| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Fools to the Left of Me, Clowns to the Right |
| 2017-08-16 |
| Sarah Hoyt's take on Charlottesville No one, not even Drudge is touching the Charlottesville insanity. Or it wasn’t last night. That is because "nobody knows nothing." Depending on what actually happened and why, this could very well be the fuse that heats the cold civil war. And if you’re rubbing your hands, don’t be. Go read about the type of civil war where the populations are thoroughly emulsified. It’s not pretty, it doesn’t end sometimes for centuries, and it takes civilization down three levels, at least. And yeah, to quote from the Ankhmorpork anthem "we own all your shoes, we own all your guns, we own all your troops, touch us and you’re done" is tempting, but not really. Sure, we own all of those, or at least they’re mostly on our side. The problem is that the other side has a near-psychotic disregard for everyone’s else lives and can build bombs. They’re not GOOD at it, mind you. The days of rage proved that. They blow themselves as much as everyone else, but practice makes perfect, and if this starts we’ll have plenty of time for them to practice. ...And yet, the way things have been going, with not only an entire cohort that was indoctrinated in Russian propaganda (originally) and then just in America-hatred in our best schools, it might be inevitable. How long can a nation subsist with the enemy within? Particularly when the enemy’s power is threatened by new technology. Particularly when that enemy is financed by Soros who might very well BE the beast of the apocalypse? In America, if it were healthy, the crazy that happened in the weekend would never have happened. Both Nazis and communists have the right to say whatever the hell they want to. As long as they don’t have power, let them scream. But that’s not possible in the land of safe rooms and microaggressions. ...Also in a healthy society, if the fracas had happened because of the usual provocateurs, the rest of society would shake their head and go "So much crazy." not pile on (particularly on the left side) claiming this just proves all their theories. And no, to whom it may concern, a region not wanting their past or their regional heroes erased to appease a vocal minority does NOT make them white supremacists. This idiotic changing of names, removing of statues and erasing people from history is NOT the work of a free society. It is wholly Stalinist and is letting the rest of the world know you by your fruits as it were. I have nothing invested in the ACW, except for having studied it enough to know it was more complex than most people think, and I’m only "southern" by fiat of my friends, but even I get outraged at the erasing of the past of the region. And you know damn well they’re coming for Jefferson and Washington next. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #10 Burn the fucking circus tent down on all of them! |
| Posted by: Black Bart Cromotch7868 2017-08-16 17:35 |
| #9 Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? There's that damn 13th Amendment thingy. Followed shortly by the 14th (equal protection) and 15th (right to vote). One didn't amend the Constitution lightly (till the Judiciary got around that by 'interpreting' upon whim not text). |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-08-16 16:03 |
| #8 There was also the issue of slavery in the expanding western territories. The 1820 Missouri compromise was a temporary fix sort of like the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2017-08-16 14:34 |
| #7 I've always felt the states rights argument for the civil war was a bit of historical revisionism. Yes the war was about states rights, but it was specifically the right to have slaves that brought things to war. Yes Lincoln didn't mention slavery until two years in, but that was because everyone in America knew what the war was about but talking about slavery turned public opinion in England against slave picked cotton or any other involvement in the American war. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2017-08-16 14:25 |
| #6 Estimates are that 12% of Confederate forces were draftees. What they were fighting for (besides not being executed) never gets any discussion. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-08-16 12:37 |
| #5 Former CSA Col. John S. Mosby was quoted in Wikipedia， as having written in 1894: "I've always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I've never heard of any other cause than slavery." |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-08-16 12:36 |
| #4 If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Why does this sound actual? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-08-16 12:20 |
| #3 From Ron Paul Forums: Real reasons for the Civil War: This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred. Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them. The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred. I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time. Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave. Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery. It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights. Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began. |
| Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy 2017-08-16 11:32 |
| #2 It's a left on left thing. Let them destroy themselves. |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2017-08-16 10:50 |
| #1 They even mention the BDI index (Baltic Dry Index). Obama had things in order to pursue martial law. I suppose if Duterte can do it we can. With the media in control of news and no effort to offer the public a balanced approach. We must consider all options. |
| Posted by: Dale 2017-08-16 08:14 |