Local Blogs

Nose Under the Community Tent

By Paul Losch

E-mail Paul Losch

About this blog: I was a "corporate brat" growing up and lived in different parts of the country, ending in Houston, Texas for high school. After attending college at UC Davis, and getting an MBA at Harvard, I embarked on a marketing career, mai...  (More)

View all posts from Paul Losch

US War Between the States--150 Years

Uploaded: Apr 12, 2011
I was traveling on business and had occasion to spend the weekend in Charleston, South Carolina. A very charming city, and known for it's legacy as the start of the war between the North and the South of the United States as it was configured at that time. 150 years ago today.

This past weekend I participated as a Board of Directors member on the Model United Nations of the Far West, a college organization. Seated next to me at lunch after the meeting was a man from Senegal who came to this country while a college student to play basketball-6 foot 7. To my other side was an all American young moman who works at the UN and whose father is "Persian"--interesting choice of description--and an Indian mother.

What's the connection between Charleston and a college organization?

I was very fascinated and learned a great deal about the goings on that led to the Fort Sumpter conflagration. The tour guide really knew his stuff, and provided a great deal of information about the start of the US Civil War that was new to me.

I liked the walking tour so much that I bought the guide an ice tea after the tour to talk some more. He really hates Abraham Lincoln. He thinks that secession should have happened. He kept his opinions to himself during the tour, but was quite willing to offer them up to me in a thoughtful but somewhat startling way when he was not "on the clock."

And just this past weekend I have lunch with people who to my way of thinking personify what this country is about. The lady on my left, of Persian/Indian heritage, was as American as my kids. The 6' 7" former US basketball player on my right. We talked about many things, and racial and country heritage was a key topic.

Te guy from Africa had no difficulty discussing his experiences in the US being black. The young woman who has worked in Afghanistan recently, was able to describe her experience as a female who has the appearance of an Afghan native, but was born and raised in the US, so comes from a very different vantage point while working for the UN in a country like Afghanistan.

I contrast the conversation I had this past weekend with the one I had in Charleston a couple years back. Some people are still fighting a war that ended 150 years ago. I hope that most of us are able to participate in the sort of discourse I experienced on Sunday.

Comments

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:16 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Abe Lincoln was, indeed, a very bad man. It was only through a PR campaign without match that he became so beloved through the years. In the first place, secession was not a foregone conclusion. A very early suggestion, to buy all the slaves and free them, was dismissed. We all know, now, that Lincoln had no love for the Black man, nor did he consider him equal. Manumission was just a tactic. The war was a really big mistake.


Posted by Traitorous states, a resident of ,
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:33 pm

WEW:
>The war was a really big mistake.

Uh, yeah, ya think?Treason against our country, whether by one, or in this case, by MANY, is a mistake. Secession is treason. Secession to keep slavery is beyond immoral.

Odd that a number of fringies still use the word. Rick Perry, for one.


Posted by Tea Party, a resident of ,
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:55 pm

Thank you Walter for explaining what the Republicans really mean when they call themselves the "party of Lincoln".


Posted by Batak, a resident of ,
on Apr 12, 2011 at 11:36 pm

No, Walter, wrong. Emancipation came after the south started the war.

The war was right not because it was a good "tactic" but because it put an end to the south's inhumane practice.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 5:32 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Slavery was dead through out the civilized world within 5 years of the Civil War, without war except in the US. One of the many peaceful means of resolving the slavery issue would have been preferable to the carnage of the Civil War. 600,000 deaths was a high price to pay to set the calendar ahead a few years. The "One Man, One Vote, One Time" policy was wrong on so many ways, both then and now. Secession is the ultimate freedom. You are not free if you are held in an association without recourse.
And to set the record straight once again, I am a libertarian, NOT a republican.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:44 am

Walter always likes to remind people that he is a "libertarian". Yet he is always out in force, bashing the democrats and Obama, while parroting the rhetoric coming out of the republican talking heads. You know what they say about if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......
Walter's stand vis a vis slavery and voting rights is not surprising considering all of his past comments with regards to minorities.
Walter also supports treasonous activities under the guise of "secession". BTW, Walter, as for your comment about not being free if you are held in an association without recourse--no one is forcing you to stay in the USA.
You can dress up the Civil War any way you want, but at the end of the day it was an act of treason in an attempt to destroy the US government. Robert E. Lee and the rest of the treasonous SOuthern scum should have been hanged at the end of the war. The confederacy was the 19th Century Al Qeida.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 8:33 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Secession is not treason if you no longer feel bound to an association, except perhaps when it fails. George Washington was also a traitor, and yet we revere him. No one is forcing me to stay in the US, I do so voluntarily and gladly. That does not blind me to its wrongs. 100 years of segregation certainly is not defensible. Denial of the vote to women is not defensible. Excessive taxation is not defensible. The civil War was definitely not aimed at destroying the United States, it was just leaving the US.
I have made no comments either way about minorities, so that canard is difficult to understand.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 8:38 am

"Secession is not treason if you no longer feel bound to an association, except perhaps when it fails."
Secession is treason, but we agree that the Confederates were guilty of treason.

"George Washington was also a traitor, and yet we revere him."
Now Walter is attacking the Father of Our Country!!! There is a difference between gaining independence from another nation and a group of racist scum trying to destroy our government

"The civil War was definitely not aimed at destroying the United States, it was just leaving the US."
Spoken like a true confederate supporter.

"100 years of segregation certainly is not defensible. Denial of the vote to women is not defensible."
When you are exposed, you now suddenly say that these acts "are not defensible".

"I have made no comments either way about minorities, so that canard is difficult to understand."
you should go back and read your many posts over the years.


Posted by Traitorous states, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 10:22 am

WEW: who seceded? Who fired on our government?

Traitors.

Just to keep slavery. Granted, as evil as it was, the monetary "value" of slaves, at the time, exceeded the value of industry and even the railroads combined. Something like $4 Billion in 1860 dollars. The wealthy landowners somehow got the lower classes to join them in their fight to retain their wealth, against the lower class's own economic interests. Sound familiar?

After typing that, I feel the need to suddenly go wash my hands.

WEW: also, self-described "libertarians" vote republican, almost exclusively. LINO.

Like my friend who calls her self a progressive, not a Democratic party member.


Posted by Batak, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 10:43 am

"Slavery was dead through out the civilized world within 5 years of the Civil War"

Er, wrong again. Slavery was already dead by the time of the Civil War--except in the American South. In fact, it had been dead for quite some time in most places--good evidence that the American South was resistant to giving up slaves. If you're familiar with history, you'll recall that the south wasn't close to giving up slaves when they began shooting at those poor Union boys.

The Japanese Imperial Navy was closer to surrendering after Pearl Harbor than the South was to giving up slaves.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 3:23 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Central and South America discovered that keeping slaves vs hiring them was not cost effective. I suspect the South would have learned that pretty quick. 600,000 dead was a dear price to pay when you consider the lot of the Black in postwar South and North.
When libertarians have to make a choice between far left and just left, that does not make them leftists, it merely illustrates the dearth of choices available.
Go all the way back in my record and you will not find a racist comment. I don't do race.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 3:32 pm

"Go all the way back in my record and you will not find a racist comment. I don't do race."

See you comment above, Walter (600,000 dead was a dear price to pay when you consider the lot of the Black in postwar South and North.)--you support the enslavement of black people because they then faced racism after the civil war, especially in the South. Gee- I guess it would have been better to keep them as slaves--happy on the plantation.
No, you do not do race.


Posted by Traitorous states, a resident of ,
on Apr 13, 2011 at 4:15 pm

WEW:

You "suspect" the south would have "learned pretty quick".

You may "suspect" all you like, but that doesn't change economic facts. The south could NOT turn their back on their largest investment, the single largest investment in the US at the time. Perhaps you missed the facts above:

"...the monetary "value" of slaves, at the time, exceeded the value of industry and even the railroads combined. Something like $4 Billion in 1860 dollars."

"Suspect" all you want. The south built an empire on evil. They believed in it and they were financially wed to it.

WEW: give it up. Re-writing history is best left to the pros.

Or someone who knows how to use google.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 6:47 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Svatoid, in many ways the lot of the free slave was worse than the slave. The slave owner had to take care of his property, the employer did not. If you believe from what I wrote that I support slavery you need a refresher on reading comprehension. I jut do not support killing 600,000 men to achieve an imperfect manumission.
Traitorous, Irrespective of their investment, may steps short of war were open to the parties. If you chose to believe the Disney version of the Civil War, go to it but don''t expect to be taken seriously.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 7:09 am

"If you believe from what I wrote that I support slavery you need a refresher on reading comprehension"
Thanks for the tip, Walter. I will continue to believe that you support slavery--based now on your comment above (in many ways the lot of the free slave was worse than the slave).
Sounds like you believe that since the free slave was still treated like dirt by white southern (and in some cases northern) scum, he should have been happy remaining in indentured servitude.
You also support treasonous activity by the 19th century equivalent of Al Qeida. As I said the leaders of the confederacy should have been hanged.


Posted by Traitorous states, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 9:52 am

WEW: "may steps short of war were open to the parties"

Agreed, though not of your condescending tone. An especially odd tone to apply when defending traitors.

Why, I imagine you still consider it the "war of northern aggression."

Sure hope you don't have the great American flag on your bumper.

svatoid: thanks for handling his racial issue. I'm afraid I find the closeted types like WEW so repugnant that any response of mine might well violate terms. "...the free slave was worse than the slave"

Ugh.




Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 9:57 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Treason is pretty much an individual act. Would you have hanged all of the South?


Posted by svatoid, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 10:01 am

"Would you have hanged all of the South?"
Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee. the rest of the generals and high ranking officers. Governors of the traitorous states, mayors of the large traitorous cities.


Posted by Traitorous states, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 10:06 am

WEW: I'm not here to debate the fate of traitors from 150 years ago.

I'm here to confirm my ongoing amazement that in present day, we have both:
- supporters of those traitors, some more thinly veiled than others
- in some areas we continue to have secessionists, such as Rick Perry; and Sarah Palin's father in law, perhaps Todd himself. There are more.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

So, svatoid and Traitorous, you believe that patriotism transcends every other loyalty? That killing is the only way to resolve differences? What pathetic little people you are.


Posted by Traitorous states, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 4:23 pm

WEW: Are you implying that seceding from America in order to keep slaves is what, patriotic? Or loyalty to country?

Loyalty to owning slaves transcends country?

Loyalty to barbarism is worth killing for, as you put it?

All you have left is name calling?

Yes, Walter, you do indeed raise more questions every time you try to defend your initial, ridiculous post. I'll give you one point: at least you haven't tried the absurd notion that some are attempting these days in the south - that the civil war and the traitor flag wasn't "really" about slavery.

Small consolation to your other attempts to defend the indefensible.

I will leave it to others to judge pathetic.


Posted by Paul, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 6:51 pm

"Abe Lincoln was, indeed, a very bad man."

He is still a very bad man in the view of modern Republicans. He was at once the first president to call himself a Republican and the first RINO. Lincoln flouted the most sacred part of the constitution to Republicans - the takings clause of the 5th amendment - when his Emancipation Proclamation took away $4 billion of property without recompense. That is why the Party of Lincoln renamed itself the Party of Reagan.


Posted by Svatoid, a resident of ,
on Apr 14, 2011 at 6:58 pm

What a sad comment from walter, above. Resorting to name calling after he has exposed his true colors. Walter alerts whines about name calling, yet had no problem about engaging in the practice in a vain attempt to repair his damaged reputation.
Considering his many posts over the years about patriotism and defending the country, he now switches gears and is trying too defend traitors and the despicable practice of slavery. Walter forgets that the south started the war in an act of gross treason in am attempt to destroy the US. It defies belief that walter would support these traitors, unless he really believes that minorities are inferior (as I have perceived from many of his posts. Had this been an attack initiated by non-white people, walter would have screaming for blood, but since out was done of his fellow aryans, he leaps to their defense.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Apr 15, 2011 at 2:30 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Why, then, svatoid, did I defend Dr. Rice against every criticism? She is, I believe, Black, while her critics were primarily white. Makes you wonder.
If my belief that 600,000 deaths was not the only way to resolve the slavery question offends you, then glory in your bloodthirst. If you take my position as a defense of slavery that is your right, but it is a fragile position.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of ,
on Apr 15, 2011 at 6:37 am

Walter Wallis is spinning like an out of control top, trying to do damage control for his statements on this thread and all of past statements regarding minorities.
Walter conveniently forgets that it was the southern traitors to the union that started the war.
Considering Walter's past comments about defending the country, enemies of our nation and fighting for our country, it is laughable that he accuses me of "bloodthirst".
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,245 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 1,037 views

Weekly Update
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 700 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 4 comments | 697 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 219 views