"Ashcroft: Confederates were 'patriots' without a 'perverted agenda'

[Cowboy]

Mag,

True to a point the south did develope manufacturing for the war effort granted not the level of the northern industrial complex. One can only suppose though that with foreign interests and backing they eventually would have developed technologies that would have supplemented the mostly ag export.

The northern industrial complex fed off of the raw goods from the south (cotton, lumber, ect.) they did not have the natural resources that were as easily obtained as it was from the south

 

[Cowboy]

Mr Palco

you are so correct.

 

[cxim]

No MF, you got it wrong... The North had several things that were detrimental to the South.. North wanted cheap raw materials & did not want them sold to Europe for higher prices...

The North also kept manufactured good prices higher than if the goods were imported from Europe... During this time transportation cost was a major issue... remember there was not even a railroad that went to California.

The major factors were economic & self determination... cheap labor was only a part of this...

There were even still large populations of Indians with reservations in the south.. some of the southern states still had as much as 1/3 of their land areas in Indian territories.

You are trying to over simplify what happened.

 

[Shuxclams]

<< But as Connie Rice said the republican party did more for blacks in the south then the democratic party did. If I remember correctly was it not the republicans who labored to register blacks too vote in the south. >>



The Republikan and DEMOcratic perties have since switched places as far as &quot;Conservative&quot; vs. &quot;Liberal&quot;, Remember Trent Lott was a old style DEMOcrat and then switched teams, Its was DEMOcrats in the south that were in favor segragation during the 60's, it was the southern DEMOcrats that made up the &quot;silent majority&quot;, talk about bending history.






SHUX

 

[MagnificentFist]

WHo cares what Condoleeza thinks? One pet peeve I have about Republicans - and I'm not a Rep. hater or anything, at least not on an IDEALOGICAL basis - but one thing i hate is when they throw out all these black people in their top ranks to other black people like I'm supposed to care. In Jamaica, it's not where you came from but WHO YOU ARE that counts and then where you came from.

I'm not saying you did this delib. Cowboy, it's just something i encounter all the time.

Anyway, Conodoleeza is being wonderfully misleading in her statement. The fact is, The Republican party THEN is not the same as it is NOW. It's like the flag issue. There's a century of cultural change between then and now. Republicans did not have the same stance and ideology they do now. In fact the Democrats at the time were like Republicans TODAY if you study politics of that particular time perios; this is following the dissolution of the Federalist Party in the early half of the 19th century. Andrew Jackson, for instance, would be considered a HELL of a republican today - but he was a Democrat (a unique one , whose views formed &quot;Jacksonian Democracy&quot. So all that spin from Condoleeza don't mean jack. She should know better, and she does.

Next.

 

[MagnificentFist]

Sorry CXIM. I was not trying to oversimnplify.

I asked a question and then made a passing statement, sandwhiched with a touch of wry.

thank you for answering me however. I do believe you are correct.

However your point about the Indian res is moot. Surely the South would have made annexation of Indian territories mandatory over time; they simply had more important issues to deal with (Let's not forget Andrew jackson - Southern Democrat - and forger of the Cherokee Trail of Tears). Don't forget such great wonderful 'American' ideals like Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine were prevalent at the time, for which the south was just as culpable as the north...

Fist

 

[dennilfloss]

&quot;Subversal, I suppose you would be happier if the US were still part of the British empire?&quot;

Hehe. 330 million Canadians. The world couldn't cope with that much tolerance, decency and politeness.

Runaway (Real McCoy)

 

[Cowboy]

I was not trying to bend history I was pointing out that making a blind blank assumption that all republicans are rich racists is not any more correct than all democrats are black share croppers.

I think &quot;W&quot; said it best the parties when you really boil it down to basics have two philosophies one you beleive you can control your life and can obtain for yourself what you desire without the help of the government and other you must have the government give and do everything to control all aspects of your life.

Back to the original post, why is it so bad to be proud of your heritege. The confederates were patriots and fought for thier land many were heros and many died, and many came home to nothing.

 

[tinneric]

He is always trying to start something, don't you know...

 

[Shuxclams]

<< He is always trying to start something, don't you know... >>




Yeah! That guy is a jerk! who are we talking about?








SHUX

 

[MagnificentFist]

Who said anything about democrats being black sharecroppers?

Idealogically I think that the Republicans have a valid viewpoint on people vs. government - not that I agree with it, but i can certainly see the perspective. It really harkens back to Hobbes vs. Locke. Either you think people are inherently capable or you don't.

But Republicans are outdated now, man. In a country of 200+ million people, there's only so much you can do with &quot;let the people decide how to run their whatever&quot;. Back in the agrarian days of America's youth, the Republican ideal as espoused by Jefferson was a feasible one - the population was small enough and well, the world was small enough so to speak for this type of self-sufficiency among state governments to be workable. But that can't work now. This is why Republicans get typecast so easy as rich white whatevers, because it is very difficult in this day and age to implement their ideals without a certain percentage of people making an INCREDIBLE amount of money and most not seeing a dime - because those with affluence behind them can embark on the self-sufficient enterprises which accumulate wealth at the expense of say typical democrat issues like unions, civil rights (I mean real civil rights not just the 60's stuff), or federal regulation and to top it off less taxes!!.. hellwith all that out of the way if i was rich from birth i'd be a repub too!! what a life!
This is also why a lot of foreigners from poorer countries become Republicans - because of the possibility of 'unlimited wealth' therefore 'happiness'.

But there is no way in hell states can self-regulate today, in TODAY's world, without gross inequalities arising and without extreme economic upheaval due to unstable economic demographics that would emerge. A strong central government for 200+ MILLION people is essential.

Republicans are not for each farmer to his field (despite the woodenheadedness of the Bread Basket to consistently vote for Reps, thinking they will look to the heartland first...of course it never happens... by either party), but each CEO to his stock options. Republicans basically are untethered capitalists in this century as opposed to the agriculturalists of the past one. They say you can make money too, anyone can, join us. Well what if i don't want to make gobs of money. What if I want to be an artist, a filmmaker, making difficult movies about sexual assault and the gender gap but I don't have the funds to subsideize my work which is expensive to do. OOPS!! Unless I'm making THIS OLD HOUSE 2 or MARTIN LUTHER KING: THE SAFE NEGRO, forget it. NEA, forget it. PBS, which has already been forced to be corporate sunsidized and thus barely 'public', forget it!

The problem is Americans take their stability, their government, and the amazing ingenuity used to create it, for granted. So you have a larg segment of the population who pout and who want to have more say in what goes allocated where; they don't realize that if this were to happen then america would become as unstable asy any european democracy - coalitions would be mandatory and gross compromises would be necessary in order to maintain that stability. In fact, it would increase the potentiality of another civil war. But most people don't see these possibilities, they don't pay attention to international affairs and how they fit IN that scheme instead of outside it. As a foreigner I feel lucky in certain ways that I can see a little more objectively how this country works. It's fascinating, corrupt, a gargantual One-Legged Emperor with No Clothes.

Democrats aren't my saviours, but Republicans are forever mercantile Romanticists - proponents of unregulated capitalism from 9 to 5, but who want to drive to the nonexistant great unclaimed PASTORAL WEST in their new FORERUNNER, BLAZER, etc. Anyone remember Reagan's commercials like that from the 80's? Please. Republicans won't even let you reserve wildlife or any reserves. hypocrites to the core.

Hmmm..i seem to have lost some of my level-headedness.

Oh well.

 

[AndrewR]

The fallacy of your opinion, in my view, is that you think that a centralized government located thousands of miles from the corners of the country can adequately judge the needs of those far flung citizens while being effectively run by entrenched bureaucrats and a Washingtonian ruling class (in the sense that the politics operate a certain way and only those who conform to that &quot;class'&quot; way of doing business can operate within it). The outlook of the Republican ideal is MORE effective and necessary with a country of 281 million (as of this year's census, I saw on TV) than it is with a population of 10 million. Local and state governments, acting within a Constitutional mandate and subject to the delegated powers of the federal authority are better able to respond to local conditions which might either be unknown or misconstrued by out-of-touch officials in Washington.

The principle reason why a somewhat balkanized country works here is because the people in the country enjoy an immense ability to pick up and move to a more agreeable location. The &quot;right to mobility&quot; is guaranteed by the Supreme Court and facilitated by a network of roads more vast and capable than anything the world has ever seen. If you don't like the People's Republic of California, move to Utah; or Arizona; or New Mexico; or wherever. While the problem of &quot;ruling class government&quot; is present in state and local governments, you are much more likely to find local citizens who are representative of their districts than you are on the federal level. Those citizens will make decisions based on their knowledge of their district while living in the district -- not while living in Washington and visiting a portion of the year. You can then move yourself and your family to an area which best represents your wishes. There is no such ability when all power is centralized.

There is and always will be a strong federal government within the areas in which a strong federal presence is needed -- interstate commerce (though not as broad as it is now), national defense, border control, food and drug regulation, etc. The United States (read that name again) is just that -- united States, not One Federal Entity. Whether you like it or not, that's how this country is designed and how it has worked for over 200 years. As the country grows, the federal government controls that which it must, but local problems are best solved by local people. If you had to apply to Washington, D.C. for a zoning variance, how effective would that be?

The great tension in the government is the push-pull between the conservatives and the liberals. In our system, it is matched to two parties, and there is the option for a third party to emerge for specific issues. While others rail against the two party system, one only has to look at the often unworkable coalitions in Europe and elsewhere (Israel) to see the effects of multiple parties with multiple agendas and to realize the blessings that the two party system brings. There is room to manuever within the parties and select issues arise to birth short lived parties to further them (silver standard anyone?), but the tension between the opposite though alike parties keeps the government in the center, where it belongs. Moderation. If the dominant party (Likud) must rely on small, extremist splinter factions to retain a majority, then those extremists are given more power than they represent in the population. A dangerous condition.

 

[MagnificentFist]

Yeah. Yep, I never said anything to the contrary as far as centralized government. I did not advocate an extreme position i.e that government should be fully run and dictated by solely from the federal. I said STRONG central government, not Totalitarianism or an Oligarchichal Authoritarian state. That's communism, and as noble as their views may be (interesting how similar communism is to..say Islamic theocracies, anyway..) they've proven themselves incapable of fulfilling them. OF COURSE there should be a capable state and local government, but what I am saying - and this is where we disagree - is that as the nation grows I disagree with Republicans views that the government should become more decentralized than it already is. As for this &quot;Ruling Class&quot; thing, that applies just as much on the state level. Politics is politics. State, local, and federal politics all walk the same walk, talk the same talk. Bush claims he's &quot;outside&quot; Washington, which is a snowjob tantamount to the amount of coke he must have snorted through the 80's. His Dad was president for chrissakes, even if he WANTED to, he can't say he's outside. His family is blue blood...whatver, that's just not worth commenting on, but, let's be realistic! You can move?!! Give me a break. You have a wife, three kids, yeah, right. This is LIFE we're talking about not a Phish Tour. You can't just get up and leave, that's silly.
Furthermore, a strong central gov't is essential now more than ever because of the prevailing power of corporate interests. Hate to sound like a Nader Raider, but let's just admit it! it's true! It's bad enough as it is but if industries can slide into backpocket of states with a little green thrown the legislature's way like in Texas (i'm not ranting, all this stuff is true if you do research, it's just a question of if you're for it or against it) - then imagine what would happen if there is more decentralization! That is what is happening now. There are many states that have horrible environmental and civil standards because of this. Republicans REFUSE to do anything about it. People die of cancer at alarming rates near carcinogenic factories ( and don't give me that you can move shpeel on that, spare me) but they want abortion illegal. Whatever, man. Like I said, idealogically republicans i have no beef with republicans but EVERY reference they make to decentralization falls DIRECTLY into the pocket of corporate america and by association the wealthy - all their legislation is aimed at one thing $$$$$ or abortion. That's it. The Democrats screw up just as much but at least they're TRYING to do as much as possible for the general welfare.

Last but not least you're statements on the necessity of moderation needs more clarication. If you have no representation of extremes in government, then in effect it is some extent Authoritarian; this is true in America. To a very large extent there is really one party and I have to say that i believe it is the corporate one, I say this based purely on the influence they have and the amount of money with which they can lobby. that's just facts - nothing new there. I'm not making a judgement on that, that's just there - again do research - it's right there. That's how business is run. But to use Israel is completely inadequate. They have an unspoken Theocracy. It would be better to say Italy or Spain, etc. Yes, they have instabilities but there IS representation. That is democracy. What you advocate is a 'revised' democracy. Which is what we have. A real democracy would have both Nader AND Jesse Helms in representative seats. As it is there's um Paul Wellstone, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond,Orrin Hatch...um, Paul Wellstone...


Fist

 

[AndrewR]

It sounded like you were advocating that strong of a position since you say states are incapable of self-regulating. Essentially, you are asking for the repeal of the Constitution since the federal authority only exists as a grant of power from the states themselves, not the other way around. Obviously, that grant of power has been taken to extremes (Commerce clause, anyone?), but the basic structure is there. Would you have it rewritten, or do you want a common law constitution like the UK?

As I wrote, I know the &quot;political elite&quot; exists at a state and local level as well, but as I also said, it's more easily counteracted on a state and local level. Should the abuse of the system get out of hand, there is federal authority to reign it in (federal criminal statutes). Take Atlanta's city government for an obvious current example.

Yes, you can move. Hopefully, by the time you establish a wife and three kids, you have chosen the area in which you'd like to live. Last I checked, they don't magically appear at age 30. Even so, with a wife and four kids, my father moved us three times (once before I was born, so three kids there). It's certainly more difficult with less money (we weren't rich but not poor either) but still feasible. In short, the impossiblity of change does not exist.

Turning the tables, are you trying to imply that the strong central government is immune to corporate money? Give ME a break then. It makes it significantly easier because they can concentrate their money in one place rather than having to &quot;grease&quot; multiple legislatures, executives, and judiciaries. One state rendering a vicious punitive damage ruling against a corporation can make it kneel to the law.

Perhaps my allusion to Israel was a little too subtle. The current problems with the Palenstinians (VERY current) partially stem from the very hard line portions of the Likud (I think they are in that party, might be a smaller one though -- going off news reports from awhile back) are forcing the entire party, and hence the government, to take a very hard posture with the Palestinians, which has exacerbated the violence. To ignore the hard liners means to dissolve the government. For another example, look at Austria where the very minority fascists now have their foot in the government door because their small number of votes pushes the government into the majority. Look at France where the RPR has to be very cognizant of what the Front National does in order to have any hope of pressing the Socialists.

In a two party system, those elements are automatically part of the conservative party (just using the right wing as an example -- equally applicable to the left). The party machinery can more easily control those elements to moderate their position. It's a bell curve -- divide in two and the average is the middle. Fracture it into multiple portions, and the small ones suddenly become much more vital in a plurality.

To say that Italy has some instability is like saying that water is a little bit wet. Representation to the point where the government is ineffectual? Come on -- that's ludicrous. One of the hallmarks of the US system is its longevity and ability to withstand change without imploding. We've had an evolving government for the last 200+ years with only one very serious challenge to its legitimacy (those patriots from above). That's a good thing. Instability leads to uncertainty which hampers progress.

I'll overlook your hyperbole, self-fulfilling statements, and categorical positions. Not worth commenting on.

Red: That's the LEFT Coast.

 

[MagnificentFist]

I'm sorry man, but i don't think I spoke hyperbole at all. You keep categorizing my remarks into a more extreme position than they are intended. I never said the states CAN'T self-regulate - I made no DEFINITIVE statement - all my remarks are based on CONTEXTUAL analysis. I am saying at this level, where we are now, FURTHER decentralization is not a good idea. There is nothing in that that saus states as a rule do not have the ability to self-regulate. You can overclock a duron 600 to 1100, but many would not advise it without adequate cooling vs. You CAN'T overclock. You get the picture? I also did not make any definitive statements about corporations not having influence in a centralized government. again, I am speaking in CONTEXT of today's news and views, not some hypothetical Platonic entity known as FEDERAL vs. STATE. I said that &quot;it's bad enough AS IT IS&quot;. I am not saying you're wrong, but you're attacking me too far to the left, in a place i'm not standing. You make it sound like I said to hell with states' rights or something and nothing like that was mentioned - I'm talking about contemnporary politics, federal and local and the Republican parties' stance. So throw out some data or real world stuff, but walk the walk of brushing my comments aside with no substantial grounds for your viewpoints besides the Atlanta reference. Yeah Italy is crazy and corrupt, but it's the same here - we just don't have the same access to what goes on. think about that. Atleast in Italy everyone knows who is messing with what. We get Robert McNamara saying 25 years later &quot;ummm...We should not have gotten involved in the war with Vietnam&quot;. In america it just takes longer for the dirt to hit the fan, hence it seems more stable. What we have here is NOT a full democracy and many voices ARE being marginalized, yes, including racist extremists; Just because you don't acknowledge those groups does not mean they are not there and that is what in the end ferments dissention, be it liberal or ultraconservative-radical. If you use your bell curve example to define the middle, I'm sure you find a certain symmetry i.e both parties are in fact the same. Progress?!! Progress for some yes, progress for others, hell no. I bet Native Americans would give a left arm each to have some representation in the government. There are far too many marginalized voices and the fact is the conservative/radical element IS represented far more than any other group; of course this is not something the government can control - that empowerment belongs with the people. Anyways, it's late and i don't have the same dialectic ability i had in the evening, but i think you've taken my words farther out than they need to be and my views placed in a polarized fashion. Nobody said anything about changing the constitution in fact I lauded it in an earlier post, and what's this stuff about would i rather this or that? It sounds like those jerks who say &quot;America. Love it or Leave it, pal.&quot; You ever read Noam Chomsky?

Fist

 

[MagnificentFist]

And I hardly call what happened at Kent State or Little Rock or Iran-Contra or the Cherokee Trail of Tears or Vietnam to be acts indicative of a stable government.

 

[MagnificentFist]

I take your calling my statements &quot;self-fulfilling&quot; as a compliment, by the way

thanks

Fist