Like this cabin in Alaska?
Posted on 11/23/2001 5:25:09 AM PST by LarryLied
Despite the "friendly" Sunbelt's purported ease and opportunity, the "unfriendly" North continues by far to have the best quality of life.The United Way now reports that Minnesota (of which I am genetically half a native, which may undermine the good data here) is the best state, in economic well-being, education, health, civic engagement, safety and the environment. Having visited this Midwest Finland, I am not surprised. And I find New Hampshire's Number 2 rating apt, too, having inhabited that rocky realm of rectitude, responsibility and (usually) reasonableness for four years.
Ditto the others in the top 10: Connecticut (even with Hartford!); Massachusetts; Vermont; Maine; Wisconsin; Iowa; New Jersey, and, yes, even Rhode Island, hardly a state at all!
Meanwhile, the bottom 10 are all in the Sunbelt, the worst New Mexico, and then Louisiana.
Maybe it's mostly the weather. The North's bracing and wildly variable climate energizes people and encourages planning and careful citizenship. And it's probably better for you, because cold is bad for bugs. Even the post-war wave of air-conditioning hasn't let previously soporific Southern schools, offices and factories overcome the North's paradoxical climatic advantage.
And Northerners tend to be less mobile, and so less likely to slide into that appalling anomie in which the American Dream is pursued by folks wandering the roads in search of pots of gold that turn out to be tin, and leaving no forwarding address. But then, it is easier to wander about where the weather is warm. Thus the pervasive trailer parks in the Sunbelt, and enough social problems to make you ask if the Sunbelt's growing national power is a good thing. (Don't show this to my Tennessee relatives.)
We were solidly Democratic because Lincoln and his Reconstructionists were Republicans.
Like this cabin in Alaska?
And why can't you take that position with the South. You don't like it, won't move there, so why all the venom?
You tell yourself that because you can't handle the truth, that the South seceded to perpetuate slavery, as evidenced by South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, and that the North fought to preserve the union. If you weren't so self righteous, you could see that every country in the world makes mistakes, your precious Confederacy included.
I don't have any trouble with Northerners, until they misrepresent history and suggest that I should ignore their fabrications. 150 years later in retrospect I can see the value of the preservation of the union.....but in 1861, living in the South, I would have fought to defend my home against the invaders. And if you were honest, I think you would fight to defend your home too.
I agree that most Southerners fought for their homeland, it's a shame the war came about because of the desire to perpetuate slavery by an elitist few.
And many southerners to this day refuse to vote for a republican because of it. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many native North Carolinians I know who vote democrat because their mother, grandmother, great grandmother, etc... were democrats and they would "roll over in their grave if I ever voted for a republican." Talk about making an educated decision when voting.
Click on my profile for some further information on a defender of the SOuth who was not interested in slavery-well, that's not the best wording-he bacame interested in slavery in a novel way for a Southerner.
and how many old Confederacy states did George W. Bush carry in the last Presidental election?
This is at best 20/20 hind sight and at worst 20/2000 hindsight. Lincoln did not know that it would be possible to handle the situation without an invasion,(look at what happened to Sumner by your politician whose name escapes me, how could we deal with this kind of people without war) How did we know that our country would not have completley fallen apart if we took the time for non violent negotiations. Desperate times call for desperate measures and you can't blame Lincold for feeling that the situation could not get much more desperate.
I'll be checking my mailbox for the invitation!
I think that Lincoln was not Clinton and tried to do things as the founders intended. Executive orders should be avoided unless immediately needed for the nations security or freedom.
Where do you read that in the Constitution? Oh, I forgot, Lincoln suspended the Constitution during the War...you may be right.
The South rebelled, they gave up a lot of their protection. Your bed, lay in it.
Again you have made my point for me. The North was industralized. The farms that they had were small farms. Owning slaves was not profitable in the North.
Bull. Imagine how many acres you could farm back then if you had all the free help you needed.
However, it was very profitable for northern ship owners to import and sell the slaves to the South. Because the South was more agrarian and the crops raised in the South were more condusive to large tract farming, ie. plantations, it was more economically feasible for slaves to be used in the South. Thus there was an economic factor is why slavery persisted in the South rather than in the North...thus it was an economic punishment against the South to free the slaves there (in fact taking "property" without compensation) and not freeing the slaves in the North.
If that was so, it would be punishment well deserved since your intention was to perpetuate slavery. I think that the Radical Republicans hated slavery, the circumstances of the 1860 election gave their man Lincoln the victory, the South had a bad feeling about Lincoln and didn't want to give up slavery, they seceded without terms of separation (rebelled), the North waited for an attack before a full scale invasion, the South obliged at Fort Sumter, we invaded to save the union foremost because of the dangerous world of the nineteenth century, the Radical Republicans got their wish of the E.P. as a fringe benefit of war, the North won, end of story, get over it.
That's the difference between me and you, if you were my neighbor up here, I could get along with you.
Nope...I have no doubt that lots of Southerners would say such things to a Yankee. But I also know what the results of the election were.
I seem to remember all the states of the Old Confederacy were in the Red Zone, including Gore's homestate of Tennessee.
Please tell me if my memory is incorrect.
What you are referring to is what we call a "yellow dog Democrat"... they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican.....fortunately GW won enough of them over last time...:)
You don't have to live like I do but when you renege on a contract to hold your fellow human beings in bondage like the Sudan, we have a problem.
Sorta like I don't understand the Taliban. So I won't even pretend to understand Northern thinking.
That's a dumb comparison, but if you want to go there, the Taliban liked to beat with whips, and so did slaveowners.
But I do understand northern results. And I know Sherman marched from Atlanta to the sea and stole or destroyed everything in a 100 mile swath.
War is hell. Maybe you will learn that instead of going straight to war, maybe it would've been a good idea to work something out with terms of separation instead of rebellion.
Now do you know how far it is from Atlanta to the coast? And can you imagine how wide 100 miles swath is? Again, I say, most Southerners were fighting in defense of their HOMES. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope for you.
I'm fully aware that most Southerners fought for their homeland and I respect them very much for that. I've said over and over it's a terrible shame that 600,000 died for the fight for filthy lucre of a few.
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.