I wouldn't say it's bad history education. I think it is knowingly playing fast and loose with the facts. Which is worse, IMO. "There are things I want to say, the truth on it is counter to the point I want to make (though nuanced), nobody's gonna check up on me, so I'm gonna make my point anyway."
We should totally make a blog game out of this. Something like...put a concept out there, and see who can make the most horrifyingly erroneous statement about it by either twisting history or taking advantage of a half-truth. Let's see if we all have the stomach to play the game they want to play.
Yeah, you will remember my recent trend of the stupid. I think this guy is that dumb. I don't think Palin has a clue about her country's past either. I think they just assert what they want to be true and don't bother to check it out.
To piggyback on steves' and Monk's comments, it's not whether sovereignty lies within the body politic or within the apparatus of local authority in this case. The reason this is the result of bad history education is that the absolute sovereignty of the individual American states was removed by the Civil War. The fact that the southern states were denied the right to secede because the rest of the country would not allow it proves that they are not truly sovereign states. At most, they exist in a semi-sovereign status under the auspices of the federal government.
Ah, but of course, they don't acknowledge that as legitimate, right? Every conservative in that vein is taught that the CW was not about slavery and the south had every right to secede (though everyone will claim that slavery would have ended on its own).
"Every conservative in that vein is taught that the CW was not about slavery and the south had every right to secede."
The issue at stake concerning sovereignty and secession is not why they did it but that they were not able to pull it off. The Union victory in the war legitimized the authority of the federal government to hold the United States together against the will of the individual states, regardless of their reason for seceding in the first place. And the fact that the southern states still had to work within the system of laws established within the U.S. Constitution--albeit with the use of illegal coercion and violence--to restore the pre-war social order further demonstrates that the federal government is the highest authority in the land. To recall Monk's comment about 19th century political theories, the idea that the United States still exists as some sort of precursor to the United Nations or NATO is a mute point in the 21st century. There is a finite realm in which the individual American states can legitimately conduct relations with foreign nations.
8 comments:
I wouldn't say it's bad history education. I think it is knowingly playing fast and loose with the facts. Which is worse, IMO. "There are things I want to say, the truth on it is counter to the point I want to make (though nuanced), nobody's gonna check up on me, so I'm gonna make my point anyway."
We should totally make a blog game out of this. Something like...put a concept out there, and see who can make the most horrifyingly erroneous statement about it by either twisting history or taking advantage of a half-truth. Let's see if we all have the stomach to play the game they want to play.
What an idiot. We are citizens of our country and the state we live in and subject to the jurisdiction of both. This is hardly a new concept.
Smitty, I would love to play that game.
Yeah, you will remember my recent trend of the stupid. I think this guy is that dumb. I don't think Palin has a clue about her country's past either. I think they just assert what they want to be true and don't bother to check it out.
Wow, the 19th Century called, and they want their political theories back!
To piggyback on steves' and Monk's comments, it's not whether sovereignty lies within the body politic or within the apparatus of local authority in this case. The reason this is the result of bad history education is that the absolute sovereignty of the individual American states was removed by the Civil War. The fact that the southern states were denied the right to secede because the rest of the country would not allow it proves that they are not truly sovereign states. At most, they exist in a semi-sovereign status under the auspices of the federal government.
Ah, but of course, they don't acknowledge that as legitimate, right? Every conservative in that vein is taught that the CW was not about slavery and the south had every right to secede (though everyone will claim that slavery would have ended on its own).
"Every conservative in that vein is taught that the CW was not about slavery and the south had every right to secede."
The issue at stake concerning sovereignty and secession is not why they did it but that they were not able to pull it off. The Union victory in the war legitimized the authority of the federal government to hold the United States together against the will of the individual states, regardless of their reason for seceding in the first place. And the fact that the southern states still had to work within the system of laws established within the U.S. Constitution--albeit with the use of illegal coercion and violence--to restore the pre-war social order further demonstrates that the federal government is the highest authority in the land. To recall Monk's comment about 19th century political theories, the idea that the United States still exists as some sort of precursor to the United Nations or NATO is a mute point in the 21st century. There is a finite realm in which the individual American states can legitimately conduct relations with foreign nations.
Post a Comment