tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post673629361483677567..comments2024-01-15T20:15:13.053-08:00Comments on Saberpoint: Survival in a Post-American WorldStogiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05852841950131130696noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-2222274803155855152015-06-26T05:55:19.811-07:002015-06-26T05:55:19.811-07:00Stogie, if you have some specific ideas for how Mr...Stogie, if you have some specific ideas for how Mr. AOW and I can survive, please let me know. You have my email addy.Always On Watchhttp://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-91155994836960675632015-06-26T04:49:56.722-07:002015-06-26T04:49:56.722-07:00Stogie,
Your comments above are emblematic of the ...Stogie,<br />Your comments above are emblematic of the disillusionment - dare we say demoralization - of all kinds of Americans. Yes, we have significant differences. But. Divide and conquer. Don't people ever learn?<br /><br />Have included a link to your post on today's "eyes and ears".<br /><br />Glad to find your blog.<br />AlecAlechttp://alecsatin.com/about/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-37692244758369904012015-06-24T15:49:15.364-07:002015-06-24T15:49:15.364-07:00I don't think so, Stogie.
Huston argues tha...I don't think so, Stogie. <br /><br /><br />Huston argues that the South could only maintain slavery through tyrannical governmental coercion. Small-government Southern ideology is a ruse. Force and white supremacy is the only way slavery could be maintained. And slaves as property were unlike any form of inert property, which meant there was no way the North would acquiesce to the ideological enormity of the slave holding regime. <br /><br /><br />You keep arguing that the North was racist and that Northerners held slaves, and all that. Who denies it? These are straw men arguments just like Professor Livingston's. One thing Professor Huston points out is that the North was intent, through Congressional action, to regulate slavery and limit its expansion. The South's divergent system of property rights could only survive if that system was accepted in the North and it wasn't about to happen. Hence, the North had to resist Southern aggression. The ideological battle between the two sides was inevitable. Huston argues as well that the Southern economy was peripheral to Northern interests. So the North had no intent to invade the South for any kind of economic interest. It was Southern ideological aggression that sparked the conflict after the compromises of the 1850s saw the congressional balance over slavery break down. <br /><br /><br />Read the article, Stogie. Do a "fisking" like you did before. <br /><br /><br />Also, do you have any other articles I can read besides Livingston? Eugene Genovese was a Marxist, you know? And some argue that the South had to have slave socialism based on tyrannical power to survive. It's pretty interesting, don't you think?DonaldDouglasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-17544370941100400132015-06-24T15:17:50.742-07:002015-06-24T15:17:50.742-07:00I've already refuted it. More Yankee propagan...I've already refuted it. More Yankee propaganda.Stogie Chomperhttp://saberpoint.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-88328619772447654262015-06-24T14:21:58.144-07:002015-06-24T14:21:58.144-07:00Stogie, I have a new post up: "The South'...Stogie, I have a new post up: "The South's Ideological Aggression: Property Rights in Slavery and the Outbreak of the Civil War": http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-souths-ideological-aggression.html. Briefly quoted there, the main argument, is Professor James Huston's "Property Rights in Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War," from the Journal of Southern History.<br /><br /><br />Check it out. And have a good day!DonaldDouglasnoreply@blogger.com