Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (65783)	9/12/2002 8:32:34 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

Cary, This last post of yours is extreme. You need not overstate your case to make your point. Now isnt this like the pot calling the kettle black? mike

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (65783)	9/12/2002 2:10:18 PM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

OT OT <RE: "...every confederate a white supremist..." What would you call people who secede and fight a war to protect the institution of slavery?> Certainly slavery played a large role in the reason for the war. But I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that there were those who fought to protect their land from what was perceived as a threat from the North. Certainly some soldiers determined their land would be taken and their people killed in order for the North to gain economically. The paragraph below details some of those other issues that legitimate historians agree were additional factors. I cannot imagine every boy fighting in the Vietnam War was clear on the reason they were fighting; they took up arms at the request of their leaders. To imagine every Confederate soldier fought exclusively to continue slavery is too far sweeping. In any event I don't see enough in the article cited to label Ashcroft as 'supporting white supremacy organizations and participating in their meetings and contributing to their journals' based on his comment in the interview. Is there any other evidence? It seems a dangerous political 'ploy' to make Powell one of the most powerful people in the entire gov't, well exceeding Ashcroft's position, for tokenism. Again, I am just trying to judge the evidence and historical record unbiased and reach a fair conclusion on whether your original statement has enough evidence to find Ashcroft 'guilty' So far there would not be anywhere near enough in a court of law or perhaps even a 'reasonable man' threshold. Ulysses S. Grant said in his memoirs after the war; "Had the war been fought over slavery, I would have resigned my commission and offered my sword to the other side"! There were a few reasons other then the slavery issue, that the South disagreed on and that persuaded them to succeed from the Union. Basically the North favored a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution. They wanted to grant the federal government increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to the individual states. The North also wanted internal improvements sponsored by the federal government. This was more roads, railroads, and canals. The South, on the other hand, did not want these projects to be done at all. Also the North wanted to develop a tariff. With a high tariff, it protected the Northern manufacturer. It was bad for the South because a high tariff would not let the south trade its cotton for foreign goods. The North also wanted a good banking and currency system and federal subsidies for shipping and internal improvements. The South felt these were discriminatory and that they favored Northern commercial interests.