"Sequestering" Resources-- the South and the North
MLause at cinci.rr.com
Tue Jul 15 15:17:35 MDT 2003
As to the sectionalized nature of the dispute, you wrote "those
societies build themselves around specific organizations of property,"
which simply isn't so. There was no unitary way society was organized
in the North or in the South. Even with military control of rigged
elections, voters in parts of the South remained three-to-one and
four-to-one opposed to secession. These correspond roughly to different
kinds of social structures that existed sometimes cheek by jowl with
each other. Someplace like Huntsville, Alabama and its immediate
hinterland combined a dozen different versions of "the Southern way of
life," each of which differed greatly.
These are essential issues--as is emancipation--but they're not worth
discussing if we can't agree on the ground rules of what is and isn't
important to our understanding of the past.
To reject ideas about natural rights ideology--or anything--as
historically unimportant simply because YOU regard it as "an oxymoron"
assumes history only moves in ways that are rational to you.
You can't be serious about understanding the past, if you could say such
a thing and not mean it.
...On the other hand, if you do think that history revolves around what
makes sense to you, are we to assume that you're just killing time until
you get a chance to apply for a vacancy in the Trinity?
More information about the Marxism