Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Those, and especially 2), are going to butt up rather harshly against the "for the children" and "rich people are evil" positions you harbor, though consistency has never been your strong suit. Ya know, we really need an eye-roll emoticon here. Where have a I ever said "rich people are evil"? Here: I'd be interested to get feedback on this... http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htmlOne half of all Southerners in 1860 were either slaves themselves or members of slaveholding families. These elite families shaped the mores and political stance of the South, which reflected their common concerns. Foremost among these were controlling slaves and assuring an adequate supply of slave labor....
The rural nature of antebellum slavery had unintended negative effects on the Southern economy. The investment of so much capital in land and slaves discouraged the growth of cities and diverted funds from factories. This meant that the South lacked the industrial base it needed to counter the North when the Civil War began. Indeed, in 1860, the South had approximately the same number of industrial workers (110,000), as the North had industrial plants.
Other detrimental effects arose from the South's devotion to rural slavery. Wealthy planters liked to claim they were living out the Jeffersonian ideal of an agrarian democracy. In truth, the South was agrarian because slave owners found that the best way to maintain their wealth and contain their slaves.
Moreover, its "democracy" was very limited because the planters had enormous influence over how white yeomen cast their votes. Except in remote areas of the South with few slaves or plantations, it was the needs and beliefs of the planter class that shaped Southern politics on the local, state, and national levels.
The consequences of this planter dominance was seen in many aspects of the society. The South failed to develop a varied economy even within the agricultural realm. All the most fertile land in the South was owned by slaveholders who chose to grow high-profit staple crops--cotton, tobacco, sugar. That left only marginal land for the vast majority of white farmers.
This problem was compounded by the dominance of the planters image as the social ideal. Alternative means of advancement were unavailable, so yeomen farmers aspired to become planters themselves. They used some of their land to grow food for their family's consumption and devoted the rest to cash crops like cotton. Their hope was to produce enough to save, buy a few slaves, produce yet more, and, ultimately, accumulate the wealth that would elevate them to planter status. For most, this was a futile dream, but they remained committed to it, thereby neglecting other possible avenues for economic advancement.
One reason for the yeomen farmers lack of aspirations was ignorance. The antebellum South neglected to provide for the education of its people. Planters controlled the governmental revenues that could have financed public education, but they saw no need to do so. Their slaves were forbidden to learn; their own children were educated by private tutors or in exclusive and expensive private academies.
As a result, most white yeomen were left without access to education. A few lucky ones near towns or cities could sometimes send their children to fee schools or charity schools, but many were too poor or too proud to use either option.
In a similar vein, the dominating slaveholding class saw no need to create the means to produce inexpensive consumer goods for ordinary whites or to build an infrastructure by which such goods could be moved from production sites to markets in the countryside. Wealthy planters acquired what they wanted by importing expensive European or Northern goods. Thus poor whites were left to their own minimal resources and were deprived of goods they might have bought, had they been available.
This lack of consumer production and markets also retarded the growth of Southern transportation. Highways, canals, and railroads were constructed to move crops to ports and bring in luxury items for the planter class. The need of yeomen farmers to transport their crops to local markets was ignored. As a consequence, it was usually cheaper for plantation owners to import food from the North or upper South than to purchase it from white farmers in the same region. This deficiency in the Southern transportation system proved a serious liability for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Slavery in the antebellum South, then, made a minority of white Southerners--owners of large slaveholdings--enormously wealthy. At the same time, it demeaned and exploited Southerners of African descent, left the majority of white Southerners impoverished and uneducated, and retarded the overall economic, cultural, and social growth of the region. Birdwatcher And OF COURSE its "for the children" you numbskull, most everything should be. However, if we remove the "rich people are evil" bit from your summarized position, then we are left with the fact that you advocate the subjugation of American citizens, the abrogation of the Constitution, the suppression or elimination of the rights of self-determination and self-governance, and the armed invasion of sovereign nations SOLELY on the bases of "it's for the children". That sums it up nicely, and thus a revision - So, let's sum this up...
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical" and that the Federal gov't decide that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect said children; here and abroad.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save all the world's children?
Last edited by 4ager; 07/01/15. Reason: Revised Birdwatcher's stance, so he can avoid it yet again
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
