Replies

Wow... I'm coming in late, but this is an interesting thread (not that I've read all of it yet).

I never even considered Paleoconservative as a Southern/Northern thing. My impression of paleoconservative was formed by Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak. Perhaps they have similar north/south loyalties but I was unaware of them. What's marked paleoconservatives mostly to me is a strong isolationist, almost xenophobic streak. Mostly opposed to the Iraq war and very keen on restricting immigration and strict border controls as the solution to the 9/11 problem (personally, I favor both solutions).

As for the north/south division expressed here... let me be obnoxious and throw a hypothetical future situation, which to me is a great analogy to the first civil war:

Anti-abortion sentiment in the country rises, with by far the most opposition it in the Heartland region, and the remaining holdouts supporting it on the coasts. The population of the South rises to the point that between the House and Senate, enough votes are acquired to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing -all- abortion, 1st 2nd and 3rd trimester. But then, due to encroaching supreme court decisions that were leaning toward counting the fetus as a life, in a bizarre twist of logic manage to argue that the liberal north counts all pregnant women as two votes, shifting the balance so that the Amendment cannot pass and abortion remains legal.

Before the vote is actually held, the pro-life President, whose sympathies lie with the Heartland, issues an Executive Order, the Defense of Life Proclamation, declaring that abortion in all forms is against the law. Fury and vitriol from the liberal states over this usurpation of their rights by the conservative heartland is loud and vitriolic. Eventually, rather than give up the right to abortion, most of New England south to Maryland and west to Illinois, Florida and a good number of Western states including California, Oregon and Washington State all secede from the Union.

The Heartland finds itself very unconveniently restricted in it's access to coastal and thus shipping lanes. Also, many major cities that comprised a great deal of the economy have broken away, along with most major airports, seaports and manufacturing capacity.

The President (and Washington D.C.), siding with the Heartland (yeah, I know, work with me here) as a result of the Defense of Life Proclamation, decides that in the interest of the solidarity of the Union, and the saving of the lives of the Unborn, declares war on the breakaway states. Eventually, the Heartland wins. Two centuries later, most look back on the practice of abortion with disgust and horror.

My question to those whose sympathies lay with the South in the original civil war: Would you consider this President a monster for having declared war on the breakaway states in order to end abortion throughout the United States, after all possible means to end it otherwise had been exhausted?

I wouldn't.

Qwinn