Confederate History Month

[Simon Bar Sinister]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208200/ns/us_news-washington_post?GT1=43001

I guess it's okay...if celebrating treason is your thing.

[phee]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208200/ns/us_news-washington_post?GT1=43001

I guess it's okay...if celebrating treason is your thing.

AH yes.... the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION.

[candyman]

If all else fail they can at least say that you should come for the food...Southern style cooking usually ropes people in...

[taysteewonderbunny]

McDonnel....wasn't he the one that gave the Republican Response to Obama's State of the Union address a month or two ago? (Rhetorical question...yes, it was.)

I can understand why Republicans are in favor of devolution of power to state governments, but they could have found a less contentious (and racially divisive) rallying point than the Civil War, could they not?

OR, if really not, then why not admit that devolution in the case of the Confederacy DID promote the continuation of slavery. That it is omitted is embarrassing...not just embarrassing, but stubborn and therefore insulting.

The two models, strong central government in the first, and power based first primarily in the separate states second, have strengths and advantages each that make them attractive. They also have their weaknesses. In the case of the second, our country's first attempt at government failed because of lack of cohesion. Later, though supported strongly by the southern states, devolution also allowed each state to decide independently whether slavery was acceptable and did little to regulate its institution to the detriment of the enslaved. Obviously, it's not as though devolution = slavery, but it makes legal changes of the social and moral sort more difficult to enact.

I understand the argument very well that strong central government makes us less free, but in the case of the Civil War, it made who less free?