American Civil War

[Argus]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:46 AM, blackbird said:

It there still a lot of friction between the states that were in the civil war?  Is there a noticeable difference between the people in the different civil war states, north and south?

It's not a coincidence you can look at an electoral map and find the south to be all Republican and the northeast to be mostly Democrats.

[bush_cheney2004]

The 2016 U.S. electoral map is neither all Democrat or all Republican in the Northeast or South....that's just more fake news.   Major population centers tilt Democrat while more rural areas lean Republican.   There is no civil war.

 

 

http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Nevertheless.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

You don't say.

Religion is an excuse for people who want  to do good things to do them and it's an excuse for people who want to do bad things to do them.  You take a book that was written thousands of years ago in a completely different context and - surprise! - people can interpret it just about any way they want. 

OK.  You believe that a book written over the course of ~1,000 years translated from obsolete dialects of a foreign languages; consisting of passages which were selected by various people hundreds of years after the original authors were dead is the literal word of God and should be followed literally today.  And you're saying there is no contradiction between that and science?

If you consider a religion as a belief system based solely on faith instead of logic with a devoted following that will not be swayed by evidence to the contrary, the most important religion in practice today is fundamentalist capitalism.  The markets are the gods.  They provide all that's good in the world and when they don't it's obvious that you haven't followed the religion closely enough.  The commandments are all in support of endless economic growth and they are followed regardless of any facts or evidence which get in their way.  The latest example is the latest round of tax cuts for billionaires (including a tax break for private jets!) which proponents swear will pay for themselves.  This line has been trotted our repeatedly going back at least 50 years and tax cuts have NEVER paid for themselves but the true devotees bow their heads and defer to the market gods .  And any science that is inconvenient (climate change, the effects of fracking, the impacts of wealth disparity on society, the list goes on and on) is ignored, de-funded,  denied or undermined.

 

 

 

 

Since this thread is about the American Civil War, I can't really get sidetracked into a debate about the Bible or faith here.

I have replied to your comment in the section titled "Religion and Politics" under the sub-heading "Why Trust the Bible".

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

Nevertheless.

Your map colours each state as completely Republican or completely Democrat.  Bush-cheney2004's map gives a more detailed map showing how some states are partly one party and partly the other with concentrations in some areas of a state but not throughout the whole state.   It is not as accurate to colour each state only one colour.

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Your map colours each state as completely Republican or completely Democrat.  Bush-cheney2004's map gives a more detailed map showing how some states are partly one party and partly the other with concentrations in some areas of a state but not throughout the whole state.   It is not as accurate to colour each state only one colour.

The reason why the state goes red or blue is because of the population base. The bulk of the southern states have a larger population base outside the big cities than within them. So we're still talking about the majority of people in southern and Midwest  states vs the majority of people in northeastern and western states. Even in his picture you can see the bulk of the blue are restricted to certain geographical regions.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Argus

[-TSS-]

Very interesting but drawing analogy to the American civil-war is doomed from the start.

[JamesHackerMP]

Yeah, not sure what a modern electoral map would show about the civil war, necessarily. Some parallels, but don't forget that "Republican" was a four letter word in the south until the late 1960s.

[Queenmandy85]

In BC in the 1960's, our grade 8 history course was divided between British, French Canadian and American history. Again, in grade 11 it followed same course only with more depth. I seem to remember the official cause of the Civil War was slavery.

Greeting, Sir James, from your old friend Sir Humphrey

Edited November 21, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[Argus]

10 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Yeah, not sure what a modern electoral map would show about the civil war, necessarily. Some parallels, but don't forget that "Republican" was a four letter word in the south until the late 1960s.

Which was when the Democrats passed the civil rights act, and Johnson said that the Democrats would be hated in the South because of it for a generation.

 

[JamesHackerMP]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Which was when the Democrats passed the civil rights act, and Johnson said that the Democrats would be hated in the South because of it for a generation.

 

I seem to remember a certain Democrat--OK, not "remember" but you know what i mean--who is in the Guiness Book of Records, for the world's longest legislative filibuster, railing against the civil rights act for 24 hours in the Senate. The rest of the conservative (or reactionary) wing of the Democrats, still very large at that point, was behind this democrat in his opposition to the bill.

His name was Senator J. Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina.

The bill probably had more help from the Republican Party than the deeply-divided Democrats.

Edited November 21, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In BC in the 1960's, our grade 8 history course was divided between British, French Canadian and American history. Again, in grade 11 it followed same course only with more depth. I seem to remember the official cause of the Civil War was slavery.

Greeting, Sir James, from your old friend Sir Humphrey

Greetings Sir Humphrey!

Whether you think it is about slavery or state's rights depends on where you're from, and also possibly if you're white or not. Like I said above, I think the debate is silly--state-sanctioned violence rarely begins for one reason. Part of that reason was that northern and southern Americans hated each other by the 1860s. The civil war itself did not create that sectional rivalry.

Today, the south is still more economically "raw material" producing than the northeast. When you have a place that is more industrial depending on a place (or region) that produces the raw materials, the former prospers and the latter is left less powerful politically. Slavery is to blame for the economic backwardness (Alexis de Toqueville wrote of this, apparently) but not 100% to blame. To this day, when slavery is not legal, the south is still economically backward, and not all of that can be blamed on slavery or the destruction of the civil war.

I checked up on the passage of the civil rights act of 1964. These are the vote totals on the final Senate version of the bill:

In the Senate:

Democrats: 46 yes 21 no

Republicans: 27 yes 6 no

In the House of Reps.:

Democrats: 153 yes 91 no

Republicans: 136 yes 35 no

There were 54 days of filibusters in the Senate, led by a bloc of eighteen southern Democrats, including Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd of WV (14 hours, 13 minutes). So I would call it a victory that both parties could claim.

Edited November 21, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[Queenmandy85]

I just learned more about the civil war in your response than I ever learned in school. I never heard of the civil war until I went to see the Great Locomotive Chase in 1957 when I was in Grade 4.

I believe the location of economic power is dictated by geography.

[JamesHackerMP]

Well, yeah you can't exactly help that you have raw materials. Then again, so did the northeast. It's partly about choices, not just dumb luck, that makes an economy succeed or fail. The south chose to tie its fortunes to a backward, slave-based economy. Those states are still--on the whole--poorer and less economically proficient than their northeastern counterparts.

[JamesHackerMP]

Another good one is Gettysburg by the way, if you're looking for movies (what was The Great Locomotive Chase about? I'm guessing a train, obviously, but I'm sure there's more to it than that.)