View single post by ole
 Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 04:09 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 I would tend to argue the other way and it was the fact that the central government was not strong enough for southern tastes that led to seccession more than any state supremacy on certain matters.

You are so right, David! But I think the examples you give are specific rather than general. It does remain a puzzle that the sectionalism is purported to have developed (aside from the slavery issue) over centralizing federal power, while the contemporary complaints were that the abhorrent power was not being used to favor southern interests.

I generally figure that the "federal power struggle" position is whitewash. The disaffection between south and north was societal, but the idea that it was political is putting lipstick on the pig. The disaffection, in my mind, was based primarily on the diverging lifestyles of -- not industrial vs agrarian -- but progressive vs status quo. I have no other word in my immediate vocabulary other than "aristocracy." There was, in the small but politically powerful, planter class, an elitism that felt itself above or otherwise superior to the government and constitution. When push came to shove, and my way or the highway, that miniscule part of the entire south chose the highway. And that minority managed to pull off a rebellion of catastrophic proportions. Nothing noble about it. A double-handful of elitists managed to plunge a nation into civil war.

Dang! The soapbox just collapsed. As does this post.

ole