5 ms·

What notion of the Confederacy exists outside of the institution of Slavery? It's so core to the DNA of the founding of the Confederacy that it almost seems non

What notion of the Confederacy exists outside of the institution of Slavery? It's so core to the DNA of the founding of the Confederacy that it almost seems nonsensical to suggest waging a war to free existing slaves, when that would've led to the same outcome of the total dissolution of the Confederacy.

seneca 5y ago
Yes, perhaps so. I suppose what I mean to say is that it seems misguided, in hindsight, to treat preserving the Union as some ultimate good. 150 years later, and all we have is two groups that seem to bitterly hate each other still and a dysfunctional government incapable of reconciling the two different value systems. The Confederacy may well have dissolved, as you said, but the rest of the Union would be left a whole lot more coherent and ideologically unified. To wildly over simplify it, it strikes me as a bit like going to extraordinary lengths to save a marriage to a spouse you hate.
- cmh89 5y ago
  The "split" isn't north vs south though, nor is it based on slavery or the Mason-Dixon line. Our government is dysfunctional because the main structure of government was created before the industrial revolution. The writers of the constitution couldn't envision just how little of the population would be engaged in an agrarian lifestyle. The US government is broken because all three branches are, at least some of the time, minority rule. The actual split in America is largely those areas that are economically advanced and those that are not. Places that support conservative candidates tend to be poor, mostly uneducated, and religious while the opposite is true for liberal candidates. Voters in Atlanta have more in common with New York City than they do voters in Lumber City. I'll also point out that there isn't much hate for rural people in the cities. You have at best indifference. The hate is very much one sided.
  - AvocadoPanic 5y ago
    I guess it's just that deplorables and coal miners live in rural areas. The people in cities don't hate them, just want them unemployed, disarmed, disenfranchised and re-educated.
    - cmh89 5y ago
      I guess if that's the conspiracy theory driven world you want to live in, that's your right but thank you for perfectly illustrating how the "split" is largely in the imagination of rural voters.
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    Yeah, no hate in terminology like hicks, hillbillies, flyover country, deplorables, etc. etc.
    - cmh89 5y ago
      I mean, I grew up in what is now trump country in a rural area and heard the term 'hicks' and 'hillbillies' as self-descriptors and descriptors of others but I now live in an urban area and never hear those terms. Its just projection bud. Now deplorables is a different story. Supporting racists/misogynists' is deplorable and Hillary Clinton was right on the money with what she said. But again, most urban folks just have anger and confusion on why rural people consistently vote against their own interests and support racists like trump. It's not really a 'hate' thing. I don't see people from urban areas travelling to rural areas to attack people and hold hate-rallies.
      - kaesar14 5y ago
        People like Hillary Clinton have never voted consistently in the interests of people who voted for Trump. It's under her own husband's presidency that many of those people's jobs were shipped abroad. Under her former boss's Presidency that the banks who made them lose their homes were bailed out. Not saying Trump's presidency was any more beneficial, both parties don't give a shit about the little guy, but calling 30 million people "deplorable" certainly qualifies as broad brush hate.
        cmh89 5y ago
        >People like Hillary Clinton have never voted consistently in the interests of people who voted for Trump. Examples? I'm not a Clinton fan personally but Clinton and the rest of the Democrats have consistently proposed and voted for legislation that heavily benefit rural voters including importantly the ACA and Medicaid expansion which trumps base heavily relies on for access to medical care. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of HRC because she's just slightly less conservative than the GOP in general. > Not saying Trump's presidency was any more beneficial, both parties don't give a shit about the little guy One party has proposed voting rights bills, a massive infrastructure program that would provide jobs and opportunity for millions of rural people, bills that would massively lower the costs of prescription medicine, and bills expanding access to medical care for millions of impoverished Americans. The other party was in power for four years and only accomplished one massive tax cut for the ultra wealthy. The "both sides" thing is bullshit. The Democrats aren't perfect and lord knows that the Democratic leadership needs to go but to pretend the Democrats and republicans are the same is delusional. >but calling 30 million people "deplorable" certainly qualifies as broad brush hate. Here is the actual quote “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” She's not wrong about that. trump is a hate monger and his supporters reflect that. The last time I checked, HRC wasn't a tastemaker. The question was whether urban Americans hate rural Americans and they just don't. Most people just want to reduce the influence rural Americans have over the majority of Americans lives. If people in Alabama want to live in a religious back-water, that's their call, just stop dragging the coasts down with you.
- deeg 5y ago
  We can potentially say that in hindsight but politicians at the time could not come to that conclusion. After 80+ years the US was still the only major democracy and it was teetering. Unionist politicians, embodied by Lincoln, were afraid that letting the US fall apart would deal a blow to democracy everywhere. Lincoln so eloquently voices this concern in the Gettysburg Address. Historian Joseph Ellis said (I think in his book "Founding Brothers") that we now take democracy as the inevitable conclusion of liberalizing politics but that formed only after the US Civil War. (This also doesn't address the moral horror of allowing slavery to continue for who knows how many years in the Confederacy.)
- kaesar14 5y ago
  The majority of the people in those groups don't like each other because they've been pit against each other by the media and corporate interests who know a divided house is easier to rule.

seneca 5y ago

Yes, perhaps so. I suppose what I mean to say is that it seems misguided, in hindsight, to treat preserving the Union as some ultimate good. 150 years later, and all we have is two groups that seem to bitterly hate each other still and a dysfunctional government incapable of reconciling the two different value systems. The Confederacy may well have dissolved, as you said, but the rest of the Union would be left a whole lot more coherent and ideologically unified. To wildly over simplify it, it strikes me as a bit like going to extraordinary lengths to save a marriage to a spouse you hate.

cmh89 5y ago
The "split" isn't north vs south though, nor is it based on slavery or the Mason-Dixon line. Our government is dysfunctional because the main structure of government was created before the industrial revolution. The writers of the constitution couldn't envision just how little of the population would be engaged in an agrarian lifestyle. The US government is broken because all three branches are, at least some of the time, minority rule. The actual split in America is largely those areas that are economically advanced and those that are not. Places that support conservative candidates tend to be poor, mostly uneducated, and religious while the opposite is true for liberal candidates. Voters in Atlanta have more in common with New York City than they do voters in Lumber City. I'll also point out that there isn't much hate for rural people in the cities. You have at best indifference. The hate is very much one sided.
- AvocadoPanic 5y ago
  I guess it's just that deplorables and coal miners live in rural areas. The people in cities don't hate them, just want them unemployed, disarmed, disenfranchised and re-educated.
  - cmh89 5y ago
    I guess if that's the conspiracy theory driven world you want to live in, that's your right but thank you for perfectly illustrating how the "split" is largely in the imagination of rural voters.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  Yeah, no hate in terminology like hicks, hillbillies, flyover country, deplorables, etc. etc.
  - cmh89 5y ago
    I mean, I grew up in what is now trump country in a rural area and heard the term 'hicks' and 'hillbillies' as self-descriptors and descriptors of others but I now live in an urban area and never hear those terms. Its just projection bud. Now deplorables is a different story. Supporting racists/misogynists' is deplorable and Hillary Clinton was right on the money with what she said. But again, most urban folks just have anger and confusion on why rural people consistently vote against their own interests and support racists like trump. It's not really a 'hate' thing. I don't see people from urban areas travelling to rural areas to attack people and hold hate-rallies.
    - kaesar14 5y ago
      People like Hillary Clinton have never voted consistently in the interests of people who voted for Trump. It's under her own husband's presidency that many of those people's jobs were shipped abroad. Under her former boss's Presidency that the banks who made them lose their homes were bailed out. Not saying Trump's presidency was any more beneficial, both parties don't give a shit about the little guy, but calling 30 million people "deplorable" certainly qualifies as broad brush hate.
      - cmh89 5y ago
        >People like Hillary Clinton have never voted consistently in the interests of people who voted for Trump. Examples? I'm not a Clinton fan personally but Clinton and the rest of the Democrats have consistently proposed and voted for legislation that heavily benefit rural voters including importantly the ACA and Medicaid expansion which trumps base heavily relies on for access to medical care. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of HRC because she's just slightly less conservative than the GOP in general. > Not saying Trump's presidency was any more beneficial, both parties don't give a shit about the little guy One party has proposed voting rights bills, a massive infrastructure program that would provide jobs and opportunity for millions of rural people, bills that would massively lower the costs of prescription medicine, and bills expanding access to medical care for millions of impoverished Americans. The other party was in power for four years and only accomplished one massive tax cut for the ultra wealthy. The "both sides" thing is bullshit. The Democrats aren't perfect and lord knows that the Democratic leadership needs to go but to pretend the Democrats and republicans are the same is delusional. >but calling 30 million people "deplorable" certainly qualifies as broad brush hate. Here is the actual quote “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” She's not wrong about that. trump is a hate monger and his supporters reflect that. The last time I checked, HRC wasn't a tastemaker. The question was whether urban Americans hate rural Americans and they just don't. Most people just want to reduce the influence rural Americans have over the majority of Americans lives. If people in Alabama want to live in a religious back-water, that's their call, just stop dragging the coasts down with you.
deeg 5y ago
We can potentially say that in hindsight but politicians at the time could not come to that conclusion. After 80+ years the US was still the only major democracy and it was teetering. Unionist politicians, embodied by Lincoln, were afraid that letting the US fall apart would deal a blow to democracy everywhere. Lincoln so eloquently voices this concern in the Gettysburg Address. Historian Joseph Ellis said (I think in his book "Founding Brothers") that we now take democracy as the inevitable conclusion of liberalizing politics but that formed only after the US Civil War. (This also doesn't address the moral horror of allowing slavery to continue for who knows how many years in the Confederacy.)
kaesar14 5y ago
The majority of the people in those groups don't like each other because they've been pit against each other by the media and corporate interests who know a divided house is easier to rule.