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.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (4019)	12/10/2002 2:12:45 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

I don't think people like Lott really think through their ideas. My husband and his brother, neither of whom have ever uttered a racist word nor made a racist joke or remark in the entire time I've known them (over 20 years) both argue that the country would have been a better place if the South had won the civil war because they are not fans of the gigantic, all-powerful, all-intrusive federal government. I understand their point, agree with the goal, but disagree with the premise. If we were going to pose counterfactuals, I'd say that the country would have been a better place if the South had not seceded, but remained in the Union and treated slavery as a political issue to be debated and resolved peacefully, just as the Founding Fathers had done, although they botched it horribly and punted it for future generations to grapple with. I expect that Lott means the same thing -- the Constitution has been put through a lot of twisting and turning to deal with civil rights. But I'd lay the blame at the feet, not of Lincoln nor Truman nor Johnson (Andrew OR Lyndon), but squarely where it belongs -- Justice Taney and the Dred Scott decision. He ruled that Negroes did not have standing to sue in federal court because they were of such an inferior race as to not count as human beings, but only property. There were six concurrening opinions, two dissenting opinions. odur.let.rug.nl I haven't read them all, in fact this is the first time I looked to see the break-down on the vote and realized that there were so many opinions filed. Very unusual. I suppose it's fair to say that when I say blame Taney I am really using short hand. It was a very controversial issue, obviously, because the denouement was the Civil War and its aftermath. I agree that a white man who can't handle these issues with more insight and tact than Lott did doesn't deserve the high post he has.