From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: re-legalize drugs? (was Re: BUSH IS A NEO_NAZI! AND A LIAR)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:49:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.143101.26912@b11.b11.ingr.com>, lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:
> In article <6203.2AD71F37@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Garth.Patterson@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Garth Patterson) writes:
> 
> Indeed. If you really study the history of this period (and not the crap that
> big government advocates feed to our public school kids these days, but a real
> political history), you find that Lincoln did NUMEROUS things before the south
> felt obligated to leave the union, ALL of which concentrated more political

Not as President, but in his political history.

> power into the central FEDERAL government, at the expense of autonomy at the
> STATE level. He felt strongly (and wrote several things to the effect) that
> only a strong central federal government could force ALL of the people to do
> things "for their own good" (how paternalistic). 
> 
> 
> Before Lincoln, people said "the United States ARE...". Lincoln ramrodded 
> through one thing after another to concentrate vast power into the federal 
> government (he would have LOVED the monster we have today, and known exactly
> how to use it to best effect).
> 
> After Lincoln, people said "the United States IS...." (which is just as wrong
> gramtically as it is morally/ethically/politically). Ever since then, the

I agree.

> 
> The southern states were the least inclined to go along with this radical new
> direction, and finally withdrew from the union rather than relinquish state 
> level autonomy. The CSA was a model of laizze faire non-centrist government. 
> Alas, there was a powerful well armed and more industrialized agressor to the 
> north that immediately delcared war on that new republic, and employed hideous
> new tactics against entire civilian populations, such as Sherman's march to 
> the sea (including the rape and genocide of Atlanta) not to be outdone until 

Good point.

> World War I. During "reconstruction", the south was made to pay heavily (many 
> penalties only timed out in 1965 - REALLY!) and was occupied and abused like 
> few other defeated countries have ever been (at least by the U.S.) Now, of 
> course, when we defeat a country (militarily, as in the case of Germany and 
> Japan, or politically, as in the case of the USSR), we immediately start 
> sending massive aid and help them rebuild their economy... not so with the 
> south. Ever hear of "carpet baggers"?
> 

Very VERY good point.

> slavery
> was over and done with before the first shot was fired, by a much more powerful
> weapon than anything employed by the northern army - technology - in the form
> of the cotton gin. It was no longer economical to own slaves after that. The
> blacks should revere Eli Whitney as their liberator, not Lincoln. Thanks to

That would certainly surprize Eli, not to mention his ancestors.

> 
> >  I think you've been reading too much of Margaret Mitchell's 'Gone with 
> > the Wind' as official Civil War history.
> 
> Nope - that played up the south rebelling against the "repeal of slavery"
> far too much - the real issue, and one worth leaving a newly centrist and
> agressive, big-government union for, was "state's rights". 
> 

I agree, but I'm glad the Union held together, I don't think I would like
this country quite as much if it were two countries.  I also don't think
we would have stood a chance in either world war.

> >     Garth
> 
> Larry "you don't really BELIEVE the stuff they fed you in school, do you?" Hughes

Oh NO!  I've agreed with Larry Hughes, would someone please check to see if
the Sky is falling?  :)

Larry Billings