Save for Slavery, which was an inhuman abomination that the South should have rid it self of on its own, I recommend reading William Bradford Huie's Book: HAD THE SOUTH WON THE CIVIL WAR. It's a quick read, written probably 50 years ago. Maybe more.
The South's pinnacle was briefly attained by Pickets charge of Cemetery Ridge where the stars and bars briefly waved thru the intense hand to hand combat. Bobby Lee's boys never recovered from that failed charge at Gettysburg that ultimately led to the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia to U.S. Grant at Appomatox.
A lost cause captured fully by that haunting tune you have posted here before Sebe.
However, the South did rise again with the coming of Martin Luther King out of the South to bring about equal rights for all. Something that in truth, was not brought about earlier even after the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Yankees handled Reconstruction of the South from 1865-1877
so poorly, that an argument can be made that their occupation of the South led to the formation of another evil entity, the KKK. But that's for another blog.
Good Post, Sebe.
Thanks, Jimmy. And you know that I contend that the South rose AGAIN - when the blue states became red. But that's another story for another day.
I hope President Obama changes his mind and personally attends the Gettysburg ceremonies. It seems to me that "it is altogether fitting and proper" that he goes there himself. I can't imagine why he wouldn't want to go. I haven't seen any reason why - i.e., that he's out of the country or has a scheduling conflict or whatever. He's "sending" the Secretary of the Interior, according to this link:
Perhaps they know something. Kennedy was advised not to go to Dallas; he ignored the warning; and look at what happened. I'm not criticizing Obama but his decision is puzzling.
@Sebe."when the blue states became red." Sebe are you absolutely sure that you are an Independent? I know you have written that you consider your self center-right, but all this anti-Dem thing, along with the blue to red, doesn't exactly ring a Bell of Independence to my ear.
Jimmy: Glad you asked. My independence is based on the fact that I am not registered with any political party, and I try to view all the issues clearly. It doesn't mean that I ignore my life's experiences or a political parties' policies/philosophy that do more harm than good. I consider myself an independent thinker who chooses not to ascribe to any political parties' platform per se, but who believes that TODAY'S Democratic party goals - by and large - are focused on tax and spend; improper wealth redistribution (assuming you can have ANY "proper" wealth redistribution), and a "reconfiguration" of American society which is ultimately self-destructive. There's a fine line, but I contend that "anti-Democrat" does not automatically equal "Republican" just because I support some of their goals.
Since WWII, my views on U.S. presidents have straddled party lines. I think that Reagan was a tremendous President, but nobody is "perfect." Bush the Elder was probably "most qualified" when he assumed the presidency by virtue of prior jobs and experience, but he wasn't a great politician. Dubya did a good job of kick-starting the "war" on those who perpetrated 9/11, but in the long run he acted too much like a Democrat fiscally, which set up our current financial woes.
Ike was the right President for the 50s, and he did identify the threat of the "military industrial complex." I greatly admire FDR, and this country could do a lot worse (see 2009 - present) than having a president like Harry S. Truman. My views on Carter and Clinton are well-documented on this here web site. I rank Carter down there with Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. Clinton was too schmoozy but he knew when to "pivot to the center" and work with Republicans on behalf of the American people.
Kennedy's presidency was cut short, and growing up a Catholic in parochial schools doesn't allow me to have an unbiased opinion of him. Clinton's economic policy from 1995 was exactly what we needed, and I'm glad we had somebody like Dubya in there when 9/11 hit rather than Clinton or Carter.
The Bottom Line: For me, it's just a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." You can see this in action quite a bit in the Middle East - and in a lot of world politics actually.