Skip

CSA Constitution
June 23, 2006 1:23 AM   Subscribe

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America. The author did a line by line comparison of the US constitution and the CS constitution. It's no surprise that the constitution of the CSA includes specific clauses regarding slavery, but some of the other changes are quite interesting. For instance, the CSA constitution included a "line item veto" for budget measures.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste (45 comments total)

 
The author is a Canadian cartoonist.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:24 AM on June 23, 2006


I'm unsure about any political cartoonist that feels the need to explain the jokes.
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:30 AM on June 23, 2006


Interestingly (to me anyway), the individual Confederate states weren't able to overcome their perceptions of themselves as separate states rebelling against a Federal government first and Confederate states united under a new Constitution secondarily. They had seceded separately, after all.

I'm a little hazy on specific examples and must resort to handwaving here -- it's before dawn and I haven't even had coffee yet -- but Confederates in other states frequently felt themselves playing second fiddle to Virginia, despite what the CSA Constitution said about how the Confederate government was supposed to function. Trying to formulate a government at the drop of a hat, in the teeth of a war, will cause problems like that. (Iraq, anyone?)

This lack of common cause in the face of their civil war against the more powerful Union was a major political factor in their military defeat.
posted by pax digita at 1:58 AM on June 23, 2006


**NEWS FLASH JUST IN**

President Cheney plans to announce tomorrow the suspension of US mid-term elections in November. Instead the US government will hold an all-day televised extravaganza, wherein Detroit muscle cars driven by Republican Senators, will execute so-called high-speed "drifting" manuevers within a circular concourse, each fantasy car equipped with a stainless cheese grater, and applied by the drifting and dueling mid-term Senators to a mammoth block of USDA surplus cheese substitute.

The accumulated piles of grated cheese will determine who automatically returns to Congress, and who has to 'face the music' with their voter district, in a run-off election with themselves.
posted by Unregistered User at 2:16 AM on June 23, 2006 [1 favorite]


The changes forbid Congress from spending money to "facilitate commerce." This can be seen as an early attempt to limit the power of big business in politics; Congress was only supposed to fund infrastructure that served the interests of the states and the people, not industry.

Well, that's one way to think about the ban on internal improvements, I suppose. Another would be that they just wanted to keep their confederal government from building roads and canals because they were ludicrously apprehensive about government.

Jeff Jenkins has some neat papers about the effects of the Confederate House's lack of parties.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:43 AM on June 23, 2006


The Confederates add this little clause at the end of Section 9. This is quite an interesting addition, as it demands that all laws only relate to "one subject." This would prevent what we see today, where endless riders attached to bills can allow Congress to pass all sorts of extraordinarily complicated laws that regulate about 50 different topics at once.

Now this..... this is good. Why don't we have this?
posted by IronLizard at 3:17 AM on June 23, 2006


Actually, we could have it. It doesn't require a constitutional provision; it's something the House and Senate could do voluntarily by changing their own rules of operation.

The reason we don't have it is that Representatives and Senators don't want it. Omnibus bills are harder for the President to veto, and thus easier for Sen/Rep's to attach juicy little gifts for favorite donors onto.

It comes up every once in a while, but it probably has no chance of ever becoming standard practice.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:24 AM on June 23, 2006


IronLizard writes "Now this..... this is good. Why don't we have this?"

Because of the absolute nightmare of interpretation that having a constitutional stipulation about laws having only one subject would precipitate. In theory, an inconvenient law could be found unconstitutional and thrown out because it dealt with two subjects.
posted by graymouser at 3:54 AM on June 23, 2006


It's not all about the pork; taking from Congress the freedom to group legislation grants too much power to the executive.
posted by fleacircus at 3:59 AM on June 23, 2006


So, essentially line item vetoes would be the rule. Good point.
posted by IronLizard at 4:23 AM on June 23, 2006


We've got the line-item veto anyway, by presidential fiat. He's just decided he's not going to enact or enforce any parts of bills he doesn't like. It's even worse than a veto, because congress can't over ride it.
posted by empath at 5:32 AM on June 23, 2006


MetaFilter: It's not all about the pork.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:58 AM on June 23, 2006


"I'm unsure about any political cartoonist that feels the need to explain the jokes."

It's because he's Canadian.

See, Canadians are stereotyped as being ultra-polite, and it would be rude to make a joke that people couldn't understand, so he explains it in order to avoid any discomfort on the part of the reader.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:22 AM on June 23, 2006


mr_crash_davis: are you being ironic or are you Canadian?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:23 AM on June 23, 2006


[see I need to have jokes explained to me]
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:24 AM on June 23, 2006


This is fascinating, because it informs so much of the political character of the south, and the republican party in general.

I'm suprised and the emphasis on God back then. Despite the North's puritan heritage, God is not a part of the Constitution. But in the South, even back then, you can see the influence and power that churches wielded.

Also, the business about explicitly making slavery legal - how perfectly awful. Was it so important to the self-esteem of the south to codify into law the right to oppress another group of people? I very much doubt that slavery was about economics for the south. I very much believe it was crucial to the southerners idea of self-worth. To go through all this effort, a war, a million killed, just to maintain the right to oppress a group of people - it's psychotic.

I wonder how much of this attitude still exists in the educated South, but has been recast in more PC terms while still maintaining the aura of superiority. This is how I feel whenever a southern christian talks about his religion. There's a feeling there of complete confidence in being absolutely right, and that their traditions are better, purer, more heartfelt, etc. Think Falwell, Rev. Kennedy, Robertson, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, etc. They look at everyone like children making the silly mistakes that kids make.

True story: I got a job in the south and I moved into a house with my gf before we were married. So the neighbor, who had lived there for decades saunters over to introduce himself. We make small talk, and he mentions he's seen my wife coming and going. I say "Well, she's not my wife yet, we're getting married in ___". Without skipping a beat he smiles kindly and says in an offhand manner, "You oughtta do that if you'll be living together, don't you think?"

On reflex, I shoot him my south philadelphia stare and say, "what." That northeast urban delivery that isn't a question. It was clear he'd never seen that look before.

There goes the neighborhood...
posted by Pastabagel at 6:35 AM on June 23, 2006


America in the 19th century, when the CSA constitution was written was by far a whole lot more religious than America in the 18th century when the American Constitution was written, hence the lack of God reference. Also, there simply were not many zealous Christians among the drafters of the document. Deism was quite popular at the time a la Enlightenment education. Let me also make a point that the Constitution was not the product of the North, it was a product of both the Northern and Southern colonies. (The North was just as religious as the South at the time, just they weren't writing any government binding documents. For an idea, though, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, "My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord...." was written by a Northerner.)

As for slavery and the South...

Honor had a big role to play in it. A solid belief in Slavery was not universal throughout the South, Virginia had come close to abolishing it back in the 1840's. It was most important, however, in the Deep South, which were also the first states to secede from the union. It was the main work force for the men in power. To preserve their fortunes they had to preserve their manpower. What if someone today began to talk about abolishing the use of gasoline? (poor analogy, I know, but trying to find something equivalent economically speaking.)

Also, it wasn't about codifying into law (it already was law, it was retaining the right to do so the point of the Constitution), to oppress another group of people. Slaves were not people, at least legally speaking in the South. They were chattel property. You can't oppress property can you? Again, though, this does not necessarily mean that all southerners felt this way about slaves or slavery. Heck, 75% of the popular didn't even own slaves, and of that 25%, only a minority of them owned anything like the Gone with Wind scenarios. So most people didn't even own a slave, but they fought to defend it. Why?

One idea is called the Mudsill Theory. That so long as slavery existed, the poorest white man would at least not be a slave. That was incredibly important. I do think as well that there were many who fought because they felt their way of life was in danger, or that they had as much a call to defend their state, as we would today to defend our nation. I have many Confederate veterans in my family tree, and to my knowledge and research, not one owned a slave. They also mainly lived in an area of Virginia where slavery did not play a large or intrinsic part of the local economy. Whatever the reason, the poor men did get convinced to fight the rich man's war.

As for superiority, well, naturally, we're Southern, we know we do things better than everyone else!
posted by Atreides at 6:52 AM on June 23, 2006


Meh. The part in parenthesis about North being as religious, is in reference to the 19th century.
posted by Atreides at 6:53 AM on June 23, 2006


Lincoln was a Republican.

That said, the general scholarly consensus is that it's surprising that a secessionist movement was so eager to recreate many of the documents and institutions of the country it was breaking away from (why was Richmond, only 100 miles away from DC, chosen as the capitol of the CSA?). Sure, there are some important differences, especially with regards to slavery (something that Jefferson, a slave-owner himself, accused England of fostering in his original draft of the Declaration, but that Franklin and others had taken out to avoid too much offense to both England and American slave owners), but it seems to me that when the fighting broke out in 1861, both sides thought the War Between the States/Civil War would be over in months with some sort of negotiated settlement. The slaughter at Antietam changed all that, especially for Lincoln himself, who decided to go for broke by signing the Emancipation Proclamation.

Interesting stuff.
posted by bardic at 7:05 AM on June 23, 2006


I think that non-slaveowning southerners fought for the right to own slaves for the same reason that poor 21st-century rural folk continue to vote for politicians who favor tax cuts for the rich. Somehow, the politicians convinced them that it was necessary for their economic well-being, and probably wrapped it up in a pretty package with a bunch of other stuff that they actually cared about (religion, conservative social values, flowery language about "patriotism" and "freedom", etc.)
posted by Afroblanco at 7:17 AM on June 23, 2006


And the non slave-owning southerners (the majority of whites in the south) also fancied that they might get to own slaves one day, in the same way (it seems to me) that lower and lower middle class Republicans today hope to be the types of people who benefit from tax cuts in the upper brackets some day.

Personally, I think it's pretty myopic, but I can see the motivation.
posted by bardic at 7:26 AM on June 23, 2006


I believe Richmond was chosen because at the time it was either the largest, or one of the largest financial and cultural centers of the South. Virginia also was one of the seats of the American Revolution, so it would have been symbolic for the capital of Virginia to become the home of the Confederate government, which styled itself a "second American Revolution." One example of this is the use of George Washington on the official seal of the Confederacy.


posted by Atreides at 7:47 AM on June 23, 2006


Exactly. Trying to establish a country that was "more American than America," so to speak, was a large part of the secessionist motivation. In the case of choosing Richmond, it was a case of politics overshadowing strategic military thinking. If they'd know the war would go on for four long years, Jefferson Davis would never have set up his offices there. (Although in the opening phases it looked like a brilliant choice, given McClellan's incompetence).
posted by bardic at 7:54 AM on June 23, 2006


it's surprising that a secessionist movement was so eager to recreate many of the documents and institutions of the country it was breaking away from

Not at all. The succesionists saw themselves as the true inheritors of the prinicples of the American Revolution. Which from their point of view was a southern-led affair, Washington and Jefferson and all of that. Of course they fought to preserve slavery, and were pretty frank about it, but they also wanted to see themselves as noble defenders of (white) liberty.

There is a famous quote from Jefferson Davis that neo-Confederates love to cite. Asked what the South had fought for in the war, he answered "constitutional government." Of course this is largely self-serving bullshit, but folks really believe their own bullshit.
posted by LarryC at 7:55 AM on June 23, 2006


It was all about states rights! Spesifically, the right to let people own slaves...
posted by delmoi at 8:28 AM on June 23, 2006


This is fascinating, because it informs so much of the political character of the south, and the republican party in general.

It was the Republicans who wanted to end slavery. In the 1864 election, the platform of the Democratic Party was to "cut and run", to coin a phrase. The Democrats wanted to give up on fighting the Civil War, to recognize the CSA, and to give back all runaway slaves. The Republican platform was to continue to fight the war and eventually to end slavery. The Democrats claimed that the war was a quagmire (not in those words) which was accomplishing nothing except for the slaughter of tens of thousands of soldiers. However, things began to go better just prior to the election (e.g. Sherman sacked Atlanta and made his notorious "march to the sea"), and Lincoln eked out a victory over Democratic presidential candidate McClellan. Thus it was that the war continued, the US won it, the CSA was forcibly reincorporated into the Union, and slavery was abolished in the US the following year.

The Democrats were the party of southern white apartheid supporters right up until the 1960's, though not all Democrats (even southern) believed in such things. A larger proportion of Republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats, primarily because of opposition by what were known then as "Dixiecrats", southern white racists who were then solidly part of the Democratic Party.

Let's not engage in revisionism here. Perhaps you hate the Republicans now, for whatever reason, but they are not the historic embodiment of all evil. (Nor are they historical war-mongers: it was Wilson, a Democrat, who led the US into WWI, it was Roosevelt, a Democrat, who led the US into WWII, it was Truman, a Democrat, who led the US into Korea, and it was Kennedy, a Democrat, who got us involved in Viet Nam.)

All of which has nothing at all to do with the post which began this thread...
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:33 AM on June 23, 2006


Because of the absolute nightmare of interpretation that having a constitutional stipulation about laws having only one subject would precipitate. In theory, an inconvenient law could be found unconstitutional and thrown out because it dealt with two subjects.

The gay marriage law (ban) was just struck down here in Georgia BECAUSE it dealt with two subjects on the referendum. Once it passed and codified as law, it was found unconstitutional and nullified.

Now, you know, having one-subject laws doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
posted by vanadium at 9:26 AM on June 23, 2006


It was the Republicans who wanted to end slavery. In the 1864 election, the platform of the Democratic Party was to "cut and run", to coin a phrase.

The Republicans as we know them today were born in 1854, in Ripon, Wisconsin. They were quite a young bunch.
posted by vanadium at 9:29 AM on June 23, 2006


It was the Republicans who wanted to end slavery.

The Republican Party was founded specifically in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which supplanted the Missouri Compromise and extended slavery into the territories. But it's very different from the Republican Party we know today.

In the 1864 election, the platform of the Democratic Party was to 'cut and run', to coin a phrase.

That's true for the Peace Democrats, or Copperheads, but War Democrats supported the war, and the Republican Party changed its name to the National Union Party for the election. The Democrats ran on a peace platform in the 1864 election, but George McLellan, the presidential nominee, was a War Democrat.

southern white racists who were then solidly part of the Democratic Party

And switched to the Republican Party after Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying, "We have lost the South for a generation." Which, along with over civil rights measures that some Republicans are still opposed to (with nearly 80 House Republicans blocking renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act this week) and Nixon's Southern strategy, make the Republican party the current inheritors of the Confederacy.

As the late Republican strategist (and Karl Rove's mentor) Lee Atwater said in a 1981 interview:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Though not all Republicans (even southern) believe in such things.

it was Wilson, a Democrat, who led the US into WWI
After Germany began unrestricted submarine warfare and began to sink American ships.

it was Roosevelt, a Democrat, who led the US into WWII
After Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor and Germany and Italy declared war.

it was Truman, a Democrat, who led the US into Korea
After North Korea invaded South Korea and the United Nations authorized the use of force.

it was Kennedy, a Democrat, who got us involved in Viet Nam
Not really. Democrat Harry S Truman backed France's resumption of colonial rule (which went against the Atlantic Charter's call for self-determination of peoples) over Ho Chi Minh's Jefferson-inspired declaration of independence for Vietnam and backed France in the Indochina War. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower blocked the nationwide elections called for by the Geneva Conference that ended the Indochina War (because the Communists would probably have won the elections), and sent the first military advisors to Vietnam.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:16 AM on June 23, 2006 [1 favorite]


Fantastic comment kirkaracha. But while I think Steven C. Den Beste might be over-simplifying things a bit, he's right to point out a common misconception in America that the Republican party was always oppposed to civil rights causes, or that even more basically, Lincoln wasn't a Republican (the second to run for president from that party I believe).
posted by bardic at 10:29 AM on June 23, 2006


I don't think it ought to be controversial to point out that the Republican party has historically stood for a lot of good things (and otherwise, of course: they're mixed). The current US administration does not embody many of the traditional values of the Republican party.
posted by hattifattener at 10:47 AM on June 23, 2006


I stumbled-upon (tm) this a couple days ago and thought it would make a great post. I particularly thought it was interesting the rights they chose to take away from the states, as well as the heavy Jesusosity of the document.
posted by absalom at 11:42 AM on June 23, 2006


The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Being as gung-ho as they were about slavery, what was the logic behind this?
posted by omarr at 12:04 PM on June 23, 2006


Importation of slaves from outside the US was banned in 1808, and I don't think anyone in the South really thought there was a good reason to restart the trade. It occurs to me that one reason why is that it would increase the supply, and therefore decrease the value of existing stock, as it were; for existing slaveholders their slaves represented a significant portion of their wealth and they may not have wanted it devalued.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:17 PM on June 23, 2006


Kirkaracha, I knew those things. The point is that neither party wears a halo; they both smell of brimstone.

The comment to which I responded seemed to be applying the mantra "all Republicans are racists, and therefore all racists are or were Republicans". At the time of the Civil War that couldn't have been further from the truth. Whether it's true now is beyond the scope of this discussion.

As to the four wars I mentioned, I tried not to give any indication of whether I approved or disapproved of US involvement in them. It happens that I think all four of those Democratic Presidents were correct in taking this country to War. It's a shame that modern Democrats no longer thinks there's anything about this country that's worth fighting to protect. (With the notable exception of Joe Lieberman, who is probably going to lose his Senate seat because of it.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:28 PM on June 23, 2006


it would increase the supply, and therefore decrease the value of existing stock

Correct. For the big plantation owners who really did run the south, the majority of their wealth was not land, it was slaves. Land was cheap, especially in the old southwest, and disposable, since cotton monoculture depleted the soil in time. But slaves were immensely valuable. One of the scary things about the specter of abolition is that in meant personal bankruptcy for many of the leading southern families, since they were typically mortgaged to the hilt.

Another reason might be the disdain that most slave owners have for slave traders. I have never figured this one out, but southern slave owners very typically condemned the slave traders they did business with as cruel, dishonest, and disreputable. They were the official scapegoats for all that was wrong with the system.
posted by LarryC at 12:36 PM on June 23, 2006


It's a shame that modern Democrats no longer thinks there's anything about this country that's worth fighting to protect.

Jesus-isnt'-Christ-Almighty-on-a-friggin'-bicycle. I was enjoying a wonderful history lesson and discussion, and then BANG! Bullshit Strawman argument right upside the head.

Nothing about this country that's worth fighting to protect . . . . C'mon, man, don't waste our time.
posted by John of Michigan at 1:27 PM on June 23, 2006


yeah, you really do yourself a disservice and cast a pall over some otherwise great commentary by saying things like that, Steven C. Den Beste.
posted by lord_wolf at 1:43 PM on June 23, 2006


I knew those things.

If you knew those things, why didn't you say them? You oversimplified the position of the Democratic Party during the 1864 election, and implied that the four Democratic presidents you listed were "war-mongers." Saying they led us into those wars implies that they started them.

It's a shame that modern Democrats no longer thinks there's anything about this country that's worth fighting to protect.

Most Americans (and most Democrats) were overwhelmingly supportive of the war in Afghanistan. ("But even though support for the war is strong, Americans are not ready to declare victory in Afghanistan until Osama bin Laden is capture or killed.") Our illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq isn't defending us against anything.

he's right to point out a common misconception in America that the Republican party was always oppposed to civil rights causes, or that even more basically, Lincoln wasn't a Republican

Sure, the Republican Party was founded on the noblest of grounds. President Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents (the greatest, in my opinion). President Eisenhower sent National Guard troops to Little Rock) to enforce school integration.

But the Republican Party has embraced Southern racists since the 1960s. Ronald Reagan's first presidential campaign speech was a state's rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. George H.W. Bush ran the notorious Willie Horton ads. George W. Bush supported Confederate groups and South Carolina's use of the Confederate flag.

the second to run for president from that party I believe
That's right. John C. Frémont was the first Republican nominee, in the 1856 election.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:58 PM on June 23, 2006


LarryC is spot-on regarding why the South, even after secession, wanted to end the international slave trade. First off, it was pretty much over, and any further trade was a threat to southern economic interests. Second, look again at Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration. A slave-owner himself, Jefferson attacks King George III directly, and the British people indirectly, for fostering the Atlantic slave trade. This is an obvious case of "protesteth too muchism," but demonstrates a certain rationalization even among slave-owners--we might have slaves because of our historical situation, but we're not so un-Christian as to actually engage in further slave trade. Basically, it's the "they started it" argument.

As for drawing this thread into current debates, I'll just state that the reason why I think Russ Feingold is one of the few admirable politicians left in DC, Democrat or Republican, is because he's fighting, daily, to protect the rights (particularly the 4th Amendment ones) of all Americans. Someone who says that opposing an occupation of Iraq = hating America has already played themselves and their values sufficiently for all to see.
posted by bardic at 1:59 PM on June 23, 2006


/aside

I love seeing Steven get corrected on MeFi as never would've happened on USS Clueless...
posted by pax digita at 2:32 PM on June 23, 2006


It's a shame that modern Democrats no longer thinks there's anything about this country that's worth fighting to protect.
I'm intrigued. As a medical professional, I've never actually seen a full-on delusional episode occur in realtime in the middle of a paragraph.
posted by scrump at 3:23 PM on June 23, 2006


Not for nothing, Steve, but as someone who fought in Iraq, whose family has fought for this country in wars both good and bad for over a century, and who are largely liberal/progressive/Democratic in our politics, your comment's highly offensive. I was born fighting, in some ways; I don't need a lecture on patriotism from some keyboard jockey.

Oh, and as for Joe Lieberman's principles: when he could have gone to war (in Vietnam), he was a conscientous objector; now that he's a three-term incumbent, he hasn't met a war he doesn't like. Seems like the only principle that worthy holds dear is the one about covering his Senatorial ass.
posted by arkhangel at 8:18 PM on June 23, 2006 [1 favorite]


True story: I got a job in the south and I moved into a house with my gf before we were married. So the neighbor, who had lived there for decades saunters over to introduce himself. We make small talk, and he mentions he's seen my wife coming and going. I say "Well, she's not my wife yet, we're getting married in ___". Without skipping a beat he smiles kindly and says in an offhand manner, "You oughtta do that if you'll be living together, don't you think?"

True story. My grandmother lived in an all white town in new hampshire her entire life. She went 40 years without missing church. She also would have judged you a sinner for living with your girlfriend. She never set eyes on the south.

How ironic that you can take a dicussion on the csa constitution and judge the present day south with your own stereotypes and prejudices.

On reflex, I shoot him my south philadelphia stare and say, "what." That northeast urban delivery that isn't a question. It was clear he'd never seen that look before.

There goes the neighborhood...
posted by Pastabagel


Yep, we're not use to 'attitude' down here in the south Pastabagel. We're too polite. You probably almost gave the poor guy a heart attack.

(actually, if your look came across half as ridiculous as you putting it into written word, I'm sure he was amused.)
posted by justgary at 11:32 AM on June 24, 2006


The CSA was all about protecting the wealth and power of a very few rich white men. They did this, in part, by manipulating poor whites into believing they were threatened. The modern Republican Party is all about protecting the weath and power of a very few rich white men, in part, by manipulating poor people into believing they are threatened.

While this is true, it doesn't mean they are the same thing, and how the old CSA has had some influence on the modern Republican Party is a very complex (and interesting) story.

But, the truth may just be that the minority of people with wealth and power will do just about any disgusting, manipulative thing necessary to keep their wealth and power.
posted by QIbHom at 1:43 PM on June 24, 2006


« Older a facinating collection of life stories   |   RIAA's gonna cry yeah? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post