homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » American Civl War is still being fought (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: American Civl War is still being fought
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The South, despite a few burgeoning metropolitan centers, has never recovered the economic primacy it had pre-war.

Good point. Symbols mean different things to different people. Looking back with rose-tinted vision to the Golden Age, the time when's own homeplace was strong and significant, seems like a pretty widespread human temptation. The tide of history ebbs and flows, and when it has ebbed, people still remember the flood.

The other widespread human temptation is for those in the seat of government power to look down on those in the rest of the country, and for this to be resented. There's always the suspicion that the national government is being run in the interests of the capital city. Laws that reflect a consensus in the capital rather than a consensus right here are always going to be unpopular wherever "right here" may be. Seems to me that one of the meanings of the Confederate flag is a two-fingered salute to the federal government. And the more they try to ban it, the stronger will be the sentiment.

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... At any rate, according to the U.S. Constitution (Art. III, §3):

quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
By just about any reasonable interpretation, this makes at least the Confederate leadership traitors. They indisputably levied war against the United States. ...
Are you convinced by that? I appreciate that at the time, the northern side would have claimed it was 'the United States' and the confederates were waging war against it. But, if some of the states wage war against other of the states, on what convincing argument, other than vi victus (i.e. we won) of course, can either side claim it is 'the United States' and the other lot aren't?

Again, the fact that anyone is still arguing that from the heart now, demonstrates to an outsider like me that 'the American Civil War is still being fought'.


Incidentally, if true, it would be odd for Manchester to have a public statue of Abraham Lincoln. From the C18 until the mid C20, Manchester's prosperity was built on cotton, a lot of which was imported from the southern states of North America. I'm fairly sure the supply was badly disrupted by a northern blockade.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Have you not heard of the cotton strikes in Manchester where mill workers refused to handle cotton from Southern US plantations until slavery was abolished?

As for it being true whether Manchester has a statue of Abraham Lincoln, if I can believe the evidence of my own eyes - then, yes it does. If you don't believe me, Google it.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Again, the fact that anyone is still arguing that from the heart now, demonstrates to an outsider like me that 'the American Civil War is still being fought'.

Hot damn. Maybe I can get some combat pay.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, if true, it would be odd for Manchester to have a public statue of Abraham Lincoln. From the C18 until the mid C20, Manchester's prosperity was built on cotton, a lot of which was imported from the southern states of North America. I'm fairly sure the supply was badly disrupted by a northern blockade.

The statue apparently commemorates the fact that the inhabitants of Manchester passed a resolution of support for the Union and communicated it to Lincoln, even as cotton supplies were running low and Westminster was considering stepping in to mediate the conflict. Lincoln appreciated the pinch the workers were in, and sent a note of thanks, calling their support in face of their personal interests an act of Christian heroism.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The "War of the States" was and still is being fought and the basic issue is NOT slavery but "state's rights". This goes back to the founding fathers and is now being waged in the battle against big government.

Expect to see this played out in the upcoming presidential race. Without the issue of slavery I hope the outcome won't be secession.

Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001

 - Posted      Profile for Jonathan Strange   Email Jonathan Strange   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If anyone is in doubt about the fact slavery was the cause of secession of southern states, please do the following.

1. Visit the Civil War Trust website
2. Press ctrl+F
3. type 'slave'
4. select 'highlight all'
5. read.

It was about the right to own another human being and trade his or her suffering for your pleasure.

Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Debated this a while offline when I couldn't debate it online. Basically I accept completely that for the leaders it was about slavery, white supremacy, and general economic interest. I meant that I think many of the grunts in grey really felt the northerners were aggressors and that they had to defend their rights to have rights etc. I'm sure many of the grunts had slavery/white supremacist reasons too, but I think it was less clear cut since they didn't have the money to own plantations in the first place. Probably many of them didn't have slaves. Of course many of the reasons they fought were false reasons given to encourage them to fight.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Yankees,including Lincoln, were white supremacists as well. The only question was what racial superiority entitled to or demanded of the white man. It's interesting to note that abolitionis gained widespread support after Northerners and Europeans found other people to exploit without the unsavory institution of slavery. Immigrant children being mangled in Northern factories wasn't near as unsavory. After all, they didn't own those factory workers. Might have cared about them more if they did.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So that makes it all ok then, does it Beeswax Altar?

[Roll Eyes]

As it happens factory reforms and working hours reforms were well under way from around the 1840s - which was way too late but at least they were brought into play.

In fairness, the fledgling USA banned US vessels from engaging in the slave trade from the 1790s onwards - so they stopped importing new slaves - but carried on, of course, with those they already had.

Russia also abolished slavery in the 18th century but didn't emancipate the serfs until the 1860s, I think.

I seem to recollect that that poor benighted country to the south of you, Beeswax, from which your ancestors won their 'freedom' by rebelling against the government and annexing a vast swathe of territory also abolished slavery relatively early on - 1810 or so.

When did Texas follow suit?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm saying it is hypocritical to profit off of slavery for hundreds of years and then self righteously condemn others for the practice after finding others to exploit. When did Britain give up it's empire? Russia and Mexico upon abolishing slavery became egalitarian societies with liberty and justice for all. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To be honest, I've spent the majority of my life in the north, and the OP of this thread is the first time I've ever heard those who fought for the South in the (US) Civil War referred to as "traitors." I've heard them called plenty of other things: Confederate soldiers; Johnny Rebs; slavers; rebels; states' righters; Southerners.

I've never heard them called "traitors," and I have a hard time thinking of them that way.

The U.S. Constitution defines treason pretty narrowly. In part this was a reaction to the practice in Colonial times of British officials referring to any sort of political dissent as "treason". At any rate, according to the U.S. Constitution (Art. III, §3):

quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
By just about any reasonable interpretation, this makes at least the Confederate leadership traitors. They indisputably levied war against the United States. Certainly more obviously than those involved in the Burr conspiracy, and I don't know anyone who particularly objects to characterizing that as treason.

In short, if convincing large sections of the military to defect and then wage war against the nation of their prior allegiance doesn't count as "treason", the term has no meaning.

I find that definition of treason a bit odd; it seems to suggest that any country which declares war against the US is likewise guilty of treason. Wouldn't one have to be an actual citizen of the US to commit treason?

And I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that the Confederacy seceded and formed, effectively creating a new nation (or attempting to, anyway), prior to firing on Ft. Sumter. In that case, how is it different from Spain or Russia declaring war on the US?

I do take the point that the Confederate combatants were originally US citizens, and US citizens who undertake to bring down the US government can certainly be labeled traitors. How are they traitors if they are (self-declared) citizens of some other entity?

I wonder, because where I live, there's currently a movement calling itself sovereign citizenry which looks essentially similar.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was thinking that the odd thing about the U.S. Constitution's definition is it implies the authors were themselves traitors.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm all for an independent Vermont. Kirkpatrick Sale is one of my favorite lefties. Let's face it, we all hate each other. Why can't we just work out a better arrangement and leave each other alone? In a few years, we will all be much happier.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just the opposite. If the states gave up the fiction that they are seperate entities, the country would function better.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, it wouldn't. Because once again, we all hate each other. Now, at this point, the best thing for confederate flag flyers and all other social conservatives to do is throw their support completely behind Bernie Sanders.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Laws that reflect a consensus in the capital rather than a consensus right here are always going to be unpopular wherever "right here" may be. Seems to me that one of the meanings of the Confederate flag is a two-fingered salute to the federal government.

Well, yes. Hatred and defiance towards the American government has always been associated with the various emblems of the Confederacy. That was more or less the whole point of the Confederacy. It's also why its emblems have been adopted so readily by various white supremacist groups over the years, most of whom resented federal enforcement of racially egalitarian laws.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the more they try to ban it, the stronger will be the sentiment.

At the moment the federal government (if that's who you mean by "they") isn't really trying to ban the Confederate battle flag. What's happening at the moment is various fans of the Confederate flag (and, by extension, the Confederacy) are being embarrassed by the racist associations inherent in the banner and the renewed scrutiny those associations are now being given.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The U.S. Constitution defines treason pretty narrowly. In part this was a reaction to the practice in Colonial times of British officials referring to any sort of political dissent as "treason". At any rate, according to the U.S. Constitution (Art. III, §3):

quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
By just about any reasonable interpretation, this makes at least the Confederate leadership traitors. They indisputably levied war against the United States. Certainly more obviously than those involved in the Burr conspiracy, and I don't know anyone who particularly objects to characterizing that as treason.

In short, if convincing large sections of the military to defect and then wage war against the nation of their prior allegiance doesn't count as "treason", the term has no meaning.

I find that definition of treason a bit odd; it seems to suggest that any country which declares war against the US is likewise guilty of treason. Wouldn't one have to be an actual citizen of the US to commit treason?
That's always been the understanding of that particular Constitutional clause, despite the lack of explicit language to that effect. I'm not aware of anyone who is unambiguously a foreign citizen being prosecuted for treason by the United States. Of course, that may be because the U.S. rarely prosecutes anyone for treason at all. Most acts that count as treasonous usually violate other, more easily prosecuted U.S. laws.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that the Confederacy seceded and formed, effectively creating a new nation (or attempting to, anyway), prior to firing on Ft. Sumter. In that case, how is it different from Spain or Russia declaring war on the US?

I do take the point that the Confederate combatants were originally US citizens, and US citizens who undertake to bring down the US government can certainly be labeled traitors. How are they traitors if they are (self-declared) citizens of some other entity?

I wonder, because where I live, there's currently a movement calling itself sovereign citizenry which looks essentially similar.

The position of the U.S. government is that states cannot unilaterally secede, ergo the Confederacy wasn't so much a nation as a treasonous conspiracy by Americans, many of whom had previously explicitly sworn allegiance to the United States when holding various government posts. The sovereign citizen movement is the individual version of this. The basic idea is that if you yell out "Not A Citizen" loud enough, American law no longer applies to you. This usually ends badly for those trying this stunt in an American court.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was thinking that the odd thing about the U.S. Constitution's definition is it implies the authors were themselves traitors.

They were certainly under no illusions about what would happen to them if their rebellion failed. Of course they won, so the usual rules of politesse apply.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The sovereign citizen movement is the individual version of this. The basic idea is that if you yell out "Not A Citizen" loud enough, American law no longer applies to you. This usually ends badly for those trying this stunt in an American court.

Especially if the flag in the courtroom has gold fringe.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Technically speaking the American colonists who fought against the British were treasonists looking from the side of the Red Coats--especially if those Yankees were shooting in ambush as your formation was trying to march down a road (There is an old joke about this).

One paragraph that did not make it into the American Declaration of Independence follows:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

- See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery#sthash.MBr8eIys.dpuf

It was dropped because convention delegates from the South were not willing to admit they had been doing something wrong (BTW, the paragraph was written by Thomas Jefferson, a slaveowner himself.) But event the Nothern Delegates did not like it because they were still making huge profits off the slave trade.


There is a distinction between General Benning who deliberately pushed the state of Georgia to secede from the United States. And General Robert E. Lee, who resigned his commission in the Unites States Army to join the Army of Northern Virginia to fight for his home state. Lee was a rebel, but he did not push his state to secede. Once it did, he felt obliged to fight for the Virginians.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A distinction, in my eyes, that is as significant as one of them having brown hair and the other blonde.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It was dropped because convention delegates from the South were not willing to admit they had been doing something wrong (BTW, the paragraph was written by Thomas Jefferson, a slaveowner himself.) But event the Northern Delegates did not like it because they were still making huge profits off the slave trade.

It wasn't just self-interest. It was because the Declaration of Independence was a list of grievances against the King, and "he's forcing us to import and purchase slaves" is a complaint that wouldn't pass the laugh test.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We effectively dismantled our empire in the 1950s and '60s, Beeswax. When are you goimg to give up yours?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... The position of the U.S. government is that states cannot unilaterally secede, ergo the Confederacy wasn't so much a nation as a treasonous conspiracy by Americans,...

Even I, as a foreigner, know that's nonsense.

A key issue the war was being fought about - the key issue if you're trying to avoid admitting the war was about the right to own slaves - was whether states could secede or not. One can argue that the result of the Civil War means that it has since been clear that states cannot secede. Presumably, therefore, they also cannot be kicked out. It's rather difficult to argue that this was clear before the Civil War - and particularly not in a state that was founded on the belief that the thirteen colonies had been entitled to secede from their allegiance to George III.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I personally would be happy to give Texas back to Mexico. We would of course submit an invoice for all the infrastructure added to the property over its sojourn with us.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I personally would be happy to give Texas back to Mexico. We would of course submit an invoice for all the infrastructure added to the property over its sojourn with us.

Texas was a republic before a state. Many Texans would be happy to be so again. California is a different story. You can give California back to Mexico.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm all for an independent Vermont. Kirkpatrick Sale is one of my favorite lefties. Let's face it, we all hate each other. Why can't we just work out a better arrangement and leave each other alone? In a few years, we will all be much happier.

Isn't hate itself a crime in California and New York now?

While I agree with you, I'd hate for you to be accused of inducing others to commit crimes.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We effectively dismantled our empire in the 1950s and '60s, Beeswax. When are you goimg to give up yours?

Well...it would be hard for the United States to maintain an empire if it had split into two different nations. Let's assume the U.S. has an empire. I note that the British position on empire is similar to the British position on slavery. After having an empire for a few hundred years but no longer being able to maintain said empire, the British suddenly decide empires are a bad thing. What you really mean by empire is that the U.S. has more influence than the UK and that's just not right. Personally, I'm inclined to stay out of international disputes that don't involve us. A great Southerner warned us about that.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why did the South vote solidly Democratic for nearly 100 years? Why was there subsequently an abrupt turnaround in the mid 1960s, albeit with an occasional Southern state or two or three voting Democratic? What happened in the mid 1960s?
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
we all hate each other.

No claim on expertise here but I do not think this is exactly true. Though it is rather amusing to see that the most vehement "states' rights" advocated come from states that are essentially on welfare. I.E. their budget is paid in significant part by taxes on people in other states.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Why did the South vote solidly Democratic for nearly 100 years?

Because Lincoln was a Republican.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:

Why was there subsequently an abrupt turnaround in the mid 1960s, albeit with an occasional Southern state or two or three voting Democratic? What happened in the mid 1960s?

Civil Rights.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah...the Democratic horror at the Republican use of the Southern strategy is similar to the British aversion to slavery and empire. It was just fine when Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman did it. But, Nixon was the bad guy. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Regardless of who used it, it existed and apparently still exists. What does that tell us?
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Truman took the first steps toward integration - admittedly small steps. I think FDR used Eleanor to express views on racial equality that he did not dare to state. Both Roosevelt and Truman recognized that they needed the "solid South" politically. I don't give them moral credit for this.

Nixon, on the other hand, adopted a morally depraved
policy designed to appeal (covertly at best) to racial bigotry.

I'll grant that there has been progress in the South. However, I would need a lot more evidence that the Civil War is finally over for the vast majority of Southerners. I do find some of the moves toward removal of Confederate battle flags encouraging.

Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nixon did far more for integration than Truman or Kennedy for that matter. Amazing how African-Americans came north and still live in segregated neighborhoods. These descendants of union soldiers just keep moving and passing ordinances. Apparently, black people don't like doing yard work. I'd never heard that growing up in Texas.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Funny that you fail to mention Johnson, without whom Nixon might not have had as much to work with.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aren't you continuing to digress, B.W.?

I understand the topic to be attitudes in the South, not politicians who exploit those attitudes.

[ 07. July 2015, 04:32: Message edited by: ldjjd ]

Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Those attitudes aren't unique to the south.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think that anyone here has said that they are.

I posed a question about the drastic shift in Southern voting patterns. I received one answer. Do you dispute it?

Admittedly, the shift began some 50 years ago, and there appear to be some small cracks in the GOP's "solid South". Is this sufficient to conclude that the Civil War is finally over?

Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How did the South vote in 1976?

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
New England's voting pattern has also changed dramatically over the past few decades. So, I guess the answer is no. Then again, the South and New England have opposed each other since colonial times.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good point regarding the 1976 election.

However, the Democrats had the ideal candidate: a Southern white, with a distinguished military background, and a born-again Baptist Sunday School teacher in a segregated church.

He faced the man who pardoned Nixon, and had a habit of falling down steps in public. I'm surprised he won any state other than Michigan, my home state. He represented the city where I was raised.

Alert: Possible boring rambling follows.


He campaigned for Congress out of a house trailer, and I don't think any of his supporters (my parents included) would have imagined he would one day be President. He was a humble, genuine, soft-spoken man with whom we occasionally chatted during coffee hour at church. My father briefly dated Betty, something that I think generated both pride and jealousy in my mother.

Several years ago Betty was in Grand Rapids for some kind of speech, after which my gutsy mother approached Betty and pointed to my father (well in the background) asking her if she remembered that man. According to my mother, Betty answered, "Yes, I do. Where have all the years gone?"

[ 07. July 2015, 06:04: Message edited by: ldjjd ]

Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Prior to Lyndon Johnson, the Democrats were the party of states rights. They were the main party to move to secede from the Union, so after the civil war they continued to beat the drum for civil rights.

Then several things began to happen while Johnson was in power. The Democrats decided to grow their base. They realized a coalition of minorities could give them the White House. A number of all white delegations to national conventions we challenged and defeated When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act he turned to one of his aids and said the domocrats have lost the South for the next 40 years.

Meanwhile, the Republicans saw an opportunity to gain a following in the South. White Dixicrats had become disillusioned with the Democrats and decided to vote Republican.

The next general election, though, stands to be a great election. Many of the states in the deep south may just vote democrat this year.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
... I'll grant that there has been progress in the South. However, I would need a lot more evidence that the Civil War is finally over for the vast majority of Southerners. I do find some of the moves toward removal of Confederate battle flags encouraging.

The point I've been trying to get across is that a very large proportion of what has been said on this thread is strong evidence that the Civil War is not finally over for a great many Northerners. Because you won, and because you believe that you occupied, and to this day still occupy, the moral high ground, you can't see this. But as a foreigner from outside this particular spat, it's very visible.

If you want the South to move on, the Southern mindset isn't the only one that will need to change.


Incidentally, who is/was the candidate who campaigned from a caravan, who is/was Betty and what were Eleanor Roosevelt's views on racial equality? It wouldn't fit the picture of her that is normally presented if she was actually rather prejudiced when it came to race.

[ 07. July 2015, 08:08: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry. I should have provided full names. I was describing President Gerald Ford and his wife, Betty.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is a brief summary of Eleanor Roosevelt's record on race relations.

I've never heard her described as racially prejudiced.

Furthermore, I think that, outside of the South, the Civil War has long, long been a non-issue. The South was allowed to establish and maintain state sponsored segregation while the rest of the nation sat idly by.

Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that there is a pretty strong basis for non-Southerners to "believe" that "Northerners" occupied the "moral high ground" in the Civil War.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's an attempt to elevate the South to the moral high ground in the Civil War.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325

 - Posted      Profile for romanlion     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I think that there is a pretty strong basis for non-Southerners to "believe" that "Northerners" occupied the "moral high ground" in the Civil War.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." Abraham Lincoln

That is the extent of their "moral high ground".

--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman

Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right. Someone is not perfect, therefore they are not better. Is this your argument?
And one quote defines a life?
If you read biographies of Lincoln, you see both an evolving attitude and statements of political necessity.
At the end of the day, you see a man who ended slavery vs. men who would keep it.
So, yeah, moral high ground.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here is a brief summary of Eleanor Roosevelt's record on race relations.

I've never heard her described as racially prejudiced.

Furthermore, I think that, outside of the South, the Civil War has long, long been a non-issue. The South was allowed to establish and maintain state sponsored segregation while the rest of the nation sat idly by.

Eleanor wasn't president was she. You might want to actually engage with what Enoch said. You think the rest of the union had a problem with race based segregation? Ever heard of Gen. Phillip "Little Phil" Sheridan? He was one of Grants most able lieutenants in the Civil War. After the war, Grant sent him west to address Native-American uprisings. Guess how he did it? Once the slaves were free and began migrating north, the government managed to segregate them all the same. White supremacy was accepted as fact. The ever so enlightened British Empire had a whole taxonomy of races. All very scientific they claimed.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Right. Someone is not perfect, therefore they are not better. Is this your argument?
And one quote defines a life?
If you read biographies of Lincoln, you see both an evolving attitude and statements of political necessity.
At the end of the day, you see a man who ended slavery vs. men who would keep it.
So, yeah, moral high ground.

Sure, ending slavery was politically expedient and Lincoln's supporters had a never-ending supply of Irish immigrants to exploit. This included drafting them into the Union Army because they didn't want to fight their own war. Lincoln originally planned on relocating all the slaves but couldn't find a place his supporters wouldn't eventually want. Look at what he actually said in that quote. Lincoln was primarily concerned with seeing that slavery didn't spread to other new states. He wanted to preserve the political power of his party and use it to continue to exploit the South economically. If abolition was what Lincoln wanted, he could have pursued other options.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools