Sunday, October 30, 2005

Lincoln's folly.

It seems to me Lincoln should have let the South go. What was so important that 600,000 soldiers had to die for? Is a political union with a bunch of fundamentalist racists really worth that much? And don't say slavery, because that wasn't the crux of the issue. The slaves were freed almost as an afterthought and Lincoln was perfectly willing to allow slavery in order to avoid the war. With the British juggernaut crusading against slavery, it would have probably been eliminated in the South by the late 19th century.

The South could have had its state-based confederacy and the North could have created a centralized country out of the remaining states. That would have avoided the federal-state conflicts that sprung up over time (mostly in the South again). The South could have had its faith-based compassionate-conservative wwjd politics, while the North could have concentrated on the socio-economic questions just as they had come to fore in Europe.

I don't know. It seems that there are two countries here, not one. Even the party system is broken. A Republican from the north-east is at least as liberal as a democrat from the south. Does anybody in the northeast or on the west coast really care about who does what with who and where as long as it hurts no one? What do I care if two dudes want to get married? Of course there are complete nutsos on the liberal side as well. Fur is murder, moral vegetarianism and the living earth stupidities are alive and well in the blue states. At least these groups are small enough to not even have much of an influence on local elections. How many of these guys are in congress? Now compare to the number of bible thumpers.. Now you get your relative distribution of power between the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives.

No wonder things like this pop up on the internet...

1 Comments:

Blogger E$ said...

Hearing this, one would think that there would be an exodus of people out of the Southern states. On the contrary, the South is growing, effectively at the expense of the Northeast. Is there something that people find attractive in Florida?

Seriously though, as far as I am concerned, the real value of the Southern states is economic, rather than political. Some of the most dynamic, powerful and important companies are based out of the South (Exxon, Berkshire Hathaway, Dell...), and it would seem that America would be much weaker, both militarily and economically had it not been united.

Imagine that the South were to secede today. Given that it produces the vast majority of American oil and natural gas, and is one of the few bright lights on the otherwise bleak manufacturing landscape (which you yourself attach much importance to), I don't see how the Northeast would be better off.

12:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home