From: bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann)
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:13:24 GMT

trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight) writes:

>>KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>>The United States is a country built on a murderous and exploitative basis.

>Certainly.

>>discussion of the legitimacy of the CSA is roughly comparable to discussions
>>of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

>Why is the USA any more legitimate than the CSA was, in principle?  You may
>not believe it is, but you failed to include the question of the USA's 
>legitimacy in your analogy while at the same time declaring both countries 
>"morally bankrupt." 
> 
>>That last sentence is classic. I suppose that refusing to concede the
>>plausibility of Hitler's arguments is also divisive?

>As a Southerner, I can certainly understand SOME of the motivations of the
>CSA, and I don't appreciate the implication that, for that reason, I would
>be willing to concede the plausibility of Hitler's arguments.

>>Yeah, as the LA riots illustrate. I predict that the US will erupt in a race 
>>war by the middle of the next century. It is a war that has been incipient in
>>this country for centuries.

>Sure.  Especially since people like you continue to insult those of us who
>hold to those tenets of self-determination which refer to the celebration
>and appreciation of one's culture and heritage as if we don't have the 
>right because we are white.  I agree with some of your points, but you're
>swinging too broad an axe.   

>>White southerners sought to annihilate the prospect of economic
>>competition from newly freed blacks. Simple greed was their motivation, along
>>with a heavy dose of racist ideology.

>Among other things.  White southerners also sought equal participation in
>the Federal Government, sought to retain their sovereignty and birthright,
>sought to nullify laws which unfairly restricted their commerce, etc.  I 
>don't mean to imply that I believe slavery was acceptable because it was a 
>part of these things, but that it was only a part.  Most Southerners didn't 
>own slaves, after all.  I abhor all slavery, but I can understand why those 
>Southerners who did not own slaves and had no vested interest in the survival
>of the institution volunteered to fight for their state and their country.  
>While I might not feel this allegiance toward the USA, I do feel this way 
>toward the part of the country which I love.

>>beliefs. Many whites in fact repudiated slavery. However, most resorted to
>>ethics of convenience, or none at all.

>Objecting to being prodded by an essentially foreign group of people is not
>"ethics of convenience."  It's like my own objections to your posts.  Even
>though I despise slavery and racism and agree withs some of your points, I 
>object to being indirectly labelled a Hitler apologist because I believe in
>some of the things the CSA stood for.

Thank you!
Roland

> 
>Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
> 
>                                                     +-----------+
>                                                     | _> ###    |
>                  fish on                            |     |     |
>                                                     +-----------+
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa