Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Like Hell it Was.

I like George Hill, proprietor of the singular blog Mad Ogre (note to George: permalinks would be nice.) He's an opinionated SOB, but aren't we all? I read George because he's an interesting writer (could use spell check from time to time - OK, a lot) and I enjoy a lot of what he has to say.

But not all. Especially not when I read things like this:
I was asked about the Confederate flag in my banner artwork. Really that was the idea of the artist who put it in there... as to him it expressed the vibe. To me, it does that too... and a little more. First off, I'm a Son of the South... so let me explain this as best as I can... The Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate as the damn Yankees would have you believe. It was the flag of the Confederate States of America. This is a part of our shared American History, not just a south eastern regional thing... It's not saying I want to start my own country or that I want to own me some niggers to pick my cotton back at the ol' plantation. That's just ignorant stereotyping to even think that when you see the Dixie flag. The way I see it, it's about Liberty.
OK so far, I'm with him. I think the Confederate flag controversy is far overblown. But then this:
The War of Northern Aggression was, in a nut shell, about States Rights. About the individual states deciding on how to run their own states... about not letting the Federal Government dictate matters that should be local matters.
The "War of Northern Aggression" began when the South captured Ft. Sumter - a Federal Fort. The Civil War was, like it or not, a war over the practice of slavery and the desire to continue it. It was a war that was born in the compromises required to ratify the Constitution in 1788. Yes, "States rights" was the excuse nearly all (especially non-slaveowning) Southerners used to explain their reason for fighting, but slavery was the causus belli.
This is a concept completely alien to so many Americans now. What with George Bush being the controller of everything...
To a large extent this perception is true. It is also true that it is, in part, one result of the war - in which "These United States" became THE United States.
the President of the United States is evidently responsible for your local municipal road maintenance and everything else now. This is BS.
Granted. But this outcome is not entirely due to the Civil War, it's due in large part to 150+ years of entropy, wherein busybodies from both sides have come to make the Republicans into the "Daddy" party, and the Democrats into the "Mommy" party. And whoever is sitting in the White House is seen by the majority of the population as "the Father of the Nation." Yes, it's BS, but it's the logical outcome of our system of government. "Democracy" is the problem, not the Civil War.
Local folks should manage local matters. Simple as that. Salt Lake City should not have to bow down to the wishes of Boston or San Francisco. And vice-versa. Or in San Fran's case – vice-vice. Or Washington DC. What does Washington DC know about the Uintah Basin? Those inside the Belt Way have never even been here, yet they have the audacity to tell me what's best for me and my own here? They are going to tell us what to do and when? I don't believe that's right. That's not the way it is supposed to work.
Also granted. But there it is.
Yes, I believe The South should have won. Many Southern Scholars believe that Slavery would have been ended within a short number of years anyways and The South would have returned to the The Union all on its own.
And many scholars do not. I do not believe the South should have won, not if their goal (as stated) was secession from the Union.
The only difference is that The South would have rejoined on their own terms and not as subjects of The North. I also believe that. The writing was on the wall even then.
This is the part I take strongest exception to, because I don't believe the South would have rejoined the North. I think the result of the South winning the war would have been eventual disaster on the global scale. Perhaps the best example of this comes from the novels of historian Harry Turtledove. His "Great War" series examines one possible outcome of a Southern victory, and it's not only plausible, to me it is chillingly convincing.
Of course those of you who get your history strictly from Yankee written books might think otherwise because you guys want to feel justified in your invasion of The South. The War of Northern Aggression seriously damaged The South in ways Yankees don't and never will understand. The economic scars remain there today. I know it's hard to understand, but there is more to The South than just grits and Dollywood... even though those are some of the best things.
My parents were born and raised in a coal town in Virginia. I was born in Lexington, Kentucky and raised mostly in Florida. I'm not a DamnYankee, and neither are they. Yes, the loss of the war and the economic predation that occurred during Reconstruction did vast damage to the South, but the preservation of the Union, with all of its warts, was better than letting the nation dissolve as I believe it would have done.

George thinks that the South would have rejoined the North, though from the sound of his jeremiad he'd be just as happy if the South had won and remained separate, or marched into Washington and demanded surrender. (Had that happened - and were the union preserved because of it - I might not be so piqued about this.) But preservation of the Union was what motivated Lincoln, and he was right. The war was, at its root, about whether it was morally right for human beings to own other human beings. If you read the words of the Founders, especially the philosophical justification expressed in the Declaration of Independence, then this nation could not have endured a continuation of the practice of slavery. It took seventy years for the fuse lit by the ratification of the Constitution to ignite the powder keg that was the Civil War, but any other outcome, I believe, would have been disastrous for both America and Europe. The damage caused to the South was tiny compared to what could have happened.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.