not so golden arches

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

We have 7.4 million less manufacturing jobs than we did in 1979. Contrary to the philosophy of the Dell's of the world, Everybody can't be a captain of industry, rise from the ashes, and change the world.

Sometimes, folks just need a job that puts a roof over their head, offers them rudimentary healthcare, and at the very least affords them the mirage of hope- that when it's all said and done, they raised a family, put their kids through school in the hopes that their kids might have a better way, and didn't need to worry about dying in the streets in the process.

Those jobs are gone - unless you want to move to Bangalore, India, China, Bangladesh, etc...

I grew up in DC, not far from Baltimore, in fact spent a great deal of time there, back then. I remember Bethlehem Steel, General Motors (all the Chevy Astro vans were assembled there), GAF, all the cannery's along the harbor, along with a million other places that offered a decent (not great, but livable) wage and benefits (that wouldn't bankrupt you if you ever dared to use them) if you were willing to work for them. And the majority of folks did.

That's all gone. Walmart, McD's, etc - these jobs are their replacement - like it or not. The sad fact of the matter is that there is a majority of the population that is either not mentally, physically, financially adept enough to excel in the current climate (similarly to the way they were back then) - the difference - Back then, they could work an assembly line, operate plant machinery, etc... Now they are Cashiers and Greeters - if they can even get those jobs.

At the end of the day, the more they earn, the more they pay in taxes and the less of a burden overall the lower class is on the system. That is a positive for all of us (unless you're the corporation).

POS horribly ran company.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's the same mentality that had dirt poor southerners fighting a war for their rich neighbors to be able to keep slaves...while the plantation owners sat on their verandahs watching their world crumble.

Yea it had nothing to do with State Rights v. Federal Rights.

Most of those poor southern dirt farmers loved D.C. telling them how to live.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea it had nothing to do with State Rights v. Federal Rights.

Most of those poor southern dirt farmers loved D.C. telling them how to live.

If by "States' Rights" you mean the State's belief it in the right to legalize the ownership of another human being, then sure, it was about States' Rights. Check out what Texas had to say in their declaration:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

And check out what the Vice President of the Confederacy had to say. He, I would assume, had a clear idea of what the war was about:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution […] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away […] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

You sound like my father-in-law. Not only does he spout this "It was about States' Rights because few Southern whites owned slaves!" stuff, during our last visit he also earnestly explained to me how slaves "didn't have it all that bad."

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea it had nothing to do with State Rights v. Federal Rights.

Most of those poor southern dirt farmers loved D.C. telling them how to live.

The Civil War was no different from any other war throughout history, as Phil Ochs lamented, "its always the old who lead us to war, always the young who fall". The rich and powerful lead the rest of us by the nose, convincing us that sacrifice is necessary...as long as the young and poor do the sacrificing. How can Washington dare tell folks how to live when rich folks are already doing that?! The poor white person faces a life of working in unsafe conditions for low wages designed to stifle any advancement but the blame isn't placed on the rich landowners/business owners etc. but, in the case of the south (and today, throughout the land) on blacks (or illegals)...poor whites are force-fed this lie and it ultimately consumes their perception...and perception becomes reality. The rich control the world...but history shows that their rule cannot last forever, either their excess will rot the fabric of life (see the Roman empire) or one of the many movements started by disgruntled folks will finally take hold and change will come swiftly and probably violently.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If by "States' Rights" you mean the State's belief it in the right to legalize the ownership of another human being, then sure, it was about States' Rights.

I'm not saying slavery had nothing to do with it and unlike your father-in-law would never say or think African Americans had it better back then when they were for all practical purposes treated similar to modern day Pakistani/Iranian/Afghan etc. etc. wives and daughters.

No human will ever have it better being owned as opposed to being free.

But the numerous tariffs imposed by Washington a few decades before the war on things like cotton, meant solely to benefit the industrial north to the detriment of the south certainly played a part leading to the conflict as the tariffs all but ended the ability for the south to export to Britain, etc. and instead forced selling solely to the north at artificially low prices.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If by "States' Rights" you mean the State's belief it in the right to legalize the ownership of another human being, then sure, it was about States' Rights. Check out what Texas had to say in their declaration:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

And check out what the Vice President of the Confederacy had to say. He, I would assume, had a clear idea of what the war was about:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution […] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away […] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

You sound like my father-in-law. Not only does he spout this "It was about States' Rights because few Southern whites owned slaves!" stuff, during our last visit he also earnestly explained to me how slaves "didn't have it all that bad."

the whole thing about states rights being the cause celebre' is bs. i've read a ton of history from a variety of sources about that whole war, and the various causes.
it was NOT about states rights. if they were so damned worried about state soveriegnty, why did they try so hard to alter californias decision to be a free state in their constitution??
oh, i know...because the south wanted to expand slavery. they'd already started making arrangements to hire their slaves out in the mines.
then there was texas, that was going to be divided into five states, in order to have five slaves states, instead of just the one. more senators you see.
the south as a slave holding entity was determined to keep their slavery, as well as their bloc of power.
matter of fact, they even starting broaching the subject of the southern states changing the u.s. constitution to give them permanent control of the house. no joke, that happened!
the house is based on population..so of course the north was outpacing them on seats; so they had to at least maintain an even keel in the senate. the only way to do that is to keep an even number of states slave and free, hence the trouble with california.

so, if they were fans of states doing their thing....why were they giving cali such a fit? and kansas?

[Danzig]

and regarding the csa constitution...it was quite similar to our counstitution...but it very explicitly stated that slavery would remain, and even made it illegal to ever mention changing that! of course, these were the same politicians who made it a rule that slavery was not to be brought up in the House, a rule John Quincy Adams took great delight in breaking.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

But the numerous tariffs imposed by Washington a few decades before the war on things like cotton, meant solely to benefit the industrial north to the detriment of the south certainly played a part leading to the conflict as the tariffs all but ended the ability for the south to export to Britain, etc. and instead forced selling solely to the north at artificially low prices.

Those tariffs had been cut back drastically by the 1850s and the South had a huge hand in the shaping of the very reduced 1857 tariff law, which was then followed by an economic panic. Slavery was the #1 reason for the South's decision to secede. Certainly, other issues contributed (including Lincoln's election), but the central cause was about whether the nation would continue to allow a portion of that nation to create wealth on the backs of enslaved human beings.

Trivia- one of my ancestors, Abraham Op den Graef, was a signatory on the first public petition against slavery in the colonies, in 1680 (in Pennsylvania).

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Trivia- one of my ancestors, Abraham Op den Graef, was a signatory on the first public petition against slavery in the colonies, in 1680 (in Pennsylvania).

That is very cool. My ancestors didn't get here till the late 1880's on my mom's side and the late 1910's on my dad's side.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Those tariffs had been cut back drastically by the 1850s and the South had a huge hand in the shaping of the very reduced 1857 tariff law, which was then followed by an economic panic. Slavery was the #1 reason for the South's decision to secede. Certainly, other issues contributed (including Lincoln's election), but the central cause was about whether the nation would continue to allow a portion of that nation to create wealth on the backs of enslaved human beings.

Trivia- one of my ancestors, Abraham Op den Graef, was a signatory on the first public petition against slavery in the colonies, in 1680 (in Pennsylvania).

yeah, they seceded over tariffs...
calhoun even tried nullification over that business. but the south didn't care if the tariffs made sense, they just cared about THEM, not the country as a whole. boy, that sounds familiar.

i'd suggest anyone unsure or trying to make secession and war about anything other than the slavery issue to read 'the great compromise', and also' fall of the house of dixie'.
and james mcphersons books on the subject, 'battle cry of freedom', and 'civil war and reconstruction'.

had their been no slavery, there'd have been no war. but the souths economy had been built and sustained solely thru owning human beings. they never went beyond that into more modern practices of farming and agriculture. and the economy in the south was also impacted because most immigration occurred north and west, because there was no opportunity for most folks in the south, as they had to compete with slavery.
also, the south didn't want to just expand westward, demanding to have slave states not just in cali (or, they let's split it), but they wanted to expand into nevada, new mexico...
and south. into mexico, south america, cuba. they paid money for filibusterers to try to take over cuba...crazy stuff!

the oxford american history series is really good, that first mcpherson book is part of it.