And I Thought This One Was Settled in 1865

[HercDriver]

Actually every state did not cite slavery as a reason.. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee did not.

Perhaps it was for some Southern states... but hardly the motivation in the North.

Which is why Mr Lincoln said:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;"

Mr. Seward:

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. "

Something just doesn't sit right with the primary motivation for 620,000 battlefield deaths as a complete issue over slavery where at the same time, Sioux Indians were being exterminated by the North. If it were truly the sole reason for so many deaths, why was it not abolished in the North prior to the war? Slavery was legal prior to and during the war. Few Northerners wanted freed slaves in the North.. many states tried to prevent it.

Obviously, the end of slavery is an unequivocal good that came from the war. Anyways... end of my opinions...back to the original topic

If there had been no slavery, would there have been (as we say in Virginia) a War of Northern Aggression?

 

[ryan1234]

If there had been no slavery, would there have been (as we say in Virginia) a War of Northern Aggression?

Not entirely sure either way. Some argue that slavery merely accelerated the war and it was inevitable.

Another question may be would there still be slavery without a war?

There is a pretty convincing case for a peaceful emancipation being more effective than what happened.

The same guy, Jim Powell, who wrote Wilson's War, wrote another book called How the West Ended Slavery. It is a pretty interesting read, it's basically about how rest of the West ended slavery peacefully except for the US. He contends that something along the lines of William Wilberforce would have been more effective and quicker.. and quite possible if a peaceful secession would have actually happened - which could neuter the Fugitive Slave Act and break the back of the South economically. This is why I believe, in part, that many Southerners tried to make it about slavery - fear of insurrection.

There were many atrocities in the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression), it's hard to take a cursory glance at history, IMHO, and surmise that it was slavery alone that caused the war.

Either way it's certainly debatable

 

[SkywardET]

Trial balloon for what? Both sides of the aisle seem perfectly happy with the general status quo. I submit that this "creep of Federal influence" is unstoppable and natural - kind of like global warming. Any notion of politically driven or initiated change in this issue is hopelessly fringe and therefore irrelevant (looking at you Dr. Paul).

Brett

Both sides of the Congressional aisle? Yes, perhaps. Given that the legislature is typically populated with the most diluted, "electable" types of people, it's no surprise that actions which are contrary to sound economics and sound public policy are "generally pleasing" to them. It takes all kinds, and for everyone clamoring for less government there are probably as many clamoring for more.

In Oklahoma, of course, we typically trend towards desire for less government, more or less. Then again, like everyone, we cheer at mediocrity like President Bush and hiss/boo at mediocrity like President Obama. Political theater and all that.

Now this creep you define as natural and unstoppable I see as natural and stoppable. Historically, to be oppressed or controlled is to be human. Most of the population of the world has absolutely no demonstrable need for the innumerable governmental and intergovernmental entities that oppress, control or influence them.

On a more down to Earth level, it is likely that we will continue with new and "improved" globalization experiments, stretching Federal and global governance to beyond their "natural" limits. I suspect that the "natural" state of politics is more oscillatory than you perhaps believe. We both agree on at least one point though--the US Constitution is virtually useless. I just think that's a bad situation, is all.


EDIT -- Oh, and to answer your question, it's a trial balloon to see how much support there is for the idea of such an outlet ostensibly created to 'defend against the encroachment.'

 

[SkywardET]

Here's some news you may not like from the "fringe" Rasmussen Reports:

Ron Paul: 41%
Barrack Obama: 42%

The current trend, for the moment at least, appears to be a substantial backlash against the previous trend, which was an amalgamation of anti-Bush sentiment over his incompetence: "Throw out everything associated with Bush."

Of course anything could happen. Maybe there won't be a Republican Party by 2012. Stranger things...


Back to the point about "both sides of the aisle," it seems clear that Paul is about as mainstream as they come if you use the standard of non-affiliated voters representing the "middle of the aisle" or whatever metaphor you wish. In reality, probably half of all self-identified non-affiliated voters are ex-Republicans fleeing the aftermath of the Bush stigma.

 

[Flash]

Here's some news you may not like from the "fringe" Rasmussen Reports:

Ron Paul: 41%
Barrack Obama: 42%

......Back to the point about "both sides of the aisle," it seems clear that Paul is about as mainstream as they come if you use the standard of non-affiliated voters representing the "middle of the aisle" or whatever metaphor you wish. In reality, probably half of all self-identified non-affiliated voters are ex-Republicans fleeing the aftermath of the Bush stigma.

I really have to laugh at that, he did terribly in the 2008 primaries and I doubt he will do much better at all in the future. I have to remind the Ron Paul nut in my office of that all the time after he talked up how Representative Paul had raised so much money, a fat lot of that good that did him in the end. He is kind of like the Buffalo Bills, never quite delivers in the end. Though to give the Bills credit, at least they made it to the finals.

Here is another viewpoint about the poll.

 

[SkywardET]

I really have to laugh at that, he did terribly in the 2008 primaries and I doubt he will do much better at all in the future. I have to remind the Ron Paul nut in my office of that all the time after he talked up how Representative Paul had raised so much money, a fat lot of that good that did him in the end. He is kind of like the Buffalo Bills, never quite delivers in the end. Though to give the Bills credit, at least they made it to the finals.

Here is another viewpoint about the poll.

You're quite right that Paul doesn't do so well in the Primaries. Hence the comment about diluted "electable" people usually winning. Republicans typically like imposing their own versions of social control on people, so that makes Ron Paul distasteful to them. Furthermore, so many swallow the Sean Hannity "they attacked us because we're free" and "they hate us because we're free" lines WRT the GWOT, even though the CIA calls it blowback and it's generally recognized as a perverted counter-attack for our involvement in the "holy land" as defined by AQ. This means that when Paul talks about such things, supposed CT "experts" like Giuliani call it "astonishing" that anyone would say such a thing.

Then again, unless I'm mistaken, the Republican Party is still losing members as more and more become unaffiliated... A lot can happen in the next two years, but I see the Rasmussen poll as hopeful from my perspective. No more, no less.

 

[Flash]

You're quite right that Paul doesn't do so well in the Primaries.

He didn't do so well when he ran on the Libertarian ticket either, and it wasn't like he didn't just do so well in the primaries, he pretty much sucked in them. Face it, he unelectable.

Furthermore, so many swallow the Sean Hannity "they attacked us because we're free" and "they hate us because we're free" lines WRT the GWOT, even though the CIA calls it blowback and it's generally recognized as a perverted counter-attack for our involvement in the "holy land" as defined by AQ. This means that when Paul talks about such things, supposed CT "experts" like Giuliani call it "astonishing" that anyone would say such a thing.

There may be some small element of truth in what Ron Paul argues but it is much too simplistic to argue that it is simply blowback, just like it is too simplistic to argue that they hate us because we are free. They hate the Danes because of some simple cartoons (probably number 3 on their target list right now, believe it or not) and they still hold a grudge over the Crusades, so there is a lot of irrationality involved.

 

[Brett327]

Now this creep you define as natural and unstoppable I see as natural and stoppable.

The problem with this is that the vast majority of voters and the populace at large is FAR too apathetic to go along with the kinds of change you propose. This is a product of both the welfare state our government has become and the generally comfortable life enjoyed by most Americans. Ironically, our decadence and relative economic success is ultimately the source of our apathy.

As I said, the kind of change you're talking about usually only happens after some catastrophic event - war, occupation, mass starvation. Is that kind of material and societal sacrifice warranted so that we can pay lip service to some antiquated notion of our idyllic beginnings?

Bottom line - it's a pipe dream.

Brett

 

[SkywardET]

He didn't do so well when he ran on the Libertarian ticket either, and it wasn't like he didn't just do so well in the primaries, he pretty much sucked in them. Face it, he unelectable.



There may be some small element of truth in what Ron Paul argues but it is much too simplistic to argue that it is simply blowback, just like it is too simplistic to argue that they hate us because we are free. They hate the Danes because of some simple cartoons (probably number 3 on their target list right now, believe it or not) and they still hold a grudge over the Crusades, so there is a lot of irrationality involved.

Yes indeed, those who are prone to be "wound sponges" are prone to become terrorists. Learned that from a nifty terrorism class via NCPACE. Ask a Basque separatist what they hold against Spain, and it will be a litany of abuses dating back centuries. Always the same, it seems. Then again, Congressman Paul knows and talks in depth about similar subjects. You, being obviously not a Paulbot, are exposed primarily to simple soundbyte talking points. To say his views are "simplistic" is itself a simplistic statement.

Also, the poll would indicate that his "unelectability" appears to be fading as the political environment changes. Past is prologue, but it's not the story.


Brett, it need not be 'catastrophic' per se. The timing of the real estate bubble burst more or less guaranteed that any Democrat would be elected. If the timing is right for the coming sovereign currency and debt issues, that could potentially ensure that anyone but President Obama is President via the 2012 election.

 

[HercDriver]

Yes indeed, those who are prone to be "wound sponges" are prone to become terrorists. Learned that from a nifty terrorism class via NCPACE. Ask a Basque separatist what they hold against Spain, and it will be a litany of abuses dating back centuries. Always the same, it seems. Then again, Congressman Paul knows and talks in depth about similar subjects. You, being obviously not a Paulbot, are exposed primarily to simple soundbyte talking points. To say his views are "simplistic" is itself a simplistic statement.

Also, the poll would indicate that his "unelectability" appears to be fading as the political environment changes. Past is prologue, but it's not the story.

To say that Flash is making a simplistic statement by calling Ron Paul's views simplistic, is, itself, simplistic.

You're wise to be cautious about presidential predictions...a lot could happen between now and then. It really depends on the candidate. Ron Paul did well in the Southern Leadership Counsel straw poll (basically tying Romney) because young college students came their and tilted the numbers toward him...he seems to energize that demographic.

As for me...I've already taken numerous bets on a reelection and that the Dems will keep a majority in both Houses.

 

[squorch2]

Paul excites college students for the same reason that the most ardent Randians are in high school.

 

[Brett327]

Yes indeed, those who are prone to be "wound sponges" are prone to become terrorists. Learned that from a nifty terrorism class via NCPACE. Ask a Basque separatist what they hold against Spain, and it will be a litany of abuses dating back centuries. Always the same, it seems. Then again, Congressman Paul knows and talks in depth about similar subjects. You, being obviously not a Paulbot, are exposed primarily to simple soundbyte talking points. To say his views are "simplistic" is itself a simplistic statement.

Also, the poll would indicate that his "unelectability" appears to be fading as the political environment changes. Past is prologue, but it's not the story.


Brett, it need not be 'catastrophic' per se. The timing of the real estate bubble burst more or less guaranteed that any Democrat would be elected. If the timing is right for the coming sovereign currency and debt issues, that could potentially ensure that anyone but President Obama is President via the 2012 election.

But you assume that the Obama Presidency is some kind of essential element in all (or most) that you find wrong with the status quo. Don't forget, the financial crisis and bail-out was a Bush Administration policy, so I think you'd have to be naïve writ large to think that any of the things you care about will be remedied to your satisfaction under a Republican admin.

You see how all the left-wingers are upset because they were promised "real change" by Obama? That's going to be you the next time Republicans win the White House.

Brett

 

[SkywardET]

But you assume that the Obama Presidency is some kind of essential element in all (or most) that you find wrong with the status quo. Don't forget, the financial crisis and bail-out was a Bush Administration policy, so I think you'd have to be naïve writ large to think that any of the things you care about will be remedied to your satisfaction under a Republican admin.

You see how all the left-wingers are upset because they were promised "real change" by Obama? That's going to be you the next time Republicans win the White House.

Brett

That's not an assumption I am making, although I won't fault you for drawing that assumption from my statement. The conversation is a convolution between overall political discussion and the specifics of presidential politics, so no harm no foul this time.

I have no memory problems with regards to the Bush presidency, but a Paul presidency would be utterly unlike a Bush presidency. I have complete confidence that if Paul won the presidency that he would not compromise on principles to any significant extent. Any "compromise" would likely be orders of magnitude smaller than the type made by the Bush administration ("scrapping capitalism in order to save it" comes to mind). Paul is like no other Republican presidential consideration, which while it is one of his major strengths, it is a significant drawback during a primary election; hence history. To call a Paul administration "just another Republican administration" would be, as they say, incredibly naive.

You're right that left-wingers are upset by Obama because they thought they were going to get "real change." However, President Obama, being the epitome of a politician, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. He made so many promises, so many contradictory statements, and was so 'likeable' ('electable'), that you could believe anything you wanted to about him. With Paul it's pretty straightforward and outlined with little wiggle room. Some Paultards are suffering from the same type of delusion (the "Truthers" come to mind) with regards to Paul, but just about every one of his supporters agrees with his core policies of sound money, sound budgets, personal and economic liberty, and non-interventionary foreign policy. You know, principled conservatism of the old school (not the neo-conservative "war is peace" and "debt is wealth" stuff and not the social conservative "you don't know what's good and moral for you" stuff).

 

[bert]

...

I have no memory problems with regards to the Bush presidency, but a Paul presidency would be utterly unlike a Bush presidency. I have complete confidence that if Paul won the presidency that he would not compromise on principles to any significant extent. Any "compromise" would likely be orders of magnitude smaller than the type made by the Bush administration ("scrapping capitalism in order to save it" comes to mind). Paul is like no other Republican presidential consideration, which while it is one of his major strengths, it is a significant drawback during a primary election; hence history. To call a Paul administration "just another Republican administration" would be, as they say, incredibly naive.

...

He has zero chance to be elected, but (just for fun) explain to me how he wouldn't have to compromise when neither house of congress agreed with his "principles"?

 

[zpatman]

The older I get...the more I learn theres no such thing as principle in politics...at least once you get higher up. Until we get politicians who aren't democrats/republicans first americans second, these tired old arguments are going to rage on until the end of time.