Citizen's United II - the other foot

[kandrathe]

Well, there are those five years as president of the United States. We don't need to guess anymore. It's not 2008.

Yes, you are right. Ostensibly, Obama was an author before he went into politics. "Dreams of My Father" is a pretty well written book. I'd like to know what he wrote before it.

Deep down? He was, quite literally, cosplaying the confederacy. And that was in the last few years, not in some distant, misguided youth.

Is that unusual? It's pretty well known that this happens. Nor, would he be unusual as a Southern White person to support Confederate Leaders. Is it worthwhile to attempt understand those 52% of Southern White people, even when our beliefs are different? However, that history will never be undone. I can see where there would be fear in even revisiting this history in giving the racists new ammo for their cause.

I can only reiterate that I hate Mark Penn. But there's shady strategy, and there's the belief that the wrong side won the Civil War. This gap appears enormous to me.

You know how I stand on ANY war. It would not have been glorious for Lee to have marched through New York either. I just would ask, "How long could slavery have lasted in the South without the war?" and "What would a political reconciliation without a war have looked like?"

I suspect he's exactly like his father - not a racist per se, but someone whose support base, and even some close advisors, contain racists, sexists, homophobes, neo-confederates, and yes, even white supremacists. And who downplays or ignores, rather than actively confronts, this rather substantial fact.

I'm not sure how we'd stamp out the David Dukes of this world. In that they've chosen the lesser of evils from their perspective, I can't fault a candidate who has otherwise sound principles for the support of some scoundrels, and racists. There are many reasons why LP positions are attractive to that extreme element; 1) individual liberty 2) against foreign aid 3) less powerful federal government 4) military only for defense of the US -- And probably see it as a way to lock in the status quo which favors the current power structures. My position is more that the status quo is wrong, and federal legislation is needed to right some wrongs. That it is European power in the US was ultimately based upon the discovery doctrine (papal Bull 1452, Dum Diversas), and locked into US case law Johnson v. M'Intosh 1823 - it has dis-proportionally favored the conquerors and sanctioned abuses, like slavery.

The North began the war with an attack at Fort Sumter.

You mean... the SOUTH began the war with an attack at Fort Sumter, right? Fort Sumter was held by Union troops, not Confederates.

It was held by Union troops. It was in South Carolina. Maj. Anderson could have moved from Fort Moultrie north, but instead chose to occupy Fort Sumter. After four months of attempts to get the Union troops to leave peacfully, then South Carolina militia under Beauregard having exhausted negotiations with Maj. Anderson took the fort.

I don't believe any of this is historically plausible. It was abundantly clear that the South was not interested in any political path that led to the abolition of slavery, and had fought tooth and nail for a half-century to ensure that pro-slave states at least maintained the ability to filibuster. When it finally looked like there was a candidate who might actually accomplish abolition by political bargain, they went to war.

Went to war? Or chose to secede?

Now, tell me, in what universe are these slave states, who were willing to tear apart the United States and start the bloodiest war in the Americas, going to compromise, and just accept modest compensation and gradual abolition?

Why did every other European power eventually emancipate their slave colonies, and work to stop slave trading?

This is nothing more than a story that neo-Confederates tell themselves to somehow allay the obvious: that the slaveowners were not going to accept abolition, and were willing to fight to preserve slavery, not sovereignty.

Do they tell that story?

Every tyrant and terrorist has a sob story of how they and theirs were mistreated, and therefore, why it's perfectly okay, even necessary, to [shoot lincoln, crash planes into buildings, invade poland]. A victim myth is always part of the appeal.

In order for a squabble between individuals to escalate into a war, both sides need a reasonable cause to attract the opposing warriors. There are many "stories" between adversaries, and only the victors often gets written. I'm not a revisionist, only a seeker of truth. It requires a level of dispassion toward either sides cause. It was not as simple as Union vs Confederates, Confederates lost, the Union was right, and the Confederates were wrong.