Has the time come for a revived CSA?

[MrFun]

Let's take an example of glorification that distorts the history of the Civil:

Northern glorification: From the beginning, the Union set out to liberate blacks from slavery and through Reconstruction, sought to give them equal citizenship.

This over simplification ignores the fact that racism was prevalent among Union soldiers.
That the Northern states were hypocritical after the Civil War -- they were much more gun-ho about enfranchising blacks in the defeated Southern states, but were more reluctant to give Northern blacks, Chinese, and Amerindians the franchise.
Or, that there were some Reconstruction state government office holders in Southern military districts and states who were either corrupt or incompetent.
Or how about that white Northerners after Reconstruction embraced white supremacy to reconcile with white Southerners on the South's terms of Jim Crow?
Of course, there are positive examples as well: black soldiers serving in the Union army; well-meaning, competent Northern office holders in the South during Reconstruction; and white Northerners who protested the "Lost Cause" reconciliation.


Southern glorification: The Southerners who favored secession never seceded over the issue of slavery; it was over the issue of states' rights. The Ku Klux Klan during early Reconstruction was an organization that was necessary to protect white women and children. Reconstruction was an undemocratic era of bayonet rule.

This oversimplification ignores the fact that the issue of slavery constantly emerged, and resurfaced throughout the history of antebellum America.
It also ignores the atrocities that the Ku Klux Klan committed, and that it became a racist, terrorist organization for the Democratic party.
It also ignores the facts on how Reconstruction failed -- it failed for TWO main reasons -- one, the corruption and/or incompetence of SOME of the Reconstruction office holders, and two, the wave of racial and political terrorism that violently suppressed Republican voting.

Of course, there are some small truths: a small minority of blacks were faithful slaves who were weary of the Union army.
There were some inccomptent, and/or corrupt Reconstruction office holders, as mentioned already, but not all were.
Northern states were unfairly pushing for immediate racial equality in the South, but were hypocritical by stalling the same development in their own Northern states.



These are examples of how Northern or Southern simplifications of this history still reveberates today, in that we are still struggling with race relations.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by PLATO


Where have I glorified the South's methods? Of course I will definately glorify the underlying motive...Strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. The centralizing of the Federal Government and the stripping of the States power was never intended by the founding fathers. Your education is sooo based on the "victors write the history books" mentality. I am old enough to remember stories being told by aunts and uncles whose parents lived through it. They were there...no theories...no revisionist Yankee histories...They were there.

I'm not going to unquestionably take first-hand accounts from those who lived through it.
Part of doing scholarly historical studies, is trying to objectively determine what part of first-hand accounts are based on fact, and what part of first-hand accounts is based on the ideologica/political agenda for those particular people at that time period.

I'm not going to take the extreme ideological rhetoric of abolitionists as complete, unquestionable facts -- just as I'm not going to take the extreme ideological rhetoric of white Southern Confederates as complete, unquestionable facts.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MrFun


Who died and made you Queen of Obnoxiousness.

Shut up, gay-spock.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by TCO


Shut up, gay-spock.

Um -- that is Empress Gay Spock.




And I see that no one is interested in this discussion anymore, so does this mean we have a cease-fire?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Another northern misconception. So many...so little time...

Its all based on what figures one uses:
http://niip.wsu.edu/unitedstates/comuspdf/rycpcius.pdf

Top 10 States per PCI in 2001:
1. Connecticutt (DC comes here) 2 Massachussets 3. New Jersey 4 New York 5 Maryland (the south's sole addition) 6 New hampshire 7 Colorado 8 Minnesota 9 Illinois 10 California.

Bottom 10 in 2001:
41. South Carolina 42. Idaho 43. Alabama 44. Lousiana 45. Montana 46. Utah 467 New mexico 48. West virginia 49. Arkansas 50. Mississippi

Now, perhaps time for you to look at those figures you gave, cause there must be something very wrong with them.

In addition, all those in the bottom 10 have PCI $5000 or more less than the national average, white the top ten varied greatly, with Cali being only $1000 above national average, NY $5000 above, and Conneticutt $10k above national average.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Its all based on what figures one uses:
http://niip.wsu.edu/unitedstates/comuspdf/rycpcius.pdf

Top 10 States per PCI in 2001:
1. Connecticutt (DC comes here) 2 Massachussets 3. New Jersey 4 New York 5 Maryland (the south's sole addition) 6 New hampshire 7 Colorado 8 Minnesota 9 Illinois 10 California.

Bottom 10 in 2001:
41. South Carolina 42. Idaho 43. Alabama 44. Lousiana 45. Montana 46. Utah 467 New mexico 48. West virginia 49. Arkansas 50. Mississippi

Now, perhaps time for you to look at those figures you gave, cause there must be something very wrong with them.

In addition, all those in the bottom 10 have PCI $5000 or more less than the national average, white the top ten varied greatly, with Cali being only $1000 above national average, NY $5000 above, and Conneticutt $10k above national average.

I did think that they were a bit unusual, but mine are from the census bureau. Should have posted the link. I will see if I can find it.

However a link between GDP and PCI does not necisarrily follow. Production and consumption can occur in two different locales. Maybe we just make the stuff and you guys use it. So where would you be without us then?

[GePap]

I am sorry, but how could the south be leading in GPD while at the same time on average having per capita incomes 75% of national average? Thats imply does not compute- we need elfreako or some competent economist to come and talk about it.

People get paid for producing, not consuming. If people in NY are making a lot more, either they are making more or what they make is worth more.

[GePap]

And on balance of Federal Taxes for fiscal 2001:

http://www.ppinys.org/nybalpayments.htm

States that got less than they paid and how much less:
California: 58 billion
New York: 39.5 billion
Illinois: 25 Billion
New Jersey: 23 billion
Texas: 13 billion (only state to vote Bush)
Michigan: 11.7 billion
Massachussets: 11.5 billion
Connecticutt: 11 billion
Washington: 9.4 billion
Wisconsin: 5.6 billion

States that got more then they paid, and how much more:
Virginia: 21.9 billion
Alabama: 10.7 billion
Maryland: 9 billion
Mississippi: 8.9 billion
New Mexico: 8.6 billion
Oklahoma: 7 billion
Kentucky: 6.7 billion
Tennessee: 5.7 billion
South Carolina: 5.2 billion
West Virginia: 5.2 billion

Do we see a pattern? So what I said happens to be 100% correct.

[GePap]

So if the states in the Northeast and Cali did not have to export money due to the Federal system, none of them would have had budget deficits statewide these last few years. In fact, they could have fully funded their budgets and ghiven tax cuts to citizens.

[DinoDoc]

Interesting. I was always more inclined to blame poor fiscal management.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Interesting. I was always more inclined to blame poor fiscal management.

Well, we could affrod our fiscal missmanagement if we did not need to export so much money.

As for fiscal missmanagement- the south is getting billions a year and they are still so much poorer-where is that moeny going?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
As for fiscal missmanagement-...

I'm not the one whining about other regions stealing our money. Pick another target for that. Though I did like the retort about affording your mismanagement if only...

[GePap]

I would be glad for the south to break off- as I said earlier, you get better returns on international investments than you do simply sending of money in the form of federal taxes.

I just want this to be made clear to anyone: No one here can ever say "well, my tax dolars are paying for them NYC welfare mothers", or "my tax dollars are paying for all those liberal programs" without me going BS on them becuase the liberal states for the most part also happen to be the rich states.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then y'all yankee liberals wouldn't mind devolving all those programs to the state level where they belong and limiting the Federal government to it's proper constitutional role, now would y'all?

"We are a band of brothers, native to the soil..."

[GePap]

Thats the thing: the people complaining most about the Feds are the ones benefitting the most: what kind of weirdos are you? We libs are willing to pay, and the southern boys take the money, but then complain about their taxes?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, tomorrow or any coming morning, all those carpetbaggers can just point themselves to where the sun's off their right shoulder, and head that way and keep on goin'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then y'all yankee liberals wouldn't mind devolving all those programs to the state level where they belong and limiting the Federal government to it's proper constitutional role, now would y'all?

"We are a band of brothers, native to the soil..."

Actually, MtG, I have no frickin' idea how you or anyone like you who believes in States Rights could possibly support the Democrat Party.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
I have no frickin' idea how you or anyone like you who believes in States Rights could possibly support the Democrat Party.

His family would kill him if they caught him voting for Republicans. There's a reason why people why Zell Miller still exist.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
"We are a band of brothers, native to the soil..."

Indeed

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap
And on balance of Federal Taxes for fiscal 2001:

http://www.ppinys.org/nybalpayments.htm

States that got less than they paid and how much less:
California: 58 billion
New York: 39.5 billion
Illinois: 25 Billion
New Jersey: 23 billion
Texas: 13 billion (only state to vote Bush)
Michigan: 11.7 billion
Massachussets: 11.5 billion
Connecticutt: 11 billion
Washington: 9.4 billion
Wisconsin: 5.6 billion

States that got more then they paid, and how much more:
Virginia: 21.9 billion
Alabama: 10.7 billion
Maryland: 9 billion
Mississippi: 8.9 billion
New Mexico: 8.6 billion
Oklahoma: 7 billion
Kentucky: 6.7 billion
Tennessee: 5.7 billion
South Carolina: 5.2 billion
West Virginia: 5.2 billion

Do we see a pattern? So what I said happens to be 100% correct.

Oh darn! You beat me to it! You know what's really funny? When I was a hot headed teenaged liberal in 1968 and then interested in accumulating such facts in order to argue with my pro-Wallace classmates the list of which states gave more than they received and which ones got more than they gave was just about the same! I think the list includes total federal expenditures in the state, not just entitlements. Virginia has the Pentagon, Quantico, and the Norfolk Navy Yards largely to thank for its whopping lead as recipient of Federalis' largess.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the list includes total federal expenditures in the state, not just entitlements. Virginia has the Pentagon, Quantico, and the Norfolk Navy Yards largely to thank for its whopping lead as recipient of Federalis' largess.

That's probably why Maryland is high on that list too.

[Cyclotron]

58 billion? No wonder we're in such damn debt.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I think the list includes total federal expenditures in the state, not just entitlements. Virginia has the Pentagon, Quantico, and the Norfolk Navy Yards largely to thank for its whopping lead as recipient of Federalis' largess.

That's probably why Maryland is high on that list too.

Don't forget we're the also sight of the triple-plus good, ultra-secret umti-billion dollar secret CIA headquarters located right off of Interstate 95 in Arlington. Would you like a map?

Ssshhhhhh. Don't tell anyone I told you. It'll be our little secret.

[Ramo]

RAMO, you are not being intellectually honest here. Powell was closer in actuality because he was way ahead in the polls when he pulled out.

On the contrary, you're being intellectually dishonest. The facts are that Powell could win either a Democratic or Republican nomination under the right circumstances - and I'd bet he'd make a better showing among Democrats. The facts are that Powell never ran for the Republican nomination, he just toyed with the idea for a while. The facts are that after the entire nomination process, not just in a couple polls before the campaigns even got under, Jackson finished 2nd to Dukakis. Your claim that blacks have been closer to the Republican nomination than the Democratic nomination is pure horse manure.

[Ned]

Ramo, I seriously doubt that Powell could have captured the Democrat nomination after annoucing that he was a Republican. Look at the problems that Clark is having.

I never said he announced that he was running for the nomination. I said exactly what you said about the sequence of events. But the critical issue is this:

Powell is black. At the time he withdrew his name from consideration, he was well ahead in the polls for the Republican nomination. This is closer than any black Democrat has gotten to his party's nomination.

Further, the Democrats have never appointed any black to any key cabinent posts such as State, Defense or Attorney General. Republicans have.

[Ramo]

Ramo, I seriously doubt that Powell could have captured the Democrat nomination after annoucing that he was a Republican. Look at the problems that Clark is having.

That's because there's actually a small-d democrat in the democratic primary. Powell could've schooled Gore in the 2000 primary if he wanted to. Look at how much Democrats love him.

Powell is black. At the time he withdrew his name from consideration, he was well ahead in the polls for the Republican nomination. This is closer than any black Democrat has gotten to his party's nomination.

The key difference is that the campaigns didn't start at the time, and there were no strong candidates in the '96 primary. BTW, I'd like to see one of these polls. Do you have a link?

And Kerry was the front-runner pre-campaign, now he's totally ****ed. The same with Lieberman to a lesser extent. Initial polls don't tell you who's going to win the primary.

Further, the Democrats have never appointed any black to any key cabinent posts such as State, Defense or Attorney General. Republicans have.

And who exactly were the black Attorney General and the black Secretary of Defense?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Oh darn! You beat me to it! You know what's really funny? When I was a hot headed teenaged liberal in 1968 and then interested in accumulating such facts in order to argue with my pro-Wallace classmates the list of which states gave more than they received and which ones got more than they gave was just about the same! I think the list includes total federal expenditures in the state, not just entitlements. Virginia has the Pentagon, Quantico, and the Norfolk Navy Yards largely to thank for its whopping lead as recipient of Federalis' largess.

Then one asks themsleves about the rest iof the states beyond Virginia and maryland. Sorry, but the inequality in spending does not match- how many major military installations are in California?
The resulst are simple, and once you look at both sets of numbers it is clear-the northern states are richer-they pay out more in Federal taxes period and this money goes to where the need is, and interestingly, the poor states is where the need is. My problem is tno that this system exists, but that ungratefull southeners, who recieve very large benefits from the redistribution of national wealth act as if they were loosing out in the system. If the south wants to proetcts its "values", fine, do it. Just don;'t expect the money you get from the richer states.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
ungratefull southeners

Who do you think you are? Kiss my a$$. Do you expect some kind of homeage?

Keep your freaking money.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Who do you think you are? Kiss my a$$. Do you expect some kind of homeage?

Keep your freaking money.

We would if we could, but then all those senators you guys put in office would trhow a hissy fit. Next time elect people who aren't so pork driven.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


We would if we could, but then all those senators you guys put in office would trhow a hissy fit. Next time elect people who aren't so pork driven.

We're trying...We're trying.

I don't mind your point, but that "ungrateul Southeners" is rather condecending. Why should we be grateful? Just look back through this thread for what the northern opinion of the South is. For the most part it is ill-informed and totally incorrect...using decades old stereotypes to draw conclusions for today.

Your point on redistribution of wealth is well taken. The so called "rich northern states" have more population and therefore control more congressional votes. Maybe you guys shouldelect someone different.