Civil War still divides Americans

[MrJayremmie]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/

Washington (CNN) - It has been 150 years since the Civil War began with the first shots at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and in some respects views of the Confederacy and the role that slavery played in the events of 1861 still divide the public, according to a new national poll.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

When asked the reason behind the Civil War, whether it was fought over slavery or states' rights, 52 percent of all Americans said the leaders of the Confederacy seceded to keep slavery legal in their state, but a sizeable 42 percent minority said slavery was not the main reason why those states seceded.

"The results of that question show that there are still racial, political and geographic divisions over the Civil War that still exist a century and a half later," CNN Polling Director Holland Keating said.

When broken down by political party, most Democrats said southern states seceded over slavery, independents were split and most Republicans said slavery was not the main reason that Confederate states left the Union.

Republicans were also most likely to say they admired the leaders of the southern states during the Civil War, with eight in 10 Republicans expressing admiration for the leaders in the South, virtually identical to the 79 percent of Republicans who admired the northern leaders during the Civil War.

Interesting.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

The civil war is still happening

...a political civil war.

 

[julius]

When is Obama going to get us out of the Civil War?! HE PROMISED!

 

[MrJayremmie]

PROOF of Obama's divisive policies!

 

[Natebishop3]

Funny that the Repubs were the Union back in the day, and the Dems were the Condederates... and now things have flipped.

 

[julius]

Funny that the Repubs were the Union back in the day, and the Dems were the Condederates... and now things have flipped.

Well, things flipped a long time ago...

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, things flipped a long time ago...

Not that long ago George Wallace won 46 electoral votes, all southern states. He had run as a Democrat in previous elections, and returned to the Democratic Party for the 1972 election.

 

[Natebishop3]

Well, things flipped a long time ago...

Well.... ya.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Do you think someone can truly be offended by this flag?

 

[Natebishop3]

Do you think someone can truly be offended by this flag?

Yup. People can be truly offended on behalf of other people. Stop and think about that for a minute. Someone can be offended, because they think someone else will be offended.

 

[jlprk]

I wish the South had won, and stopped trying to run the whole country. The rest of the U.S. would be modern and liberal like Europe. The South would be a second Mexico. They wouldn't have slavery anymore.

 

[mook]

I wish the South had won, and stopped trying to run the whole country. The rest of the U.S. would be modern and liberal like Europe. The South would be a second Mexico. They wouldn't have slavery anymore.

I've often wondered what the US would be like if the North had permitted secession. I doubt the South would be another Mexico--it just doesn't have the history of corrupt politics that Mexico does. I'm guessing it'd be more like Spain to the North's Germany.

I wonder how WWII would've went, and if we wouldn't have eventually merged in some sort of military pact to confront Hitler and then the Cold War.

I think a lot of northerners really didn't give a fuck about the slaves. They saw it in intellectual terms--that if the South were allowed to secede, pretty soon the whole thing would fall apart and we'd have anarchy. The ol' "slippery slope" argument, which I always find extremely suspicious.

 

[jlprk]

I doubt the South would be another Mexico--it just doesn't have the history of corrupt politics that Mexico does. I'm guessing it'd be more like Spain to the North's Germany.

You sure? The South has been pretty corrupt. For example, look at Texas politics.

I wonder how WWII would've went, and if we wouldn't have eventually merged in some sort of military pact to confront Hitler and then the Cold War.

The South would have allied with Nazi racial eugenics.

I think a lot of northerners really didn't give a fuck about the slaves. They saw it in intellectual terms--that if the South were allowed to secede, pretty soon the whole thing would fall apart

The guiding religion of the war was anti-slavery. There are always those who fight war for the pure joy, and those who fight it as true believers. It was probably half and half, as usual.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've often wondered what the US would be like if the North had permitted secession. I doubt the South would be another Mexico--it just doesn't have the history of corrupt politics that Mexico does. I'm guessing it'd be more like Spain to the North's Germany.

I wonder how WWII would've went, and if we wouldn't have eventually merged in some sort of military pact to confront Hitler and then the Cold War.

I think a lot of northerners really didn't give a fuck about the slaves. They saw it in intellectual terms--that if the South were allowed to secede, pretty soon the whole thing would fall apart and we'd have anarchy. The ol' "slippery slope" argument, which I always find extremely suspicious.

I think Manifest Destiny would have led to a continuous state of war between North and South. Virginia, a Southern state already claimed land all the way to California as it's own. The gold there alone, along with other natural resources, are what wars are fought over much of the time...

I also think the South would have formed really close alliances with European powers. Maybe the North might have been starved for Trade. So I see the South more like Australia or one of the more modern territories of, say, Britain.

 

[mook]

I think Manifest Destiny would have led to a continuous state of war between North and South. Virginia, a Southern state already claimed land all the way to California as it's own. The gold there alone, along with other natural resources, are what wars are fought over much of the time....

You may have a point there. I think, though, it'd be a little like the game Risk, where both countries pour as much resources as possible into trying to occupy it. The North, without having to worry about maintaining dominance over slaves locally, having a larger population, and the capacity to much more quickly expand railroads, would likely win that mad dash. (Sixty years later the South would take off with the oil in Texas, but by then I think you'd have 3/4 of the area dominated by the North.)

But yeah, I can see how outright war might happen as a result. Maybe it was inevitable. If the North had really seen it coming and had the opportunity to build up its military-industrial complex for a decade or two beforehand, though, I think they would've stomped the South much more quickly. All else being equal, if I'm ramping up for war in that era I'd rather control the steel and coal and the majority of elite schools than the cotton, the tobacco and the slaves.

I also think the South would have formed really close alliances with European powers. Maybe the North might have been starved for Trade. So I see the South more like Australia or one of the more modern territories of, say, Britain

Yeah, there'd definitely have been some interesting alliances with Europe. I'm not sure why the North would be more starved for trade than the South, though. The north always had the advantage in transportation (canals, railroads, ports). It had its own farm belt with lots of room to expand. And like I said, I think it would've inevitably dominated California.

 

[mook]

You sure? The South has been pretty corrupt. For example, look at Texas politics.

Mexico had one party rule their country for 75 freakin' years. Texans are amateurs when it comes to political corruption.

The South would have allied with Nazi racial eugenics.

That's kind of creepy to think about. I don't know if that's true, but I can't really see why not. *shiver* Hawaii would've been owned by the North, so Southerners wouldn't give a fuck about Pearl Harbor. Creepy.

The guiding religion of the war was anti-slavery. There are always those who fight war for the pure joy, and those who fight it as true believers. It was probably half and half, as usual.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Abraham Lincoln, 1862

People forget that the Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move by Lincoln to win the war. He "freed" a lot of black people in a country (the South) he didn't even control. It'd be the equivalent of Obama declaring that everybody in Libya is entitled to free hamburgers, paid for by the Libyan government.

 

[Minstrel]

Yup. People can be truly offended on behalf of other people. Stop and think about that for a minute. Someone can be offended, because they think someone else will be offended.

So, by your logic, minorities are kinda fucked because only they should care about their circumstances. "What, slavery offends you? Dude, you're not black OR a slave. You're getting offended on behalf of someone else...you're silly."

And no, I'm not literally equating that flag with slavery (though it's certainly a large component of what it stood for), it was a separate example.

 

[jlprk]

Mexico had one party rule their country for 75 freakin' years. Texans are amateurs when it comes to political corruption.

Without liberal influence from the North, the South would have mad Mexico look like pikers.

That's kind of creepy to think about. I don't know if that's true, but I can't really see why not. *shiver* Hawaii would've been owned by the North, so Southerners wouldn't give a fuck about Pearl Harbor. Creepy.

Seems pretty obvious that the near-identical philosophies about race would have allied.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Abraham Lincoln, 1862

People forget that the Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move by Lincoln to win the war. He "freed" a lot of black people in a country (the South) he didn't even control. It'd be the equivalent of Obama declaring that everybody in Libya is entitled to free hamburgers, paid for by the Libyan government.

I was answering your thought on what "most people in the North" thought, not whether the government was hypocritical. (I don't think it was, but that wasn't what I was answering.)

 

[jlprk]

Do you think someone can truly be offended by this flag?

For about 30-40 years, I've felt pissed off when I see it on a long-haul truck (that's the only time I ever see a Confederate flag). I know that I'm looking at a truck driver who is telling everyone that there should be slavery and I'd like to kick his ass.