Donald Douglas and I have had it out on the cause of the Civil War. We had a debate. I think I won pretty convincingly. However, that's not for me to decide, that's for you. Read the debate and decide for yourself. In any case, it is way past time we had these debates. I will continue my assault on the huge Northern lie about why they invaded the South in 1861-1865. Eventually, the truth will come out, though it may not be in the near future.
I am feeling rather radicalized today. Whenever I get like this, I am open to a paradigm shift -- a radical alteration to my current viewpoint. I think I am almost at that point today.
If this is America, I want out. You can have it.
My anger will smolder for a few days, then cool with the realization that America is over. Our freedoms are lost, and they aren't coming back. So, there is nothing to be gained by anger or depression. Perhaps the only thing left for us is acceptance of our fate.
Our goal now must be to find ways to survive in a post-American world. Voting Republican is futile. Voting Democratic is suicidal.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
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.
Check it out. And have a good day!
I've already refuted it. More Yankee propaganda.
I don't think so, Stogie.
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.
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.
Read the article, Stogie. Do a "fisking" like you did before.
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?
Stogie,
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?
Have included a link to your post on today's "eyes and ears".
Glad to find your blog.
Alec
Stogie, if you have some specific ideas for how Mr. AOW and I can survive, please let me know. You have my email addy.
Post a Comment