Posted on 01/15/2003 9:14:10 AM PST by billbears
Bump.
BUMP. I, I, I, me, me, me. If he decides to run, it should be as a Libertarian, given his noticable self-centered point of view.
Coming from the SF Bay Area (now in Alabama for the reasons mentioned in the article), I can tell you that liberals in the school system plan a "Sojurn to the South" every year. His High school english department sponsors a bus load of kids on a two week vacation to see the sites where the Civil Rights movement had its heyday. They also rant on about how the south is still a hotbed of racism.(But I see little of that). They are denegrating the south to make their case that liberalism is the correct political movement for these kids to join. (Thank goodness I got my son out with out the scars they are trying to give their own kids. He is going to Auburn, ((War Eagle)))
This just stuck out to me as probably the best description of what has happened to the Republican party. Sold out and left the conservatives at home
If "limited-government" principles are the bedrock of the Republician party, then he must mean the Republican (anti-Federalist) party of Thomas Jefferson.
"If defending the truth means a temporary setback in one’s long-term political strategy, so be it."
Do you recall how many were scarified (in the not-too-distant past) for believing they could hold to such a high principle? I do.
Regards,
Az
By William S. Lind
January 9, 2003
Historians often indulge in scholarly speculation as to what the course of history would have been had major wars, battles, elections or the like gone the other way. In such an exercise, William S. Lind, Director of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Cultural Conservatism, wrote a commentary in 1999 hypothesizing a course of history had the South won and the Union lost our American Civil War.
Three years later a controversy has erupted. Reports in The Sacramento Bee and The Washington Post were published in the past few days centering upon that 1999 commentary. Bill Back, a candidate in the current contest for state GOP chairman in California had published the commentary in an e-letter at the time that it was originally published in 1999. In the wake of the Trent Lott controversy, Back fell under fire for having done so, eventually feeling compelled to apologize for racial insensitivity. Notable News Now readers can judge for themselves whether Mr. Lind's commentary deserves the label of 'hateful bigotry" that was thrown at it by Shannon Reeves, who is Back's opponent, or whether the attacks reflect a Politically Correct mindset.
If the South had won the Civil War, where might our two countries be today? It is of course impossible to know, and as someone who proudly wears his great-grandfather's G.A.R. ring-he served in the 88th and 177th Ohio Volunteers, and his diary records the monitors bombarding Fort Fisher as he watched from a Union transport-I'm not entirely comfortable asking the question. But given how bad things have gotten in the old U.S.A., it's not hard to believe that history might have taken a better turn. Slavery of course would be long gone, for economic reasons. Race relations today in the Old South, in rural areas and cities such as Charleston, South Carolina, are generally better than they are in northern cities, so we might have done all right on that score. When southerners say they have a special relationship with blacks based on many generations of living together at close quarters, they have a point. The real damage to race relations in the south came not from slavery, but from Reconstruction, which would not have occurred if the South had won. And since the North would have been a separate nation, the vast black migration to northern cities that took place during World War II might not have happened.
Certainly Southerners would not be living under the iron rule of an all-powerful federal government, as we all do now. Northerners might not be, either; a Union defeat would have given states' rights a boost in both countries. The Tenth Amendment might still have the force of law even up north.
It is possible that both countries might still be republics, instead of a single empire. That transformation traces to America's entry into World War I, which might not have happened. Southern sympathy would probably have been with Britain and France, but the North, with a large German population, might well have lined up with the Kaiser (the Irish would have liked that, too).
No American entry into the war would have meant no Communism in Russia and no Hitler in Germany.
That's not a bad bargain. It is highly unlikely that the Confederacy would have embraced the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness that is fast becoming the official American state ideology. So at least part of North America would still stand for Western culture, Christianity and an appreciation of the differences between ladies and gentlemen. Decency might have taken its stand in Dixie, along with some other good things such as an appreciation for the merits of rural life. Perhaps most important, Americans north and south might have a choice. If the North had turned left, as the United States has during this century, Northerners who didn't care for that development could cross the Mason Dixon line and become Southerners. That's an option more than a few of us Yankees would appreciate having, even if it did mean having to eat grits. What would my great-grandfather, Union Army sergeant Alfred G. Sturgiss, say to all of this? If he could see the sorry mess the country he fought for has become, I think he might sadly say that he'd fought for the wrong side.
Bill Lind is director of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Cultural Conservatism.
I'll second that quote, it's been my experience by far.
He doesn't know what he's missing. Grits are good. Grits are delicious. Grits are a true delicacy, and I could eat them 3 times a day, and sometimes have. A SMALL dab of butter, and some salt, is all they need. Mmmmm...I think I'll have some now...
That's really true, and I've never understood it. Black people are just a concept to many Northerners.
My main issue with blacks(some) down here has to do with crime.
It's real bad in some areas, where the liberal plantation has a strong hold. The liberals deliberately destroyed the black family structure with their progressive welfare programs by rewarding illegitimacy. They created a dysfuntional black culture in many inner city areas, but secured a voting block for themselves. That was their purpose all along, and it was not an accidental by-product. Before they did that, black Americans were typically conservative and very family oriented. Low crime rates, etc.. What we see today is the result of a crime against humanity perpetrated by liberals. They are as bad as nazis in my view.
Decent white folks down South have been raised to have respect towards everybody until they have shown they merit otherwise.....then all bets are off.
I grew up in a small town in northwest Alabama (Marion County), and that's how we were raised. It's up to each individual to prove that he doesn't deserve respect. Until then, it's freely given and expected in return.
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.