I dissagree Brian. For a couple of reasons. From a psychological stanpoint, you can stick two people with completely opposite views in the same prison cell with knives, and when they figure out it is futile they have no choice but to cooperate or both of them will kill each other.

This is partially why I hate the "two state solution", as it currently stands. All setting up walls and boarders does is allow the tribes to separate to collect power to continue to fight each other. That sectarian attitude is exactly what the founders sought to escape. It took everyone of them to come to the conclusion that what unites us isn't our differences, but what we have in common.

And I do not think we even have to do this. The red is fading long term, even 40% of Texans voted for Obama. Given time Texas will become purple and eventually lean blue. Trends and demographics are headed in our direction.

Pluss I cannot abandon those progressive pockets and leave them to the divices of the theocrats. Austin is an example of progress and to walk away from them would be abandoning them.

It would be nice if we could simply say "Go ahead Texas become a dark age theocracy", but if they did that, they would simply be like Palistinians lobbing rockets accross our boarders because we support diversitiy.

The rotting of theocracy is already taking place within and the internet is voiding the concept of boarders and as stated before, time and progress are headed in our direction.

I think we have time on our side and I do not want to allow them to have a nation they can hide behind boarders just so they can turn arround and attack us. Just like it is easier for a terrorist to attack us from beind boarders we don't control, it would be much harder for them to attack us under common law that already exists that maintains a ban on physical violence for any reason.

I don't think long term we have anything to worry about. I do think we are already winning and with enough pressure and ridicule they will eventually be forced to deal with the reality of change.

                      That's because if those peoples do not sucede they might just pack up and move to Canada; I have a problem with this because my wife, my daughters, my grandchildren do not have lilly white skin, which is more then OK in Canada but those racist right wingers might have them locked up in a concentration camp untill their ethnic background is established. They're only 95% caucasian, the irony is that I am only 75% caucasian.  "Thor bless America"!!  BUT stay out of Canada!!!!!!   

Only if you pay my moving expenses out of Jesusland.

 I have always been a firm believer that SCOTUS and Lincoln were on the wrong side and that states ought to have the right to secede. That being said, I don't think there is nearly enough support for any real talk of secession, just a few hysterical sore losers.

When I go to work on Friday being the only white guy in the kitchen, and the majority being black, I'll tell them you said that, better yet, come on down and tell them yourself.

I really do have to back off you, not because you are just flat out wrong, but you are a joke on top of that.

"Hey Abe, thanks for freeing the slaves and saving the union, you really fucked things up by doing that".

Whats next? "Hey Susan, the sexist male pigs have spoken, shut up and know your place"

I am glad you support gay marriage, that way you and Rush can get married.

I disagree. I don't know of a single state which is all blue or red. They don't own Texas any more than I own Florida.

In Texas there was roughly 41%? voting for Obama. Are you going to want all those people to move?

Also I disagree that any state should be allowed to leave the union as their state would owe a shit load of money to the national debt. The largest chunk of the money owed is by US and not China or Japan. If these states would be allowed to succeed then the other people would be left holding the bag.

I think it is a poor decision to sign the petitions.

*narrows eyes*

This is counter-productive, brother.

For one, my "red" state, and the one that currently has the most signatories on it's secession petition, voted 41% for Obama.  I among them.

If those that voted reflect the views of all Texans that didn't vote, that means about 10 and one half million pro-Obama Americans reside in this state that you are condemning.  I don't think those paltry 100,000 or so people clicking on that petition compares very favorably with those kinds of numbers.

Second of all, nothing will piss me off greater that the false Yankee perpetuated Southern stereotype of us being stupid, lazy, uneducated welfare bitches.

Allow me to break down these false stereotypes from my office in a Southern city that was proclaimed by Money magazine as the most educated city in the United States of America back in 2006.

First, let's start with the supposed IQ differences.  For one, IQ tests are generally controversial and disliked because certain minority groups tend to score lower than average on them.  Cultural bias or whatever, doesn't matter here why.  But it's been an observed fact forever.  Specifically Native American, Hispanics and African Americans tend to score lower on IQ tests.

So pulling up IQ based on states back in 2004 (first stats that popped up in google results) I see that the state at the very bottom of IQ is Mississippi.  Interesting.  Let's look up African-American population by state.  Let's see.  The state that has the highest percentage of African-Americans is...

wait for it...

Mississippi with 37.3% of their population being African American according to the 2010 census.  Which states are the next most populated by African Americans?  Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, well you get it.

My home state of Texas is 37.6 % hispanic, 11.8% African American, 0.7% Native American.

So is it the fact that us Southern States have more minorities that you are bagging on?  I'm sure that IQ tests run much higher in the "more diverse" non-southern states such as Maine and the surrounding New England states.  Speaking of Maine, let's check out how "diverse" that state is real quick...

98% Honkey.

Well, it's understandable that there aren't very many african-americans in Maine.  The underground railroad back during slave days of course started in the slave holding South.  But it didn't end in Northern states.  It ended in Canada.

Why?  Because Yankees didn't want darkies around out-competing them for their industrial sweat shop jobs.  Heck in Illinois it was a crime for an African American to move there even after the Civil War.  The Yankees would arrest you for being black in the land of Lincoln for that crime.  Of course, the ever so virtuous Yankee portions of the country never dealt with slavery.  It's not like there were slave auctions in D.C. or New York City.  Oh wait...

Yes, there were.  In fact the good ol' New England states had a speciality.  They dominated the slave trade.  Yankees en masse sailed across the ocean blue to transport and profit off of buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas.  New slaver ships were still being built in some New England states even at the outbreak of the Civil War.  Odd, since the trans-Atlantic slave trade had been illegalized for decades.

Well, whatever.

Ok, let's look at federal taxes versus federal assistance.  Pulled up this info from taxfoundation.org.  Looks like Texas was listed at number 35 at receiving 0.94 dollars back per 1.00 paid to the feds.  Which states got more money back per dollar taxed than Texas that reside above the Mason Dixon line?

West Virginia (which seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union during the American Civil War)

South Dakota

Maine

Maryland

Iowa

Vermont

Pennsylvania (Getting back 1.07 per 1.00 paid out in 2005.  Isn't that your state, Sap?)

Indiana

Ohio

Rhode Island (which broke even getting back just as much as they paid out)

Interesting to look at all the data.

Looking up the Federal Aid Jackpot for Fed Assistance in 2008 given out per capita it looks like the top 10 states (or Districts) were:

1)D.C.

2)Vermont

3)Alaska

4)New York

5)Massachusetts

6)Louisiana

7)Tennessee

8)Maine

9)New Mexico

10)Mississippi

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/the-federal-aid-jackpot-s_n_492411.html

Doesn't look like such a clear cut region of the country getting paid, does it?

Oh, I've seen all the spittle fly out of Yankee mouths blaming Texas for GW Bush.  Well, down here in the South we are all about heritage.  Mine, for example, has been residing in southern states starting from the1600s up to the 1780's before everyone got over here from Europe.  All branches of them.  During the revolutionary war, war of 1812, Civil War, and so on, all my ancestors were good ol' Southerners.

What is GW's heritage?  Well he was born in Connecticut.  Let's look up his family tree!  They always have the ancestory online for past American Presidents.

Hrmmm...Really top notch Yankee heritage.  Quite illustrious.

Looks like Bush Sr moved the fam down here to Texas to hop on the ol' Crude Oil gravy train.  I sure as hell remember reading about GW working as a wildcatter.

We have a word down here for Yankees that come south to exploit our resources.

We call them carpetbaggers.  GW ain't no Southerner.  Pure blood Yankee.

Of course us dumb Southerners probably don't know wut we're talkin' 'bouts.  I onlys tested at 141 in mys IQ back in 6th grade.  My'un bother though, he ain't quite so dumb as me.  He got 151.

As retarded as my Southern intellect is I only achieved a Bachelors in Science in my education.  Unlike my brother who has both an MBA and a law degree.  Or my parents with their Masters degrees.  Or my aunt with her Masters.  Or my other aunt with her Doctorate.  Or, oh well you get it.

I'm the least educated out of all of 'em.

But there's always at least one especially dumb one out of the group now ain't there?

I believe that slavery could have and would have ended much less violently (as it did in pretty much every other modernized country). I don't believe it was necessary to push our country to the point that nearly three quarters of a million people died- most of whom never owned a slave in their life. Two wrongs do not make a right. 

The women's suffrage movement is a good example how such deeply ingrained bigotry can be ended without killing people. Another man by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. showed us how peaceful protests could help bring about radical change. Our country was designed to allow such barbaric beliefs to be thrown out peaceably and I don't see how the political leaders who allowed the situation to degrade into outright war were anything other than failures and a lot of blood is on their hands. 

 So basically Brian argued against something you don't even believe?  What else is new?

Brian37, you are flat out wrong on this. You buy into the winners write history revisionist BS.

Let's examine the costs of the American Civil War.

"The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.

        In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.

        Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.

        The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.

        Detailed studies of Union and Confederate military casualties are found in Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America 1861-65 by Thomas L. Livermore (I901) and Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1867-1865 by William F. Fox (1889)."
 

The total cost of the Southern investment in human slavery in 1860 was 4 billion dollars.  So was war the best option, Brian?

The fact is, that a VERY tiny minority of abolitionist extremists, clamoring for uncompensated release of this investment, ALONG WITH non-stop insults toward southern culture, and a lot of unfair practices of protectionism tariffs that benefitted the North at the expense of the South is what led to the war.

Plain and simple.

If the North had tempered it's extremist minority, offered compensated abolition of the Southern human chattel, and freaking been reasonable at all, this travesty would not have happened.

By the time the South was ready to secede Congress hastily tried to pass the Corwin Amendment (look that shit up), that would have been the original 13th amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing that slavery would be untouchable.  Slavery would have been fully protected for all time in the US.  It fucking passed.  The amendment to protect slavery passed in congress and was sent out to be signed by the requisite number of states needed, which looked to be absolutely no problem.

The South said, "Fuck you.  This is about a lot more than just that, bitches." and seceded, not even giving the North time to implement the Constitutional amendment to protect slavery.

And fuck Lincoln.  I can really enlighten you on that prick.  Lincoln is the icon of revisionist fiction.

meanwhile, we eastern kentuckians in the appalachian foothills said fuck all y'all, yankees and southerners.  we had no interest in fighting for some bullshit southern aristocratic pipe-dream of an ideal time that never was, and the slavery issue didn't particularly affect us one way or another.  some of us hopped to the union side, some to the confederate, but the majority of us just didn't want you motherfuckers crossing our land, and we cut your ears off for pendants when you did.

as a kentuckian, i don't like being frequently referred to as southern, and no one has ever dared call me yankee.  i usually correct them with "mountain."  we are neither typically northern nor southern, geographically or culturally.

and i like lincoln.  i think before anybody talks about lincoln, they should read carl sandburg's biography, which is unsurpassed, because most of it is nothing but quoted correspondence.  sandburg himself obviously admires lincoln, but in general refrains from editorializing.  the picture one gets from it is of a complex man who did what he felt he had been elected to do: hold the united states together, and he took no fucking bullshit in the process.  he never took bullshit; as a young rail splitter challenged to a duel he was ready to split a man from stem to stern with a sabre before his challenger thought better of it and backed out.  he was a man of no ideals other than the union, and the only revisionists are those who try to make him out as an idealist.  what he did is pretty plain, and i fucking respect what he did.

*grins*  Well Kentucky was a border state.  Nothing but "HillBillies".  Neither South nor North.  And of course you have some regional pride for Lincoln since he was born there.  As well as Jefferson Davis, the prez of the CSA.

I don't fucking respect what Lincoln did.  I don't fucking respect who he was.   I don't fucking respect his values, or his outlook, or his outright disrespect for our Constitution that my ancestors fought to implement against the Brits and form this country.

If you want to understand America there is zero need to start reading history from 1776.   Start reading at 1865.   What happened before that has nothing to do with current day America.

So don't anyone consider waxing eloquent about our Founding Fathers like they were the founding fathers of 2012 America.   Modern day America has one founding father.   A really crude, pathetic, hated by everyone in his own time including damn near every Union general and politician while he was alive, gutter trash individual.

Our founding fathers, who the most important ones were southerners, and happened to be slave holders not because they were some evil bastards but because they lived in another world a long time ago, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been appalled at such a lout like Lincoln sullying the floor of the white house.

If the Civil War would have happened in the 1770s George Washington would have led the South, not Robert E. Lee.  And they both would have been in the right for their decision to do so.

you might not agree with him, but unless carl sandburg forged a shitload of contemporary sources that he quotes at length (seriously, at length--the bio runs to 6 volumes), the idea that lincoln was in any fair sense crude (unless you equate crude with blunt) or universally despised, doesn't seem to me to carry much weight.  i will concede that many of lincoln's contemporaries were wary of him, and for good reason.

as i recall, most of the union generals who hated him were fuck-ups like mcclellan  who felt entitled and didn't like being sacked.  i seem to remember reading about old winfield scott himself expressing bemused admiration for him.

After the fact, rose colored, intentionally slanted fiction of someone that lived 150 years ago doesn't carry much weight with anyone that has the inclination to be intellectually honest about who ol' Abe was.  Or what kind of creature he was.  The entire country has been following the northeast's inclination to eternally give the man a non-stop blowjob after the fact.  How dialectically opposed to how he was rightfully treated when he lived.

Are you serious about doubting how crude Lincoln was?

Holy fuck, you haven't read jack shit about the man other than the PC crap trending at the top of Amazon's best sell list.

The fucker loved telling the most disgustingly sick jokes.   He delighted in it.  That's fine.   I can deal with that.   But he did it regardless of where he was, who was around him, or what office he held at the time, what official function he was at, anything.   The man had no propriety.   Fucking clueless.

I mean his contemporaries, across the board, where shocked at his crudeness.   You see it again and again in the writings of people who actually met him.   This only became a secret after his death somehow.

And he didn't give a fuck about anything.

Let me leave you with a little quote from the "great emancipator"...

*chuckles*  Carl Sandburg...

"William E. Barton, who had published a life of Lincoln himself the year before The Prairie Years was published, wrote that Sandburg's book "is not history, is not even biography" because of its lack of original research and uncritical use of evidence."

As a Yankee who lives in the South, I am repeatedly asked the question if I know the difference between a Yankee and a damned Yankee. By now, I am well aware of the difference. I guess I have been here long enough that I am a damned Yankee.

However, I am quick to point out, that both my mother and father's families got here via Ellis Island New York in the late 19th Century and early 1900's so none of my ancestors are guilty of being involved in the war.

I also point out the New York Draft Riots where Irish and Italian immigrants refused to go fight.

However, I guess I'll probably never get the title of : Honorary Southerner. Memphis, TN, where I live, is pretty big and diverse, but I still get a few anti-Yankee sentiments ( most are in fun, but some are dead serious).

The smaller towns in east Tennessee that I have passed through, are a little bit more serious about Yanks. However, I get the impression that a lot of the eastern Tennessee towns that border the Applachian areas are a lot like what iwbiek said. They pretty much are not too accepting of anyone that was not born and raised there and has a family tree that goes back a few generations there.

I personally have read some pretty bad things about Lincoln. I know that he did not believe in racial equality (as he was quoted in several speeches) and a few other unpleasant facts I have heard about him. However, I am not as well read as iwbiek and Watcher about the Civil War or Abe Lincoln. So I am not too qualified to enter into the debate one way or the other.

But, since Brian37 brought up the issue of slavery along with the states seceding, I DO have a quick question ( I could probably Google it, but I am too lazy). Were indentured servants ( which was more or less slaves) in existence at the time of the South's seccession ? I know that they existed in earlier America and very rarely are they brought up. What happened to them ? When was that practice abolished and was that practice tied into the Civil War ? About the only difference between an indentured servant and a slave, was that indentured servants ( who were Europeans and thus white) were only under their owners for a period of years (kinda like a prison sentence) whereas a slave was probably a slave his whole life. I know very little about this time period and could be getting this all wrong, thus my reason for asking.

when did that review come out?  "the prairie years" are lacking, and pretty lightweight.  "the war years," which make up at least 80% of the biography, are not.  as i said, we barely hear sandburg's voice at times, because he's quoting contemporary sources for pages at a time.  so if barton was responding to the war years, he was a moron.  i suggest you check it out yourself.

it's definitely not PC.  the unabridged bio isn't even in print anymore, but i imagine you can find it at the library.  as i said, it's clear sandburg admired lincoln, be he did not idealize lincoln.  there's no "honest abe" or "great emancipator," and he does come out looking like a dick many times, like every human being.  his frank racism is evident.  before you accuse a bio of being hagiography, you should read it yourself.

Brian, that is not true. "They should have done it this way instead" is not lost on me. I am saying it is absurd that you can always fight something non violently. I do not think the slaves in the south would have wanted us the north to abandon them.

And it really plays into the fears of angry white men. And Beyond has some underlying mistrust of the working poor and the African American urban majority. Otherwise he wouldn't be using the same Fox talking points that our voting system favors the "wealfare state".

I don't think you can argue that there was any non violent way to end slavery and I do not think, even if it was on a decline, that you could argue that the slaves of the south wanted anyone to sit there and wait for it to die.

Beyond bought into the dog wistle independent white voter he was sure would put Romney over the top. That party has used all sorts of race bating dog wistle words to get votes from a very bigoted base and also thought it would swing the whites in swing states.

If he isn't a racist, he sure picked the wrong party to support. And maybe he doesn't percieve himself as one, but his words and his subconcious defy him in his support of a party that has used the very vitrial that divides us by race. He has issues and needs to look in the mirror.

I am glad the North kicked the south's ass and today's blacks I am quite sure are happy about that too.

 Brian, if someone claims that they think the Supreme Court should have allowed states to secede from the Union if they chose, and you equate that to them being a racist, there is a problem.

It's such a far jump to make a claim like that, it's offensive to the person you're calling a racist and it's offensive to rational thought.  

Now to be fair, I think calling Beyond a racist or saying that his words and subconscious are racist, is taking it a bit too far.  I know that you and Beyond have a major disagreement about economics, but I've never heard Beyond say anything racial.

In fact, I have heard Beyond say that the best way to get rid of businesses that practice bigotry was for the tide of public opinion to turn against them and not do business with them ( i.e. the case of the photographer who refused to photograph gay weddings being a case in point).

Plus, Beyond pointed out the merits of Martin Luther King Jr. in one of the above posts. Unfortunately, I happen to know a few racist assholes at work, and the last thing that they are going to do is talk about the merits of Martin Luther King Jr.

I know that Beyond is quite in favor of state rights and more localized politics, but that hardly makes him a racist.

Slavery was overthrown in every other modernized country relatively peacefully, why do you think that the US was somehow different and incapable of doing so?

As for the slaves in the south, they had differing opinions about what they wanted to Union to do. The end of slavery brought both positives and negatives to them. Imagine being thrown out of the only place you had ever lived in, uneducated and without a penny to your name. Then you are expected to compete for work faced with unimaginable levels of bigotry and hatred towards you for no good reason and would as soon lynch you as pay you a wage. Life as a newly freed slave during reconstruction was not a picnic, and for many not a reason to celebrate. Many of the slaves did not survive being freed. 

Of course you can argue there was a way to end it non-violently. It ended everywhere else non-violently and the abolitionists had already gained significant legal ground. The importation of new slaves had already been illegal since 1808. Non-violent efforts such as the Underground Railroad were working on undermining the system and slavery had already been outlawed in many states. Public opinion was clearly trending to be against slavery and the practical use of slaves was in decline. With the invention of the tractor in the late 1860's there is little question that slavery would have ended within the generation, and probably with a lot less bloodshed and a much more smooth (although probably still rocky) transition of slaves to freemen. 

Other non-violent methods that could have been tried, would have been to allow the states to secede and then restrict trade with them unless they abolished slavery. The South needed the North for its financial centers and factories. The North on the other hand was becoming the financial center of the world and with the expansion into the mid-west had more than sufficient agricultural land to meet its own needs. Most likely, the south would have realized that they were much better off being part of the Union and would have been under a lot of pressure to come back voluntarily. And if not, would it be the end of the world if we were two separate countries? No.

Excuse me but you apparently have much better hearing than me. I do have hearing problems so I miss all the "race baiting" that you obviously hear. Are you sure you aren't just hearing what you want to hear? You certainly seem to read whatever the fuck you want to read. 

The Libertarian party divides by race?!? That is news to me. Please explain how. And I did look in the mirror, I have to say that I am looking pretty dashing today. 

I always find it sad when hundreds of thousands of humans die. War is a terrible thing that should only be used as a last resort and there were a lot of other resorts that could have been tried first. 

Anyway, this conversation has drifted far from my original point which had nothing to do with race or slavery. I believe that joining the United States is not an irrevocable decision. It is an agreement that is made on peaceful and voluntary terms and should any state(s) decide that it wants to peacefully and voluntarily leave the United States and form an independent country they ought to be free to do so. 

As one of our greatest political minds once wrote,

If at any time, any state or territory believes that their rights are no longer secured by their continued participation in the United States they have they right to alter their relationship and institute a new government of their choosing. Note that he wrote "laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Not "as to the motherland". 

How much pain and suffering could have been saved if the King of England had simply allowed the United States to secede freely? It was a mistake for England to start a war with us to prevent secession not because they ultimately lost, but because it is undesirable and destructive to use military force to keep others under your control. So yeah, in today's context if Texas for example was able to gain sufficient support for secession I think we should let the state go. I think it would be undesirable for both Texas and the country but it would be far better to allow it to leave peacefully than to start killing each other over it.  

Plus, let's not forget about the fact that a lot of the slave ships came through northern ports and many a slave was transported to America under the American flag.

I doubt very seriously that most 19th century northern people cared anything about the rights of a slave or an indentured servant.

During one part of the 1800's Boston used to hang signs in business windows that said : Irish people need not apply.

I grew up in north New Jersey and I have seen plenty of racism up there, just like I do here in the South, where I currently reside.

True, throughout our history any immigrant group that is willing to work cheaply has faced significant discrimination and bigotry. While it sometimes manifested itself as outright racism (believing that one group is genetically superior to another), I think it had more to do with the economic issues. It was almost always about "them" taking "our" jobs. While racism against blacks was as culturally embedded in the north as the south it was less violent until after the war. After the war when blacks streamed north in droves looking for work and willing to work very cheaply, the racism manifested itself in very violent ways leading to race riots in many northern factory towns.

Today I see the very same line of thinking with Mexicans who are "taking our jobs" and with Chinese where we are "shipping our jobs overseas". While such beliefs are not overtly racist I think it is bigotry in the sense that you are judging whether or not someone should get a job based solely on where they were born and that somehow an American having a job is better than someone in China doing the same job- even though without question an American has far more options to provide for their family than someone living in a factory town in China even in our current depression.  

I think I would have to agree about the economics issue of the whole thing.

One of my biker bros is from Chicago, Illinois and he said there was a period where a lot of people from the South (white and black) migrated up there to find work. Every factory and warehouse that you pulled into, he told me, was filled with out of state license plates, all from the South.

The same type of thing started happening up there during that time period. There was a "those rednecks and hillbillies are taking all the jobs" mentality for a little while.

I am not sure what made so many people from the southern states hit Chicago, but it was a big migration and it caused a temporary US vs. THEM mentality.

I never said he was a racist. I said he has issues. I believe I said "if you are not a racist'.

He constantly claims he votes third party. But during the campaing he knew his third party candidate wouldn't win and saw Romney as the "lesser of the two evils".  He had the same attitude as the party leaders themselves BEFORE day one on the job "make him a 1 term president", why would anyone say that before that president did a damned thing?

Secondly, both the republican pundits and politicians called him "muslim, Kenyan. used socialist as a slur, and pandered to the birthers, and used dog wistle words like "food stamp" and "welfare" and "Jive", all race bating. And Sinunu said "Of course Powel voted for him because he was black", As if all white people voted for Romney because he was white.

Not once has Beyond to my knowledge, condemned those tactics. And supported two businessmen who didn't condemn those tactics either who he wanted to support his third party candidate.

I said that if he is not a racist HE STILL has unfounded and undue stereotypes about the "urban" and the working poor. That is what I mean in that he has issues.

Now as far as Lincoln. He was a politician first, and so was Jefferson, and even back in Jefferson's time there were abolitionists. Anyone can find real qoutes that could justify Lincoln, not caring, being a bigot, and being an abolitionist. He was dealing with the climate of the time. History's leaders are never as simplistic as the claimants of either position want them to be.

There have been tons of democrats who said nothing on gay marriage up till now, and I am sure quite a few in southern states, who say one thing, but would really wish they could say "fuck you homophobes".

Secondly, the end result of that action was that slavery ended and there is no dispute that was a good thing, so how it happend is irrelevent to me.

To me, abandoning the slaves of that time would be like Texas suceeding now and all liberal theists and ahteists that live there being trapped by religious right.

Claiming that slavery was on the way out anyway, is exactly WHY they suceeded. Much like the nones and secularism are on the rise which is why the Rove family is scared that the reality that whites will be the minority in the future are why there have been so many attacks on women, blacks, latinos and liberals. 

Now, if Beyond wants to right now denounce the tactics of the right wing pundits and politicians whom, he defaulted to because ultimately he didn't want Obama to win, I will concide the issue. I don't think he fully will. I do think he thinks urbans are "food stamp" people, third party or not. which is why I stick to my point that he DOES have issues with the poor. Very false stereotypes.

Yep, typical of you just like economics, one size fits all. This is why you cant understand why I could agree that "less government" might work under certain conditions. In those "relatively peacefully" places where it ended, the conditions were different. Just like the Bush Sr invasion was under different conditions than the Bush Jr invasions were. Just like a air support in Lybia worked while conditions are different in Syria.

It would be nice if dissentors in China or Iran could do what you say, but somehow I think it is much harder.

I have thought lots recently about the bombs in Japan that ended the war. Some argued the bombing didn't need to happen. I used to think that because it was true that Japan was loosing already. BUT by not doing that it would have cost more allies death. AND Russia even while fighting the war was looking at a future time to hit us at some point. It sucked that those bombs were a show to Russia, because that is what they were. BUT it created the Mexican standoff that lead to the long standing stalemate and eventually to Regan and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

My point is that the Civil War happened because of conditions and second guessing what they should have done and what happened is pointless. Slavery being on the way out is what the south saw comming which was a threat to their labor force which is why they suceeded. I don't think under those conditions you could have reasoned with them anymore than you could convince the Taliban, "Hey we don't hate Muslims, but women should have the right to vote".

Even now it is hard if not impossible to convince either Jews or Palistinians that "peacefull protest" is the way to go.

You might have done it differently, but you were not there and what happened happened and I have no doubt the slaves of that time are not going to argue over what happened or how they should have done it despite what you think they should have done.

The difference between you and me is like most, you think in terms of ideas instead of conditions. You think in terms of what works for you alone, instead of what you do affecting others.

Because unless the President turned out to be a complete liar, he has a very different view of how he wants the USA to look than I do, so why would I support him? I'm pretty sure that from day one of GW you wanted him to be a one term president and if Romney had won I'm sure you would have wanted him to be a one term president. Obama is not unique that his political opponents didn't want him re-elected. 

I do consider it a problem that the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed, don't you? I also find it disturbing that some 93%+of blacks voted for Obama. There is no way that considering issue by issue that 93% of any demographic agrees on anything. It is especially sad that by the numbers blacks are much worse off today than they were before Obama became president. I blame the republicans for allowing assholes like you to paint them as a bunch of racists.

I generally don't waste my time condemning political tactics. Let my opinion stand that I think all politicians are scum and every single one of the fuckers should be thrown out of office. Given that opinion I see no reason to run around condemning any particular tactics. 

Can you state any specific examples? Perhaps you could find a quote or two from me on this very site? I know I only have a little over 2800 posts, but I'm sure you should be able to find any examples in there. 

So you are claiming that Lincoln was not a racist? Do you have any evidence that he wasn't? Because all of his words on the subject indicate that he was a racist and quite unapologetic about it. Of course, at the time 99.9% of people were racist so it is hardly a condemnation. 

So your stand is that it is ok for politicians to lie to you? That you somehow know what they really think?

I agree the end result was good, however I strongly disagree that a good result justifies any means. Hundreds of thousands of people died, that is not good. The economy in the south was destroyed and millions of people struggled to keep from starving to death as a result, an unknown number of people DID starve to death or die from preventable illness as a result. That is not a good thing. If a million people died was it still worthwhile? Two million? Is there any line where the cost would not be worth the benefit to you?

If not, then why are you not calling for us to go to war with the dozens of countries where slavery exists today?

I'm pretty sure that Texas would be more than happy to let them leave willingly. They would hardly be "trapped". 

I don't view people based on which groups they belong to. I view every person as an individual and judge them on their own actions. I challenge you to find one quote where I ever judged someone based on what group they happen to be part of or where I have ever condemned someone for being poor (I have routinely stated my belief that the amount of wealth a person has is entirely a consequence of their own choices and I don't give a flying fuck whether someone chooses to be rich or chooses to be poor) I don't care how much you make or don't make. I do have a low opinion of anyone who uses government to take from others for their personal benefit whether they are poor in the case of food stamps or wealthy in the case of Solyndra types. 

I disagree, by studying history and looking at things that might have been mistakes is the best way to learn and not make the same mistakes again. Simply looking at the past and shrugging your shoulders going "it was a different time" is willful ignorance. Yes, the times were different, but most likely we will face similar issues again in the future. The details will be different, but human nature has not changed. We should use our benefit of 20/20 hindsight to judge our ancestors so that when we are faced with similar decisions in the future we can avoid making the same mistakes. It is much easier to learn from the errors of others than to learn from your own errors. Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it and you, like many Americans, are incredibly ignorant of history.

And I say if we are faced with the situation of some state getting enough support for secession that we let them go peacefully because the Civil War fucking sucked for a lot of people and I don't care to repeat it.  

To return to the original point, whether or not it's actually realistic, I can't think of anything more scary than a fully committed, seceded and independent "Red states" country full of religious zionist zealots believing in an imminent day of Judgement and with the firepower to end the world to make it happen.

To me, that would be a greater evil than the benefit to the blue states of being free of them.

How "it happened is irrelevent" to you?

The "ends" justify the "means"?

So freeing American slaves by wholesale warfare that engulfed a nation into fratricide, resulting in over a million deaths, and subjecting a very large portion of it into crushing poverty for over a century is the same as calmer minds reaching a peaceful agreement as far as you are concerned?

There's this odd thing that pops up in my family tree.   All of my ancestors that fought for the CSA were all from various southern states.  Tenn, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Miss.   And then they all seem to have mysteriously moved, well except for that one guy already in Texas, to Texas within a few years after the Civil War was over.

Now why was that, Brian?  And let me tell you, none of them owned slaves.  All poor dirt farmers.

If you read the history, tons of southerners moved to Texas after the war.   Because the South was a burned out husk for the most part except for Texas.  They would scrawl GTT on their doors, if they still had them, before they hitched up the wagons and headed West.

Gone To Texas.

I wouldn't even exist if the American Civil War wouldn't have happened.

And as far as you suggesting that the southern slaves would not have wanted the North to abandon them ...

The North did.   The North ran them out into independence with zero preparation.   With no marketable skills, no nothing, no safety net, no fucking shit.   Nothing.  Just, "You're free, Negro.  Just don't move North you dark skinned scum."   Actually, I have some wonderful quotes on my work computer from ex-slaves that I found from the Federal writers project "Born In Slavery" that were gathered in the 1930's relating to how the slaves felt about their sudden freedom by the blue coats.  I'll include the links to where I found them on the United States government website when I paste them into this discussion on Monday.

I won't even give you my interpretation of them.   I'll let them speak for themselves.

The Union fucked them up.   The Union fucked up the African-American culture by what they did which is directly responsible for why African Americans today are more poverty stricken, more likely to commit crime, have the highest percentage (72%) of being born to an unwed mother, are over-represented in our prisons, etc.   Not because of their genetic make-up, but because of the culture that the Union sent them tailspinning into.

We should have given them a hand up to be equals in our society, the Union just turned them out to fend for themselves.  If we had become a slave free nation from wisdom and maturity instead of by the bayonet, we could have provided that right.

I agree, Beyond.   The most baffling thing that I've noticed of the mindset during the Civil War was that the North was fighting to "save the Union".  "For the Union!" was the most common rallying cry of the average Northern soldier.   Whether secession was "legal" or not was up for debate in 1861.   I don't consider rulings made shortly after the Union victory over the Confederacy as being non-biased.

Why did the Northern states think that the United States would cease to exist if the South would have seceded?

Can anyone really answer that?   Because it would set a precedent and all the remaining states would have split up based on that precedent?

It was a gap in the Constitution.   The US existed with 13 states at it's birth.  It exists now with 50 states.   Why would a few states departing, detracting from any number of United States that existed in 1860, make the Union between the remaining states cease to exist after 1860?  If we lost, say, California from the US collection of states today, would that eradicate the United States of America that exists right now?

No.   It would still be the United States.  Just with one less state tomorrow than it had yesterday.

Historical records are replete the southern women stating in their diaries, "Why do they fight us?   If they lose, they go home and lose nothing of their former lives.  If we lose, we lose everything.   Our homes, our towns, our lives.   Why do they insist on this?"  We're still baffled by this.   We're still dysfunctional as a regional group trying to understand.

If Lincoln was not a tyrant he would have refused to have waged war on the South, let them go, and then Congress could have added an amendment to the Constitution saying, "secession isn't allowed."  All the remaining states would have been good to go.  Kept expanding, kept adding new states.   The North would have out competed the Confederacy, heck the CSA probably would have fallen apart state by state, got rid of slavery peacefully and gradually, and asked for readmittance to the Union.

The Southern social structure was deeply flawed, heck, I'll admit that.   I firmly believe it was unsustainable.   And on way more levels than just slavery.

Forcing a Union on another party that wants to dissolve that Union makes as much sense as an abusive husband beating the fuck out of his wife so she won't dare divorce him.

And American history has somehow twisted the violent enforcement of a large portion of their country into battered submission as being somehow noble?  Oh, when in doubt just mutter something about slavery.  Instant win.

Overly simplistic.