« Las Vegas shooting victims | Main | Peter Pan and Davy Crockett »

November 23, 2017

Comments

Great points, TP, especially "He tries to fool the gullible reader..." and the point about Austin seceding.

I once heard an American guy on the radio, some kind of NGO person I believe, arguing passionately for Kosovo's right to secede from Serbia, but just as passionately against the right of some border city to secede from Kosovo (in effect) and stay with Serbia. Made no sense whatsoever to me. Or to be more ranty about it, the rank hypocrisy and bad logic made my jaw drop.

Tariffs in particular.

Tariffs were bad for the south because they had an economy based on exporting agricultural commodities.

Which they raised using slave labor.

There is a theme here.

Is it just me, or is there something a bit selective about a view of state's rights which adamantly rejects the right of some states to, for example, refuse to return escaped slaves? It's like the only rights that should be protected are those of the speaker. Actually, that seems to be the current view as well....

If you are going to posit that slavery was the way the Confederacy was sold to the masses, by political leaders who, in whatever sense, knew better, what was their real reason? If they weren't motivated by slavery, despite what they said, what did motivate them?

I'm not sure who the 'they' is. The mass of non-slave owning southerners? Or the political leaders?

The Iraq War is a perfect example of how separation from the actual activity creates the conditions for people to not examine their own reasons. I'd be curious to know what % of the south were slave owners. I'd also point out that technology continues to make it possible for us to be further and further away from mistreatment. We don't see how folks making smartphones are being treated.

I'm not lurkingsoutherner, but I'm not claiming that small communities are somehow unique to the South. However, they lasted there longer than they did in other places as a rule. And many southerners think that their resistance is attributed not to slavery, but opposition to the industrialization.

The logic of Coates has certainly forced me to reexamine my own thinking, but when he talks about red-lining, the examples aren't from the South. So the certainty that is attached to all this seems more like value signalling rather than an attempt to truly understand causes. I'd suggest you've got to examine your own heart, rather than everyone else's.

"they" being the aforementioned political leaders who were using slavery to sell the Confederacy to the Southern (white) masses. But who, it is apparently being contended, weren't actually concerned themselves about preserving slavery.

Why wouldn't Austin have as much right to secede from Texas, as Texas has to secede from the United States?

In 1820, Maine was allowed to secede from Massachusetts to become a state to balance Missouri entering the union as a slave state.

I'd be curious to know what % of the south were slave owners.

Percentages:

76.1: Non-slaveholders
17.2: Slaveholders with 1-9 slaves
6.6: Slaveholders with 10-99 slaves
0.1: Slaveholders with 100+ slaves

Wealth and Culture in the South: Slavery and the White Class Structure

But who, it is apparently being contended, weren't actually concerned themselves about preserving slavery.

Just to be clear, not by me.

People lie about their reasons for war when they understand the real reasons would be seen as shameful. Jefferson was ashamed of slavery, so iirc that portion of the Declaration that touches on it is bafflegab. In the present era our overseas wars both direct and conducted via proxy are largely shameful, so we lie about it. By 1861 the white Southern elite had persuaded themselves that slavery was good and noble and the Yankees were foul and hypocritical, so they told the truth and said secession was about slavery. What darker secret could they have been concealing? There wasn’t one, except that slavery also served as a consolation prize for poor whites, who could see themselves as part of the master race.

None of which means the Yankees as a whole were motivated by antislavery goals. Some were. After the war they could concentrate on ethnic cleansing campaigns out West, alongside the white South. After ten years of Reconstruction they would also decide to allow the South to institute apartheid and to some degree practice it as well.

i've lived 21 years in the south, after 26 years in the north. and the primary cultural difference i see between them is that college sports are much bigger in the south.

The logic of Coates has certainly forced me to reexamine my own thinking, but when he talks about red-lining, the examples aren't from the South. So the certainty that is attached to all this seems more like value signalling rather than an attempt to truly understand causes. I'd suggest you've got to examine your own heart, rather than everyone else's.

I agree with all of this, and I don't think that Southerners have a monopoly on racism at all. It's just that the Civil War was most definitely about slavery, and I think that people who honor something called "the Southern way of life" and beleive that its preservation was one of the reasons for the Civil War should be able to articulate what they mean by that.

And yes, a majority of the population of the South were not slave owners. In some states (as has been mentioned) a majority were enslaved.

I think I was remembering Gary Wills’s discussion of the mostly deleted slavery passage in the Declaration. Here it is —

http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery

Now that’s a southerner with a bad conscience, but by 1861 that attitude seems mostly gone among Jefferson's class afaik.

This article provides some interesting insight into why non-slave-owning white Southerners may have supported secession. It's somewhat enlightening with regard to Bible belt theology as well.

To be clear, I think there can be a 'Southern way of life' and I can think that there is no way that one can justify the institution of slavery by appealing to the need to preserve it. But to pretend that there is nothing different about the South is as ahistorical as pretending that the Civil War was all about states rights.

As for citing Northern universities and Classics, well, there's a reason that there was a Calhoun College at Yale.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/03/probing-how-colleges-benefited-from-slavery/

Cleek's observation is very true, and I think one reason for that is that the South tends to be a lot more 'tribal', latching on to icons and symbols. The majority of people who support whatever team they support are not graduates from the university and I think that is especially true in the South.

Donald's point about people not talking about things they are ashamed of is also on point. The whole Lost Cause myth gains so much traction because people are ashamed to admit that their ancestors fought to maintain a system that was wrong. Ask Ben Affleck about how it feels to find out about your ancestors shortcomings. Drop that in an environment where kin and kith are a lot more important than in other places. And again, just to be clear, that's an explanation, not an excuse.

I don't think that Southerners have a monopoly on racism at all

as a lifelong resident of the urban and suburban northeast, i can assure you that southerners have no monopoly on racism.

i'm not sure anyone here is claiming otherwise.

if you are white and live in the south, today, you likely have more daily contact with black people than folks in the north. you are more likely to have black friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

i live near boston, which IMO is an intensely segregated city.

my family at one point owned a summer place of some kind in yaphank, long island. which also was the location of a nazi summer camp, which was quite popular and as active until we entered WWII.

my wife's OH and western PA family included KKK members ("but they were the good KKK"). one of the historical strongholds of the klan in the US was Indiana.

there is no shortage of racists in the north.

was that what we were talking about?

the US Civil War, like all wars, had a number of contributing causes and precipitating events. but fundamentally it was about the refusal of the southern states, whose history and economy were based on raising and selling commodity cash crops - cotton, rice, tobacco - using slave labor, to accept any restriction on its continuation and expansion.

slaves were the basis of wealth in the 19th C american south. they were the largest and most significant capital asset, and were the primary means of production for the plantation economy.

the institution of slavery had been a contentious issue for the US since it's founding. 70 years of dancing around the issue had brought no resolution. the southern states needed to expand the geographic scope of legal slavery, they faced some resistance in that goal, they found that unacceptable, and they went to war over it.

they lost, and as one - perhaps the only - virtuous consequence of that, slavery was outlawed.

to say that racism is unique to the south is false. to say that all or even most northerners went to war to end slavery is false. to say that those folks who opposed slavery were friendly toward blacks, or had ahigh opinion of blacks, is false. many of the folks who wanted blacks freed also would have been happy to see them repatriated to africa.

see also, liberia.

all of that said, it is eually false to deny that there was not a strong movement to end slavery, and that it was primarily based in the north, and that lincoln was unaware of it and was not motivated by it in any way.

what i mostly object to in all of this is the idea that the south was just innocently minding its own business, when the evil rapacious northerners attacked them without reasonable provocation. that is what marty appears o be selling, and it is utter ahistorical bullshit.

they wanted a war, they got one, and they lost. they were occupied for about 12 years, which is a not-unreasonable response to a regional insurrection.

then, there was a deal made to secure the election of a new potus, reconstruction was over, and about 90 years of sheer f***ing terror ensued. which cannot be blamed on anyone but the perpetrators. in both north and south.

if we can't face facts we're screwed. let's all face facts, please.

Five years into the Iraq war, and Dubya was still going around giving speeches about "why we are at war in Iraq", yet never managing to give coherent reasons.

And that's why we should be doubtful of the confederate's own (clear!) words in 1861? Sure, most southern whites weren't slaveowners, but they resented with the heat of a thousand exploding suns the perceived elite down-the-nose-looking snootery coming from The North, so those Northerners just FORCED them into treason, amirite?

IOW, somehow cleek used Obama's Time Machine to infect the south of the 1860's with Cleek's Law. Insidious.

...a majority of the population of the South were not slave owners...

If a majority of the population had been slave owners, that would imply that the average slave owner owned less than one slave.

what i mostly object to in all of this is the idea that the south was just innocently minding its own business, when the evil rapacious northerners attacked them without reasonable provocation. that is what marty appears o be selling, and it is utter ahistorical bullshit.

i know Marty likes to play contrarian vs. all the nutty liberals here, but trying to Both Sides! the Civil War seems like taking that M.O. a bit too far.

Sapient, that (your 8:54 AM) is a great article.

Am I reading into it? Or is there a noticeable emphasis, beyond the general abhorrence of equality, on the "fact" that their daughters (sons apparently not a problem) would all end up married to blacks? (Why the daughters would choose to do so is not made clear. Perhaps they had a low opinion of their sons...?)

I realize that kind of concern was widespread -- anti-miscegenation laws were in place around the country in the middle of the last century, when I was born (including here in California). And the fact that those laws are gone has doubtless made it hard grasp, emotionally, how important that was to people. But it still seems like it played a big part in the arguments to persuade the (mostly non-slave-holding) general Southern population.

The Civil War had two sides, neither was on the side of the angels.

I have enjoyed this discussion where, unlike others I have seen, the not so perfect motives of Both Sides has been discussed. The reality of Southern culture apart from slavery was discussed, in lots of ways I agree with.

The South would have been content to mind their own business. But had no reasonable expectation that would happen.

The South would have been content to mind their own business.

I don't know what this means. Were the slaves part of The South, content to mind their own business?

"The South would have been content to mind their own business."

Not really. The South wanted slavery to expand westwards.

I have some sympathy for part of your point, Marty--the North for the most part didn't start out the war fighting for freedom. It was about keeping the union together. Lincoln was explicit about that. It became about slavery as the war went on (and always was for some northerners), but after the war Northern whites soon grew tired of the cause of black freedom and made peace with the Lost Cause advocates. And at some point the mythology began that for the South it wasn't about slavery after all. It made white people in general feel more comfortable with each other.

The South would have been content to mind their own business.

except that they started the shooting.

Were the slaves part of The South, content to mind their own business?

What hsh said. Times a million.

This is like Shelby Foote in the Burns Civil War documentary. Southerner or Southern Culture means whites and white culture. The slaves are an afterthought, if a thought at all.

...but after the war Northern whites soon grew tired of the cause of black freedom and made peace with the Lost Cause advocates.

And even during the war - NYC draft riots, for instance.

I still have yet to see anyone making the point that the North was some flawless paragon of moral virtue. But I guess, for whatever reason, someone will keep arguing against this point that no one is making.

The South would have been content to mind their own business.

Well, as long as they could continue to expand their business model westward.

Or is there a noticeable emphasis, beyond the general abhorrence of equality, on the "fact" that their daughters (sons apparently not a problem) would all end up married to blacks?

I'm glad you enjoyed the article, wj. I was inspired to take a look at the source material for some of the quotations, and will do more of that when I have more free time. I was particularly interested in the religious arguments in support of slavery, and the schisms of various denominations as a result of this.

The South would have been content to mind their own business.

No, they would not. They did not, and would not.

Would new states be free or slave?

Could slaves who escaped or otherwise made their way to free states be allowed to continue as freedmen, or would they be liable to be captured and forcibly returned to their slave status?

I don't really understand what your upside is in holding on to what is a really ahistorical point of view. But you are holding on to a really ahistorical point of view.

The way you seem to think it happened, ain't the way it happened.

russell, the South seceded. At that point they were perfectly willing to mind their own business. There is nothing ahistorical or strange about the South declaring it's independence and then preparing to defend itself.

I am more confused that you, and others, cling to the notion that the South would have started a war.

They had no real desire to take over the rest of the Union.


I am more confused that you, and others, cling to the notion that the South would have started a war.

They had no real desire to take over the rest of the Union.

I invite you to re-read what you have written here and consider if it is remotely sensible.

I am more confused that you, and others, cling to the notion that the South would have started a war.

They had no real desire to take over the rest of the Union.

So if I decide to seceed from my city (or state), it's their fault if they arrive with the police and force me to obey the laws, pay taxes, etc., and shooting starts? Even if it's me firing on the police to defend my home. After all, all I wanted was to be left alone....

I am more confused that you, and others, cling to the notion that the South would have started a war.

they did start a war. they literally started the Civil War when they fired on Ft Sumter.

"Minding their own business" would everyone in the South, who previously had been part of the US with whatever rights that entailed, would now have those rights stripped away. This is why there is a West Virginia. There might also have been an east Tennessee, I think.

And of course slaves who might one day have hoped to have been freed if the abolitionist movement grew strong enough, would be kept in slavery. So the possibility they had for future freedom was now much diminished. Doesn't count, I suppose.

There is really no way to portray the secessionists in an innocent light. Can't be done. You can criticize the North for hypocrisy. I would stick to that if I were you.

" There might also have been an east Tennessee, I think."

Meaning that if they were next to the Union lines, maybe we would have a state of East Tennessee, but I haven't read enough to know if the Unionist movement in that area would have been strong enough to make that happen.

DJ, I didn't portray anyone in an innocent light, i said they would have been fine without having a war.

They did not start the war, they tried to prevent Ft Sumter from being reinforced, the attempt to do so was an intentional provocation by the North.

I keep saying the same things, but you're right, my basic point is the (word I should not use) of the North and the people who try to boil the war down to freeing slaves as the point, when most of the North couldn't have cared less about that issue.

There are Flat-Earthers and there are Lost-Causers and it's hard to know what "upside" motivates the world-view of either tribe.

Flat-Earthers do "mind their own business" at least. AFAIK, they don't dress in bedsheets and march with Tiki torches to proclaim their True American-ness.

"The South" is no longer a region. It is a mindset. In this age of Info Wars, "The South" is waging Civil War 2 by other means. Its goal is to take over "America" -- another mindset that was once a country -- and cut taxes on rich white men. The rest is window dressing.

--TP

Marty, the first state to secede, and the place the war started, was South Carolina. At that time, 57% of its population was enslaved.

When you write "they chose to exercise their states rights", you mean the 43% of the population not enslaved so chose.

If the people of the state had in fact made a democratic decision to secede, it would be worth discussing whether the US constitution allowed it.

russell upthread:

the southern US states would not stand for any restriction on their desire to continue and expand the enslavement of black people.

When russell wrote this comment I was tempted to point out how similar it sounds to the 2nd Amendment absolutists of today, who "will not stand for any restriction on their desire..."

TP's "it is a mindset" explains why it feels like the same people in a different mask.

They did not start the war, they tried to prevent Ft Sumter from being reinforced

they attacked it with cannons. which they had no legal right to do.

TP: "The South" is no longer a region. It is a mindset. In this age of Info Wars, "The South" is waging Civil War 2 by other means. Its goal is to take over "America" -- another mindset that was once a country -- and cut taxes on rich white men.

I love this too. TP, you are on a roll.

Frighteningly, you could also rewrite the passage to something like "The Nazis are waging WW II by other means....."

someday, somebody will take the doctrine of "states rights" and drown it in the freaking tub.

and that will be a very, very good day.

if there is any doctrine that has been more pernicious and destructive in this nation's history, I am not aware of it.

just my opinion, obviously.

the first three words of the constitution are not "we, the states". they are "we, the people". there's a reason for that.

I understand that ca. the 1780's, the states were reluctant to surrender their then-credible sovereignty to the feds. but it's been over 225 years. if you're not in the club at this point - if you're still looking for that exit strategy, wondering if you're getting a good deal out it all or not - I'm not sure the rest of us really want you on board.

this has been an editorial comment. I speak only for myself, not for the ObWi community.

but I'm surely sick and tired of this "states rights" bullshit.

you're in or you're out. if you want out, let's amend the constitution so you can well and truly get out, and best of luck to you.

somehow, the rest of us will get along without you.

Putin is waging the Cold War by other means...

Sorry russell, in or out doesn't mean what you want it to. You like how your state is run, what's more you want the whole country run that way. Being "in" means accepting that's not the way it's done here. Even 225 years later.

They did not start the war, they tried to prevent Ft Sumter from being reinforced, the attempt to do so was an intentional provocation by the North.

So if a country has a military base, on its own territory note, and attempts to send troops to said base, that is a provocation? On that reading, anything other than calmly waving goodbye as a part of your territory leaves counts as a provocation. I'm having trouble picturing any country taking that view of its territory (the core of the nation; colonies are a different matter; as are countries which disintegrate into multiple pieces).

but I'm surely sick and tired of this "states rights" bullshit.

Well, Jeff Sessions, the Coloradans who will live free or die, and we Texans who enjoy our annual visits (cough,cough) beg to freaking differ.

Or the early gay-marriage vanguard states that pushed the issue.

I don't know, there is enough worry about the tyranny of the majority that I am not willing to condemn all local autonomy or sovereignty without hesitation. It was localities that resisted Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law.

what's more you want the whole country run that way

No, actually I don't. I don't give a crap what other places do.

Pick any topic you care to name, and it's highly unlikely that I give a damn what folks in your state do about it. If you think I'm bullshitting, go ahead and try me.

In fact, I invite it. Go head and read my mind and tell me the topic on which I give a crap what you do in your state.

Whenever "states rights" come up, it always seems to be in defense of something freaking horrible. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not sympathetic.

But I have zero interest whatsoever in telling folks how to organize their lives. Do your thing, and good luck to you.

Russell, I can't resist going Devil's Advocate on this.

I submit that you would object to a state which decided that any US citizen who was not born in their state, but moved there, was ineligible to vote. In short, that national citizenship did not confer state citizenship.

Of course, that's just a feature of declaring yourself not part of the nation....

I am not willing to condemn all local autonomy or sovereignty without hesitation.

Nor am I.

Not only am I not "willing to condemn" it, I applaud and support it.

There is a distinction between local government - at whatever level, not just states - exercising its prerogatives within its scope of authority, and a claim of sovereignty.

And there is a distinction between all of that and a political minority having rights that trump the authority of mere electoral numbers. That is true at all levels, it's not an issue of feds vs states. States are also known to trample on the rights of minority demographics.

I'm fine with authorities at different levels fighting it out in the courts to determine what is, and is not, within their scope of authority.

What I think is bullshit is the idea that a state has a right to overrule decisions that fall within the scope of federal authority, and which were made at the federal level by lawful and correct processes.

And I think it's bullshit that states have a right to exit the union at their discretion.

They don't. If you think otherwise, show me where you find it, anywhere. The states were largely sovereign, they surrendered that when they signed on to the constitution.

People - human beings - have a right to change governments that they think are unlawful or oppressive. States do not.

I submit that you would object to a state which decided that any US citizen who was not born in their state, but moved there, was ineligible to vote.

There's a difference between "object" and "insist on using the instruments of government and law that they do otherwise".

I think that all aspects of national governance - including every rule and regulation about who can vote, how the process of voting will be implemented, how votes will be counted, all of it - should be managed by the feds. Because it concerns federal office.

That's what I'd like. I'm happy to argue for it, advocate for it, spend money to make it happen.

If folks don't agree with me, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Trying to dig the Lost Cause out of the trenches and foxholes of some people's minds is literally a lost cause. It's like trying to fight zombies to the death. There's no profit in it.

My limited knowledge of zombies says that they can't "mind their own business" because they are forever trying to find new brains to eat. So you can't just ignore them, alas. Luckily, as I understand it, zombies can be kept at bay by fire, the cyber analog of which is hot, withering scorn. Derisive laughter helps, too.

But let's remember that the Lost Cause is not the only zombie foraging for brains in the cyber world. A whole army of them, like Trickle Down Economics, Free Market Healthcare, and so on, is trying to sneak up behind us while the Lost Cause wages a diversion. Keep your humor dry.

--TP

Russell @2:00

Build nuclear weapons? California certainly has the wealth and skills to do so, along with uranium resources. Using the argument that the Second Amendment allows the state to equip a militia?

Impose tariffs for transit of goods? Eg, suppose Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico impose a 5% tariff on goods from the West Coast ports headed east. There are a lot of such, and a 5% tariff is probably cheaper than arranging to ship around those states.

There's a difference between "Pick any topic you care to name, and it's highly unlikely that I give a damn what folks in your state do about it" and an unstated requirement that such topics can't violate the US Constitution, federal statutes and regulations, or federal court decisions.

I'm generally on your side here. The rules are the rules, and if states want to leave then they need 38 votes to do so. (And will observe that an exit amendment that can get 38 votes would almost certainly be supported by a large majority of US citizens.)

There's a difference between "Pick any topic you care to name, and it's highly unlikely that I give a damn what folks in your state do about it" and an unstated requirement that such topics can't violate the US Constitution, federal statutes and regulations, or federal court decisions.

Yes. I would hope obviously, perhaps that is not so.

Things that are within the purview of the feds, belong to the feds.

Things that are within the purview of the states, belong to the states.

When I say that I'm sick of hearing about "states rights" I refer to the practice, not uncommon in our history, of states deciding they get to decide for themselves which things belong to the feds and which to themselves, and also which things that do belong to the feds they are going to go along with, or not.

States do not have that right or privilege. They used to be more or less sovereign, now they are not. They gave that up when they decided to become states.

If you're in, you're in. If you're in, and things don't go your way on some particular occasion, you can't then decide you're out.

If that's something we want, we'll need to amend the constitution to create it. It's not there now.

The only point on which I have some sympathy is that the feds get to change the rules abruptly and (sometimes it appears) arbitrarily.

Eg, for the first hundred years it was unconstitutional for Congress to delegate the details of law-writing to the executive branch -- the SCOTUS said so explicitly, repeatedly. Suddenly around 1895, it was broadly okay, which greatly expanded the scope of the federal government's authority. Congress would never be able to regulate at the level of detail that the FCC or EPA does.

I am more confused that you, and others, cling to the notion that the South would have started a war.

Actually, there was a precedent-the war against Mexico, a sovereign nation that had outlawed slavery.

They had no real desire to take over the rest of the Union.

The South had pretty much ruled (politically) the Union since its inception. Look at all those southern presidents! But the abolitionist movement was growing. Resistance to admitting new slave states was taking on a rather militant reddish hue (cf, "bleeding Kansas").

The handwriting was on the wall. Slavery could not endure in a politically isolated section of the country that was inevitably going to be reduced to the status of a political minority. It had to expand in order to survive and to maintain its political hegemony.

And they knew this.

So, in a way, it really was about "taking over the country" (Fugitive Slave Laws, which also see).

And so they seceded. The problem was they tried to take federal property with them, and the struggle of free vs. slave would have continued in the western territories.

Keep your humor dry.....and your wit's end sharp!

Is there a rule that we need to be done with the last bloody Civil War before we start the next one, because there are plenty of republican fort sumters that need to be fired on and laid siege to as soon as possible rightchere today.

I'd be happy to multitask and burn Atlanta down again if there some doubt in confederate minds that their asses were good and surely kicked the last time round, but I'd rather save my ammo for the republican skunk shoot coming right up.

I guess this movie didn't make much of an impact, but

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-free-state-jones-180958111/

I'd be happy to multitask and burn Atlanta down again if there some doubt in confederate minds that their asses were good and surely kicked the last time round

But Count, even in the South, the big cities (e.g. Atlanta) are Democratic/"liberal" bastions. So they aren't the places you want to burn to make that point.

Trouble is the civil war didn't really end slavery except in a very narrow sense of he word:

https://www.pbs.org/video/slavery-another-name-slavery-video/

And then after WW2 the systematic subjugation carries on in other guises:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V66F3WU2CKk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film)

I guess this movie didn't make much of an impact

Watching in a minute. Thanks.

hilarious O'Keefe ratfuck failure: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

I love the fact that a GoFundMe campaign was her downfall. the stupidity, it burns...

The lot my house sits on is part of the area where Federal troops were camped just to the east of the front lines during the Battle of Atlanta. I have no wish for them to return with torches.

Highly recommend Free State ofJones, recommended by lj, above. (It's streamable via Showtime.) I'll do some further reading - it's a true story.

Have to say that it made me wish that quite a few more rebel dead enders had been put out of their misery.

states rights, my @ss.

our friends on (R) side of the House want national reciprocity for concealed carry. in many states, if you have a pulse, you can carry a firearm. the (R)'s would like those folks to be able to carry a firearm any and everywhere in the US, regardless of local laws and requirements.

do not want.

if the "are they breathing" test for concealed carry works for you, keep it where you are. leave it the hell out of my state.

i'm just not interested in people telling me i'm trying to "impose my liberal values on them". if there is anybody on god's green earth trying to "impose their values" on everyone else, it's the (R)'s at the national level.

motes and beams, y'all.

do whatever the hell it is you like where you live. just keep it outta my state. if you can't come to where i live without carrying your freaking gun with you, stay the hell home.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad