Originally Posted By alexbook Just to be clear, I'm not saying the War Between the States wasn't about slavery. It was, and it was also about the nature of the union, and about economic domination, and cultural norms, and Westward expansion, and a bunch of other things as well. I think one of the biggest mistakes humans make is what Calvin Trillin calls "it-all-goes-back-to-ism." That's when we try to assert that there's a single cause for a major event or movement or change.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The frightening part in all this is that the republican party is willing to exploit the dregs of our own society for their own unrelated purposes. One of the great american political parties has become so corrupted by it's own lust for power that there's nothing NOTHING they will not say or do - no moral barrier that they won't sink below. << David Frum and Oklahoma's Tm Coburn seem to be two Republicans who get this, and have made attempts to raise the level of discourse. Though they have predictably been shouted down (or, in Frum's case, shown the door), they seem to be realizing that there is a danger to this constant whipping up of emotion over reason, of catering to mobs. It's amazing that the GOP has shifted so far right so fast, to the point that Barry Goldwater seems like a long-haired liberal and even Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass muster. (The idea of St. Ronald, sure, that's become a brand. But how the guy was? No way. Too many manners.)
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I think one of the biggest mistakes humans make is what Calvin Trillin calls "it-all-goes-back-to-ism." That's when we try to assert that there's a single cause for a major event or movement or change.<< I would agree with that, but some causes do carry more weight than others. Had slavery not been an issue would there have been a war?
Originally Posted By gadzuux In a way, it always comes down to the same thing - M-O-N-E-Y. The economics of these massive plantations - and the easy living for it's white owners - was only possible due to slave labor. Without the cheap plentiful labor, the plantations would quickly become economically unsustainable and the barons knew it. They were "pro-slavery" because it supported their comfy lifestyles of leisure.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox And if you closely at the labor practices of Massey Energy in West Virginia, you won't find any differences in attitude regarding "cheap plentiful labor" to exploit in the coal mines. Twenty-five dead, four more probably dead, stemming from thousands of safety violations in the past few years. Slavery is apparently illegal. But in reality, it's still being practiced through other legal channels.
Originally Posted By gadzuux They're creating new jobs in a tough economy! And here's your culprit right here - "Dick Stickler" - a bush 'appointee' - appointed because the guy couldn't even muster enough confirmation votes in the senate - even from the GOP controlled congress. From a wiki entry in 08/07 ... <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/15/mine-safety-czar-richard-_n_60581.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...581.html</a> >> President George W. Bush resorted to a recess appointment in October 2006 to anoint Richard Stickler as the nation's mine safety czar after it became clear he could not receive enough support even in a GOP-controlled Senate. In the wake of the January 2006 Sago mine disaster in West Virginia, senators from both sides of the aisle expressed concern that Stickler was not the right person to combat climbing death rates in the nation's mines. << They were right. But Bush believed in placing cronies from the industry into 'watchdog' positions. We see yet again how well that worked out.
Originally Posted By DAR <<massive plantations - and the easy living for it's white owners>> That just created the picture of how Warner Brothers would portray the plantation owner in their cartoons. Either Yosemite Sam or an equally short gentleman with white hair wearing an all white suit, saying to his dog "Oh Belvidere, come here boy."
Originally Posted By Mr X ***David Frum and Oklahoma's Tm Coburn seem to be two Republicans who get this, and have made attempts to raise the level of discourse.*** Frum, I dig. But don't think Coburn is one of the good guys, he's as nasty far right wing as they come (he helped cover up the Sessions mess, don't forget...he's one of the C-Street cult members all the way). His recent comments, seems to me, are nothing more than taking a gamble on the hysteria dying down soon and wanting to be first in line for the new "rational republicans" niche.
Originally Posted By hopemax Coburn is also probably trying to stake out some reasonable ground, since he's decided to block all future spending bills in the Senate that aren’t "paid for," ie the extension of unemployment benefits.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I would agree with that, but some causes do carry more weight than others. Had slavery not been an issue would there have been a war?<< Probably not, but you never know. In 1833, the U.S. Army and the South Carolina militia nearly went to war over Federal taxes that favored (Northern) manufacturing over (Southern) agribusiness. At the last minute, a compromise was reached, but it was close. (Check your encyclopedia under "Nullification" for details. It's a fascinating story.)
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11meacham.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04...ham.html</a> A fantastic editorial by Jon Meacham. It's a reminder that the America most conservatives believe in never existed. They claim to love their country the most but they know the least about it. Instead, an entire cottage industry of revisionist history friendly to conservatives and frequently fictitious has sprung up to give them ammo when dealing with less informed Americans.
