Well back at it I suppose.

My Take on the Lost Cause

This Is FQB
"I recently read Kennedy's, no not JFK's, book, The South Was Right! The should have printed it on the inside of a trash can, because it was total garbage!"

This is just a little something I wrote up to respond to a comment on the discussion pages of alternathistory.com. For the full context of the post and subsequent responses see the Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900 section. The threat is entitled Unconstitutional Abe!

Sorry, but Lincoln did what he had to do. Despite the Neo-Confederate ranting of such masterpieces as "The South Was Right" (Kennedy & Kennedy, 1994) and "The Politically Correct Guide to American History" (Woods, 2004) the South was in the wrong (from both the viewpoint of today and the 1860s).

It is very difficult for use to understand what the nation was going through at that time. It is unlike the unconstitutional actions of today’s war on terror in that the US was faced by a large scale internal revolt. The only way to preserve the Union was for Lincoln to take measures that were seen by Southern apologists as over harsh, but already had precedent in American history (See the Whiskey Rebellion). Lincoln's reactions were actually mild in comparison to those taken by other nations in similar situations even today. There were very few if any executions (leaving out reprisals for the various Indian uprisings of Minnesota as the US-Indian conflict was a totally separate affair from the ACW), the press, despite closure of pro-south newspapers, remained free (so much so that much of Lee's intel on Northern troop movements was gleaned from reading Northern newspapers), and the suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of marshal law are both valid tools used by the executive to quell insurrection.

The South's reaction to Lincoln's election was based on the wish to maintain slavery and its bigoted ideology of racial superiority. If the real reason for secession had been the maintenance of states rights than why did the South force northern states to adhere to the fugitive slave law (see fugitive slave laws; 1850 statute on wikipedia)? Why did the South force territories to accept slavery despite overwhelming popular votes against the institution (Kansas 1856)? Why did southern politicians try to prevent northerns from using the mail to send abolitionists reading material? Why did all of the documents of secession drawn up by Southern states cite northern attempts at curtailing slavery as the primary reason for leaving the Union? Why did the Confederacy adopt nearly all of the same measures as the North used (draft, income tax, suspension of habeas corpus) when fighting the Civil War? Why did the Southern states use military force against its once citizens when they expressed their wish to remain in the Union (eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, western Texas)? Why did southerns applaud the vicious attack by S.C. Sen. Preston Brooks on Mass. Sen. Charles Sumner (May 22, 1856)?

The Civil War also was not a war about economic differences. The Nullification Crisis of 1832 proved that by showing how economic differences between the two sections of the nation were often solved by compromise. If it had been an economic tariff dispute the South could have waited until Lincoln was made president and then blustered until a compromise was reached. As it was the Norths move towards industrialization coupled with the opening of competing cotton areas in Egypt and India was increasing North-South trade and making foreign markets less lucrative.

Thus, you have to ask yourself...Was Lincoln justified in using constitutionally questionable methods to preserve the Union and preventing the establishment of a southern slavocracy? There were no Federally mandated mass executions, no mass disappearances of political opponents and no gulag like prisoner camps. Yes, on the local level there were numerous "little" (and I hate to use this word because if you are the victim of such atrocity it is in no way "little") atrocities, but Lincoln hated this and worked to lessen their occurrence.

Neither Lincoln nor the Abolitionists were the evil ones of the Civil War. It was the aristocratic slave owners that brought about the death of almost a million Americans. They spread a gospel of prejudice towards blacks and a message of hate and fear towards the Northerns who opposed them. They dragged the poor white majority of the South into a war that would ensure that they remained that way if the CSA had won, and led them to death and economic ruin when they lost. After the war they fought black equality and when Lincoln's foolish Republican predecessors gave these same people back the reigns of power they reestablished their ideology of hate (yes, I know it spread North, but I never said Northerns were immune from stupidity and bigotry.). Even today many people, including quite a few on these boards, buy into their "Lost Cause" and "the North was just as bad" propaganda.

I fully understand that the Northern government did (and still does) many horrible things, but I know that any world with a surviving CSA would be far more miserable place than our world, and I thank Lincoln for ensuring that alternate world never occurred.

Aren't We All a Little Black?

In the Words of FQB
"Do I have to pick Caucasian? Or can I just choose any mountain range that I have a strong affinty for. O.K., I'm Poconoian."

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. My internet connection has been a little hinky and as you can see by the strange double post I have been having a little trouble with the whole blogging experience.

Today there was an interesting post on Reason.com's Hit & Run. It was entitled "Barak Obama doesn't care about the Black People." Scroll down a bit to find it.

In it it details how Al Sharpton won't blindly embrace Barak Obama just because he is black (or is he?). He is quoted as asking "what's his embrace of our agenda." While I agree people should never just blindly vote for a cantidate just because of their skin color (or party affiliattion) it seems odd that Sharpton is the person who is best able to define what the black agend consists of. This type of mind-set reminds me of a segment I saw on the Colbert Report (02/08).

This whole argument just higlights how rediculus the idea of one "black culture" has become. Check out Debra Dickerson's bizaar reasoning behind her assertion that Obama is not black.
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

It seems to me that those blacks that claim to decsend from slaves are racist against the more newly arrived black immigrants. Is it because these new immigrants spend less time wallowing in self pity? Whether Sharpton won't support Obama because of his ethnicity or because of his policies matters little. Sharpton wants to believe that he represents the "true African-Americans", you know the ones that politicians should pander to, and becomes defensive when a person with a "different cultural experience" threatens to move black issues past the age-old policies of laying on the guilt trip and begging for hand outs. Surely Obama's success represents a chance for African-Americans (of which Obama is truly one of having been born in America to parents from Kenya) finally acheive that long elusive dream. More power to them and hopefully men like Sharpton will finally become the fringe of African-American culture instead of its leading figure. [A prtion of this text is a copy-and-past from a post I left on the Reason.com comment page.]

Hopefully, black voters (by this I mean all black voters, not just the ones included in Sharpton and Dickerson's narrow defininitons) will go to the polls and vote for the person they most want to be the the nation's President. If they do this in large enough numbers then perhaps their feelings of disenfranchisement will be well and truly put to rest.

Hump Day Blues

FQB: In His Own Words
"Life after death is an unproven myth. Death after life is the harsh reality."

It's Wednesday mourning and I'm not sure what to write about. Fred would have told me..."Just sit down, shut up, and type out the garbage you would normally led fly from your pie hole."

I didn't watch the morning news today except to check the weather. I've gotten tired of the race for the 2008 presidency. Every time I think that a candidate I would vote for has entered the race, I find out they support a policy I don’t care for. Why can’t we have a good libertarian candidate that doesn’t want to create a nanny-state or a theocracy?

Hump Day Blues

FQB: In His Own Words
"Life after death is an unproven myth. Death after life is the harsh reality."

It's Wednesday mourning and I'm not sure what to write about. Fred would have told me..."Just sit down, shut up, and type out the garbage you would normally let fly from your pie hole."

I didn't watch the morning news today except to check the weather. I've gotten tired of the race for the 2008 presidency. Every time I think that a candidate I would vote for has entered the race, I find out they support a policy I don’t care for. Why can’t we have a good libertarian candidate that doesn’t want to create a nanny-state or a theocracy?

About My Friend Fred

FQB's Quote of the Day
"It's always ugly when the two bloated beasts, religion and politics, partner-up and dance."

Fred was a wonderful person and my dear friend for over twenty-eight years. We grew up together in the small town of Blenville, Pennsylvania. And though we would grow apart later in life his sudden and tragic death still haunts me to this day. I will never forget his wit and kindness. He helped me through many hard times in my life, and I owe him a debt of graditute that can no longer be repaid. I can only hope that his family can find it in their heart to forgive him. Perhaps reading this blog will remind them of the good times that came before his fall from grace.

Edwards on Today

Well its freezing cold here in Western New York, and this is my first real blog entry. I’ve been meaning to start a blog for some time, but procrastination has held me in her cold cruel grip for several months. Now that I’ve broken free I’ll begin my foray into internet blogging.

First of all, I have to admit that I’m an International Politics major (with a history minor) from Penn State. So many of my pointless ramblings will be concerning politics and history. This morning I was watching the Today Show on NBC and the women who replaced Katie Couric interviewed presidential hopeful John Edwards. Ignoring the fact that he almost shares the same name as John “The Biggest Douche in the Universe” Edward, I still can’t stand the guy’s positions on most of the major issues. On the show he was touting his scheme for Universal Health Care and his views on the Iraq War.

Health Care: Once again a liberal Democrat came out in favor of Universal Health Care…yawn. He wants to cover every American whether they want to be covered or not. This of course means price controls = corporate subsidies and/or mandated price fixing. So we get more corporate welfare and the bonus of fewer investments in new drugs as prices are set at fixed levels. Edwards also called for mandatory health insurance, and while this may force some insurance companies to offer low rate coverage low income people (Seems a little nanny-state to me, but I’ll wait and see.), he also wants government subsidies/aide which will of course drive prices back up. Sure the low income people may not see these hidden price increases but middle class tax payers sure will. And finally, he wants employers to foot more of the health care bill for their employees. Just ask the thousands of people laid off from Ford and GM if they want companies to take on yet more health care related debt. It’s nice that Mr. Edwards can make the bold cognitive move towards socialism while Canada and Great Britain are trying to step back from their socialized health care adventures. Does Health Care need fixing in this country? Yes! But socialism is not the way to go. Free markets will do a better job at correcting the problems if left alone with less government interference.

Iraq: Just so you know with regards to Iraq, I say…SURGE ON!! Edwards like many of the other Democratic hopefuls, want to halt spending on the war or put caps on troop levels. Just as an aside, back in the mid-1990s I supported President Clinton when he issued a formal apology to African-Americans for America’s support of slavery. Slavery was for over eighty years the official policy of the United States government. Even though no one still alive had been a slave or owned one, the US government had not changed. Thus the US government, with Clinton as its spokesperson, owed the ancestors of slavery an apology. A similar situation now holds for Iraq. Even if a Democrat wins in 2008 the US government owes it to the people of Iraq to fix the boondoggle we have created. If I had been a Congressman in 2003 would I have voted to authorize for in Iraq? Yes, because nearly every intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam had WMDs and only the use of force would get him to comply to UN resolutions. But the war was handled so poorly from the beginning (inept coalition building, not enough troops, let the Iraqi army disperse with their weapons, no protection of antiquities from looters, didn’t finish off al-Sadr when we first had the chance…the list of mistakes is exhausting) that the administration doomed it to failure from the start. BUT, this doesn’t lessen our responsibility to the people of Iraq, in fact we now must bear an even greater burden. In foreign policy compassion and honor often must be forgotten, but not when we invaded the country while claiming to be liberators.

So overall you can safely say that I’m not going to be voting for John Edwards. Since he almost certainly won’t make it through the primaries I guess that doesn’t matter since I’m a registered Republican (I’m not a Bush fan, but I’m hoping we can take the party of Abraham Lincoln back to its roots).