Posted on 05/02/2008 8:56:18 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[You] But it was the owner of the land, not South Carolina.
Not if South Carolina "expropriated" it, the way that the Congress "expropriated" Crown property during/after the Revolutionary War.
South Carolina had the right to require the U.S. Government to quit its forts and facilities. USG no longer had any business to transact within the boundaries of South Carolina, other than diplomatic business.
What do you regard as "excessive"? Any?
You have another name, another concept, for that constellation of States? Come on, x, give with the nomenclature. Put up. I'll listen.
Whom should the GOP represent instead? Who should represent the South if not the GOP? Maybe your idea is that the Southern States should wander like blind Oedipus, and fetch up in some far-flung Colonus by accident.
Or maybe you think the South should leave the Union? So that you needn't suffer the embarrassment of being called our neighbor and fellow-citizen?
Whatever is bugging you, x, I'm sure there's a solution.
The final fate of that property was settled by treaty, not by outright theft.
Issues define who's in one's camp and who isn't. So the South was very firmly on the Republican side. But what do you do with that? How do you behave in Congress? Do you try to expand that base or do you limit your appeal to the areas you already control?
If you don't want to compromise, fine. But if you compromise on the principles you believe in, but sharpen regional antagonism that doesn't look like a winning strategy either.
I can only speak for myself. But glancing over Caldwell's article, it looks like you misjudge him. You can find phrases to justify a "We hate you Southerners" interpretation, but to take that for the whole message of the article looks like a mistake. What I'm trying to say, is you can learn from someone's argument even if you don't agree with it or you can demonize it, and you've made your choice.
Your argument also looks like an oversimplification.
... Caldwell cashed in on the beating the GOP took from the MSM and their hate campaign of 1995-6, playing off the MSM themes of "all the world hates you" and "you're nothing but a bunch of neo-Klukker lynch-mob gomers" to make an argument of his own, "The media are beating us to death with this South-hating stuff, it's working, the battleground-state public is turning on us, we gotta bail on the Southern conservatives and pretend we don't know these guys!"
A lot happens in over a dozen years. Someone less inclined to see everything in terms of victimization would pick up on that.
There was no rejection of the South in 1995 or 1996 or afterwards. What happens is what always happens: politicians stay in power until they start screwing up, and then they leave. Nobody said "Oh! We hate you Gingrich, or Armey or Livingston or Delay or Gramm or Lott! Go!" (assuming that's who you're talking about). Rather there was a natural attrition of politicians who made the kind of mistakes politicians always make.
Moreover, in the election after this article appeared, Republicans didn't go with McCain or Forbes, but with someone more acceptable to the South, G.W. Bush. If they were running away from the South, wouldn't they have nominated someone else?
Ah, but Bush isn't a true Southerner! Guess not, not like the Southerners in the race, Lamar Alexander and Libby Dole. My point is 10 years ago or now, the people you'd be most comfortable with and likely to regard as "true Southerners" aren't going to get very far in national politics. Even people who get elected to statewide office in Southern states don't fit the bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.