CNN: 4 Ways we are still fighting the Civil War:

[TNforPaul45]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/civil.war.today/index.html?hpt=C1

Some Highlights:

Nullification, state's rights and secession. Those terms might sound like they're lifted from a Civil War history book, but they're actually making a comeback on the national stage today.
Since the rise of the Tea Party and debate over the new health care law, more Republican lawmakers have brandished those terms. Republican lawmakers in at least 11 states invoked nullification to thwart the new health care law, according to a recent USA Today article.

...

We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the war was Lincoln's insistence that, no, we can't let these people go.
--H.W. Crocker III, Southern historian

...

Barack Obama isn't the first black president, according to some Southern secessionists. That would be Abraham Lincoln. He was called a "black Republican" and the "Great Dictator."
There a reason a large number of Americans despised Lincoln during the war. Think of the nation's recent "War on Terror." Some Americans thought Lincoln used the war to ignore the Constitution and expand the powers of the presidency.

...

 

[KCIndy]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo makes a pretty persuasive argument in favor of all those points. It's an interesting and fairly short read, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in the Civil War and the politics of that era.

 

[Texan4Life]

Nullification, state's rights and secession. Those terms might sound like they're lifted from a Civil War history book

Lucky.. I wish my school history book talked about that. All it did was go on and on about Lincoln being a savior and southerns are like nazi's except against black people. And the northern states were paradise for blacks.

 

[Paul Revered]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo makes a pretty persuasive argument in favor of all those points. It's an interesting and fairly short read, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in the Civil War and the politics of that era.

This site encouraged me to do rather extensive research on Lincoln:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Lucky.. I wish my school history book talked about that. All it did was go on and on about Lincoln being a savior and southerns are like nazi's except against black people. And the northern states were paradise for blacks.

Me too.

 

[BlackTerrel]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011...-Ban-interracial-marriage/UPI-63171302296367/

Glad to see we've come such a long way

RALEIGH, N.C., April 8 (UPI) -- Almost half of Mississippi Republicans say they believe interracial marriage should be outlawed, a poll indicates.

A survey conducted March 24-27 and released Friday by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, N.C., showed 46 percent of Republicans in Mississippi said they believe interracial marriage should be illegal.

The survey indicated 40 percent said they felt mixed-race weddings should remain legal, while 14 percent said they were not sure.

 

[KCIndy]

A survey conducted March 24-27 and released Friday by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, N.C., showed 46 percent of Republicans in Mississippi said they believe interracial marriage should be illegal.

The survey indicated 40 percent said they felt mixed-race weddings should remain legal, while 14 percent said they were not sure.

The poll showed 76 percent of those who responded considered themselves somewhat or very conservative with 68 percent of the respondents age 46 or older.

Disgusting.

I would have expected this in 1911, but not 2011....


Now I'm gonna be going to bed all depressed. Bummer.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Disgusting.

I would have expected this in 1911, but not 2011....


Now I'm gonna be going to bed all depressed. Bummer.

Ditto. Someone emailed me that earlier today and it's been bugging me all day.

 

[JCLibertarian]

I never really gotten a straight answer from the Lincolnites(many of whom are secular statist leftists) on where in the Constitution it prohibits secession or in the case of the North, where it allows the United States to wage war on another nation without a declaration of war. They always fall back on the slavery argument. When I tell them about the original 13th Amendment, and how Lincoln supported keeping slavery permanent in order to keep the South from seceding, they generally fall back on the might makes right argument, and that since the North won, secession is illegal on the premise of the military might of the federal government, which exposes their totalitarian nature. The Lincolnites, and by extension, the left wing, preach tolerance and openness, but unfortunately, everyone has to be subjugated by force to their brand of tolerance and openness.They ignore the fact America was founded on the principles of self-ownership and the consent of the governed and by extension secession.

 

[scottditzen]

Ever since my survey research class in college, I'm pretty distrusting of many polls.

However, this is kind of embarrassing for Mississippi.

It certainly doesn't help the notion that they're the least educated state in the US.

 

[Texan4Life]

Disgusting.

I would have expected this in 1911, but not 2011....


Now I'm gonna be going to bed all depressed. Bummer.

+1 that's non of .gov's business.

On a funny note tho, my guess is the 46% somehow didn't get the "badonkadonk" attachment with their survey.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The only truly successful invocation of nullification was made by the State of Wisconsin, in nullifying the abhorrent Fugitive Slave Laws passed by Congress. This brave action by Wisconsin helped to ensure the continued survival of the Underground Railroad as a path to freedom for thousands of escaping slaves.

 

[thasre]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo makes a pretty persuasive argument in favor of all those points. It's an interesting and fairly short read, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in the Civil War and the politics of that era.

I just bought this book and am looking forward to reading it, because the more I learn about Lincoln, the more I'm convinced he was awful awful awful awful.

On a similar note, has anyone seen the trailer for that new Robert Redford movie about the prosecution of John Wilkes Booth's mother? Redford's a lefty hack I'm pretty sure, but the movie looks like it's going to present Southerners who hated the Lincoln regime as freedom fighters against a tyrannical federal "justice" system. Maybe I was interpreting the trailer wrong though. Should be more interesting than typical "The Civil War was a fight for equality and happiness and lollipops against the Evil South!"

(Not that there weren't real problems with the South.)

 

[RM918]

Ditto. Someone emailed me that earlier today and it's been bugging me all day.

I'm not shocked. A lot of people who harbor some sort of hatred for someone thinks absolutely nothing of using government force to make the other side miserable, no matter whether it's right or not.

 

[One Last Battle!]

Actually, the first black president was (arguably) Jefferson, but that is beside the point.

 

[JCLibertarian]

Ever since my survey research class in college, I'm pretty distrusting of many polls.

However, this is kind of embarrassing for Mississippi.

It certainly doesn't help the notion that they're the least educated state in the US.

I am skeptical as well. Penn and Teller did an episode on how public policy polling involves a lot of manipulation and what not.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Disgusting.

I would have expected this in 1911, but not 2011....


Now I'm gonna be going to bed all depressed. Bummer.

Ditto. Someone emailed me that earlier today and it's been bugging me all day.

Use it to your advantage.

Read the history, explain to people the only reason the state stuck it's filthy nose into marriages in the first place was to "ban" interracial marrying.

Makes it easier to say that the divides between us are too great and the country ought to split anyway.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Ever since my survey research class in college, I'm pretty distrusting of many polls.

I am distrusting of many polls as well. I am a math guy and I do get how you can ask 500 people a question and extrapolate that to 3 million people and it will be fairly accurate (as long as done correctly).

I usually check to see how the question was asked - though in this case it seems pretty straightforward.

 

[jmdrake]

I never really gotten a straight answer from the Lincolnites(many of whom are secular statist leftists) on where in the Constitution it prohibits secession or in the case of the North, where it allows the United States to wage war on another nation without a declaration of war. They always fall back on the slavery argument. When I tell them about the original 13th Amendment, and how Lincoln supported keeping slavery permanent in order to keep the South from seceding, they generally fall back on the might makes right argument, and that since the North won, secession is illegal on the premise of the military might of the federal government, which exposes their totalitarian nature. The Lincolnites, and by extension, the left wing, preach tolerance and openness, but unfortunately, everyone has to be subjugated by force to their brand of tolerance and openness.They ignore the fact America was founded on the principles of self-ownership and the consent of the governed and by extension secession.

*Yawn* BS. Lincoln supported emancipation by compensation which was the only constitutional way out of the impasse. He actually signed the D.C. compensated emancipation before the "emancipation proclamation" and the D.C. bill actually freed slaves. He made the same offer to the border states and that offer was rejected. Yes I'm familiar with the supposed constitutional amendment that had zero chance of passage or ratification and was thrown up as a hail Mary pass. But the slave owners weren't that stupid. The key to the civil war was the westward expansion of the U.S. and whether slavery was going to be allowed to expand with it or not. Should "free" states ever reach more than a two thirds majority, slavery was doomed regardless of what the constitution said. With a solid two thirds majority you could scrap the entire document and start over.

Oh, and just because I know history enough to be able to knock down neo-confederate revisionist history doesn't make me a "Lincolnite" or whatever other derogatory name you want to come up with. Lincoln clearly violated the constitution with his suspension of habeas corpus. That said he, he didn't set that precedence for the use of force or the threat of the use of force to put down rebellion. George Washington used force to put down the "whiskey rebellion" (and there cause was much more just than the confederacy) and Andrew Jackson used the threat of force against South Carolina in the nullification crisis. Interestingly enough, South Carolina won that fight, despite the fact that they had to stand alone. You see then the fight was only about tariffs (Jackson was a slaveowner himself and had no intention in restricting the growth of slavery), and hence it didn't arouse the same passions as the civil war ultimately did.

Of course Andrew Jackson gets the praise for killing the 2nd BOTUS and Lincoln gets all the blame for doing what Jackson threatened to do.

 

[jmdrake]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/civil.war.today/index.html?hpt=C1

Some Highlights:

The irony is that Rick Perry, Mr. Globalist himself, gets praise from some parts of the tea party for using the word "secession". So both sides play to emotion in order to squelch reason. South Carolina won it's nullification battle and they won it against a slave holding president in a fight not even closely related to slavery. For the life of me I don't understand why people ignore the nullification crises (a case where state power won, there was no loss of life and the waters are not muddied by slavery) and focus on the civil war (a case were state power lost there was massive loss life, and you have to torture reality to take slavery out of the picture).