The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Ben Horne as Lee would have made an excellent president!

[French Rage]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Every year I get into arguments about Lee. He is so vastly overrated. Those great battles he won were against some of the worst Generals in the Union Army like McLellan. (who I think had money on the South to win he was tanking so badly) Jackson was the true greatness of the South as proven by the fact that after he died Lee went on to make some epic blunders. (see: Pickett's Charge) If Grant ran the Army of the Potomac at Bull Run the South loses in 6 months.

Agreed on Lee and Jackson. At various points in history, the technology of the time favors offense or defense in different ways. At the time of the Civil War, it favored defense. Jackson understand this and found ways to position his forces into forcing the Union to attack, and when that failed he was in a position to counterattack the enemy. Lee was way to fond of a full frontal attack at a time when it was much more likely guaranteed to fail.

[Handyman]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

But that's the only way for the South to "win." Either they deliver a knock-out blow right off the bat and force a Constitutional settlement where they are re-admitted to the Union and slavery is protected from federal government interference (what they really wanted), or the North relocated the capital and the European powers now have the opportunity to weaken the United States by trading with the South and supplying them manufactured goods and weapons, eventually forcing the North to lose faith and letting the South become independent.

There's no other way for the South to retain power in an industrializing world where slave labor is no longer competitive with machines. Even then it buys the South a generation at most, and they probably blow it because of cultural issues, but it does buy them time. The South lost all their leverage when they fired on Fort Sumpter -- they needed to wait to play off the northeast vs the "west" (i.e., Michigan / Illinois) if they were going to get a seat at the table. But having started the war, that was the only way to survive.

Europe would have never traded outright with the South even if they had won independence. Europe was against slavery and would not have been allied with a country whose primary form of industrialization was slavery.

Also I think you are completely mistaken about the goals of the CSA. The second they fired on Sumter there was no going back. If they had made their way to Washington that would have forced a truce but there was no way they were re-joining the Union with or without Slavery. They would never capitulate to a Federal Government without defeat. They wanted the State Power back and if they forced an end to the War the CSA would have been a separate American Country and nothing less. You are looking at this too much from the future and not thinking of the time. They wanted out...to them the US wasnt of any value their state was all that mattered.

AAAAAAAAAAAAND it would have crashed and burned before the end of the 1860s. The problems of the CSA were similar to the problems of the Articles of Confederation only they would have been way worse. They had no real value outside of what they used Slave Labor for. This would hamper who they can trade with. They would be dependent on the US for the majority of their trade with some also coming from Mexico. (and most likely Mexico probably goes to War with the South it lasts longer than a decade) Their money is worthless as well. It would have been full on Darwinism as states like Virginia would have little issue finding ways to stay affluent (the North would choose to trade with them) while states like Tennessee would die limp on the vine rather quickly. This would be exasperated by having someone like Lee as President because he would favor Virginia and things that help her prosper over everyone. (he wasnt loyal to anyone but Virginia) Without any form of true Federal Government the internal strife of the States would have collapsed in on itself and either they would have forged North in hopes of another War helping them or States would have started rejoining the US or Mexico in hopes of saving themselves.

It is a fun mental exercise to have though. Lee was a good general made great by those who served below him. They were loyal to a T...though many wavered after Gettysburg. (Pickett for sure did) Lee always assumed that if their attitude was right they could defeat any enemy. This was backed up by Stonewall winning amazing victories at Bull Run, Fredricksburg and finally Chancellorsville. He didnt realize the South couldnt win a War of Attrition but Grant sure did. He would have made the same mistake as President.

[joecct]

Europe would have never traded outright with the South even if they had won independence. Europe was against slavery and would not have been allied with a country whose primary form of industrialization was slavery.

Also I think you are completely mistaken about the goals of the CSA. The second they fired on Sumter there was no going back. If they had made their way to Washington that would have forced a truce but there was no way they were re-joining the Union with or without Slavery. They would never capitulate to a Federal Government without defeat. They wanted the State Power back and if they forced an end to the War the CSA would have been a separate American Country and nothing less. You are looking at this too much from the future and not thinking of the time. They wanted out...to them the US wasnt of any value their state was all that mattered.

AAAAAAAAAAAAND it would have crashed and burned before the end of the 1860s. The problems of the CSA were similar to the problems of the Articles of Confederation only they would have been way worse. They had no real value outside of what they used Slave Labor for. This would hamper who they can trade with. They would be dependent on the US for the majority of their trade with some also coming from Mexico. (and most likely Mexico probably goes to War with the South it lasts longer than a decade) Their money is worthless as well. It would have been full on Darwinism as states like Virginia would have little issue finding ways to stay affluent (the North would choose to trade with them) while states like Tennessee would die limp on the vine rather quickly. This would be exasperated by having someone like Lee as President because he would favor Virginia and things that help her prosper over everyone. (he wasnt loyal to anyone but Virginia) Without any form of true Federal Government the internal strife of the States would have collapsed in on itself and either they would have forged North in hopes of another War helping them or States would have started rejoining the US or Mexico in hopes of saving themselves.

It is a fun mental exercise to have though. Lee was a good general made great by those who served below him. They were loyal to a T...though many wavered after Gettysburg. (Pickett for sure did) Lee always assumed that if their attitude was right they could defeat any enemy. This was backed up by Stonewall winning amazing victories at Bull Run, Fredricksburg and finally Chancellorsville. He didnt realize the South couldnt win a War of Attrition but Grant sure did. He would have made the same mistake as President.

English cotton market?

There is a movie out there called "C.S.A." Does a what if on the South winning. It's distirbing.

[Handyman]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

English cotton market?

There is a movie out there called "C.S.A." Does a what if on the South winning. It's distirbing.

Yeah there are books written about it too. Like I said it is a very fun mental exercise.

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

There is a movie out there called "C.S.A." Does a what if on the South winning. It's distirbing.

Very. The commercials are excruciating. Exercise equipment to keep your slaves healthy, that sort of thing. And of course the CSA and South Africa allied with the Nazis. Didn't like the Japs, though, so there's that.

Here it is.

[MaizeRage]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

How does that compare to Wisconsin, Alaska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Kansas?

Bumping since the Kansas legislature finally threw in the towel on Brownback's failure.

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Bumping since the Kansas legislature finally threw in the towel on Brownback's failure.

Wow. Good news. Maybe a little less Republican cowardice?

House Speaker Ron Ryckman, an Olathe Republican, resisted tax increases for much of the 2017 session.

But Tuesday night, Ryckman voted to override the governor’s veto. He had not voted for the tax plan when it passed the House Monday night.

Immediately after the House adjourned Ryckman rushed to his office and didn’t answer a question from a reporter about his vote.

Maybe not. But I guess we should be happy he didn't put him in a chokehold. Baby steps.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Wow. Good news. Maybe a little less Republican cowardice?



Maybe not. But I guess we should be happy he didn't put him in a chokehold. Baby steps.

Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ecedented.html

[bronconick]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Bumping since the Kansas legislature finally threw in the towel on Brownback's failure.

Conservative trickle down economics cannot fail. It can only be failed. They needed to stay the course.

[jerphisch]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Karen Handel (R) in the GA-6 debate last night, "I do not support a liveable wage." Bet the "economically anxious" will still support her...

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ecedented.html

That is spectacular. It's what you do when you've staged a coup.

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Another thing about KS. Kansans are poor as f-ck.

The bill replaces the state’s two-bracket income tax system with three brackets. Income up to $30,000 for married couples would be taxed at 3.1 percent, income between $30,000 and $60,000 would be taxed at 5.25 percent, and income above $60,000 would be taxed at 5.7 percent.

If those brackets even remotely corresponding to being "well off" in KS how the heck do people even own a home there?

Happily, they don't appear to.

KS median household income is $51k. That will buy you a ham sandwich in MD or a McMansion in MS.

[unofan]

Another thing about KS. Kansans are poor as f-ck.



If those brackets even remotely corresponding to being "well off" in KS how the heck do people even own a home there?

Happily, they don't appear to.

KS median household income is $51k. That will buy you a ham sandwich in MD or a McMansion in MS.

A $200k home in Wichita would cost $600k on the east coast. That's how.

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

A $200k home in Wichita would cost $600k on the east coast. That's how.

IINM the median home value for American homeowners first exceeded $100k in around 2004. So, prior to that, half of Americans who owned a home had it appraised for 5 digits. That is almost beyond belief if you grew up in the Northeast where a sh-tbox starts at $300k.

Even here, though, the drop off is steep when you leave the burbs. We're selling our fine little P.O.R. Cape Cod for $250k and it's right in line with comps. The place we're moving is a townhouse that is slightly smaller and we'll buy it (in 54 minutes) for well over twice that amount. All for the privilege of having neighbors who can think and speak in complete sentences.

It's worth it.