----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:54 AM Subject: Re: So Austin
> Robert wrote: > > >> You wonder why Texans think of themselves as tough?<G> Yesterday I >> was >> moving, packing boxes into a Uhaul, lifting furniture and all that >> for >> over 10 hours. Houston is much more humid than Austin and the temp >> where I live was 104F. >> About 2 hours into the moving I pulled a muscle in my back. But the >> show must go on. >> I feel ">WONDERFUL<" this morning! <G> > > I'll bet. I was humping sod all morning Saturday, and digging in > the mud > in the afternoon. I didn't hurt anything, but I was as stiff as a > board > this morning. > > I hope you aren't hurt too badly. The back is feeling a bit better, but now I'm getting terrible leg cramps. I suspect all that sweating has depleted my electrolytes so its orange and banana time.<G> > >> ************************************************* >> You Yankees just don't get it!<G> >> I'm know that you are aware that the Civil War was a particularly >> bloody conflict and many young lives were lost on both sides. Do >> you >> think that even on the losing side people would not memorialize >> those >> who fought for their cause? You have to remember that slavery was >> just >> the tip of the iceberg of reasons why the war was fought. >> OTOH, if you are under the impression that the reason the North >> fought >> in the Civil War was to "free those poor slaves", you need to >> review >> your history. At that time there were slaves working at The White >> House (among other Northern locations), so you have to wonder what >> was >> up with that. > > The reason the war was fought initially was to preserve the Union, > but the > reason the South broke that union was to preserve slavery. Slavery > was > not the tip, but the root of the problem. Ask the question if there > had > been no slavery would there have been a Civil War? Every single > cause > forwarded can be traced back to the "peculiar" institution. It was really one of those things where it was both ways simultaneously. There is a good parallel with our modern situation. The freeing of the slaves would have had an economic impact on the South that would have devastated in a manner similar to what would happen if all foriegn oil were suddenly embargoed away from the US today. And that is pretty much exactly what happened. If there had been some time to allow the industrial revolution to catch up with the needs of the South, the war would not have been necessary. So to my mind the war was on one hand morality vs economic necessity, and on the other one of political hardball. (The South knew that abolition was inevitable, so the slave state vs free state battle was essentially a battle for control of Congress) As I said, there was slavery in the North prior to the Civil War, but it was not economically necessary as it was in the South. It much like the way Illegal immigrants are hired these days to increase profits by keeping labor costs low. > > I have no problem at all with a memorial for those that fell in the > Civil > War. What I have a problem with is the idea that they were fighting > for > some noble cause like state's rights. Well, I think you have to consider that the majority of those monuments were built long ago when attitudes were quite different. The social inertia that supported the building of such is pretty well spent and is unlikely to ever build momentum again. I'd go so far as to say that with regard to the subject of racism, the South is in better shape than the North or the West. Things have changed a lot here. > Lincoln himself believed in the > right of states to secede, but he believed that the cause for the > secession had to be just and that the preservation of the > institution of > slavery was not a just cause. > >> xponent >> Apologies If My Tone Appears Uncivil<G> Maru > > No apology necessary. I know many people really believe that > slavery was > an ancillary cause for secession, I know that's what they teach kids > in > the South; I've had this discussion before. The bottom line is, had > slavery been abolished at some earlier juncture, the conflict would > not > have occurred. > I think a later juncture would have preserved the peace, or a much much earlier juncture. Slavery was just too integrated into the Southern economy even at the time of the American Revolution to have been outlawed (easily) and until the advent of machinery that could do the work required, you would still have had great resistance to getting the South to do the moral thing. If OPEC cut us off from oil you would see the same resistance to loss of affluence. It is a matter of greed in some respects and in others it is not. So the situation is and was complex, and when I say it was not *just* slavery I am pointing out that there was social, political, and economic momentum that had to be overcome before justice ruled the day. And the task is still incomplete. xponent Plenty Of Ouchies Tonight Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
