Civil unrest article found!

Civil unrest article found!

Actually Paul, the maps do make a good point. The last civil war was largely an industrial vs. Agrarian conflict. At the time they were more defined as to region.
 
Civil unrest article found!

Originally posted by Darkwolf@Nov 11 2004, 12:13 AM
Actually Paul, the maps do make a good point. The last civil war was largely an industrial vs. Agrarian conflict. At the time they were more defined as to region.
​
Click to expand...

Plenty of farmers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Down East. Plenty of mechanics serving in the Confederacy.

Thank God there wasn't as much industry in the South, or we'd still be fighting that war today.

The conflict as far as I know was a complex one in which people sought out their differences and killed one another over them. In the end, they found that the greatest differences were between common people and irresponsible leaders (such as Grant and Jeff Davis) who were willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for political glory. Sound familiar?

The conflict then was about power over the States: which rich people should be able to exploit the West, and should some of them be able to use slaves to do it? Shouldn't we clamp down on this urge for upstart empires and fiefdoms, put them under centralized control? (e.g., the "republics" of California, Utah, Texas; the "nations" of the tribes; the gigantic cattle and railroad "empires"). Who's in charge, the States or the Federal government?

Is our government a single thing, or a conglomerate?

Can we consider ourselves a free people when a lot of us are slaves?

You can see that, from my point of view, the old Civil War was a vast, stupid waste, fought over supposed differences among the American people that were exploited for the advantage of the Establishment, which had North and South branches. Who paid for it?

Who paid with their lives? Slaveholders? Rich people? Politicians? I guess a few of these, but if you put all of them together in one place, they probably wouldn't add up to a single regiment.
 
Civil unrest article found!

About the Civil War maps:

A specious comparison. I doubt that you'd be able to get Cary (or me) to start thinking of the Old Confederacy as the enemy in this conflict.

The country has been divided along the lines of urban/rural since its inception; and along the shifting line that kept moving West for 300 years. I know people all over the interior; I know people in Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico who live in the countryside and wouldn't vote Republican at gunpoint.

Let's stop trying to find ways to split the country up. Leave that for those who gain politically from divisiveness.
Click to expand...

Thank you Paul for these comments. I agree 100%. It just does no good to try and draw comparisons that are only there if we tweak history to fit pre-conceived ideas. The South lost an awful lot in the Civil War. They have, pretty much, moved beyond it (though I am sure you can find a few people who are still harboring that old grudge if you want.) Let's move on as well.
 
Civil unrest article found!

The way I was taught to look at the Civil War was allong the lines of representation. The same way that we fought for our representation in the American Revolution, I believe that it was the same issue in the Civil War. The South felt that they did not have any representation in the gov't at the time. Lincoln had full control of the gov't similar to how Bush has control right now. Not having representation in a gov't that is supposed to be a republic is, in my opinion, the reason for revolution and/or secession. History is a precedent. All that has to happen is for a solid group to decide they are not represented in our gov't. I don't necessarily believe that this is what will happen in our country, I can see a military-lockdown, chaotic civil war more likely than a secession, but those are just my thoughts.
 
Civil unrest article found!

Originally posted by sinister@Nov 11 2004, 09:20 PM
The way I was taught to look at the Civil War was allong the lines of representation. The same way that we fought for our representation in the American Revolution, I believe that it was the same issue in the Civil War. The South felt that they did not have any representation in the gov't at the time. Lincoln had full control of the gov't similar to how Bush has control right now. Not having representation in a gov't that is supposed to be a republic is, in my opinion, the reason for revolution and/or secession. History is a precedent. All that has to happen is for a solid group to decide they are not represented in our gov't. I don't necessarily believe that this is what will happen in our country, I can see a military-lockdown, chaotic civil war more likely than a secession, but those are just my thoughts.
​
Click to expand...

The South did feel shut out of the federal government, and Lincoln's election was the last straw, because the South knew that he would stop its economic expansion. The causes of that war, as I have said, were quite complex and many. The situation now at hand, however, is even much more complicated. In the first place, the "moral" issues are quite unclear-- is the "right wing" against all sin, or just sex? It's hard to tell, and apparently war, lying, and theft are all OK. Besides which, how do you have a war over abortion or gay marriage?

When the government begins to invade its own citizens-- when they become the enemy, so-called-- things will be much clearer. I doubt the feds could withstand the anger of their current power base.
 
Civil unrest article found!

Originally posted by pauli@Nov 11 2004, 07:43 AM
... It just does no good to try and draw comparisons that are only there if we tweak history to fit pre-conceived ideas. The South lost an awful lot in the Civil War. They have, pretty much, moved beyond it (though I am sure you can find a few people who are still harboring that old grudge if you want.) Let's move on as well.
​
Click to expand...


And the grudges that last the longest are the ones within the family. Part of the reason desegregation took so long was the refusal of some to go into the future.

I wish we wouldn't draw any comparisons between the current conflict and the old Civil War; but you can see why war per se does no one any good but the profiteers, who walk a fine line. They must sustain the conflict long enough to make peace impossible without having the fighting get out of hand and blow everybody up. Kissinger was the genius at that. Eisenhower was just about the only one in recent times who recognized the evil.

That was 50 years ago.
 
Civil unrest article found!

I wasn't sure exactly where to put this:

:
Link and photo (WARNING - GRAPHIC PHOTO BELOW):

Man sets himself on fire outside White House - AP

By Associated Press
Monday, November 15, 2004

WHITE HOUSE - A man has apparently tried to set himself on fire outside the White House fence.

Witnesses say the incident took place outside the Northwest gate. Uniformed Secret Service agents were seen rushing to surround the man, who had graying hair and glasses. He was heard screaming in pain.

TV cameras captured the aftermath. Smoke hung in the air around the man as paramedics rushed to provide aid. The man appeared to be clutching his hand in pain, but it's unclear how serious his burns are.


http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view...articleid=54221


Edit: Removed offensive remark.
 

Top