Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
You really wouldn't expect the local folks to take responsibility for their inaction would you. A couple of small towns in Kansas are flooded. One is my home town. I just haven't seen the national news coverage or heard all of the finger pointing that went on in Naw Orlens. I guess farm folks just get to it.
Pinckney
Its cause they aren't black! Some wil hate me for saying this but o well... NAWLEANS is primarily black, so as soon as katrina happned and people wree dying it automatically became a race thing. Nobody is gonna care about kansas pinkney.. you don't have enough minority to play a race card!! And yes I tell black people this all the time, including my black wife who happens to agree with me. But as this is a CW forum I'll say no more on this subject one way or the other.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
And in the end you'll end up like all the rest. Champions of a rebellion that never happened. And forgotten by all.
That my friend is just exactly why we shall never see eye-to-eye on this matter.
It is why I say we are in the midst of ACWII & WWIII and the crux of the matter as to why Abe Lincoln was wrong wrong wrong in the first place.
If there's one bunch of people them blacks in New Orleans ought to be considerate of its them poor whites in Kansas. Just who do you think filled all them Legions of Lincoln? It was poor white boys from Kansas, Iowa and Minnesota sir. The ancestors of them people sufferin' in them flood waters you all are talkin' about.
But don't no black people in New Orleans give two hoots about that now do they. Do You?
See!
I may end up "forgotten by all", but I doubt it. My people may remember me. Will your's?
We will never see eye to eye because there is nothing to see. Just who do you think is going to support and fight this little war of yours? As far as the ancestors of them that filled the ranks... what does that have to do with anything? people from ALMOST all the states fought in the war, so no matter where you go you will find descendants of them. Or maybe I'm just missing your point with that comment...
Still tho, I would like to know where funds, arms, troops, and support for this war of yours would be coming from. I wonder if you even know? Or are the new rebs hoping to be bailed out by a foreign country like the old rebs were?
Oh yea and as far as the black people not giving a hoot.. thats my point, they don't... all they do is cry about how they are mistreated poor black people without ever trying to improve their own situation. After all, we all know white people can't suffer.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
I think there are parts of Louisiana and New Orleans, that should not be reinhabited. If it wasn't for federal flood insurance, many areas of this country would never see redevopment.
Florida is already seeing rising residential insurance rates, due to hurricanes and future hurricanes.
Most former poor residents will never return to New Orleans, as there never will be a return of the section 8 housing found in the city before the hurricane. Plus, wherever they went, the schools for their children were better. Who would want to go back to a larger New Orleans public school system?
It's rather amusing that many will quote states rights, and seem totally oblivious to the fact, states gave up some rights, when signing the U.S. Constitution.
And I'm sure some will deny it. It seems many pick and choose, and never read and analysized every paragraph of the U.S. Constitution.
For some people, some paragraphs of that Constitution are not very important.
But then ask youself? Why were they written and why do so many ignore some passages of the U.S. Constitution?
It's rather amusing that many will quote states rights, and seem totally oblivious to the fact, states gave up some rights, when signing the U.S. Constitution.
If you think about it, the constitutional convention could be looked at as a mini civil war? The main debate of the convention was do we have a federalist government or a confederacy. If you have the time, pick thorugh the federalist papers and see what they said about a confederacy. It really makes you realize how weak a confederate government can be, and he sights several countries throughout history that had a confederate government and failed because of it.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
The Constitution was a compromise by Federalists and states righters, with the Federalists fighting strongly for those powers that would, over time, tend to enhance the centralizing tendencies inherent in most gov'ts.
Significantly, the states rights groups were ready and willing to also compromise most issues, Except slavery. It became apparent to the Federalists that Without their slaves, the south would Not accept Union. The south would remain consistent in this instance, until Palm Sunday, 1865.
The real growth of federal power is generally dated by lawyers to 1937, when the Supreme Court, under pressure from FDR, substantially broadened the scope of the Commerce Clause in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Things got out of hand almost immediately. The 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn involved an Ohio farmer who planted and harvested wheat for consumption on his own farm (by family and animals, and for use as seed for the next year's crop). He exceeded the wheat acreage allotment set for his farm under the Federal Agricultural Adjustments Act of 1938, and he was fined.
Before the Supreme Court, he argued among other things that his activities were "beyond the reach of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, since they are local in character, and their effects upon interstate commerce are at most 'indirect.'"
The Supremes rejected the farmer's position:
"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. 26 The same consideration might help in determining whether in the absence of Congressional action it would be permissible for the state to exert its power on the subject matter, even though in so doing it to some degree affected interstate commerce. But even if [the farmer's] activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
Both opinions are online; you can read them for yourselves:
definitely a stretch on what effects interstate commerce. Supreme Court does use the Commerce Clause to fight discrimination by private businesses, specifically Congress did with the Civil Rights Act, but the Supreme Court upheld it in Heart of Atlanta Motel.
But its true, like it or not, with empowered by the Commerce Clause, the Congress can regulate virtually anything of value.
Ohmagawd, Captain. Were we brothers in a previous life? It seems that the staunchest advocates of a hands-off government are the first to squall about why the government doesn't handle things better.
Ole
My point, Ole, was to note how times have changed. Here we experienced first hand, up close and personal, how the Almighty federal government can't / won't take care of us in a crisis; yet absolutely no one seems to have learned from this experience that we need to decentralize and stop depenfing on Washington in the first place.
My point is not that the feds failed us - although they did - but that people are fools for depending on them in the first place.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
