"Country First" for Sarah Palin?

[rowan-tree]

Now thats pretty rude, no matter what. Have you read the rules? Ad hominen attacks are not allowed. And from what I understand, this is not your first. I would suggest you tread lightly.

 

I appreciate the warning.

 

I interpreted (rightly, I believe) Bill's post to be an attack, carrying the accusation that I am pro-slavery because I believe that true patriotism requires community first, etc. I'd say that's pretty inflamatory, which is doubly inflamatory to me because Bill also accused me of being inflamatory.

 

So, I was "inflamed." Bill accomplished what he set out to do. Shame on me. But if he wants to have it out again, I wanted him to know I'm ready.

[rowan-tree]

Is it "historical reconstruction" to acknowledge "the South" allowed the enslavement of human beings and fought a war to maintain this "peculiar institution"?

 

Throw this tidbit in your processor before you decide whether you want to start in on this: Louisiana had already freed its slaves before the War began. Still want to give it a go?

[Erica in PA]

And for the record, I really DO want to know how those of you who support Mrs. Palin and cast aspersions against Mrs. Obama for a similar sentiment reconcile the two.

 

It's difficult to address that point,though, when nothing conclusive has been reported about Palin's involvement in this group, about what this group's purposes were, or to what degree she may have been in agreement with them...none of that has been established, so no one can make the comparison you are seeking yet.

 

When the facts come out, I'm sure people will be glad to weigh in and explain their position, whatever it may be at that time. Until then, it sort of comes across that you are trying to force a comparison between Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin, and perhaps to point out some hypocrisy you may be anticipating on the part of Palin's supporters... when it's not at all clear what any of the facts even were in her case.

 

Erica

[rowan-tree]

redundant

[Spy Car]

:iagree: I'm a native Mississippian and my great grandfathers died fighting for the right of self-government. Implicit in the idea of sec***ion is that local community comes first. And I'm all for that. This does not mean we can't have broader loyalties, even world-wide loyalties.

 

Throw this tidbit in your processor before you decide whether you want to start in on this: Louisiana had already freed its slaves before the War began. Still want to give it a go?

 

Louisiana???

 

I thought we were talking about Misissippi :confused:

 

Did they free their enslaved population before the Civil War?

[Spy Car]

:iagree: I'm a native Mississippian and my great grandfathers died fighting for the right of self-government. Implicit in the idea of sec***ion is that local community comes first. And I'm all for that. This does not mean we can't have broader loyalties, even world-wide loyalties.

 

Throw this tidbit in your processor before you decide whether you want to start in on this: Louisiana had already freed its slaves before the War began. Still want to give it a go?

 

Louisiana???

 

I thought we were talking about Misissippi :confused:

 

Did they free their enslaved population before the Civil War?

[rowan-tree]

So if you lived in Alaska and then Alaska seceded, you would put the US before Alaska? You are now in Alaska, maybe even the governor of the state, its a whole new country. Loyalty to the US would probably be frowned upon. Do you now see the contradiction?

 

Let's see... If I lived in Alaska (which would be nice, I fancy), and then Alaska seceded, yes, I would put Alaska before the US.

 

But, since Alaska did not secede, and I'm governor (which goes against my expressed convictions, as per this previously posted link) I would still be living in Alaska, and so I would still put Alaska first in my heart and loyalties, and the US as a whole, second, world-third...

[GraceinMD]

despite your apparent low opinion of me

 

I do NOT have a low opinion of you AT ALL! In fact, if I did, I probably wouldn't have posted - but I have a much higher opinion of you, and just didn't think that that speculative post was "worthy" of your usual postings.

 

If I misinterpreted, I truly apologize. (For what it's worth, I didn't say any thing about Mrs. Obama, and think she's entitled to whatever opinions she wants, EVEN IF (gasp!) *I* may not agree with them! :001_smile:) I have such an appreciation for the USA and our freedoms of speech (having briefly suffered the loss of that freedom when living in another country 25 yrs ago), but I guess I also think that maybe there was some benefit to a news cycle that was more than 3 seconds long. It gives everyone time to make sure that what they're saying is true and accurate.

[rowan-tree]

Louisiana???

 

I thought we were talking about Misissippi :confused:

 

Did they free their enslaved population before the Civil War?

 

Well, then, I guess we need to figure out what we are talking about before we talk about it, eh? :tongue_smilie:

 

I thought you were implying that the South fought the war for secession in order to preserve the institution of slavery. So, I previewed my position with the information that Louisiana, one of the southern states, had already freed its slaves. I thought the implication of this would be obvious for any claim that the primary issue of the War was slavery.

 

To answer your immediate question, no, MS did not free its slaves before the War began.

 

To answer all the questions that might arise in readers' minds about my position - no, I'm not pro-slavery. In fact, I go further than most in my thoughts on the matter - I believe that South was judged by God through the War and Reconstruction (and perhaps is still being judged) for its stubborn and ungodly practice of racial slavery and the prejudices against humanity that characterized such a practice.

 

So, there you go.

[Spy Car]

I thought you were implying that the South fought the war for secession in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

 

Are you saying the South didn't fight the Civil War to preserve slavery?

 

And you accuse me of "historical revisionism"?

 

So for what cause did so many die? Lower tariffs?

 

 

To answer all the questions that might arise in readers' minds about my position - no, I'm not pro-slavery. In fact, I go further than most in my thoughts on the matter - I believe that South was judged by God through the War and Reconstruction (and perhaps is still being judged) for its stubborn and ungodly practice of racial slavery and the prejudices against humanity that characterized such a practice.

 

So, there you go.

 

I'm not sure if I should be relieved, or what?

[Elaine]

Just coming in to apologize to Bill. (Spy Car)

 

Bill,

I apologize for being rude to you. You have a record of being polite and respectful and I was not that to you. My apologies.

[Plucky]

Just coming in to apologize to Bill. (Spy Car)

 

Bill,

I apologize for being rude to you. You have a record of being polite and respectful and I was not that to you. My apologies.

 

That was extremely gracious, Elaine. I think Bill is pretty cool, too. :grouphug:

[nakitty]

Doesn't bother me, I never said anything about Michelle either.

 

I'm a native Texan and I've always said that if they were going to secede, I'd go back in a heartbeat! Before they close the borders anyway. :D

 

Is this meant to be tongue in cheek? Because I find that highly unpatriotic...

[tibbyl]

Now thats your ranking.

 

And if Alaska seceded, it wouldn't be a state anymore. OK? It would be another country. So where in that ranking do you put another country, that is not the US?

 

That is the part I am failing to understand in regard to the secessionist posts. Perhaps the word "loyal" is being used to refer to two sovereign nations being allies, like Great Britain and the U.S. But semantically "loyal" would tend to indicate a stronger degree of allegiance than "ally." Loyal means faithful to one's sovereign government whereas ally is more of a mutually beneficial friendship.

 

To the poster sdwtmer who stated that the hyphenated Americans would not be included among loyal Americans, are you seriously equating use of term to indicate ethnic, cultural, or geographical orientation with desire to secede from one's country? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

[kokotg]

Throw this tidbit in your processor before you decide whether you want to start in on this: Louisiana had already freed its slaves before the War began. Still want to give it a go?

 

Not that it has anything at all to do with this thread, but I'd be interested in your source on this. I can't find anything at all about it in my quick googling.

[Kelli in TN]

Not that it has anything at all to do with this thread, but I'd be interested in your source on this. I can't find anything at all about it in my quick googling.

 

We are very close to starting our civil war study and I too would be very interested in some sources for this information. I certainly do not wish to teach my children revisionist history.

[Starr]

There is so much to say that I don't think I can do it. Alaska is it's own, not so little, part of the country. Much of the information needs to be taken in an Alaskan context. With my years of living in Alaska and talking to Alaskan friends I'd say Palin does not have the experience McCain is really looking for. She should also not be touted as a politician without any of the "politics" that comes with politics.:001_unsure:

[rowan-tree]

Are you saying the South didn't fight the Civil War to preserve slavery?

And you accuse me of "historical revisionism"? So for what cause did so many die? Lower tariffs?

 

 

The War of Northern Aggression did not begin over the issue of slavery, no. Mr. Lincoln didn't make that an issue until two years after the War began. Certainly the Cajuns of Louisiana and the Texan-nationalists didn't fight over the slavery issue, and Texas sent more soldiers, proportionally, to the War than any other state. So, if you believe that the fear of losing the institution of slavery was the South's primary motivation to secede, then, yes, I'd say you've been reconstructed. Being a Southerner, I sympathize.

 

We fought the War to preserve our right to self-government and, much like the War for Independence, in order to escape tyrannical taxation and the North's attempt to manipulate our economy for its own benefit - but most predominantly, to defend our families from invasion.

 

I'm not sure if I should be relieved, or what?

 

Yes, if anyone, you should be very relieved.

[rowan-tree]

We are very close to starting our civil war study and I too would be very interested in some sources for this information. I certainly do not wish to teach my children revisionist history.

 

There's lots of good stuff out there. I'll pass some along. Just remember, the victors get to write the history books and put their heroes' faces on the coinage.

[nakitty]

I'm not going to click on any of these links until they determine what their "facts" are. This discussion should probably wait until then.

 

You asked for link then refused to look at them?

[Laurie4b]

My questions were about the OP's statement:

 

"To be honest, I"m really left wondering about Mrs. Palin's patriotism now that it's been established that she and her husband spent most of the '90's as members of a group whose sole purpose was to achieve Alaska's secession from the Union."

 

Just wondering whether it's actually been established.

[kokotg]

There's lots of good stuff out there. I'll pass some along. Just remember, the victors get to write the history books and put their heroes' faces on the coinage.

 

Actually, I think the American Civil War is widely acknowledged as the exception to the rule about victors writing history. Shelby Foote might agree with me. Well, except he's dead.

[kokotg]

My questions were about the OP's statement:

 

"To be honest, I"m really left wondering about Mrs. Palin's patriotism now that it's been established that she and her husband spent most of the '90's as members of a group whose sole purpose was to achieve Alaska's secession from the Union."

 

Just wondering whether it's actually been established.

 

AFAIK, what's been well established is that her husband was a member of the party from 1995 to 2002, and she has had some degree of involvement with them, including, at least, attending their 2000 convention.

[nakitty]

You are making a huge assumption that these rumors are fact. I say rumors, because the left wing attack machine is digging up all kinds of dirt on this woman and her family. This is just one of many. It's interesting how they throw everything at the wall, more things than any one person can respond to ina 24 hour period, and hope something sticks. Apparently this accusation stuck with you. But there's no proof whatsoever that SP was involved in AIP. But now, thanks to the media of personal destruction, SP has to defend herself against yet another smear tactic.

 

 

Are you kidding me?

 

First, the title was not in the least bit inappropriate.

 

Second, *IF* they had vetted her properly they would have the answers at the ready!

[Kelli in TN]

There's lots of good stuff out there. I'll pass some along. Just remember, the victors get to write the history books and put their heroes' faces on the coinage.

 

That would be fabulous and very timely in terms of our studies.

[Jenny in Atl]

Actually, I think the American Civil War is widely acknowledged as the exception to the rule about victors writing history. Shelby Foote might agree with me. Well, except he's dead.

 

He wasn't really southern, just a creation of that evil northern step-sister called Hollywood. :lol:

[nakitty]

David Brooks on the Lehrer News Hour said she has been working on her speech, so I assume she's speaking. He also mentioned that she hasn't had other interviews because so much of her time has been working on the speech. FWIW.

 

Interesting....considering very few politicians actually write their own speeches...

[Jenny in Atl]

Interesting....considering very few politicians actually write their own speeches...

 

She is working with some dude McCain flew in to help him. The guy has got his work cut out for him. 2 for 1.

[kokotg]

He wasn't really southern, just a creation of that evil northern step-sister called Hollywood. :lol:

 

ooh, if Shelby Foote were alive to hear you say that.....:tongue_smilie:

[Jenny in Atl]

ooh, if Shelby Foote were alive to hear you say that.....:tongue_smilie:

 

He would have a good chuckle as I did.

[rowan-tree]

Actually, I think the American Civil War is widely acknowledged as the exception to the rule about victors writing history. Shelby Foote might agree with me. Well, except he's dead.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that.... except on the history of the Reconstruction. Very hard to find balanced and fair representation of that.

[sdWTMer]

Uh, yeah it is tongue in cheek, but I think that quite a few Texans would say the same thing too. Texas just runs deep in my veins.

 

Although, I do love America more than anything.

[Mom to Aly]

Well, I understood the point Michelle Obama was trying to make, and I think everyone did, but jumped on her for misspeaking--as if no one ever did that in their lives before!

 

This is a totally different matter! I don't see how someone can say they want to be VP, which means they could easily be President, they are second in command if ANYTHING happens to the 72 year old man they are running with, when they wanted, just a few years ago, to secede from the country. That, to me, does not represent loyalty or patriotism!

 

I think McCain made a hasty, not well researched or thought out decision, and it is going to bite him in the you know what in the end.

 

Great decision, IMO, since I'm a democrat :).

[rowan-tree]

That would be fabulous and very timely in terms of our studies.

 

Alrighty then, here are some sources that might be useful:

 

I glanced at your children's ages, which made me think G.A.Henty might be a good supplement for the raw material. He was an Englishman who wrote a series of historical fiction books that are choked full of solid history. Very fine historian. Amazing breadth. The fictional characters are accurately contextualized and provide the viewpoint from which to "meet" and learn something of the historical personages. He wrote "With Lee in Virginia." On the other hand, he was very pro-South, and spent overmuch time (I think) trying to demonstrate that slavery was not the main issue, but aside from that, I'd say he's a good way to capture the imagination of young persons and foster their interest in the subject.

 

As far as source material: Jefferson Davis, R.E.Lee, and Lincoln all gave very clear reasons for why they fought the War. Davis in his farewell address to the senate and also his Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Lee in his letters (which may not be readily accessible if you want the information handily). Lincoln's inaugural address, March 4, 1861: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

 

Also, you might take a look at the bibliography of Kennedy's book, The South Was Right. The book itself has an extremely pro-South slant, and so read accordingly. But the research is solid and it is well footnoted. It will also provide an easy overview of the issues from a southern perspective.

 

Another, probably easier, book that will provide this is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South, by Clint Johnson. It also has a pretty good bibliography. (An aside - this whole series has promise. I especially appreciated the books of this series on 1) Islam and 2) English Literature[!!!]).

 

I'm sure there are other, better, sources, but I don't have them readily at hand. I'll track them down, though, if you don't think these will suffice.

 

Other tangential works: Jay Willam Jone’s Christ in the Camp, A History of the Old South by Clement Eaton (shows economic side of issues). Stonewall Jackson’s wife compiled his life and letters - every young man needs to read the words of this amazing man of God. Same for RE Lee's letters. Robert L Dabney wrote a very good biography of Jackson.

 

One last thought: The reason RE Lee's perspective is important is because his father was Richard Henry Lee, one of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, much beloved of Washington and of immense importance in that conflict. Robert E. was a true son of his father and shared his ideals, which, as arguments go, were the same as Washington's. Many leading Southerners believed they were fighting the War for Independence all over again.

 

But having said this, as with any war, the "motives" are multifarious and difficult to untangle, especially from the perspective of the common man. We can take some good guesses based, for example, on the sociological evidences. Still, the prominent figures involved have left sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the issue of slavery cannot be the reason for the War's beginning. Even most liberal historians agree and this myth is quite out of fashion in most universities today, though perhaps it still hangs about internet forums.:001_smile:

 

I've got more thoughts on this topic, of course and I'd be happy to explore it, but it may be considered a side issue of this thread, and possibly a distraction to other readers. Thoughts?