[Evan_11]

Discuss.

[Nonsuch]

Do conservatives enjoy posting inane, inflammatory thread titles?

Don't bother discussing.

[boots]

Probably too broad an issue to divide it neatly between liberals and conservatives.

1st, you've got issues of States Rights vs Federal management.

2nd, you've got the issue of slavery...which kinda made the states rights issue boil over.

Then you've got animosities that are so old between north and south that it's hard to pin it on any given issue. Southern Dems may say something very different than Northern Dems. And Dems tend, as a group, to be more liberal.

Then you've got the whole definition of "liberal" vs "conservative." Do you mean on social issues or fiscal issues? I'm either depending on how you ask the question.

[Evan_11]

If Jimmy Carter would of been president at the time would he have allowed the the South to secede without a fight?

[boots]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
If Jimmy Carter would of been president at the time would he have allowed the the South to secede without a fight?

No. I don't think so. But I'm not him, so I can't answer for him. You can ask, though. He's a really nice guy. Pretty easy to get his email address....

[itai195]

Is this a lame attempt at suggesting that liberals are all pacifists?

[finboy]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Discuss.

If you bring up states rights, they may have to come to terms with the idea that Federal control is OK for Roe v. Wade but gay marriage should be best left to the states. How's that again?

[boots]

Originally posted by finboy:
If you bring up states rights, they may have to come to terms with the idea that Federal control is OK for Roe v. Wade but gay marriage should be best left to the states. How's that again?

Funny how that happens, isn't it. I guess that's what happens when you've got power flip-flopping between the two poles. Some are for stronger states right, and some are for stronger federal prerogative. The effects linger and make us seem somewhat bipolar.

[Timo]

Do you mean "liberals" in the nineteenth century sense, or "liberals" in the twenty-first century sense?

Different animals.

[itai195]

Originally posted by finboy:
If you bring up states rights, they may have to come to terms with the idea that Federal control is OK for Roe v. Wade but gay marriage should be best left to the states. How's that again?

It's called federalism. Marriage is defined by state law, abortion has been defined as a privacy issue, which derives from the ninth amendment.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
If you bring up states rights, they may have to come to terms with the idea that Federal control is OK for Roe v. Wade but gay marriage should be best left to the states. How's that again?

Try as I might, I can't think of a single issue where Bush is willing to let the Fed defer to states.

They've attacked states rights on medical pot, euthanasia, abortion, marriage, education, pollution standards, labor standards, environment, etc ad naseum.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by finboy:
If you bring up states rights, they may have to come to terms with the idea that Federal control is OK for Roe v. Wade but gay marriage should be best left to the states. How's that again?

Because they both are about increasing individual rights. Why, when conservatives want more states' rights, do they want them only as a means of getting less individual rights?

[dialo]

Do liberals feel the American Civil War was wrong?

My understanding is that many more conservatives do, and this is part of the the problem that democrats as a party have in the south.

[RooneyX]

The rednecks still aren't civilized and religious fundamentalism and racism is still rife there. Looking at that, the war on terrorism seems like a fruitless and time wasting expensive endeavor.

The saying about cleaning your own house before someone else's rings too true.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Try as I might, I can't think of a single issue where Bush is willing to let the Fed defer to states.

They've attacked states rights on medical pot, euthanasia, abortion, marriage, education, pollution standards, labor standards, environment, etc ad naseum.

I can help you there: affirmative action. At one point, the administration was willing to cede affirmative action and EEOC to the states, with an "advisory" role at the federal level rather than prosecuting out of the Justice Dept. Lefties screamed, in unison, that states couldn't handle it. Strange.

[finboy]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's called federalism. Marriage is defined by state law, abortion has been defined as a privacy issue, which derives from the ninth amendment.

Isn't the gender/sex/whatever of those who are "married" a privacy issue? If marriage is defined as a union between man and woman, doesn't that violate individual rights? Shouldn't the Federal govt. step in if the state definition of marriage is discriminatory?

I personally WELCOME the day when anyone can marry anyone else. That will mean that one sector of society suddenly gets all the pressure to get hitched that STRAIGHT FOLKS have been putting up with for years. And it opens up a whole new field for divorce lawyers. As the guy says "bring it on."

Again, if Roe v. Wade applies from the Fed level down, how is gay marriage different? Shouldn't THAT be approached on a Federal level too? How many of the Left candidates (if anyone but Kerry is left at this point) support Federal consideration of this?

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes. It's an issue of equal protection and due process.

However, most state constitutions have similar if not more expansive civil rights protections than the federal constitution does. So they offer an alternative way of approaching the same issue.

The thing is though, it's more laborious to go state by state, and it won't always succeed since no state is obliged to care about how a different state has interpreted the different state's constitution. It's often easier to go through the federal system and they have a better reputation on civil rights issues anyway.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
I can help you there: affirmative action. At one point, the administration was willing to cede affirmative action and EEOC to the states, with an "advisory" role at the federal level rather than prosecuting out of the Justice Dept. Lefties screamed, in unison, that states couldn't handle it. Strange.

Ok. There's one.

So they attack states rights on half a dozen issues, but support it on one.

Still a losing record.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Ok. There's one.

Gun laws, for the most part.

Look, conservatives have their hypocrisy, no question. But the LEFT does too. And it ain't a matter of degree.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Discuss.

Who cares about your stupid American civil war? I'm still upset that vercingetorix lost against Caesar at Gergovia

[zigzag]

Did the South have weapons of mass destruction-related program activities?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by theolein:
Who cares about your stupid American civil war? I'm still upset that vercingetorix lost against Caesar at Gergovia

Who cares?

Maybe you should.

If split in two the United States would of probably never formed into the super power and world protector that it is today. Your sig would probably also carry a swastika to signify your allegiance.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Who cares?

Maybe you should.

If split in two the United States would of probably never formed into the super power and world protector that it is today. Your sig would probably also carry a swastika to signify your allegiance.

It wasn't the confed states who beat the Nazis. They seem to have plenty of their own to this day. The rest of the US would still have gone forward and become an economical power house. That's where all the money was and still is because of economical ties to the rest of the world.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It wasn't the confed states who beat the Nazis. They seem to have plenty of their own to this day. The rest of the US would still have gone forward and become an economical power house. That's where all the money was and still is because of economical ties to the rest of the world.

Oh yeah?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Oh yeah?

Yeah. The Aryan Nations isn't a German organisation.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Who cares?

Maybe you should.

If split in two the United States would of probably never formed into the super power and world protector that it is today. Your sig would probably also carry a swastika to signify your allegiance.

Since it seems to have slipped your level of comprehension, the world didn't start and end with the United States of Poor American Education. Following your logic of "What If?" on historical events one could also make the claim that if the French had known how you lot were going to insult them 200 years later, they probably wouldn't have bothered to help during your war of Independence, which might have resulted in you having the Queen as titular head of state today. Now that I mention it...

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by theolein:
Since it seems to have slipped your level of comprehension, the world didn't start and end with the United States of Poor American Education. Following your logic of "What If?" on historical events one could also make the claim that if the French had known how you lot were going to insult them 200 years later, they probably wouldn't have bothered to help during your war of Independence, which might have resulted in you having the Queen as titular head of state today. Now that I mention it...

That was 200 years ago and has no basis on today. We're talking about the American Civil war and its reprocutions.

Your insults do not affect me.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
That was 200 years ago and has no basis on today. We're talking about the American Civil war and its reprocutions.

OK... Had the American Civil War not taken place, inventor Wilson Agar would have had no incentive to invent the Coffee Mill Gun. As this was a direct ancestor of the modern machine gun, the machine gun may not have been invented quite so soon. Had the machine gun not been invented so soon, WWI wouldn't have entailed so much trench warfare and we (the UK) would have kicked German ass so hard that they wouldn't have bothered trying a second time.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Evan_11:


That was 200 years ago and has no basis on today. We're talking about the American Civil war and its reprocutions.

Basis on today? Reprocutions? And here I thought we were trying to make English the official language . . .

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Evan_11:


That was less than 1 year ago and has no basis on today. We're talking about the Iraqi Gulf war and its reprocutions.

Your insults do not affect me.

LOL!

[Krusty]

Why would liberals think the civil war was "wrong". The US government was attacked .. and it merely defended itself.

Some facts about the U.S. civil war:
The South started it by firing on Ft. Sumter in Charleston harbor followed by a slew of southern states seceding from the Union. So, was the civil war "wrong" to liberals ... of course not. The US government was literally attacked (and penetrated all the way to Pennsylvania) by an invading army.

[aside]
If you subscribe to the popular understanding
, you'd think the U.S Federal government was on a crusade to end slavery. Au contraire ... the U.S. gov't was not close to ending slavery, There's a reason the underground railroad went to Canada -- escaped slaves captured in the North were legally considered the property of their owners in the South and were to be returned by Federal Law. Until the Emancipation Proclamation (given nearly 2 yrs after the start of the war) slavery was still legally recognized and condoned by he US gov't. My point here is ... the story of the events leading to the Civil War are absolutely fascinating and far more complex than most people give credit for. Most Americans look at it as though the Federal government actually took some initiative in ending slavery ... they didn't. They responded to an invasion and eventually outlawed the economic foundation of their foe.

I wonder how long slavery would have continued in the US if the issue hadn't been pushed by the secession of several southern states. Years ? Decades ?
[/aside]

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Until the Emancipation Proclamation (given nearly 2 yrs after the start of the war) slavery was still legally recognized and condoned by he US gov't.

Actually, even with the Emancipation Proclamation slavery was still legally recognized and condoned by the US government. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to southern slaves (over whom the US government technically had no jurisdiction since the CSA was at this point a separate nation). Northern slaves were still just as much enslaved as they had ever been. It was only until the 13th amendment (I think, I'm bad at remembering which amendment is which) that slavery was actually abolished in the US.

[Nicko]

Opps someone mentioned the nazis, this thread is dead.

+1

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Opps someone mentioned the nazis, this thread is dead.

+1

that's not a rule unless you're discussing with people with the mental capcity of a potato. .. oh wait

[theolein]

Originally posted by Evan_11:


That was 200 years ago and has no basis on today. We're talking about the American Civil war and its reprocutions.

Your insults do not affect me.

You are a riot. Soooo, let me get this straight: according to your logic the American war of independence, 200 years ago, where your country actually came into being, has no effect on events today, yet, the American civil war, 140 years ago, where slavery was simply abused by both sides to fight a war on government control does have an effect on events today?

That's a might big "reprocution" you have there. In fact, if you're not careful with that "reprocution" there might be some severe repercussions.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by theolein:
Who cares about your stupid American civil war? I'm still upset that vercingetorix lost against Caesar at Gergovia

Gergovia? WTF are you talking about?

There is no Gergovia.

Nobody knows where Gergovia lies. Nobody has ever heard of Gergovia.

Shut up already.



-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Your insults do not affect me.

Trust me: They would if you understood them.

-s*

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
OK... Had the American Civil War not taken place, inventor Wilson Agar would have had no incentive to invent the Coffee Mill Gun. As this was a direct ancestor of the modern machine gun, the machine gun may not have been invented quite so soon. Had the machine gun not been invented so soon, WWI wouldn't have entailed so much trench warfare and we (the UK) would have kicked German ass so hard that they wouldn't have bothered trying a second time.

Some a$$ would have invented it. Humans tend to invent collectively following trends. But only one geezer gets patent and credit.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Actually, even with the Emancipation Proclamation slavery was still legally recognized and condoned by the US government. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to southern slaves (over whom the US government technically had no jurisdiction since the CSA was at this point a separate nation). Northern slaves were still just as much enslaved as they had ever been. It was only until the 13th amendment (I think, I'm bad at remembering which amendment is which) that slavery was actually abolished in the US.

Thanks for the correction I looked it up and you are correct about it being the 13th amendment -- intro'd in Jan 1865 and ratified by the states 11 months later. I've long had a pet peeve with movies etc that portray the Civil War as if the Federal Gov't was somehow proactively attacking the institution of slavery in the US -- "The war to end Slavery". Sorta like how the current administration is trying to re-cast the war in Iraq as a quest to "free the Iraqi people" from its tyrant. In both cases, the emancipation was really more of a fortunate moral side effect to a conflict that was started for altogether different reasons.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Opps someone mentioned the nazis, this thread is dead.

+1

Mentioning Nazis is okay, but once someone mentions Hitler, look out!

[andi*pandi]

Any arguments over what would have happened had the war resulted in a split US are moot, considering that the South was doomed to fail and a split would never have happened. They had planted all their eggs in one cotton basket, and got arrogant. The people with the mills, manufacturing, and major ports won.

Why is this relevant to anything? Are we debating arrogance?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Krusty:
a conflict that was started for altogether different reasons.

But that's also being rather simplistic. Slavery was a wrenching issue between the North and the South going back to before the Revolution and the Constitution contains several compromises that attempted to paper this over (e.g. the 3/5ths compromise). Slavery was central to the causes of the Civil War, a fact that was well understood at the time.

It's really revisionists who have tried to assert economics as the sole cause. But that ignores the fact that the economics involved was fueled by the institution of slavery.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by theolein:
Who cares about your stupid American civil war? I'm still upset that Vercingetorix lost against Caesar at Gergovia

Rather than Gergovia, it probably was Alesia, where Abraracourcix (or Vitalstatistix, or Majestix, etc.) was a veteran Gaul combatant against Caesar's imperialism, and... etc. etc. - as in this album:

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Gergovia? WTF are you talking about?

There is no Gergovia.

Nobody knows where Gergovia lies. Nobody has ever heard of Gergovia.

Shut up already.



-s*

Alésia, mon ami: c'est Alésia (see the above Asterix album - better than many history books!)...

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But that's also being rather simplistic. Slavery was a wrenching issue between the North and the South going back to before the Revolution and the Constitution contains several compromises that attempted to paper this over (e.g. the 3/5ths compromise). Slavery was central to the causes of the Civil War, a fact that was well understood at the time.

It's really revisionists who have tried to assert economics as the sole cause. But that ignores the fact that the economics involved was fueled by the institution of slavery.

Slavery wasn't the reason why the South went to war against the North. The South went to war over states rights. Slavery was the South's rallying cry to get farmers to become soldiers. The average farmer could care less about the politics involved, but if you told him that somebody he didn't know was going to take away his livelyhood (slavery)... well, now you got yourself an army...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Slavery wasn't the reason why the South went to war against the North. The South went to war over states rights.

This is an internally contradictory statement. Top of the list of state's rights for the South was slavery. You are staring at the fig leaf, not asking what is beneith it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Alésia, mon ami: c'est Alésia (see the above Asterix album - better than many history books!)...

I have sullied the memory of Gergovia, the site of glorious victory.

forgive me.

Alé...what?



-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
\You are staring at the fig leaf, not asking what is beneith it.

OT: that analogy...ewwwww!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is an internally contradictory statement. Top of the list of state's rights for the South was slavery. You are staring at the fig leaf, not asking what is beneith it.

While I agree with your point that analogy was not of this planet.