Monday, December 30, 2002

More State's Rights debate... I'm getting good push-back on yesterday's comments. I agree that there were other issues that divided the states, but for more then 100 years, first slavery, then segregation defined State's Rights for the South. I agree that the issue was a State's right to create and set it's own laws. My point is that the central State's Rights issue for the South, and the cause of the Civil War was Slavery. In the end it comes down to a religious war over interpretation of Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 13 years ago I was asked by a reporter in Canada what I thought of the 'Meach Lake Accord'? I told him that as an American I saw it as a State's Rights issue, and pointed out that Americans had even fought a Civil War over matters related to the issue. I just think that many in the South have tried to turn the Civil War into some noble cause, as a means of deflecting from Slavery as the main issue. No one wants to think that their ancestors/family died for a bad cause. In my case I had ancestors who fought on both sides of the Civil War...mj 12:22:29 PM

radio beowulf
jardeen.com
my world
my art
my quotes
macandy
macslug
beowulf design
email me

categories
rant, rattle & roll
mac, x and me
one OS to rule them all!

themes
beowulf themes

blogrolling
paul andrews
scripting news
adam curry
doc searls
phil wolff
chris pirillo
wil wheaton
u2 log

misc links
macintouch
macsurfer
macfixit
digital blasphemy
ars technica



cool links
belle and blade
quarlo -- photos ny city
sftv schedule
'24' episode guide
ellis island
eef
anti-dmca
Sincere Choice
jakob nielsen
michael moore