secession" implies racism; "states rights" implies racism.

[Bryn]

32. I think America's worst idea is our politicians have sold us out to the Corporate

We're now under the control of the Corporate. Millions of jobs have moved out of this country because they want a return of SLAVERY!!! Cheap labor, child labor, slaves. You buy $8 jeans at Wal-Mart that was made by a slave child. We don't have Universal Health Care because our politicians took bribes from insurance companies/big pharma to VOTE their way. Now many of us are dying because we don't have money they are asking for/demanding that we spend thousands of dollars just for a crumb of medical care. There are many more things our politicans have done this country WRONG. Like two wars, education, middle class, jobs, catering to the super rich by giving them HUGE tax cuts leaving us to hold their stinky bag and they're playing around with SS and Medicare.

Why doesn't anyone see this fact?

FORGET the Confederacy. Thousands and thousands of men have died to do away with slavery in this country. All for nothing as far as I am concerned.

[waiting for hope]

38. +1000

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. Did you seriously just compare your life to that of an slave in the antebellum south?

It is possible to describe the defects in our society without minimizing hundreds of years of rape, torture and murder you know


And I love the fact that you declare that the people who died to end slavery died for nothing. Why don't you go ahead and take a poll of african americans and see how they feel about that.

[Bryn]

70. The fact still stands that America is condoning Slavery

today by sending jobs oversea for cheap labor, slavery, child labor. Don't you think they suffer also?

[CBR]

67. Ugh.... try being an actual slave. nt

[suzie]

77. I'm sorry, but "all for nothing" is so disgusting that it's difficult to believe that

anyone on a forum for Democrats and progressives ever said it.

Most of the liberal Southerners that I know are far more outspoken about the horrors of slavery than our Northern friends. Perhaps because we've visited the places in the South where it existed and envisioned for ourselves how horrible it was. We've seen the photographs of men huddled in a group, with shackles around their necks waiting to be auctioned off, read the WPA slave accounts collected by members of our own extended families.

I think there are lessons for us that we sometimes overlook in the Civil War. One is that the Confederacy fought for years longer than most on the Union side would have ever thought, especially given the lack of resources on the Southern side. Probably years longer than most Confederates would have thought their "nation" would survive as well.

It might sometimes give us pause, when as a nation we seem to overlook the fact that we might be getting in the midst of civil wars within other countries--and that each side will fight with a greater ferocity than we anticipate. We seem to have made that miscalculation over and over.

We might look at the fact that, once a conflict begins, people will take up sides even if they aren't personally involved in the cause that they've enlisted for. Those of us whose ancestors were those non-slaveholding poor farmers that fought for the Confederacy ought to be the first to point that out to our fellow citizens. Because, again, it's a miscalculation that the U.S. seems to make again and again.

My ancestors made the wrong choice. But there are many Americans whose ancestors survived hundreds of years of horrendous treatment. In a nation that prides itself on survival, African Americans are probably the descendants of the greatest survivors this nation has known.

To say to them, "all for nothing", is a terrible slap in the face.

One that you should apologize for.

[Hekate]

81. Thank you for putting on your hip-boots and wading in here to say that.

Thank you.

Hekate

[TexasObserver]

34. The Confederacy is one of the most shameful parts of America history.

Why is waving the Confederate flag any different than waving a Nazi flag?

They both represent heinous human rights offenders of the worst sort.

I've never understood people who still think the Confederacy is something to be lauded, instead of disdained.

Having lived among hard core pro Confederacy types my entire life, I can tell you for a certainty they're the same old racists they've always been. They're the people who make up the tea party, which is a convenient dodge for the "We hate having a black president" party.

[DevonRex]

36. Heh. No need for me to say much of anything now. You said it all. nt

[Uncle Joe]

39. Flags are glorified national gang colors and the same holds true for the U.S. Flag.

How many millions have died around the world due to international slavery enforced by U.S. proxies; which we prop up?

The American People serve a corporate master; which came in to being in the decades after the Civil War, just as Jim Crow did and this happened while the North had supreme power in the U.S. government.

The way I see it, the American People can stay divided and keep fighting 19th century wars or battles and our 21st century corporate masters; will have pup tents in their pants or we can unite and bring the term "We the people" to its' fruition.

[TexasObserver]

42. The topic is the Confederacy, and how some unreconstructed racists worship it.

Why don't you address THAT?

[Uncle Joe]

44. You can't address one without the other, of course you will have racists worship the long dead

Confederacy.

There are also unreconstructed racists worshiping the U.S. they wave the American Flag.

If you attack one, you will no doubt alienate people that for one reason or another have an emotional connection having nothing to do with racism.

So long as we charge at those red flags or salivate at the mouth when these Pavlov Bells are rung, we will be controlled by forces that don't give a rat's ass about the people.

For every action, there is a reaction and they know it.

[TexasObserver]

45. Just wanted to make sure you weren't dodging and deflecting.

I agree with the notion that flags are gang colors used to mindlessly incite a population.

Our flag is supposed to symbolize our freedoms and commitment to them, but those who wave the flag the most respect the freedoms it supposedly represents the least.

I am neither proud of the flag nor ashamed of it, but ashamed of those who use it to advance their hateful causes.

[Bryn]

52. and the North is innocent?

LOL

[TexasObserver]

62. The Confederacy was guilty of heinous treatment of slaves, and owning slaves.

If you need to have it explained to you, maybe you should worry about that problem.

Lose your affectation for the horrific beast that was the Confederacy.

This worship of an evil government is no more admirable than modern Germans who like to glorify the Nazi regime.

I've known a lot of people who loved the Confederacy, but not a single one who wasn't a racist to the core.

[Bryn]

69. Where in my posts did I say I love the Confederacy?

I don't!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

61. Because it's "heritage" and "history"

:eyes:

Of course the nazi party is part of Germany's history and you don't see them waving those flags around

[TexasObserver]

63. Yes, those are the buzz words they love to use to rationalize it.

Dress it up and salute it, but it's still just a bunch of latter day slave owners and race baiters parading around in great grand daddy's grey uniform, if not his sheet and hood.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. A really bad idea but a helluva sales job.

The rich white slaveholders bamboozled the poor white southerners into thinking that there was something in it for them.

[TexasObserver]

43. Pretty much what the GOP still does with the ignorant masses who support them.

[Greyhound]

46. Might we be smart enough to let them go this time? n/t

[Arkana]

47. They lost that ideological battle TWICE THE FUCK OVER

and they actually considered it again over the stimulus and the health care bill. They don't get to nullify federal laws they don't like, and they don't get to secede without getting their asses kicked.

[Fire1]

50. I would say it but I'm not. Too easy. n/t

[Scurrilous]

56. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[JamesA1102]

66. We should have let them go.

Within 50 years they would have been a third world country while the north would have prospered and be much more progressive now.

[Bryn]

68. Wouldn't be a good idea because

those slaves needed to be free. They were suffering.

The North would still come down because they loved Florida, the Keys, warm weather and still do!

[Spike89]

72. At least 1 if not both sides would have failed

The south could not have long existed as an independent entity, not sharing a border with the North. Even if the North for some reason decided to assist the confederate nation in policing runaway slaves, a truly divided nation would have been too tempting for the European powers. They'd both have been picked off.

[AspenRose]

75. "America's Worst Idea" just got its own month to celebrate in Virginia

Thanks, GOP! :puke:

[humblebum]

79. All one needs to do is to review the 1790 debates in Congress to get an idea

of just how pertinent the slavery issue was to the issue of Southern states' rights. Benjamin Franklin, in his last public involvement signed a Quaker petition demanding an end to the slave trade immediately and the outlawing of slavery altogether. The rest is history. these debates are the clearest evidence that slavery was a preeminent issue and certainly not an incidental.