Freedom To Fascism

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Reconstruction was ugly for everyone involved and the post-War treatment of the South is, I believe, a primary cause of the animosity today between Southerners and Yankees.

You learn something new every day! I thought the animosity was actually (90%) jesting, with some play on current political divergence.


I tend to come closer to your side of the story, as it is more nuanced and fits better with my limited understanding of politics. More as a curious thought: Do you think also the placement of the capital and congress proportions (even term limits?) had any effect on the decision to secede through want of power to influence, rather than a constitutional structure error? I remember reading about the situation during the Lewis and Clark expedition, with Virginian plantations and coming expansion, sort of hints of some interests.

I need to read up more on this... some day.

[jasonglh]

Originally Posted by Martin

I am a little confused on what you learn in school in the US. After talking to Roycroft on Skype previously, it appears most teaching is a recital of events and no discussion around it, for example the circumstances surrounding the writing of the constitution.

Martin I have a varied experience with learning history at school. Most of it has been this is the way it is and I don't remember any critical thinking until I started Nursing school. Most people are not prepared for critical thinking they need things spelled out for them.

During the 1978-80 time frame I was in 2-3rd grades in Birmingham Alabama. I remember in 3rd grade we learned about the history of the State of Alabama from the beginning to present time.

1981 for 4th grade I was in public school in Kentucky and instruction of history was recital of events and no discussion.

1982-1985 5-8th grades I was at a private Catholic school where my 8th grade class graduated 9 people. It was not until 7th grade we learned about the history of Kentucky. I was probably at a high school level understanding of historic events. Some teachers who were knowledgeable in history were open for debate and I remember my 5th grade teacher as the best teacher I ever had. My interest in history is mainly due to her.

1986-1989 I was at a public high school grades 9-12th with around 1200 students. It was a giant step backward for me in learning. I made bad grades and got in trouble mainly due to boredom. I was relearning the same material at a much much slower rate and I did not want to be there. High school at the time required only a World Civilization class (world history in 1 year of instruction) and a US history course (again covered in a years time). I'm pretty certain 90% of my Catholic school classmates could have tested out of that wasteful 4 years of high school.

I got my Associate Degree from the community college here and took 2 US history classes as my electives for my Associate Degree Nursing. The classes were split from beginning of the 13 Colonies - the lead up to the Civil War and Civil War- present day. I had a good community college teacher as well. He has his Doctorate in History and has written several books about the State of Kentucky History.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Martin

You learn something new every day! I thought the animosity was actually (90%) humoring, with some play on current political divergence.
......
I need to read up more on this... some day.

It is interesting to note that other than Sherman's march from Atlanta to the sea and then up through the Carolinas and the Shennandoah Valley Campaigns by both sides the majority of land mass of the south was untouched by the War. The land and people were hit hard due to shortages of material and manpower but the average southerner did not see a Yankee.

It was under reconstruction that the average Southerner saw the "Yankee Government" for the first time. And the "animosity" has become something of a cultural icon.

But look to the Missouri/Kansas area of the war. That areas saw much more conflict at the local level. Much more "bad blood" between sides and some real hate. Real nasty stuff, and yet you do not find the level of animosity today that you will in GA, AL, SC and NC.

Again the above is a simple version of facts.

Sherman's Army covered a 60 mile +/- front in two general wings as it advanced with foragers stealing everything they could lay hands on for miles around in every direction. Animals were colllected from farms and towns then slaughtered just so Southern forces could not use them.

The War between the States was very different based on location, which side you were on and what year and season it was. If you notice the guys here are staying real general in the replies. People who throw out one "fact" and say "This is the way it was" are generally pushing an agenda.

Pete

Edited for a few facts - On Feb 1, 1865 Gen Sherman had reduced his ranks to 60,079 officers and men. For the march to the Sea he reduced his baggage train to 2,500 wagons pulled by six mules each, 600 ambulances with two horses each and 68 field pieces with eight horses each. He departed with "an ample supply of ammunition for a great battle" but only 7 days forage, 20 days hard bread, coffee, sugar and salt plus some beef cows. Each wing stretched for 10 miles on good roads so whenever possible each of the four Corps marched by it's own route. Kilpatrick's Cavalry was used to screen the main columns. All in all it was a great undertaking.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

...and eliminating Constitutional rights to the States they forcibly retained in the Union.

TR

I believe the argument was that the original 13 colonies probably possessed the right of succession since they were wholly owned “corporations” prior to ratification of the Constitution. Subsequent territories (the future states) were purchased with the “blood and treasure” of the total union of states. Perhaps these states and territories could have bought their “freedom” from the union…sort of like indentured statehood.

Pat

Originally Posted by jasonglh

I got my Associate Degree from the community college here and took 2 US history classes as my electives for my Associate Degree Nursing. The classes were split from beginning of the 13 Colonies - the lead up to the Civil War and Civil War- present day. I had a good community college teacher as well. He has his Doctorate in History and has written several books about the State of Kentucky History.

I take this to mean you got a balanced presentation and chance to ask contrary questions?

Pete and everybody, thanks.

[Warrior-Mentor]

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. I.
Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States


Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

By my count, the right to tax was imposed by the Constitution.

Digressing, why don't we have a FIXED TAX RATE, instead of the current graduated?

Why shouldthe Rich pay more, percentage wise than the poor?

Shouldn't we all pay the same %?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pete

It is interesting to note that other than Sherman's march from Atlanta to the sea and then up through the Carolinas and the Shennandoah Valley Campaigns by both sides the majority of land mass of the south was untouched by the War. The land and people were hit hard due to shortages of material and manpower but the average southerner did not see a Yankee.

Pete:

No looking to quibble, but the home territory of virtually every state of the Confereracy was touched significantly by Union troops before the end of the war, starting with the Federal installations in the South that remained intact, like Fort Monroe, Norfolk, the Keys, etc., those that were quickly subject to early Union invasion like the border states of Kentucky and Missouri, as well as the remaining states such as Tennessee, Missisippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, etc. Once the Mississippi fell, all of the adjacent states had the majority of their commerce controlled by the Federals.

Virtually the only states not quickly invaded or partially occupied were the interior states of South Carolina and Georgia, and they were subject to a naval blockade, as well as partisan activity.

Agree that border states Like Missouri, Kansas, and Kentucky had feelings running the strongest and got the most personal, IMHO due to the guerrillas and partisans attacking opposing civilian targets. The Federal imprisonment (and subsequent death) of familiy members of Confederate Missourians and the raid by Confederate partisans on Lawrence, Kansas remain hot topics today.

Martin, one of the primary causes of the War was the delicate proportion of industrial non-slave states to the agrarian slave holding states.

The free states were going to be little affected by the emancipation, but in the slave states, there were going to be major problems. The Southern states were concerned about tyranny of the majority in Congress, where a free state majority would have been able to Federally pass emancipation, taxes on cotton and other agricultural products, etc., which impacted severely on the rights of the Southern states to choose their own destiny and possibly to remain solvent. Hence the battle over states rights where the individual states were responsible for policies within their borders, and the Federal government was responsible only for interstate and international laws and regulations.

If you do some reading, the admission of Kansas in January 29, 1861 as a free state tipped the balance toward secession, the further secession of West Virginia from Virginia, quickly followed by their admission to the Union and the admission of Nevada later during the War, both as free states, sealed the political end of the slave holding states, less the possibility of a Confererate victory.

The curious thing was that several of the Confederate states had considered outlawing slavery, as had the Confederate government. The biggest issue was how to continue to economically produce labor intensive products and what to do with the slaves after emancipation were the primary unresolved issues. Most of the upper Confederate states had relatively small slave populations, mostly concentrated on plantations along the major waterways. States like NC, which had relatively few slaves, took a long time considering whether to secede or not, and only did so ultimately because of their belief in states' rights and the fact that most of their neighboring states had already seceded. In some states, like SC and Mississippi, slaves actually outnumbered the non-slave population. Most Southern states had areas of Union loyalists which obstructed, if not actively opposed the Confederacy, such as the western part of NC.

Today's public schools largely gloss over these details in favor of the summary which I gave earlier, unless it is to mention the action of some special person.

The SCV, the GAR, and other veterans groups promote the better education of schoolchildren on the details of the War, which ultimately changed America.

Here is a link with some of the more impressive casualty figures for the War.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

Hope this helps.

TR

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by PSM

I believe the argument was that the original 13 colonies probably possessed the right of succession since they were wholly owned “corporations” prior to ratification of the Constitution. Subsequent territories (the future states) were purchased with the “blood and treasure” of the total union of states. Perhaps these states and territories could have bought their “freedom” from the union…sort of like indentured statehood.

Pat

Then of the 13 original colonies, why were:

#4 Georgia January 2, 1788
#8 South Carolina May 23, 1788
#10 Virginia June 25, 1788
#12 North Carolina November 21, 1789

not allowed to secede?

TR

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

If you do some reading, the admission of Kansas in January 29, 1861 as a free state tipped the balance toward secession, the further secession of West Virginia from Virginia, quickly followed by their admission to the Union and the admission of Nevada later during the War, both as free states, sealed the political end of the slave holding states, less the possibility of a Confererate victory.

further, if you look into the admission of Nevada in 1864, two elements were at play...reelecting Lincoln and a supply of cash (silver, from the Comstock Lode)v to help continue the war effort...shortly after the War of Northern Aggression, many in Congress wanted to strip statehood from Nevada, as population levels (probably exaggerated during the WNA) had dipped well below the requisite levels for admission to the Union...

[PSM]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Then of the 13 original colonies, why were:

#4 Georgia January 2, 1788
#8 South Carolina May 23, 1788
#10 Virginia June 25, 1788
#12 North Carolina November 21, 1789

not allowed to secede?

TR

Would they have? And, it reverses my "indentured statehood" dilemma. It would seem that they might have argued that they deserved a refund on their investment.

Pat

[sg1987]

Man, you guys are just killing the ignorant Southerner stereotype….

[jasonglh]

Originally Posted by Martin

I take this to mean you got a balanced presentation and chance to ask contrary questions?

Pete and everybody, thanks.

Definitely. Before that we learned X happened on X date. For instance before college I knew WWII began when Pearl harbor was attacked on Dec 7, 1941. During my college course we learned about the events leading up to the attack. While he did not condone what the Japanese did he did explain why they felt the need to attack when they did.

[Sionnach]

Peregrino, TR, et. al, thanks for stepping in and educating our non-Southern neighbors concerning the War of Secession. I found it interesting the the US supported Macedonia's right to secede from Yugoslovia, but fought like hell to keep the South from doing the same. Just stirrin' the puddin'

Getting back to the Tax discussion:

Have any of you examined John Linder's "Fair Tax" bill? I've done my homework, read him and Boortz's book, check out the arguments for and against the bill, and I think it's the most incredible piece of tax legislation put forth since the 16th Amendment. What are your thoughts?

www.fairtax.org

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by PSM

Would they have? And, it reverses my "indentured statehood" dilemma. It would seem that they might have argued that they deserved a refund on their investment.

Pat

Well in case you missed the news flash, all four of those states' elected representative bodies voted to secede, and were treated just like the rest of the Confederate states.

Clearly, their former status as original colonies and as taxpayers meant nothing more than any other rebellious state.

TR

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by jasonglh

Definitely. Before that we learned X happened on X date. For instance before college I knew WWII began when Pearl harbor was attacked on Dec 7, 1941. During my college course we learned about the events leading up to the attack. While he did not condone what the Japanese did he did explain why they felt the need to attack when they did.

Now now! If you're going to pretend to an education, you've got to be a little more worldly. Yes, the US declared war against the Axis (two seperate declarations) following Pearl Harbor. However, WWII had been going on for a while before that. The US (overtly) joined the fight "fashionably late". Ask the Chinese or Koreans when the war with Japan started. I'm sure our European friends would give you an earlier start date for the war against Germany too. Peregrino