Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
    Then apparently, you don't know what it stands for.
    Unfortunately it stands for a lot. While I agree with a lot of the points made, the flag stands for both individuality and insurrection.

    The Confederates struck first against their sovereign government. I believe that political fights should be fought within the structures of government, not with guns and death. Insurrection is not a valid form of protest.

    Of course, I've got nothing against flying the Confederate flag, or people supporting the ideals of the Confederacy. But there's a very bright line of insurrection that the Confederates crossed, wrongly in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Unfortunately it stands for a lot. While I agree with a lot of the points made, the flag stands for both individuality and insurrection.

    The Confederates struck first against their sovereign government. I believe that political fights should be fought within the structures of government, not with guns and death. Insurrection is not a valid form of protest.

    Of course, I've got nothing against flying the Confederate flag, or people supporting the ideals of the Confederacy. But there's a very bright line of insurrection that the Confederates crossed, wrongly in my opinion.
    Technically, couldn't the same be said of the founding fathers' revolution against the crown.
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
    Technically, couldn't the same be said of the founding fathers' revolution against the crown.
    Technically, yes. Except Britain was a monarchy where the States had no ability to engage the political process and enact change.

    Although that is an interesting challenge to distinguish the two.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    You do know there were slave owners in the North, don't you?
    It was a lot rarer in the north, especially after the Missouri Compromise. Besides, the industrialization of the north required massive urban populations that could work in factories, and slavery was not conducive to skilled labor. This was satisfied by voluntary immigration from Europe, especially Ireland. This is one of the major reasons that there was a Civil War, although it's not covered very extensively at the undergraduate level, much less K-12.

    In a nutshell, the northern economy was heavily industrialized and depended on raw materials from domestic sources to feed the mills. These came from the south. Britain, which was also heavily industrialized, had a head start and had more capital to spend, so they were able to outbid the north for southern crops, specifically cotton. Since the northern industrial base attracted more immigration, this led to a population increase that meant more representation in the House of Representatives, where northern interests were more heavily weighted. That's why the Senate was where all of the compromises happened. If you look back on the history of tariffs and other trade restrictions, you see the legislation that came out of the house was almost always hostile to southern interests, while the senate always mitigated the damage. This was the underlying economic schism between the north and south. The underlying social schism was the urban culture of the north, which saw southerners as illiterate yokels or elitist plantation barons, vs. the agrarian culture of the south, which saw northerners as crude, corrupt city dwellers who were constantly cheating southerners of their rightful due. Throw in the emotional arguments regarding slavery and you have a vicious divide over issues which could no longer be settled amicably. The election of Lincoln in a fourway race guaranteed that his administration would be seen as both illegitimate and radical by his opponents.

    Now, want to see something really scary? Compare the social split between north and south with the social split between liberals and conservatives. Abortion is the emotional argument that divides the two camps (as are gay marriage, gun control and immigration), while entitlement policy (welfare, social security, health care, trade protectionism) is the economic schism.

    See you in the trenches...
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Now, want to see something really scary? Compare the social split between north and south with the social split between liberals and conservatives. Abortion is the emotional argument that divides the two camps (as are gay marriage, gun control and immigration), while entitlement policy (welfare, social security, health care, trade protectionism) is the economic schism.

    See you in the trenches...
    I don't think that's a problem. 90% of liberals would wet themselves if they were handed a firearm. The rest would try to have sex with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The election of Lincoln in a fourway race guaranteed that his administration would be seen as both illegitimate and radical by his opponents.
    No shit!

    The sonofabitch was elected by only 39% of the people (mostly liberal Northeasterners) and he used that as a mandate to kill over a million Americans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    It was a lot rarer in the north, especially after the Missouri Compromise. Besides, the industrialization of the north required massive urban populations that could work in factories, and slavery was not conducive to skilled labor. This was satisfied by voluntary immigration from Europe, especially Ireland. This is one of the major reasons that there was a Civil War, although it's not covered very extensively at the undergraduate level, much less K-12.

    In a nutshell, the northern economy was heavily industrialized and depended on raw materials from domestic sources to feed the mills. These came from the south. Britain, which was also heavily industrialized, had a head start and had more capital to spend, so they were able to outbid the north for southern crops, specifically cotton. Since the northern industrial base attracted more immigration, this led to a population increase that meant more representation in the House of Representatives, where northern interests were more heavily weighted. That's why the Senate was where all of the compromises happened. If you look back on the history of tariffs and other trade restrictions, you see the legislation that came out of the house was almost always hostile to southern interests, while the senate always mitigated the damage. This was the underlying economic schism between the north and south. The underlying social schism was the urban culture of the north, which saw southerners as illiterate yokels or elitist plantation barons, vs. the agrarian culture of the south, which saw northerners as crude, corrupt city dwellers who were constantly cheating southerners of their rightful due. Throw in the emotional arguments regarding slavery and you have a vicious divide over issues which could no longer be settled amicably. The election of Lincoln in a fourway race guaranteed that his administration would be seen as both illegitimate and radical by his opponents.

    Now, want to see something really scary? Compare the social split between north and south with the social split between liberals and conservatives. Abortion is the emotional argument that divides the two camps (as are gay marriage, gun control and immigration), while entitlement policy (welfare, social security, health care, trade protectionism) is the economic schism. See you in the trenches...
    Crispus ATTUCKS,, a mulatto slave , or half-breed Indian, killed 5 March, 1770, in what is known as the Boston Massacre.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #58  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    In a nutshell, the northern economy was heavily industrialized and depended on raw materials from domestic sources to feed the mills. These came from the south. Britain, which was also heavily industrialized, had a head start and had more capital to spend, so they were able to outbid the north for southern crops, specifically cotton.
    Somewhat.

    Egyptian cotton was beginning to flood the States and the North began to depend on southern cotton less. At the same time the South was still heavily dependent on Northern/Mid-western corn.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #59  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    Somewhat.

    Egyptian cotton was beginning to flood the States and the North began to depend on southern cotton less. At the same time the South was still heavily dependent on Northern/Mid-western corn.
    Close. Let me elaborate.

    the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •