Slapping Wrists for Treason

[Rojava Free State]

About that: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 94726.html

The concept of First World originated during the Cold War and included countries that were generally aligned with NATO and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

First World
noun
the major industrialized non-Communist nations, including those in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan.

The First World consisted of the U.S., Western Europe and their allies. The Second World was the so-called Communist Bloc: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and friends. The remaining nations, which aligned with neither group, were assigned to the Third World.

Those terms changed. First world in the post cold War era means developed, and the amount of poverty down south makes places like north Miami look like a South American country.

[Kowani]

About that: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 94726.html

The concept of First World originated during the Cold War and included countries that were generally aligned with NATO and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

First World
noun
the major industrialized non-Communist nations, including those in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan.

The First World consisted of the U.S., Western Europe and their allies. The Second World was the so-called Communist Bloc: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and friends. The remaining nations, which aligned with neither group, were assigned to the Third World.

Cough.

[Atheris]

Cough.

Poverty does not a third-world nation make. While it's true the US has a poverty problem, it's entirely possible that it may be a result of having states bigger than Germany and having over 320 million people living in it could be a problem.

Like Wikipedia, Webster's, and NPR said, a first world country is a country that was aligned with the US and NATO during the Cold War.

[Rojava Free State]

Cough.

Poverty does not a third-world nation make. While it's true the US has a poverty problem, it's entirely possible that it may be a result of having states bigger than Germany and having over 320 million people living in it could be a problem.

Like Wikipedia, Webster's, and NPR said, a first world country is a country that was aligned with the US and NATO during the Cold War.

So Chile is a first world country?

[Atheris]

Poverty does not a third-world nation make. While it's true the US has a poverty problem, it's entirely possible that it may be a result of having states bigger than Germany and having over 320 million people living in it could be a problem.

Like Wikipedia, Webster's, and NPR said, a first world country is a country that was aligned with the US and NATO during the Cold War.

So Chile is a first world country?

Yes.

Edit: Shit, my bad. Got confused on my history.

No, Chile isn't a first world country. It was neutral and unaligned.

[Albrenia]

The Second World (don't hear that term much) would be Communist and Soviet-allied nations, and the Third World is everyone else.

Nowadays though 'First World' is generally (incorrectly, perhaps) used as a synonym for 'Western' or 'developed', though.

[Grenartia]

Wait, do Kentucky, Maryland, and Mississippi not exist?

Kentucky never chose to join the Confederacy in the first place. Maryland was sort of borderline.

When did Mississippi rebel against the Confederacy?

Not the state as a whole, but notably, Jones county.

[Joohan]

That the south is culturally different to the rest of the United States isn't a problem, there's no real threat of session today from any state,

“The South is well integrated”
“The South has a different regional culture.”

Pick one.

Kowani i'm shocked - I thought you believed multiculturalism. Are you saying different cultural groups can't be well integrated within the main cultural entity of the nation?

This is anecdotal at best, and unfalsifiable.

Remember the last time the neo-confederates tried secceeding from the Union? Of course not, it didn't happened. Neo-confederacy isn't an actual driving force of political action in this country. No one but an extremely few extremists is trying to recreate the confederacy. All the nostalgia essentially just culminates into a fetishization of rural culture and a teasing attitude of the northerners, like I said. I don't think Jimmy with bars and stars bumper sticker is planning revolutionary insurrection.

Calling the South a first world country seems a bit of a stretch.

I mean sure, if you think most of Europe isn't apart of the developed first world. Let's humor your fantasy though of the south somehow not being a developed first world economy. If we were to take the absolute poorest state by GDP per capita, Mississippi, and compare it to a member of the EU, they would be equivalent to Estonia,each overcoming the 35,000 USD threshold. Would you not consider Estonia a first world country? The world bank would consider them a high-income economy, same Mississippi.

And that's the absolute poorest state in the south. Wholly ignoring other states, like Georgia, who has a higher per capita income ( 50,816 USD ) thanFrance ( 45,342 USD ), Finland ( 48,416 USD ), or the United Kingdom ( 45,973 USD ). You're deluding yourself if you think the south isn't a fully developed and modern economy.

url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/ranking-the-states-from-most-to-least-corrupt/amp/]Cough.[/url]

Bruh, did you actually read this before you posted it? This puts corruption all over the map. Which metric should I use here: the convictions per capita, the reporter rating, the least stringent anti-corruption laws? None of these metrics point to the south being uniquely corrupt when compared to other states.

Objectively, no.

You've provided nothing of substance to the contrary.

[Deacarsia]

The South attacked the Union. Also, the tariff was opposed the most by South Carolina, and they got a noticeable amount of leniency on how much they had to pay.

The South did not start the war; President Lincoln deliberately provoked the war in order to overthrow the Confederacy and enforce the Morrill Tariff of 1861. This is supported by Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” and, “ The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts [emphasis mine]; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

While it is true that General Beauregard’s troops fired the first shot, the beginning of the war was Lincoln’s order sending a hostile fleet, the so-called “Relief Squadron”, to reinforce Fort Sumter, which the Confederacy had offered to engage in peaceful negotiations about. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and after Major Anderson refused to promise not to attack his troops; otherwise, his forces might have been exposed to two fires at the same time on both flanks. The use of force by the Confederacy therefore was in self-defense, rendered necessary by the actions of the Union.

Indeed, it actually is rather absurd to suppose that the Confederacy would attack the Union, given that their whole goal was to secede and go their own separate way. What reason would they have to show aggression?

Moreover, you are confusing the (admittedly connected) Nullification Crisis of 1832 with the War Between the States, the former being the dispute between South Carolina over the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 to which you are referring, whereas the latter began nearly thirty years later. Furthermore, this does not help your case at all, as it demonstrates that some States in fact were willing to seceded over the issue of tariffs, though the Upper South actually seceded in response to the start of aggression against the Confederacy.

That was one person, not the whole view. The reason the CSA decided to secede was because of rich white leaders not wanting to treat black people like actual people.

This view was not uncommon, both in the United States and abroad. The South seceded, because they correctly believed that there was a Northern conspiracy to destroy their way of life. The primary issue was the Hamiltonian-mercantilist “American system” pushed by the Whig and Republican parties, whereas the South generally supported Jeffersonian democracy.

In fact, the Republican party did not want to interfere with slavery where it already existed, but only wanted to prevent its expansion into the new territories, primarily to prevent competition with white laborers. Many Northern States explicitly prohibited the immigration of blacks for this reason.

The Copperheads were pro-slavery and pro-racism.

Nearly everyone at that time was pro-racism; the Copperheads, or Peace Democrats, were the main opposition to the war. While pro-slavery sentiment may have animated some of this opposition, I mainly was arguing against the war on legal grounds, similar to contemporary abolitionist Lysander Spooner.

Indeed, I see no reason why slavery could not have been extinguished peacefully in the United States as was done in other countries, not to mention every single Northern State.

[Deacarsia]

I wonder what the constitution said.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

All that both of these clauses do is to make slavery more explicitly a State issue rather than a federal one. Under the Compact theory of the Constitution, which the Southern States supported as evidenced by their very secession, the federal Constitution only bound the federal government, not the State governments, except where such restrictions on the State governments are expressly stated in Section 10 of Article I. Notice how the clause in question is under Section 9 of Article I, which is devoted to limitations upon the federal government only; no such limitation is present in Section 10, meaning that member States were free to allow or prohibit slavery. Only federal interference is prohibited, much like in the proposed Corwin Amendment supported by President Lincoln:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

Yikes.

The clause in Section 3 of Article IV merely codifies the already existing Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which supported the Southern argument that slavery was legally permitted in the territories until they became States, at which point the residents could choose to allow or prohibit slavery in the laws or constitution of the new State. Regardless of the correctness or justice of this Supreme Court ruling, this clause really does not create any changes from then-existing United States law, but only codifies the existing law.

Of course, pro-Confederate abolitionist Lysander Spooner had a somewhat different understanding of the Constitution, as expressed in his The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, which convinced Frederick Douglass to support the Constitution in contrast to William Lloyd Garrison.

Kentucky never chose to join the Confederacy in the first place. Maryland was sort of borderline.

When did Mississippi rebel against the Confederacy?

Not the state as a whole, but notably, Jones county.

I support the secession of Jones County from Mississippi, if they so desired.

[Salus Maior]

Kentucky never chose to join the Confederacy in the first place. Maryland was sort of borderline.

When did Mississippi rebel against the Confederacy?

Not the state as a whole, but notably, Jones county.

So, not Mississippi.

And I know about that revolt, and not every historian agrees with how strong it actually was, or whether Jones county actually meant to secede from the Confederacy.

[SangMar]

“The South is well integrated”
“The South has a different regional culture.”

Pick one.

Kowani i'm shocked - I thought you believed multiculturalism. Are you saying different cultural groups can't be well integrated within the main cultural entity of the nation?

This is anecdotal at best, and unfalsifiable.

Remember the last time the neo-confederates tried secceeding from the Union? Of course not, it didn't happened. Neo-confederacy isn't an actual driving force of political action in this country. No one but an extremely few extremists is trying to recreate the confederacy. All the nostalgia essentially just culminates into a fetishization of rural culture and a teasing attitude of the northerners, like I said. I don't think Jimmy with bars and stars bumper sticker is planning revolutionary insurrection.

Calling the South a first world country seems a bit of a stretch.

I mean sure, if you think most of Europe isn't apart of the developed first world. Let's humor your fantasy though of the south somehow not being a developed first world economy. If we were to take the absolute poorest state by GDP per capita, Mississippi, and compare it to a member of the EU, they would be equivalent to Estonia,each overcoming the 35,000 USD threshold. Would you not consider Estonia a first world country? The world bank would consider them a high-income economy, same Mississippi.

And that's the absolute poorest state in the south. Wholly ignoring other states, like Georgia, who has a higher per capita income ( 50,816 USD ) thanFrance ( 45,342 USD ), Finland ( 48,416 USD ), or the United Kingdom ( 45,973 USD ). You're deluding yourself if you think the south isn't a fully developed and modern economy.

url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/ranking-the-states-from-most-to-least-corrupt/amp/]Cough.[/url]

Bruh, did you actually read this before you posted it? This puts corruption all over the map. Which metric should I use here: the convictions per capita, the reporter rating, the least stringent anti-corruption laws? None of these metrics point to the south being uniquely corrupt when compared to other states.

Objectively, no.

You've provided nothing of substance to the contrary.

Forgive me, as I’m not too clued up on economics or anything significant really, but do those GDP per capita figures refer to post-tax or pre-tax income? As I’m sure you’re aware, Western European nations provide more services to their citizens than the vast majority of American states do. Therefore, citizens of those nations have to pay more tax, therefore reducing the amount of income they have. In comparison to a state like Florida, which has an income tax rate of 0%. Of course however, income tax isn’t the sole tax that a citizen anywhere would have to pay, so I imagine they’ll still pay some form of tax.

[Kowani]

“The South is well integrated”
“The South has a different regional culture.”

Pick one.

Kowani i'm shocked - I thought you believed multiculturalism. Are you saying different cultural groups can't be well integrated within the main cultural entity of the nation?

When those two cultural groups have radically different, diametrically opposed goals, no. The problem is not that the South has a culture, it is what that culture is.

This is anecdotal at best, and unfalsifiable.

Remember the last time the neo-confederates tried secceeding from the Union? Of course not, it didn't happened. Neo-confederacy isn't an actual driving force of political action in this country. No one but an extremely few extremists is trying to recreate the confederacy. All the nostalgia essentially just culminates into a fetishization of rural culture and a teasing attitude of the northerners, like I said. I don't think Jimmy with bars and stars bumper sticker is planning revolutionary insurrection.

Of course nobody's actually trying to secede. Rather, th culture of the Confederacy manifests itself in other ways, the most politically relevant being a distrust of and almost axiomatic opposition to the federal government.

Calling the South a first world country seems a bit of a stretch.

I mean sure, if you think most of Europe isn't apart of the developed first world. Let's humor your fantasy though of the south somehow not being a developed first world economy. If we were to take the absolute poorest state by GDP per capita, Mississippi, and compare it to a member of the EU, they would be equivalent to Estonia,each overcoming the 35,000 USD threshold. Would you not consider Estonia a first world country? The world bank would consider them a high-income economy, same Mississippi.

And that's the absolute poorest state in the south. Wholly ignoring other states, like Georgia, who has a higher per capita income ( 50,816 USD ) thanFrance ( 45,342 USD ), Finland ( 48,416 USD ), or the United Kingdom ( 45,973 USD ). You're deluding yourself if you think the south isn't a fully developed and modern economy.

...I'm sorry, did you just try to use per capita income as a substitute fo poverty and development? The Southern State with the lowest poverty rate is Virginia, at 10.6%. A rate surpassed by literally No OECD country. Economic mobility? Abysmal. HDI? There is [url=http://measureofamerica.org/maps/?state^hdi^all_all^HDI^hdi]one state[/url] in the entire south that isn't in the bottom two quintiles.

[Kragholm Free States]

Of course nobody's actually trying to secede. Rather, th culture of the Confederacy manifests itself in other ways, the most politically relevant being a distrust of and almost axiomatic opposition to the federal government.

Why on earth would anybody trust the US federal government? Do you trust it?

[Joohan]

Kowani i'm shocked - I thought you believed multiculturalism. Are you saying different cultural groups can't be well integrated within the main cultural entity of the nation?

When those two cultural groups have radically different, diametrically opposed goals, no. The problem is not that the South has a culture, it is what that culture is.

Is it that the culture itself is problematic, or that you have a problem with it? I don't see how southern culture is anymore problematic than that of the midwest, Texas, Cascadia, California, New England, New York, and every other major cultural subgroup in America. You're gonna have to give a pretty good reason as to why southern culture is uniquely destructive for the United States.

Of course nobody's actually trying to secede. Rather, th culture of the Confederacy manifests itself in other ways, the most politically relevant being a distrust of and almost axiomatic opposition to the federal government.

Vehement opposition to anything related to the federal government at the expense of the states was not a created by confederate nostalgia, and instead had it's roots in the founding of the United States. It isn't unique to neo-confederates, and goes well behind them in terms of political tradition.

...I'm sorry, did you just try to use per capita income as a substitute fo poverty and development? The Southern State with the lowest poverty rate is Virginia, at 10.6%. A rate surpassed by literally No OECD country.

Hmm, well isn't that interesting? You know who else can't claim a poverty rate lower than 10.6%? 40 out of 50 states. So, unless you wanna claim that the only developed 1st world economies in America can be found in those ten states, i'm afraid your argument doesn't hold up.

Economic mobility? Abysmal.

The south has some of the poorest regions in the United States. I didn't say they didn't. What I said was that even though they are typically poorer than the rest of the country that the South is still a developed first world economy. The link you gave only compares mobility of southern urban dwellers with other urban centers in America. I tried looking up similar information comparing mobility to other first world nations, but I found nothing specific.

HDI? There is [url=http://measureofamerica.org/maps/?state^hdi^all_all^HDI^hdi]one state[/url] in the entire south that isn't in the bottom two quintiles.

The website you gave was a poor source. Not in the information which you provided was incorrect, but in that it used a unique system of measuring HDI when compared to how the rest of the world is measured. Having two different standards of measurement makes it difficult to compare states to foreign nations. If we use the global standard, we see that most southern states are comparable to long time members of the EU

[Salus Maior]

Of course nobody's actually trying to secede. Rather, th culture of the Confederacy manifests itself in other ways, the most politically relevant being a distrust of and almost axiomatic opposition to the federal government.

Why on earth would anybody trust the US federal government? Do you trust it?

I prefer it to Neo-Confederates.

Or ye olde Confederates.

[Kragholm Free States]

Why on earth would anybody trust the US federal government? Do you trust it?

I prefer it to Neo-Confederates.

Or ye olde Confederates.

Oh of course, it's infinitely preferable, but preference and trust are very different things.

[Rojava Free State]

Of course nobody's actually trying to secede. Rather, th culture of the Confederacy manifests itself in other ways, the most politically relevant being a distrust of and almost axiomatic opposition to the federal government.

Why on earth would anybody trust the US federal government? Do you trust it?

Yeah fr the US government has committed too much evil at home and abroad for me to put all my trust in them.

[Cisairse]

The Second World (don't hear that term much) would be Communist and Soviet-allied nations, and the Third World is everyone else.

Nowadays though 'First World' is generally (incorrectly, perhaps) used as a synonym for 'Western' or 'developed', though.

This is the 2nd World

[US-SSR]

One of the great tragedies in US history is that Reconstruction ended far, far too soon. Imagine a world with no Confederate memorials to remove and you will begin to see the point.

[Senkaku]

Our approach to dealing with ex-Confederates definitely reminds me of a Yankee-flavored version of Madero letting ex-Porfirian officials off the hook during the Mexican Revolution lol

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Our approach to dealing with ex-Confederates definitely reminds me of a Yankee-flavored version of Madero letting ex-Porfirian officials off the hook during the Mexican Revolution lol

Interestingly enough, both Madero and Lincoln bought a bullet.

Hhmmm.

[Albrenia]

One of the great tragedies in US history is that Reconstruction ended far, far too soon. Imagine a world with no Confederate memorials to remove and you will begin to see the point.

No hero worship of a traitorous and slavery-loving bunch would probably do them a lot of good too.

[Salus Maior]

One of the great tragedies in US history is that Reconstruction ended far, far too soon. Imagine a world with no Confederate memorials to remove and you will begin to see the point.

No hero worship of a traitorous and slavery-loving bunch would probably do them a lot of good too.

That's a bit hard to do when you're literally their direct descendants. It's not just a matter of "Oh I hate the feds so I'm going to wave a battle flag around", it's in a very true sense their heritage, and I say this as a total Northerner who believes the Union was 100% in the right and the Confederacy was in a real sense, evil. Their descent from Confederate soldiers is part of their identity, they live alongside their ancestor's graves and their family history is thoroughly recorded. They can go to the battlefields where their family members died, and etc.etc. People in the South have this connection to the Civil War that the North doesn't really, because the war wasn't fought in the North aside from Gettysburg and that area. Southerners have deep roots, and it gives them a sense of meaning and identity, and that's why they fight so hard for it.

I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but I can't really judge them for it either. Identity and meaning is hard to figure out these days for most people.

[West Leas Oros 2]

One of the great tragedies in US history is that Reconstruction ended far, far too soon. Imagine a world with no Confederate memorials to remove and you will begin to see the point.

You can blame Andrew Johnson for that. Or more accurately, his pushing against the senate.