Up late. Drinking. Texas!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoPQqPJ7f...

This is quite a thread. At first, long ago, I was startled to see some of my fellow Objectivists articulately and vehemently making the case for the cause of the Confederate States. And, at times, I found their particular arguments difficult to address. Strangely, I don't recall the specifics, but the pattern was to argue: sure, slavery is dead wrong in principle, but set that aside because in the historical context the whole Union had similar contradictions. And, having set that aside, look at the assertion of central power by Lincoln, the brushing aside of what had been equal partners in the U.S. Constitution...and so on. You know, Ayn Rand had a way saying, on certain occasions, when the arguments seemed ensnared in the parsing of terms and the stretching of principles, "Look at reality! The reality is obvious."

Well, that can be cited conveniently by EITHER side in a tortured debate, of course. But I look at the U.S. Civil War and nothing seems more telling than Margaret Mitchell's title, "Gone with the wind." If you are an Objectivist, you view the United States as the purest, brightest expression of the philosophy of the Enlightenment--in effect, the high tide mark reached by the philosophy of thinkers like John Locke (who DIED three quarters of a century before the Declaration of Independence). And that Declaration, and the U.S. Constitution that followed, were both hard-fought and daring, for theie time. Awful compromises were made with principle, but they were compromises that recognized reality. The Colonial states had no chance in the revolt against England without the states of the South. And the wealthiest, most influential leaders of those states had their wealth in slaves and the land worked by slaves.

But the winds of history... They swept away the French aristocracy and put France through the long agony that may follow when truly radical ideas flail in search of their meaning. And they enabled 13 colonies in the wilderness somehow, in the name of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," to defeat the greatest industrial and naval power on the face of the Earth. And the Declaration and the Constitution set forth ideas then madly theoretical, supported by the belief in reason wherever it may lead.

With that wind blowing so strongly through the Western world, was chattel slavery--the form of slavery that considers another person property, with complete rights of use and disposal, and that person's children and grandchildren property--going to survive those gales?

For geographic reasons, and reasons of economic development, chattel slavery existed longer in the United States than anywhere in the Western world. HOW slavery ended, as the thread makes clear, was to some extent a matter of circumstances. There were proposals to buy the slaves and compensate slave owners. The South could have been permitted to secede and drag along its "peculiar institution" for some decades more. Always the possible "better ways" are on the part of the Union. But the educated, hard-headed, and politically astute leaders of the South could have led their states into a firm pledge to phase out slavery--first in the newly formed states of the West. That they did not puts on their hands much of the blood their incredibly brave, indomitable, and patriot countrymen--mostly not slave owners--shed for the South.

But these are details. Slavery was not going to stand before the powerful, purifying, and exhilarating winds of the philosophy of the rights of man. Its end, which took the most painful possible form, was a matter partly of chance.

What is magnificent in American history is that the fighting spirit of Robert E. Lee and his generals and his troops--after the impossible bitterness of defeat--endured and served America through all its terrible wars. If we look at the roster of great generals with "fighting heart" who led their country to victory after impossible victory, we see Douglas MacArthur, Texas, Dwight Eisenhower, Texas, Omar Bradley, MIssouri--the list is long and heroic.

Their own cause gone with the winds of history, they readily offered up their lives and their honor to the United States--the union preserved and committed to principles that never can die.

If, today, the battle we wage is for the dearest cause of all--not the liberation of foreign lands, but defense of our own rights, the defense against the serfdom seeking its grip in our own land--then surely we cannot win without the great fighting heart of the South that has seen us through so many perils.

I looked up political parties at Wiki, and I noticed an interesting fact. Whatever party is in the White House increases the likelihood of oppositional third parties. The numbers don’t lie. During the Reagan years there were many socialist parties organized. During the Clinton years, there were many religious right-wing groups organized. Scroll down the page to find the proper table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pol......

This also reaffirms my believe the bulk of the explosion of the religious right occurred after Reagan’s administration. That’s not what they are teaching in college. The academia world teaches Reagan rose to power through the strength of the religious right’s strong arm. That faction barely existed politically from what I remember. Revisited history nonsense, I guess.

you are a lucky man. me-I am a rhubarb fan.

The RNC had better take notice. No one wants Democrat lights...

I no longer accept the argument that a third party is what the Democrats want. The establishment Republicans have sold the country out in exchange for harmony. They like their soft lifestyles and don't want anything to rock the boat. Time we shook things up.

I agree with Hannity's sentiments. He was on ‘fire’! The commentary that followed just demoralized me. We are forever at each other’s throat. ( I did agree with the one poster --Carter was by far the worst President)

I like that you get pie for your birthday! My friends get one for me every year, bc I'm not a fan of cake. Buttercream frosting, not the cake.

I think we may have digressed, Scott 😜

I was playing this song, which I love, and my son, Ethan, at one point frowned, and said, "Why hate the Declaration....?/"

I said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

"Oh! Right!" he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_GLcumo...

What we need is a two party system - One based on Individual Rights as detailed in the Bill Of Rights and the other as detailed in the Communist Manifesto.