CNN: Four ways we're still fighting the Civil War

[Toe Jam]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/civil.war.today/index.html?hpt=C1

He stood 5-foot-8 and weighed 145 pounds. His face was gaunt and sunburned. Ticks, fleas and lice covered his body.

Before battle, his lips would quiver and his body went numb. When the shooting started, some of his comrades burst into maniacal laughter. Others bit the throat and ears of their enemy. And some were shattered by shells so powerful that tufts of their hair stuck to rocks and trees.

Take a tour of a Civil War battlefield today, and it's difficult to connect the terrifying experience of an average Civil War soldier -- described above from various historical accounts -- with the tranquil historic sites where we now snap pictures today.

But you don't have to tour a battlefield to understand the Civil War. Look at today's headlines. As the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary of its deadliest war this week, some historians say we're still fighting over some of the same issues that fueled the Civil War.

"There are all of these weird parallels," says Stephanie McCurry, author of "Confederate Reckoning," a new book that examines why Southerners seceded and its effect on Southern women and slaves.

"When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.

These "weird parallels" go beyond the familiar debates over what caused the war, slavery or states' rights. They extend to issues that seem to have nothing to do with the Civil War.

The shutdown of the federal government, war in Libya, the furor over the new health care law and Guantanamo Bay -- all have tentacles that reach back to the Civil War, historians say.

They point to four parallels:

The disappearance of the political center

If you think the culture wars are heated now, check out mid-19th century America. The Civil War took place during a period of pervasive piety when both North and South demonized one another with self-righteous, biblical language, one historian says.

The war erupted not long after the "Second Great Awakening" sparked a national religious revival. Reform movements spread across the country. Thousands of Americans repented of their sins at frontier campfire meetings and readied themselves for the Second Coming.

They got war instead. Their moral certitude helped make it happen, says David Goldfield, author of "America Aflame," a new book that examines evangelical Christianity's impact on the war.

Goldfield says evangelical Christianity "poisoned the political process" because the American system of government depends on compromise and moderation, and evangelical religion abhors both because "how do you compromise with sin."

click link for more

[Ron78]

I don't agree at all with the parallels that this article is drawing between the modern day culture war and the politics of the Civil War era.

The confederate movement was intended to strengthen state rights to preserve slavery. The modern day conservative movement is intended to preserve individual freedoms, not state rights.

[Burgold]

I don't agree at all with the parallels that this article is drawing between the modern day culture war and the politics of the Civil War era.

The confederate movement was intended to strengthen state rights to preserve slavery. The modern day conservative movement is intended to preserve individual freedoms, not state rights.

No, they're not. If they were about strengthening individual freedoms they wouldn't have major blanks about abortions or denying gays' rights. They wouldn't have championed the Patriot Act either. Which individual freedoms are Conservatives protecting or trying to preserve?

[mardi gras skin]

So the points of comparison are:

1. Political parties vilify their opponents and feel their side is morally superior.

2. There is disagreement over how much power the federal government should have.

3. Wars typically turn out worse that we hoped they would.

4. Presidents are often criticized for over reaching.

I would be interested in reading about a point in American history when these weren't true.

If they were about strengthening individual freedoms they wouldn't have major blanks about abortions...

This one, at least, is an individual human rights issue. You're just thinking about different individuals.

And the Patriot Act is Obama's baby now. He and the democrat congressional super-majority decided the Patriot Act was good. This is a non-party issue.

[Burgold]

Fair enough, that one is always a delicate issue... but gays in the military, gay marriage, equal pay for women, privacy laws... modern day conservatives seem to be opposed to them all. I suppose the one individual liberty they want to protect is gun ownership. I just didn't find his argument credible.

[ACW]

Fair enough, that one is always a delicate issue... but gays in the military, gay marriage, equal pay for women, privacy laws... modern day conservatives seem to be opposed to them all. I suppose the one individual liberty they want to protect is gun ownership. I just didn't find his argument credible.

That's because libertarians don't get enough attention :mad:

Gays in the military and gay marriage? Support.

Equal pay for women? This is tricky (start a new thread if you want).

Privacy laws? Probably support (define these).

[aREDSKIN]

This article is weak, weak, weak.

[Thiebear]

Slow news day? Seems quite a stretch.

Slavery 24x7 by 365 vs. Don't ask, Don't tell - and marriage vs. civil union. doesn't have the same flair.

Womens pay is getting so close now compared to 175 other countries?

Privacy laws trying to keep up with WiFi on demand for free everywhere... try and keep up at that pace.

[TimmySmith]

Be it Slavery or States Rights, the civil war was fought by the south to protect it's commercial interests. The demonization of either side existed only inflame supporters, when in reality it was only window dressing. This parallel exists today.

[JMS]

No, they're not. If they were about strengthening individual freedoms they wouldn't have major blanks about abortions or denying gays' rights. They wouldn't have championed the Patriot Act either. Which individual freedoms are Conservatives protecting or trying to preserve?

Obviously the individuals right to live life by conservative values. It's the individuals right to live life by any other values which the conservatives are dead set against.

[Homercles82]

Oh God anothe thread about the Civil War that will turn into an argument on why it was fought.

Oh Tailgate, how much do I love thee? Let me count the ways! :swoon:

[Hokie28]

Heard Jesse Jackson on the radio Friday making a similar point. Said right wingers talk about 'states rights' etc and said we're fighting another civil war etc.

Problem is all this talk now diminishes what the war in 1861-65 meant to this country and accomplished. To compare today to then is just laughable.

[Thiebear]

Burgold and:

Obviously the individuals right to live life by conservative values. It's the individuals right to live life by any other values which the conservatives are dead set against.

So Abortions are legal to include partial birth and we are saying the conservatives are denying freedom via blanket rule? thats funny.

Last i heard the Dems were fighting over the Patriot Act Congress/President and we ended up with the entire thing. Stupid Republicans.

Gay rights at this point revolve around Civil Union vs. Marriage: Blanket individual rights destroyed?

The Dems have been in charge for 5 years... at some point responsibility must be at a minimum be 'shared'?

And again Womens rights are better in the United States than: 99.7% of the rest of the known Galaxy?

[JMS]

Burgold and:

So Abortions are legal to include partial birth and we are saying the conservatives are denying freedom via blanket rule? that's funny.

The reason why partial birth abortions are legal and conducted by doctors who swear an oath to "do no harm to their patients" is because sometimes in rare occasions babies develop without things like hearts, brains, or brain stems and are not viable out of the womb. In such cases even at advanced stages it's preferable and safer for the mother to have the seemingly horrible procedure than carry the dead baby in the womb for 3 more months. Coarse conservatives don't acknowledge the medical necesity of such proceedures because the conservative mantra is to not trust authority figures who disagree with their folksy rational, and that includes doctors and such groups like the AMA... Conservatives would much preffer to stick poor women with a substandard level of care as they make blanket uninformed rulings on medical proceedures they are unqualified and unsuited to make for anybody other than the most vulnerable in our society including their own daughters, wives and mothers.

And if you check out the front page of the newspaper you will see an example of conservative values denying freedom to individuals. According to the new budget agreements DC can not only not fund reproductive clinics with Federal dollars which was always the case.. But conservatives insisted that DC couldn't fund them with local taxes raised from DC constituents either. How is that for states rights.

What do you expect from a group of people who think murdering doctors is reasonable protest.

Last i heard the Dems were fighting over the Patriot Act Congress/President and we ended up with the entire thing. Stupid Republicans.

Yes stupid republicans... Once a bill is passed and becomes law it's much harder to repeal it than to never have passed it in the first place. Repealing takes a veto proof majority in the senate which nobody has and a preponderance of the votes in the house. That's why the Republicans can't repeal Obama Care even though they have the majority in the house and a majority of senators approve it too; cause they don't have the super majority it takes.

Gay rights at this point revolve around Civil Union vs. Marriage: Blanket individual rights destroyed?

The Military has not yet legalized Gay's serving. They are studying it. Just like ERA was once studied in the 70's but ultimately never became law. Gay rights have never been about Marriage vs Civil Union. All Marriages in this country recognized by the state are civil. The marriage certificate comes from the state, the one which matters not the church. The debate has always been about the hundreds even thousands of ancillary rights which come with that piece of paper. The right to shared retirement, the rights to shared property, the right to visit your loved one in the hospital, or the right to make important medical decisions about your love one if they are incapacitated. The right to care for your kids of your partner dies... That's what the freaking debate has always been about. Rights which don't impact anybody but the folks having those rights denied. Rights conservatives deny gays because they believe their lifestyle is immoral...

The Dems have been in charge for 5 years... at some point responsibility must be at a minimum be 'shared'?

And again Women's rights are better in the United States than: 99.7% of the rest of the known Galaxy?

Holy Cow. Obama has been in charge for 5 years, already... Took Bush 8 years to screw us royally, but conservatives question why it's taking Obama more than 2 years to fix his mess.... It just doesn't seem like we live in the same dimension.

[DRSmith]

I don't agree at all with the parallels that this article is drawing between the modern day culture war and the politics of the Civil War era.

The confederate movement was intended to strengthen state rights to preserve slavery. The modern day conservative movement is intended to preserve individual freedoms, not state rights.

Are you serious all the time on the right wing boards all you hear is state rights, when the health care debate was going on all I ever heard was that it violated state rights

[Larry]

No, they're not. If they were about strengthening individual freedoms they wouldn't have major blanks about abortions or denying gays' rights. They wouldn't have championed the Patriot Act either. Which individual freedoms are Conservatives protecting or trying to preserve?

Hey, the Right are champions of individual rights.

As long as the "individual" is a corporation.

---------- Post added April-11th-2011 at 11:04 AM ----------

So Abortions are legal to include partial birth and we are saying the conservatives are denying freedom via blanket rule? thats funny.

Damn those Democrats. Taking away individual's right to force other people to live the way conservatives want them to.

The Dems have been in charge for 5 years... at some point responsibility must be at a minimum be 'shared'?

And they're attacking an individual's right to have a delusional history, too!

And again Womens rights are better in the United States than: 99.7% of the rest of the known Galaxy?

And to make things up.

---------- Post added April-11th-2011 at 11:07 AM ----------

Are you serious all the time on the right wing boards all you hear is state rights, when the health care debate was going on all I ever heard was that it violated state rights

Now if only the civil war was about state's rights, then we'd have a parallel.

[mjah]

The modern day conservative movement is intended to preserve individual freedoms, not state rights.

There is no modern day conservative movement.

A great many would-be conservatives vote Republican assuming they're part of a modern day conservative movement. But each time the GOP takes power, either in their regular flavor or with extra salt in a specially-labeled novelty teacup, they demonstrate the foolishness of that assumption.

It's similar for the liberal / Democrat relationship, although in fairness these two are a bit closer together. Both parties routinely act against the interests of their more idealistic constituents.

Why anyone assumes that "Republican" equals "conservative" is beyond me. Even when placed next to the Democratic alternative, there's no clear national-level choice for a conservative to feel comfortable with. Maybe someday conservatives will get their party back; I'd be very enthusiastic to see that happen. Right now, conservatives are stranded on an island with no ship on the horizon.

[Chicken Fried]

The modern day conservative movement is intended to preserve individual freedoms, not state rights.

Then why did the states sue the federal government over the healthcare bill? It wasn't individuals who did that.

[Prosperity]

There is no modern day conservative movement.

A great many would-be conservatives vote Republican assuming they're part of a modern day conservative movement. But each time the GOP takes power, either in their regular flavor or with extra salt in a specially-labeled novelty teacup, they demonstrate the foolishness of that assumption.

It's similar for the liberal / Democrat relationship, although in fairness these two are a bit closer together. Both parties routinely act against the interests of their more idealistic constituents.

Why anyone assumes that "Republican" equals "conservative" is beyond me. Even when placed next to the Democratic alternative, there's no clear national-level choice for a conservative to feel comfortable with. Maybe someday conservatives will get their party back; I'd be very enthusiastic to see that happen. Right now, conservatives are stranded on an island with no ship on the horizon.

Is there a liberal movement?

Seems like principles have taken a backseat to identity politics in both camps. Political parties are really nothing more than a conglomeration of various interest groups under the guise of statesmanship. (Sorry for pedantic sentence)

[Larry]

Is there a liberal movement?

OK, so maybe "feeble, random, twitching, and occasional incontinence" would be a better term.

[Predicto]

Good thesis, poorly presented.

And a great opportunity for all of us to take potshots at the other side. Yay!

[Thiebear]

What rights were taken away by the Right again? I haven't seen one mentioned.

I see Larry parsing down to an individual word is about it.

Unless your referring to Libya's civil war... or palestine/israels.. or Afghanistans or Koreas or Germanys for a while there.

[Toe Jam]

Good thesis, poorly presented.

And a great opportunity for all of us to take potshots at the other side. Yay!

I live only to serve ES.

[Burgold]

What rights were taken away by the Right again? I haven't seen one mentioned.

I see Larry parsing down to an individual word is about it.

Unless your referring to Libya's civil war... or palestine/israels.. or Afghanistans or Koreas or Germanys for a while there.

Our rights to privacy were certainly assaulted with the Patriot Act. In addition, the warrantless wiretapping practices reduced our rights. Both are things that disappoint me greatly with the present administration too. Americans held without charge or without a right to a trial was another.

[Prosperity]

Hey, the Right are champions of individual rights.

and personal responsibility too! so long as you can abdicate all of it and shift it to a corporation.