Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: history of USA Presidential elections...

Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:03 AM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:13 AM
Riginslinger 31 Aug 07 - 07:11 AM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:07 PM
jeffp 31 Aug 07 - 01:08 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:39 PM
Riginslinger 31 Aug 07 - 01:51 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 02:18 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 04:20 PM
Rapparee 31 Aug 07 - 04:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 04:38 PM
Rapparee 31 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM
katlaughing 31 Aug 07 - 05:29 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 05:51 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 31 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 07:30 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 31 Aug 07 - 08:31 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 31 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 31 Aug 07 - 09:57 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 11:08 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 11:24 PM
Riginslinger 01 Sep 07 - 09:08 AM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM
pdq 01 Sep 07 - 02:29 PM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 02:52 PM
pdq 01 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 08:12 PM
pdq 01 Sep 07 - 08:19 PM
Bobert 01 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM
Bobert 01 Sep 07 - 09:14 PM
Riginslinger 01 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM
Bobert 02 Sep 07 - 11:22 AM
Riginslinger 02 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM
Bobert 02 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM
Riginslinger 02 Sep 07 - 11:51 AM
Bobert 02 Sep 07 - 12:46 PM
Little Hawk 02 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM
Riginslinger 02 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 12:59 AM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 07:04 AM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 07:30 AM
Bobert 03 Sep 07 - 08:10 AM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,Pete Peterson 03 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 03:37 PM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM
Bobert 03 Sep 07 - 05:23 PM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 05:52 PM
Riginslinger 03 Sep 07 - 10:10 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 10:13 PM
Riginslinger 04 Sep 07 - 12:13 AM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 09:27 AM
Bobert 04 Sep 07 - 01:58 PM
GUEST,Neil 04 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM
Riginslinger 04 Sep 07 - 04:02 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM
Bobert 04 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM
Ron Davies 04 Sep 07 - 10:41 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 11:09 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 04 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 11:04 AM
GUEST,Neil 05 Sep 07 - 11:57 AM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 05:17 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 06:23 PM
Riginslinger 05 Sep 07 - 06:51 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM
Ron Davies 05 Sep 07 - 10:32 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 03:27 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM
Riginslinger 06 Sep 07 - 09:53 PM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 10:29 PM
Bobert 07 Sep 07 - 09:51 PM
Ron Davies 07 Sep 07 - 10:17 PM
Riginslinger 07 Sep 07 - 10:45 PM
Bobert 08 Sep 07 - 10:26 AM
Riginslinger 09 Sep 07 - 12:01 AM
Bobert 09 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM
Riginslinger 09 Sep 07 - 10:59 PM
Donuel 10 Sep 07 - 04:46 PM
Riginslinger 10 Sep 07 - 05:46 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:03 AM

This is really interesting! The site has a summary of all the American presidential elections from 1792 on. Click on the year to get the summary. Several of the early ones were not even contested! They were more like coronations than elections. In some of them certain of the electors voted differently than their constituents had authorized them to, thus failing to represent the views of the people! There's some very surprising stuff as one goes through it year by year.

Entire history of all USA presidential elections


There were also no political parties at the beginning, so it wasn't a choice between parties at all, but between individuals who were selected from among their peers (the top politicians of the day).

Parties came along soon enough, though. The Federalist Party was a major player early on, but fell into disfavour after a few elections and then vanished altogether. Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans (how about that?) were an early challenger to the Federalists, and eventually drove the Federalists from the stage entirely. They became what we now know as the Democratic Party. The Republican Party of today did not have its beginnings until 1854, and their time in power began with Abraham Lincoln.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:13 AM

Here's another fascinating thing. Go to the year on each succeeding election and take a look at which areas of the country voted for which party. The situation has completely reversed itself like a virtual mirror image! New England and the Northwest used to vote consistently Republican...they now vote Democratic. The South used to vote consistently Democratic...it now votes Republican.

The fortunes of the different parties have changed radically from one era to another, as have the loyalties of different regions of the country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:11 AM

If I remember right, when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act, he made the statement that, in so doing, he was condemning the south to Republican rule for generations to come.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:07 PM

Yes. Prior to that the Deep South had voted Democratic with almost total consistency (given that the Republicans were the hated "party of Lincoln"). The results of the 1968 election are really fascinating. Most of the Deep South went to Wallace and the Independent Party who opposed desegregation! It was a rare case of a third party making serious inroads in the electoral results.

Here's the map of which states were taken by whom in '68:

1968 election results by state

The Democrats did well in the industrial northeast, state of Washington, and Texas, oddly enough. Wallace took Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arkansas! Nixon did well everywhere else, and that was enough to win it for him.

I can't help but wonder if Wallace got shot because he was fucking around with the political status quo in America too much? He took a lot of votes away from Nixon in '68, and that almost allowed the Democrats to win the election.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: jeffp
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:08 PM

Arthur Bremer, who shot Wallace, will be getting out of prison soon. You could ask him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:39 PM

(I doubt that he would tell me. The official record says he shot Wallace simply because he wanted to be famous. They say he was figuring to shoot either Nixon or Wallace, but he had a chance at Wallace, so he took it. Whether this is all true...who knows? I certainly can't say if I do.)

Anyway..... This is incredible! Look at the results of the crucial 1860 election, just before the Civil War. 4 parties, 4 candidates for President. Lincoln wins with the Republicans because the other 3 parties basically split their share of the vote between themselves while the Republicans walk away with the prize.

As usual in the USA system when there are more than 2 parties in the race, the main party that has no competing lesser party that would tend to steal some of its votes wins. This is not very reflective of the overall wishes of the majority of electorate...in fact, it is quite the contrary. A minority view defeats the majority, and forms the government.

The vital thing to do if you want to win an election in the USA or Canada is to make sure that your general constituency (assuming it's a large one) is united, and is not split into 2 or more parties.

This goes directly against the genuine workings of what can properly be termed "representative democracy" and it allows minority viewpoints to establish majority governments. The Republicans are well aware of this, and that is why they cynically arrange for their friends to make campaign contributions to outfits like the Green Party. ;-) They know it will take votes away from the Democrats.

What the Democrats clearly need to do is somehow find a rabidly right wing 3rd or 4rth party that makes the Republicans look liberal and godless in comparison...!!! Call it the "Liberty Party". Then syphon lots of Democratic money quietly to the Liberty Party, and the Republicans will go down like the Titanic, only faster...Heh!

It's not a good way of setting up elections if you want a real democracy. It is a good way of maintaining the power of well-organized and cleverly managed political oligarchies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:51 PM

The Republicans and the Democrats didn't have any trouble getting together to make sure Jesse Ventura would never be able to run for a second term as governor of Minnesota.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:18 PM

Yep. Gotta preserve the status quo, which is a permanently ruling duopoly, split into 2 leagues. Just like the big leagues with 2 competing sets of baseball teams. The team that finally wins the playoffs at the end of the 4 year season (Will it be...The powerful Hillarys? The surprising Obamas? The stalwart Julianis? Or...?) gets the bonuses and the glory. The league stays profitable and in power regardless of who wins. The public foots the bill, and hopefully is entertained in the process. The league's owners cash in and party at places like Bohemian Grove.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:20 PM

Another fascinating map: the states won in the 1904 election:

1904 election results by state

In this case a very popular and charismatic Teddy Roosevelt, the Spanish-American War hero, ran for the Republicans and easily beat the Democrat, Alton Parker. There were also 3rd and 4rth parties and presidential candidates in that race, but they took very few votes away from the Big Two.

Note how in 1904 the Democratic Party still owned the South. Roosevelt took everthing else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:27 PM

You make a common mistake, LH, in assuming the US is a Democracy. It is not and never was. It is a Republic, a completely different form of government.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM

That's a bit like saying: "You make a common mistake, LH, in assuming the camel is a mammal. It is not and never was. It is a vertebrate, a completely different form of creature."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:38 PM

I assume it's an oligarchy. ;-) I know it's not a democracy. As for republics, they may or may not be democratic, right?

The USA was often referred to as "The Arsenal of Democracy" in WWII, was it not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM

By FDR, who started using "Democracy" because it was thought that saying "Republic" was too close to "Republican."

Not even Athens was a pure Democracy. In fact, I don't know of one past or present.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:29 PM

Ah, 1968...the Rocky Mtn. West WAS solidly Democratic just like I remember!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:51 PM

Ah, yes, Rap, but finding a totally "pure" democracy is like trying to find a totally pure woman....or a totally humble Texan...or a totally selfless moneylender...

It is not absolute purity we require for good government...just a certain measure of honesty and public responsibility, combined with a reasonably representative system and a good bill of rights.

Go back and check through the election results, state by state, year by year, right from 1792. It's really very interesting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM

But democracy doesn't necessarily imply good government, just that the government is in line with what people actually want. Which sometimes isn't at all pleasant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM

Democracy: The bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.

Oscar Wilde


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:30 PM

"You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half for you." - Boss Tweed in the movie 'Gangs of New York', which provides some chilling insights into the nature of New York politics and inner city gangs in a brash young republic around the time of the War Between the States.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:31 PM

By the way, regarding the 1860 election, Lincoln's name was not even on the ballot in nine southern states. But if Virginia, the only southern state where his name was on the ballot, was any indication, it probably wouldn't have made much difference since he only received 1.1% of the vote there.

Also by the way, I was having a hard time figuring out why South Carolina wasn't included on the table for the 1860 election. Yes, South Carolina was the first southern state to secede from the union, but that didn't happen until after the election. Then I realized that while secession ocurred after the popular election, it occurred before the Electoral College convened and, that's when the "real" election occurs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM

Ah. Interesting.

I find it utterly extraordinary that electors have, on some occasions, voted against the popular vote in their state. I would think it would be considered tantamount to treason to do that, but apparently not. The system must have been intentionally set up at the beiginning so that if the common "rabble" got too far out of hand, the people really in charge (the political aristocracy) could still take steps to arrange things in a more copacetic fashion...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM

Yes, one of the interesting quirks of the presidential election system is that while it's a federal election, and the electors are performing a federal function, the specifics of how they vote is determined by state law, not federal. Whether a state gives all its electoral votes to whoever gets the majority of votes in the state or whether the votes are distributed proportionally, and whether electors are bound by popular election results or are free to cast "maverick" votes is determined at the state level.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:57 PM

"I find it utterly extraordinary that electors have, on some occasions, voted against the popular vote in their state. I would think it would be considered tantamount to treason to do that, but apparently not."

That is one of the great features of our system. We elect individuals, not opinion polls. Of course our problem is too many politicians depend on the polls and pay more attention to them then common sense.

In the long run, it is a good system - with flaws but with checks and balances that can work. It isn't as draconian as some would like to paint it out to be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:08 PM

A counting of votes on election day IS a one-day opinion poll, Ron, and I believe it is normal to expect that the majority opinion of the voters would be confirmed at the end of that count, not denied by some elector for his own personal reasons.

It is not a great feature of your system that electors in some states are expected to vote as a bloc, it would be better if they voted proportionately, I think, to reflect the public vote in a realistic fashion...and it is even worse that they can be allowed in some states to contradict the majority opinion of the voters who just voted...if they feel like it.

I am not talking about responding to every damn opinion poll here, I'm not talking about bending every time the wind blows, I am talking about honoring an empirical election day result!

What the hell is an election even FOR if the people's votes don't count in some cases?

I'm saying that your whole system of electors is badly flawed, and that should be changed. It should be made unconstitutional for an elector to defy the will of the people he has been appointed to represent.

I'm also saying that Canada has some of the same problems. Namely, we don't have proportionate representation (which means that smaller parties are effectively rendered completely impotent)...nor do we have an instant runoff system of voting. As such, our system is badly flawed as well.

The people in power (who are the major parties) don't wish to see any of this changed, ever, because they are the primary benefactors of the system as it presently exists. Why would they change it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:24 PM

Here's a fascinating little summary of the 1896 election from that site:

"William McKinley received the nomination on the first ballot at the Republican convention in St. Louis, in June of 1896. William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska won the nomination of the Democrats in Chicago in July. The Democrat's plank supported the free coinage of silver. The currency issue dominated the election campaign. The campaign was marked by contrasts. Bryan criss-crossed the country making personal appearances. Bryan was accused of lacking dignity. Bryan answered that "I would rather have it said that I lacked dignity than that I lacked backbone to meet the enemies of the government who works against its welfare from Wall Street". McKinley stayed home and ran a front porch campaign where thousands of people came to his home and heard him speak, In the campaign Byran was depicted as a "radical and socialist", while McKinley was called a "tool of business". McKinley raised 3 million (mostly from business interests) as compared to 600,000 raised by Byran. McKinley won the election. "


Read between the lines. Big Business won that election for the Republicans. It was considered "undignified" for Bryan to travel across the country and meet the people. Gosh, how undignified! He was depicted as a "radical and socialist" for not staying home, like God, and letting his worshippers journey to the temple instead. My, my.

Well, it is a lot easier to win an election in 1896 when you have $3 million to work with as opposed to $600,000 isn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:08 AM

The thing about Byan was, he was a kind of the Left-Wing-Religious-Wakko of his day, and his constituency was largely made up of supporters from the South. When Civil Rights legislation went into effect, the South changed both parties and wings. They are now the Right-Wing-Religious-Wakkos, but if the Dixiecrats came back, both wings would fit right in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

Well, Bryan was certainly determined. He ran in a whole series of elections.   I think a "Left-Wing" wacko is usually someone who is opposing big business and attempting to secure worker's rights. That can't be tolerated! Such people are the devil's spawn. They must be stamped out by any means possible.

As for a religious Wakko, he's usually someone who has some beliefs that you don't, specially if you're not religious. ;-)

It's all in how you look at it.

Then you have Right Wing Wackos...and they are the types who serve as the official Black Sheep on this forum, so they are very, very easy to recognize, right? ;-) I know I don't have to explain how they are identified.

Nothing like a few good steretypes to drive the political dialogue....

What I find really intriguing is not how the South switched alliegiances, because it's obvious why that happened. No, what I find most fascinating is that the industrial northeast has switched alliances too. They used to usually vote Republican, right from Lincoln's time on (except in a few elections where the Republicans got simply massacred). Now the industrial Northeast usually votes Democratic.

What the heck was it that caused that switch?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:29 PM

If you want to understand the current political division in the United States, you need to go back to 1932. Franklin Delano Roosefeldt carefully separated-off every group possible and put them as members of his coalition. The vast majority of people he did not reach out to were White, Christian and middle class. The very rich are only about 1% anyway and despite being a huge source of campaign money, they are almost as likely to be Left politically, often Socialist.

William Jenning Bryan illustrates why the Democrats couldn't win a job as dogcatcher from about 1860-1932 (yes, Wilson won, but he did not start the trend toward the Left). Bryan was a religious zelot was fought for Creationism (and won) in the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial". He was a Socialist, which is what most liberals want remembered, but he was also one of the loudest voices for prohibition which was eventually accepted. It was a huge disaster.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:52 PM

Bryan's an interesting case, all right. They should make a new movie about him. It would be quite a story, I should think.

I think most liberals and conservatives would find some things they liked about him and other things they did not.

pdq, my impression is that the vast majority of people in North America ARE White, Christian, and middle class. Most of the people I ever knew when I was growing up were (whether they took their Christianity very seriously, of course, was another matter, but they were nominally Christian in origin). Most of the people in Canada are. Nevertheless, Canada is a rather liberal place by USA standards, and a place with a socialist party that gets seats in every election.

I don't think FDR could possibly have been elected with a huge majority had he not had the support of a majority of White, Christian, middle class people. Therefore, I think your suggestion that he did not have a significant proportion of their support must be in error.

The reason the Democrats could not win most elections from 1860 to 1932 had its origins in the Civil War. In the election campaign of 1860 the traditional Democratic Party base tore itself apart over the issues of slavery and state's rights. It sundered into different parties with different leaders, and the Republicans, taking a strong anti-slavery stance, remained united, walked away with the election (because their vote was not divided between different coalitions, which the Democratic vote was).

The only place the Democrats had unquestioned support in after that disaster (for them) was in the South, and the South was going through reconstruction after the war and was always a minority voice in USA politics from then on. It took the Democrats a very long time to recover from those national events. They basically had to wait until the Republicans screwed up so badly as to totally ruin their chances with the electorate.

Something like that always happens eventually with any party that's in power too long. They screw up really badly at some point. And then the worm turns.

New England is mostly White, Christian, and middle class. Why have they been voting mostly for the Democrats for so long now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM

Little Hawk,

I said "The vast majority of people he (FDR) did not reach out to were White, Christian and middle class" and that is what I meant. That group is still the heart and sole of the Republican party, with Athiests, Jews, Blacks, illegal aliens, truly poor, recent immigrants, gays, and a few others often voting around 90% for Democrats. The FDR coalition will net the Democrats about 41% in a presidential election and it does not have anthing to do with the quality of the candidate.

The point about Bryan is that his coalition was as asinine to most Americans as FDR's was brilliant. Bryan's people wanted to take away my right to have a drink. They also wanted to make it a crime to teach evolution in science class. He and his Socialists planned to confiscate real and personal property "for the greater good", which always mean "for them". Yes, the Democrat coalition of his time was confusing to the American people and more than a little bit un-constitutional. The amount of money McKinley spent and where if was sourced is typical sour grapes. People did not want Bryan, it's that simple.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:12 PM

I will never take away your right to have a drink, pdq! ;-) By golly, I can see why you don't like W.J. Bryan.

I understand your point about the class thing. Don't you think, though, that the Republicans have to some extent deliberately alienated some of those groups you mentioned, and done it in order to court the votes of frightened White, middle-class, Christian (meaning Protestant) Americans who are scared of "those people"?

I do.

So both the Democrats and the Republicans have, in effect, used "divide and conquer" tactics. They have used the fear of one group to get the votes of another group. They have just aimed those tactics at different constituencies.

Note too, how when the Republicans get into office they go to great efforts to find someone who is Black for an important cabinet position. This is downright funny, because it's so transparent why they do it. They do it because virtually no blacks in the USA are voting Republican, and they want to prove something...so they cherrypick a handful of high profile Blacks like Rice and Powell, etc. to show that, hey, we Republicans are really on the side of Black Americans....yeah, right! Suuuure you are... ;-)

I think the Democrats and Republicans are equally slimy and disingenuous when it comes to that sort of thing. They will happily use the fear of one part of the public against another part of the public to feather their own nests.

Anyway, I'm gonna go read up on "Scopes-Monkey" and see what exactly they were arguing about. In detail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:19 PM

Little Hawk...that post has nothing I can disagree with...scary, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM

Geeze, pdq... Why not throw in rapists, thieves and communists as Dems, too???

But nevermind all that...

Good site, LH... Yeah I had forgotten just how Lincoln had won that election and now it all comes back to me...

But what I hadn't forgotten was that Lincoln was IMO thwe worst preasident the US ever had... The Civil War (which it wasn't) began shortly after his inaguration.... He had choices to make just as George Bush ahd choices to make in regards to Iraq... The both made very bad choices...

What I find incredulous about Lincoln is the sanitization of what he did... I mean, why can't we tell the people the truth??? I don't wnt to have mythology shoved down our kids throats as if it actaully did happen the way the revisionist wished it had happened...

Like what good is mythology??? How does it play into Jefferson's thinking that democracy can only thrive if the people know what the heck is going on???

The mythology tends to be applied to those presidents who screwed up and got us into meaningless or immoral wars... Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy and now Bush...

Who knows... Maybe in a 100 years the revisionists will be telling folks that Bush was right up there with Lincoln... Hey, in my book, he's allready there...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM

No....I don't think so. Bush will have to win this war to be seen in the future as a hero for fighting it.

If Lincoln had lost the Civil War, and the Confederacy had thereby remained a separate nation, he would be reviled to this day as the biggest failure in American presidential history.

The Vietnam War hurt Johnson and Nixon very badly too...simply because they could not win it.

You have to win a war to be adulated. Lincoln won his war. (Given the industrial power and manpower of the North, he was almost bound to win it...I'd say that the South had a 1 in 10 chance of surviving that war as an independent nation. The fact that they had some very good generals in the Army of Northern Virginia was not enough to save them. The Union eventually found some good commanders too.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:14 PM

Yeah, okay, LH... Maybe???

But what I am becomin' icreasingly uncomfortable with is just how many revisonists are on the governemnt payrolls these days... This scares the Hell out of me...

I 'mean, they have allready revised the reasons for the Iraq invasion so many times it's hard to keep up but whatever the last reason was is the "real one"... We din't have that with Vietnam... No, it was always the "domino theory" from day one un til that fatefull day when folks were trying to get on that last helicopter in Saigon...

Now we have had at least a half a dozen reason for we invaded Iraq and being the cynic I am, I am fearfull that the revisionist will somehow figure out out to forge a "victory" out of what is probably the US's greatest defeat...

That's what I mean by mytholgy... Mythology ain't history... Who is to say that Lincoln won the "Civil" War??? Look around you and look at the Southern Stategy... Some wars take years, generations or centries to get sorted out... I believe the "Civil" war is one of them wars...

Appomatox might one day just be looked upon as a manuver???

Yeah, I know this is a strange concept but if you look at the presidentail elections foing back, ahhhhh, forver, the Southern Strategy has elected more presidents than anything else...

When folks say "The South will rise again", especially here in the South, they mean it...

As fir Nam, had Keenedy lived he would have had to take the loss... KInda like a baseball pitcher who turnes a losing game over to a relief pithcer... Lyndon Johnson didn't loose the Vietnam War... Richard Nixon didn't loose it either... The war was lost on Day One...

Iraq was lost on Day One...

The Civil War was Lost on Day One...

The Mexican War and the Spainish American Wars weren't really wars in the same respect as the Civil War, Nam and Iraq... Those were nutin' but imperialist bullying...

That's the way this ol' hillbilly sees it, anyway...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM

I agree that Veitnam and Iraq were lost on Day One, but the south could have done better in the Civil War if they would have sued for some kind of political settlement early on, I think.

               Getting back to the political shift of power in the American Northeast, I think the scenario goes like this. (1) There were some political and economic interests in taking America to a market driven economy backed up by a powerful military that began to flex its muscles immediatley after the Korean War. These forces manifested themselves in the form of the John Birch Society and the nomination of Barry Goldwater to run for president. (2) Goldwater lost badly in the general election, but the forces for huge corporate profits did not go away. (3) Following the concept attributed to Vladimir Lenin--though I think there is some revisioinist history here too--the corporate powers hit upon the idea to the "useful idiot." (4) By incorporating the useful idiots of America into their constituency (i.e. folks hopelessly addicted to the ancient superstition of Christianity), the approached sleaze-balls like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Dr. James Dobson, and with their television broadcasts, these slimy power brokers did the rest. (5) That brought us Ronald Reagan, a man who was so incredibly stupid he didn't know which ancient superstition he was addicted to, but he was sure he must be addicted to one of them. He was a movie actor and acurately read script that showed up on his tele-prompter, and was subsequently elected.
             At the end of the day, the people in the Northeast were too well educated and too sophisticated to fall for such insulting buffoonery, and started voting Democrat.
                And there you have it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:22 AM

Well, Rigins-eter, if you recall, the educated men who fought in the war were either killed off or if they did survive didn't have any power...

The Northern armies moved into the South, ran the governemnts, purdy much ran every thing in what was called the "reconstruction"... Problem is that there wasn't much in the way of reconstructin', just catrpetbaggers and Union armies kinda rubbin' Appomatox into the South...

It wasn't until the the 1876 Hayes/Tilden election where a deal was cut between the Northerners and the Southerners which allowed Hayes, who prolly didn't actually win the election over Tilden (sound familiar) to become president in exchange for the removal of the Union troops from the South...

At least, that's they way I remeber it...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

Bobert - Yes, you're right about all of that. I was just trying to make the point that the South probably would have faired better if they had sued for some kind of peace right after their early victories instead of allowing themselves to be drug into an extended conflict where the industrial North had all of the advantages.
                   One thing that's always bothered me is, why would poor southerners who had nothing to gain from slavery, and, in fact were economically punished by the existance of the institution, fight so hard to perserve it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM

Ya' can't sue the governemnt unless the governemnt wants or allows you to do so... That was the problem the southern states had during the reconstrction... They were powerless and it wasn't until the election crisis of '76 that they had any type of leverage...

But yeah, could we change history I'm sure that both Lincoln and Davis would have played their cards differently... Just as George Bush most certainly would do if he could...

That's the problem I have with Lincoln in particular... Great leader he was not... Great leaders don't have "civil wars" or "wars of choice" (Iraq) under their watch... They figure out alternatives... Taht is what makes them great leaders...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:51 AM

But, of course, the winners write the history books.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:46 PM

Exactly my point, Rigs...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM

I think the South had a golden window of opportunity to win the war on one occasion: immediately following Bull Run, the first large battle of that war. The Union Army fled in panic at the conclusion of Bull Run, and there was effectively nothing standing between the Confederates and Washington. Had they moved without hesitation and occupied Washington, they could have dictated terms to a stunned Union. They could have secured Southern independence at that moment, and with very minor loss of life on both sides.

Even as it was, many in the North were calling the war "lost" in the panicky days following Bull Run....but the South did not move decisively to capitalize on the situation. They were content with simply winning a tactical victory on the battlefield.

They should have gone straight for the jugular, and they could have. If they had, Lincoln's presidency would have gone down in ruins, and there would have been 2 American nations after that, not one.

And in that case....there probably would have been some further wars between those two farther down the line. What that would have led to is impossible to say. They would certainly have gotten into loggerheads over western expansion into the territories and various other issues as time went by.

The smartest thing the South could have done, had they secured independence, would have been to work for a close alliance with the British Empire, thus hemming the North in between themselves and Canada. ;-) It would have served the interests of the South and Great Britain quite well to do that, and it would have profoundly changed the history of the entire world in the process.

As for slavery, that was an institution that wouldn't have lasted much longer in any case. It was on the way out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM

"As for slavery, that was an institution that wouldn't have lasted much longer in any case. It was on the way out."

            LH - That's absolutely true. Could you imagine any industry that could use slave labor effectively now? There might be a few--textiles comes to mind--but not very many.

            In any event, I think Bobert's point was that Lincoln was not a great leader. One element that has always bothered me about Lincoln was the maturation of the Republican Party. Since Lincoln we have only had Democrats and Republicans to choose from, in any real sense, and that's bothered me for a very long time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:59 AM

I don't think Lincoln was a very good leader either. He just happened to BE president during the USA's most disastrous war, and his side won. That would guarantee him being turned into a hero in the history books. That's how it works when you have wars and you win them. When you lose them....not so good.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:04 AM

Interesting that all these whites can blithely make the statement that slavery was on the way out in 1861. Perhaps some of you would like to tell blacks how much longer you think they should have waited. Also perhaps you'd like to explain to the rest of us untutored masses why, if slavery was on its way out in 1861, the South seemed for some reason--rather strongly--- to believe that Northern attempts to restrict the spread of slavery were unreasonable. We can see with our wonderful 20/20 hindsight that an industrially based economy was obviously the wave of the future. But "on its way out" is a singularly meaningless phrase without a time line as to when it would be "out". Bush has been "on his way out" since January 2001. But he's managed to cause an amazingly amount of disaster anyway. I wonder how that happened.

And if Lincoln was not a great war leader, exactly what was wrong with his policy of removing military leaders if they did not win, until, as he said of Grant, as I recall, "He wins battles"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:30 AM

"amazing amount"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:10 AM

Yeah, 20/20 hindsight tells us that the CSA might have been able to take Washington on the heels of the 1st Battle of Bull Run...

I think the shock value of the battle on both sides kinda have both sides second guessing...

It sho nuff had all them socialites who had brought their picnic blankets in their carriages to observe the festivities in shock...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM

I've heard that highly emotional and reactive response on the slavery issue before, Ron, if anyone dares state that it was on the way out, but I'm not going to fight with you about it, because I was implying absolutely no endorsement of slavery in what I said, I was just making a neutral observation about what I feel was the probability of its survival for much longer as a viable institution in that era... As such, I'm merely speculating. I am not threatening the health and happiness of any Black people, then or now, in so doing. What's done is done. You had your Civil War and killed your 500,000 (or thereabouts). What I say now won't change it.

I think Lincoln was quite a good war leader, but a poor president in a more general political sense. He had the resolve and practicality to lead effectively as a war leader. He also had a political attitude which I think made that war inevitable.

Of course, you could argue that it was inevitable regardless...and you might be right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: GUEST,Pete Peterson
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM

The problem is that we're looking at the 1860 election, and Lincoln as a war leader, from the persepctive of 2007, not what they knew at the time. Between 1840 and 1853 the United States grew in size tremendously-- from Mexico to the south and west, and "from" Britain to the north. After 1867 the United Staes didn't acquire any more territory. (Seward's Folly, remember?) The South expected to acquire a whole lot more territory in the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico, much of which would be good land for slavery. If slavery was on the way out in 1860, you could not find any evidence for this in the writings of Toombs, Rhett and Yancey, to name some prominent Southerners who wrote on the subject. Lincoln took office already faced with secession-- not as a result of his policies toward slavery as such, but his policy on whether a territory could restrict slavery before becoming a state. He believed in the Union-- and believed that since the Union existed, that he had no power to interfere with slavery where it existed. To me, he did his best in a bad situation. I admire him greatly, if you can't tell.
And the quote about Grant as I remember it is "I can't spare the man. He fights." (this at a time when Grant had tried seven times to caputre Vicksburg and failed each time)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:37 PM

Yes, that's true, Pete...going by what they knew at the time there would have been very few, if any among them, who had an expectation that slavery would be rendered economically unviable not too far in the future. It's just like there would have been very few among us in 1984 who thought the Soviet Union would collapse. People don't generally see what's coming, they live in the consciousness of what they are accumstomed to.

So as you say, perhaps Lincoln did do his best in a bad situation.

As for Grant.... The Vicksburg campaign was a tough one. Grant was not the type to quit, and that's what made him so valuable for the North. He just kept grinding on. Given his great superiority in manpower and munitions, that was what was needed to win....simply a man who wouldn't quit when the going got tough. And it sure got tough!

Sherman and Sheridan were also extremely effective commanders with similar tenacity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM

Lincoln a "poor president in a general political sense". Evidence please--with specifics.   As opposed to speculation as to how things could have been different. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

Also, if somebody states that slavery "was on the way out", it's a reasonable guess that there is a point to that statement. If so, what is it? Without a point, it sounds like a meaningless statement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

Ron, I have always enjoyed speculating about possible alternative outcomes in history. I find them very interesting, almost as interesting as history itself. This may come from a life of playing historical wargames...and in those a big part of the appeal is seeing if you can change history.

My opinion about Mr Lincoln is simply my opinion, and it differs from your own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM

My point to the "slavery was on its way out" was that the North and South stumbled needlessly into a war in the 1860's that they should never have fought. They did so because of their pride and intransigence. In so doing they created havoc and disaster beyond their wildest imaginations, and put deep wounds in the country that still have not fully healed.

I think it would have been far better if cooler heads had prevailed and they had not fought that war. It would have been better if the Southern states had not seceded, but had continued to negotiate within the Union.

There were hotheads on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, they mutually set their country on the road to disaster, and I believe that in doing so they made a terrible error. Of those hotheads, I would say that the ones in the South made the more grievous errors. They were extremely unrealistic to imagine that the North would tolerate secession, and they were even more unrealistic to imagine that they could win the war which would inevitably follow.

Do I think that a decade or two more of slavery in the South would have been preferable to tearing the country in two, wrecking half of it for at least a generation, and killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Yeah, sorry...but I do think that would have been preferable, frankly. I think it's better to open a stubborn jar of pickles slowly than to smash it apart with a sledgehammer.

And I have just as low an opinion of slavery as you do, Ron. (I HAVE my "liberal" credentials. I believe in racial equality and I always have.) But.......I have an even lower opinion of huge and unnecessary wars...because they cause human suffering on a far vaster scale.

That was my point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:23 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with what LH has just said... Given the some 80 more years of Jim Crow rule in the South another 20 or even 30 years of "slavery". IMO, would have been a hundred times better than the War Between the States (I'm no longer going to use the term "civil war" 'cause it wasn't...)

Actually things didn't much change in the South during the Jim Crow years... Blacks did the same kinda work for the same people... The only difference was they were paid terrible wages, loaned money by their bosses to get by, and in essence lived as slaves well into 20th century...

Might of fact, I believe that the US would be a lot further down the road in regards to "civil rights" and national harmony had the War Between the States had never occured, even if it meant slavery going out of style thru evolution...

As fir Lincoln being a great military/war president, I really don;t see that... McClellon was his guy and McClellon was a tad slow on the trigger finger and got a bunch of Union troops messed up from his timidity... Great war presidents pick great generals... Lincoln didn't start out too well...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

OK, LH and Bobert, you're on.

Bobert--Lincoln did not stay with McClellan, as you know. In fact, as many have pointed out, he went through several until he decided to stay with Grant.

LH--let's have some specifics on what Lincoln did wrong to cause the Civil War. Do you think he should have let the South secede? Otherwise pure speculation comes close to a waste of time--I wouldn't think you have that much to waste. I sure don't--but I believe in facts.

As you guys are aware, I'm sure, you're not the only enthusiastic amateur historians on the 'Cat. I think there are a fair number of us.

I have no objection to iconoclasm--but let's have some facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:52 PM

"Blacks did the same kinda work for the same people... The only difference was they were paid terrible wages, loaned money by their bosses to get by, and in essence lived as slaves well into 20th century..."

Right on, Bobert. That is the sad truth of what really happened to Black people after the war, Emancipation Proclamation or no Emancipation Proclamation. That's the part that doesn't get acknowledged, and it's why such a hard struggle had to be fought in our time, in the 50's and 60's for civil rights, and why some good people died in the process.

The War Between the States did not really do much to change the miserably awful conditions Blacks were suffering under, it simply crushed the independent aspirations of the South, wrecked their society, and opened the door for northern industrialists and carpetbaggers to pillage and profit.

I don't call that a great accomplishment, I call it a national tragedy on a gigantic scale.

*****

McClellan was an odd case. He was probably unequalled in his talent for drilling and training a spit and polish army. He was tremendously popular with the rank and file of his soldiers...partly because he tried to avoid exposing them to heavy losses in battle. In fact, "Little Mac" was so popular with the Army of the Potomac that he probably could have launched a coup and taken over the government, had he chosen to. They liked him way better than they did Lincoln.

On the other hand, he was a VERY ineffective battle commander, due to his hesitation to commit, his reluctance to take any risks, his inability to capitalize on a developing situation, his positive gift for siezing a draw out of the jaws of a victory. ;-) He badly mishandled the Peninsular Campaign, due to his timidity and his gross overestimation of the size of the Southern forces. He could have crushed Lee's army at Antietam, but he let Lee fight to a ragged draw and then he let Lee's army escape.

Incredible, really! Lincoln must have been almost beside himself with frustration.

And Lee must have figured God was surely on his side... ;-) But they all figured that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:10 PM

"McClellon was his guy and McClellon was a tad slow on the trigger finger..."


                  I really think McClellan didn't feel like Americans ought to be shooting at each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:13 PM

He was quite right about that. They would have been better off talking to each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:13 AM

Yeah, but I really think that was what McClellan was thinking. I suspect that he thought if he just kept moving his troops around and put off engaging the enemy--people who I really don't think he saw as enemies at all--in the end, somebody would come up with a political solution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:27 AM

Well, they should have done just that, as a matter of fact. There were a number of things that could have been done if wiser heads had prevailed. For instance, the North should not have attempted to maintain active forts in Southern harbors, such as Fort Sumter. It wasn't a reasonable thing to do, and it could only lead to shooting at some point, and that would start off the war. They should have evacuated the Union forts that were in harbors of areas that seceded from the Union.

But they were too proud to do that.

The Southern states should not have seceded in the first place. But they were too proud not to.

The whole damn thing was idiotic, frankly, and they both paid a terrible price for it, didn't they?

I can understand exactly how McClellan felt if he felt as you suggest. It was a ludicrous waste of human lives to fight that war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:58 PM

Well, if I'm goin' try to end up on the "great presidents" list I don't hire Mac to run my war... Lioncoln did and Mac stayed to long before being replaced... Heck, another couple battles with Mac callin' the shots and the CSA mighta won...

Yeah, once you commit to a war, which Lincoln should have not done, you don't want a lose or a draw... So where was Lincokln's greatness again???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM

From the US Census: Number of slaves by year
    1790 - 697,681
    1800 - 893,602
    1810 - 1,191,362
    1820 - 1,538,022
    1830 - 2,009,043
    1840 - 2,487,355
    1850 - 3,204,313
    1860 - 3,953,760
    1870 - 0
tell me again about how slavery was "on its way out" in 1860.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:02 PM

Almost as bad as illegal aliens!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM

Let's see some comparative figures for general population growth in the USA over the same period, and see how it lines up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM

Oh, how those numbers can be so misleading...

First of all the abolitionist movement was gaining traction in the latre 50's... Movement's take time... Numbers don't tell the entire story...

And the numbers that aren't mentioned is the number of black people after the Emancipation who were doing absolutely the same type and amount of work for lousy wages... The Jim Crow days were no picnic for former slaves... In essence, the Emancipation said this "You're free.... you ain't got nuthin'... We ain'tonna give you nuthin... But yer free..."

Free exactly to do what??? Hey, this wasn't the 20's when manufacturing jobs became available for blacks up north... No, these folks were no better off from the Emancipation right up until the 20's when their grandkids had some opportunities...

Let's keep this in some perspective here...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM

Yeah, they were "free" to live in a shotgun shack, work for a starvation wage for the White "massa" up on the hill in the big mansion, and keep their mouths shut. They were free to get lynched by the Klan if they got the least bit uppity or looked at somebody instead of keepin' their eyes down. They were free to get strung up by a local mob on suspicion, to hell with evidence, if someone was needed to blame for something...

Put your eyes in your pocket. Put your nose on the ground. Pick that cotton. Tote that bale. Never forget that you are not White, and you are living in a White man's world. Never forget that you are not equal to a white man, not even close, and you never will be.

That was what you got after 1865 if you were a black person living in the South, and what you got in the North wasn't usually all that great either.

You know, you can say someone's "free" all you want in some fancy speech or on some fancy document, but until you make it economically and socially possible for him to really BE free in the sense of what freedom truly is, until he can actualize his "freedom" like anyone else can, you ain't said much.

Freedom means having not only the technical legal "right" to do what you wish to in life, it means also having the actual power to do it in the context of the rest of society. Black people did not have that power. That's why they had to fight for it all over again a century later.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:41 PM

LH, Bobert--

So slavery was just fine? The South tried to use this "wage slave" excuse--that actually many Northern workers had it worse than slaves--quite a bit leading up to the Civil War. It has just as much validity as another of their favorite themes--that slavery was Biblically ordained.

Your argument that the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction South was just as bad-or worse-- than slavery--will not hold water. I notice you have provided no facts to back up your assertions.

And as several posters have already pointed out, somebody who alleges that slavery was "on the way out" in 1861 shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pre-war Southern economy. Slaves provided a larger portion of the wealth of Southern plantation owners even than land. Slaves were part--a large part--of bequests. A "likely looking wench" was often the most valuable slave--since the owner planned on her offspring. Not on slavery withering away. As you're probably aware, the North was also involved in the Southern slave-based economy--through cotton markets etc.

I'm aware that during the Civil War when poor white Southerners were asked why they were fighting, the answer could be "Cause you're down here." But many had hopes for slaves themselves--since that was seen as the ticket out of economic distress--and would establish their superiority.

And the trend in slaves is clearly reflected in the figures Neil cites. Just saying the numbers don't reflect everything does not refute them. The facts are against you.

And for the person at the top--the white male plantation owner--the system worked great. He, and the hierarchy he was part of--which ruled the South-- saw no reason to change a thing.

I'm reading Rough Crossings now--obviously about an earlier period--the Revolution. But it's striking how many sacrifices and dangers slaves were willing to endure to escape slavery. And this was before King Cotton.


If you really think the abolitionist movement was gaining traction in the 1850's in the South, let's have some actual evidence.

It would also be interesting to have Azizi's perspective on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM

Who said slavery was "just fine"? Please don't put ridiculous assertions in the mouths of other people that you wish they would make just so they could be totally wrongheaded for your convenience. ;-) It's an illegitimate arguing technique.

I am saying only one thing: it would have been far better to end slavery through a gradual process of negotiation over a decade...or two...or three...than by splitting a country in two, killing 500,000 people in a terrible five-year war, and ruining the lives of millions more. That the country was split in two was the fault of extremists and zealots on both sides of the line, and the southern ones were clearly more at fault, but they were certainly not alone in that error.

Tell me I'm evil for saying that, Don. ;-) Go ahead. Twist it around somehow to prove that I'm an apologist for slavery or some stupid, grotesque thing that you wish to concoct to fire the rhetoric of your argument. I'm sure you can find a way to do that somehow.

Do you think I really care whether or not I can convince you of something? I don't. What difference could it possibly make? I'm not in competition with you for moral or intellectual supremacy here. I assume no such thing. There is no prize to be won. I don't give a damn, really, if we see it differently. It's okay. The only reason I am on this thread at all is that I am just talking about something I find interesting...US history. Quit trying to establish some kind of moral victory over me and Bobert here, and it would further the discussion greatly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:09 PM

Oops. Not Don. Ron! I keep having this problem...I think that Don Davies and Ron Firth are....no, wait...it's...Don Ravies and Fon...

Oh, hell.

How about we get you two to switch names every alternate week?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM

Gee, I'm sorry to have just seen this discussion. As Little Hawk says, it is fun to speculate on alternate histories and what ifs.

I am not so sure that the union could have remained together peaceably short of maintaining slavery, or even allowing it to expand. Whenever new states were being considered, the South fought tooth and nail to allow them, or even require them, to allow slavery, hence the Missouri Compromise and other acts.

Remember, slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of the state's representation in the House of Representatives, but the slaves had no say themselves. That was a powerful political tool for the slave-holding states. If new states were not slave states, this would dilute southern states' power in the house.

By the election of 1860, it was pretty well known that a Republican/Lincoln victory would cause a rupture of the country; South Carolina seceded, attacking Fort Sumter before Lincoln's oath of office was barely out of his mouth.

I suppose Lincoln could have allowed the secession states to leave with his blessing, but that was probably not ever a starter. Countries don't just let themselves be nibbled out of business. (Please don't bring up the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc break-up; those countries were held by force in Russia.)

How much longer might slavery have continued in the south? Who knows. Might the slaves have successfully revolted as in Haiti and elsewhere? I don't know. But clearly it would have gone on for decades, as the slave owners were in no hurry to end that vile institution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:04 AM

Ron,

Asking us to "prove" that slavery would have ended without the war is like askling Saddam to *prove* he didn't have WMD's...

It is not a logical question or argument...

And for the record... Neither slavery or Jim Crow were "fine" with me... They weren't that much different and were each indefensable and repulsive...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:57 AM

Little Hawk wanted to see comparative figures on the US population for the same period. I will cede that these numbers will show a decrease in the % of slaves to the general poulation from 18% in 1820 (peak) to 17% in 1840 to 14% in 1860. Yhis would seem to suggest a net decline in slave population especially in the 20 year immediately preceding the Civil War. But as bobert says, numbers can be misleading. That 20 year period saw the first massive immigration movement from Europe (the Irish Potato Famine) and the vast majority of these immigrants settled in the industrialized cities in the North.
In the slaveholding states you do not see a net decrease in slave population.In South Carolina , for example, there was a net increase from 56% in 1840 to 59% in 1860, due largely to the labor intense rice growing industry. Is it any wonder that SC was the most vocal of all the pro-slavery forces and the first state to secede from the Union.
    Back in 1787 slavery was such a hot-buuton issue that the only way to get the US Constitution ironed out and ratified by all states was by way of a tacit agreement on all sides to not even discuss it. The word "slave" is not to be found in the entire document. The unspoken gist of this "gentlemens'" agreement was that northerners wouldn't push for the ending of slavery by legislations and the southerners would gradually phase it out. Fifty years later, the real number of slaves and the net % of slaves in the US population were at an all time high. It is at this point that the Abolitionist movement began. (There had been voices, mostly Quaker, speeking against slavery clear back to the early 1700's, but no large scale national
Abolition movement until the 1830's.)
   Bobert says that "these people were no better off from the Emancipation right up until the 20's when their grandkids had some opportunities...". This isn't entirely true. Emancipation did come at the beginning of the opening of the West (the plight of its original inhabitants could be subject of another thread). At least 1/3 of all cowboys were black (another 1/3 was Mexican. Funny how you never see this in the movies.), living and working under the same conditions as their white counterparts. Not the most comfortable life, but surely, better than that of a 7 year old white kid working 72 hours a week in some New England textile mill or an Irshman doing deep pit mining in Pennsylvania. But, nevertheless, I will concede that sharecropping and Jim Crow were no great improvement over slavery, however emancipation was only the first step in the equal integration of black people into American society which is still an ongoing struggle. Every process begins with a first step. How many opportunities would have opened up for the grandchildren of 1860's slaves if those grandchildren were themselves, still slaves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:17 PM

Hard to speculate, Neil...

Again, it seems that what LH and I are both suggesting is that the War Between the States wasn't the only "first step" alternative...

Ron would have us prove that slavery would have ended thru evolution which of course neither of us can ***prove***... But we do have to look at the strong abolitionist movement on late late '50's, the militancy of John Brown and the likes and I think it is fair to speculate that slavery was not going to be around forever...

Also, there is something that we haven't talked about and that is the extreme hatred held by Southerns after the war toward not only the north but toward black folks... The war intensified those feelings of hatred... This is why it took another hundred years to finally wrestle Jim Crow down and it was done with the federal troops having to go back into the South to allow black kids to attend a white school...

And even tho there are many Southerners today who have gotten over the War there are way too many who continue to pass this hatred down to thei kids...

My thinking is that had slavery been evolved *out* and white Southerners been participants in the evolution then we wouldn't have so much pent-up Southern hatred today...

Can I prove that??? No... But I have lived in the South most of my life and it is what I feel...

Bobert~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 06:23 PM

Actually, seein' as we ahve kinda locked onto slavery and Jim Crow, I'd point out that the 1876 Hayes Tilden election was in many ways similar to the 2000 Bush-Gore debacle... Dems not wanting to certify Repub victiries and vices versa.. But unlike the Bush-Gore elction in the end everyone got something... A New York Repub, with fewer popultar votesa nd behaps even fewer "earned" electorial votes, got the presidency and Jim Crow got the Union outta his hair...

All of this make me wonder if the 2000 election wasn't the largest presidential debacle in our history since all the Dems got was a poke in the eye and nuthin' more...

As fir some other elctions that I find interesting the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson musta had the "beltway insiders" (haha) a little nervous...

And of course the 1948 Truman-Dewey with some newspapers printing that Dewey had won...

And then there's the most bizarre elexction of my life time, other than 2000, in 1968 when Bobby Kennedy, sho in my opinion would have beaten anywon out there being gunned down by a guy who had no apparent motive???? yeah, a big hmmmmmmmm???? And then LBJ rollin' HHH under the bus less than a month before the election by doing what HHH said he was going to do in stopping the bombing in SE Asia allowing Nisxo with his "secret plan" to squeek in...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 06:51 PM

Everybody speculates on the JFK assassination, but not nearly as much ink is spent on the RFK assassination. That Sir-Han Sir-Han guy must have been working for somebody.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM

Exactly...

I believe that the 3 most influential men of the 60's who represented the "movement" were all killed by folks whoes motives were very suspect: Malcom X, Dr, King and Bobby Kennedy...

... and I think they were killed by folks who were set up by the CIA who was taking it's orders from Boss Hog hisself... I mean, how else could these assasinations happen by folks who really didn't have much a bone to pick with these folks???

I understand John Hinkley... Well, not really... But at l;east he was a certified nutball who thought he was shooting Reagan for a movie star...

But these other assasins??? No logic other than they were well paid or...

...something...


I don't even put JFK assasination intio the mix but maybe I should... He just never seemed like as big a threat to Boss Hog and the corporate thugs as the other three... But maybe I should which would make 4 assasination by folks with no apparent motives...

Hey, not that I am advocating assaination as a way to control one's government but seein' as we have speculated on post War Between the States scenerios, hey...

What if the progressives had pulled a page out of the right wingers play book during Reagan's administration. or even the current administration, I wonder who would have been assainiated and how that might change the direction of the country...

The 60's certainly posed a threat to the military/industrial complex and it "was handled"...

What about the converse???

Like I said, I am not advocating anything here... I do not believe that violence solves anything even though it stopped a "movement" in it's tracks...

Just food for thought???

Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle???

Bush/Rove/Rice???

Reagan/Richardson/Kirkpatrick???

The combinations are endless...

Like I said, just food for thought when we discuss events that could have changed history...

(Now please don't bust down my door, Micheal Chertoff... This is a discussion... Not a suggestion...)

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:32 PM

LH, Bobert--

You are excellent debaters. I notice you phrased it "from Emancipation to the 1920's" there was virtually no progress for blacks. Ah, but that's not the point. The progress was in going from slavery to not being slaves. I would guess very few former slaves, to say the least, would have been eager to exchange the conditions in Reconstruction and after for slavery. But that is what you are asserting, if you are saying that freedom meant nothing or was even a step backwards--to former slaves.

If you had been a slave at the time, I suspect you would think differently. Just being able to move legally--without a law used to track you down, bring you back, and punish you would be worth quite a bit. As would not having your family split up by the whim of-- or economic pressure on-- your owner. I don't see why you don't realize that. Washington tried hard not to split up slave families. Jefferson--not so much. And on cotton and rice plantations it's obvious what the attitude would be.

Obviously we'll never know what would have happened if the Civil War had not resulted in the end of black slavery in the US. But consider that as late as the 1930's white men were desperate to avoid picking cotton. Johnny Cash, Bob Wills, and LBJ all picked cotton---and made damn sure they got tickets out of that kind of future.

If you don't think that as late as the 1930's whites would have been perfectly fine with having blacks pick their cotton--as slaves--you're deluding yourselves. If you don't think there is a difference between sharecropping and slavery, again you're deluding yourselves.

You may think this is an "emotional response" to the issue. So be it. But I believe it verges on the obscene to have a bunch of white males stroking their beards and agreeing, yes, in our considered opinion, emancipation was no progress for slaves. Bobert, I'm surprised at you for buying this line. LH--not so surprising--it may be just an intellectual exercise for him.

The thread started off fine--as a worthwhile source of information. But it's veered off course badly---and I wasn't the one who pulled it off course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM

Being a bluesman has brought me in direct contact with many realy old black people in the South...

A couple years ago I spent a day at the home of Sam Carr who has played with the likes of Muddy Waters as well as John Lee Hooker... The converstaion was fascinating as he told stories about the way things "used to be" in Mississippi and we're not even talking 20's here but the 40's and 50's... Sam lives in the Delta region of Mississipi not too far off "Highway 61" where the popylation even today is almost exclusively black with the exception of the "plantation" owners... The popultaion ofthe Delta hasn't much changed since the War Between the States and life hasn't either...

So Sam was talkin' about working on the plantation 6 days a week for less than $5 a day in the 40's as a young man... Then he worked on Saturday night at the "juke joint" as a "doorman"... Now the "doorman" ain't the best job 'cause he's got to make sure the joint didn't get robbed and that nobody got killed and the "doorman" always had a pistol to aid in those goals... Problem was that things didn't always turn out right and occasionally someone would be shot and killed and the sherriff would come and take the killer off to jail but come Monday mornin' the "plantation owner" would come and collect his "nigger" 'cause he needed him back in the fields or on the tractor...

Now I ain't saying that slavery was good 'cause it wasn't but it hasn't been all that long ago where defacto slavery existed for millions of black people in the South... I mean, in our life time... Might of fact, if one travels doen Highway 61 between West Memphis, Arkansa to Clarksdale, Mississippi and ventures back off the main road one will see black folks still living very much the way they would have in the 1850's with no electricity, running water, cars or much more than shacks... Not even shotgun shacks but just shacks... I have been there, played music there so it is something that I have some firsthand knowledge of...

Yes, this thread has veered off... But I don't think "badly"... This subject seems to be one that makes white people very uncomfortable because they fully understand their part in the institution of slavery and don't really want to be bothered with taking a good hard look at it because it might mean that they would have to collectively make a greater effore to "repair" as in making "repair"ations for what it has done to black people...

I know your heart, Ron, and you are a compassionate person but I also know what I know and have seen and understand from my readings of history and I'm not afraid to have this discussion... Bill Clinton tried tio get a coverstaion going that would have ended up in some of thease murkier corners of American history but was stopped cold because the sanitized version of our history is so much easier to digest...

So, yeah, the thread has veered and perhaps for the good...

Peace,

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:27 PM

Bobert--


Nobody says that blacks after 1865 had it easy. On the contrary.

However:

1) It is still better than under slavery--partly for the reasons I cited. The progress, as I said was moving from slavery to not being slaves. And it seemed that you and LH were denying that life after 1865 was any better for blacks.

2) Nobody has provided any evidence that slavery--in 1861--was on the way out. The evidence is all on the other side.


Where the thread has gone off the track is getting into this question at all--the thread topic is "history of USA presidential elections...".   And I did not drag it off topic. It was off topic before I even posted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM

Ummmmm, Ron, if you have a problem with the thread drift then quit debating your positions... All that does is insure the drift

Now, a blanket statement that former slaves were better off "free" after 1865 isn't completely true either... While slavery was a repulsive system slaves were treated as assets... Many former slaves, especially after 1876, were treated worse as free than they had ever been treated as assests... Most, yes, were better off but to say they were all better off is a groos misrepresentation...

As for evidence??? That seems be to your red herring position... Of course it can't be proved inspite of the abolitionist's movement of the '50's, John Brown's raid, etc... But again, this argument fits neatly with demanding that Saddam didn'ty have WND's... It is a speculative position which can be turned around... I could ask you to prove that slavery wouldn't have evoloved out...

Now, I believe that we are just restating our repective opionions here... Our posiitions aren't revealing anything new to the discussion of the elections and unless yet another rebuttal is lodged, I'd be more than happy to let the drift die out and the election discussion continue...

I have mentioned the 1828 election as well as the 1968 election as ones that have some juiceiness to them...

Peace

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM

Bobert--

1) Any evidence of abolitionism in the South before 1861? From what I read, any abolitionist voices in the South were stifled. John Brown obviously does not fit as a Southern abolitionist--and look at the support he received in the South--even from slaves--who knew a losing campaign when they saw it.   Also, for instance, as I recall, the abolitionist brother of the writer of Jingle Bells (of all things), as a Unitarian preacher in Savannah, was forced out. Haven't read of any prominent Southern abolitionists who weren't suppressed. Do you have info on this--I'd be honestly fascinated to learn about them? You can learn a lot on the 'Cat.

2) What about the questions of the fugitive slave laws? Any comparable situation after 1865? And again, under slavery, families were often split up--as I pointed out, not always due to the whim of the owner--sometimes economic pressure on him. But the result is the same. Back in Washington's day, an estate of a heavily indebted slaveowner was broken up--including a sale of slaves "from 14 or 15 down to the ages of two or three years"--the author attributes Washington's gradual turning against slavery partly to this incident. I suspect it happened later also. After 1865, if a family was broken up, it wasn't because the members were sold off.

3) Still absolutely no evidence to back up an assertion that slavery was on its way out in 1861.   On the contrary, as others have already pointed out, there were Southern plans to further expand it--including Cuba, Haiti etc. And as I have indicated, many whites for quite a while would have been fine with having blacks pick their cotton--as slaves--possibly into the 20th century. And the North was also involved--through cotton markets, banking arrangments, etc.

And as to why I still discuss it--face it, slavery is an emotional issue.   Not, in my opinion, good for flippant and sometimes callous remarks (not aimed at you, obviously). Talking about elections, fine.

Also, I'm reading several books about slavery in the early days of the US--and before. A lot of the same arguments hold--or are even stronger. Obviously I come at from a different perspective--certainly not the war-gaming perspective. I find history endlessly fascinating without any what-ifs. And if people want to speculate, it seems reasonable they should provide some facts to back up their projections. Facts which so far are missing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM

"arrangements"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM

So, Ron, would you argue that had Lincoln stepped back from the war and allowed the CSA to opt out of the Union that the CSA would still be using slaves today???

I mean, you can read all the books in the world about what either actually happened or people "think" actually happened but they can never say "proof positive" what would have or not happened "if" event's had taken a different direction...

Yeah, "what if" the War Between the States hadn't occured???

This is also a part of studying history... As you well know there are "Civil War" round-tables all over the country where folks do just that... If there wasn't the "what if's" histroy would not only be less fun but also less educational... Many folks, including Voltaire, have noted that those who don't know history tend to repeat it...

Now we can drift this thing into oblivion...

Right now, I've got a meeting to attend...

So have at it...

Maybe LH will debate you fir a while but I gotta go...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:53 PM

For a discussion on Presidential elections, it seems like the 1860 election has dominated the space. That might be because that's when the Republicans and the Democrats set up their duo-aucracy, and after the war, we had one party rule.
             There's not much sense in discussing anything after that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 10:29 PM

Slaves today is a bit much, as I think you know, Bobert. But slaves til the end of the 19th century--and maybe beyond--is not stretching it. Slavery was just too comfortable for the men at the top of the system that they would want to change it. If anything, there might well at some point have been--extremely bloody--slave revolts. Nat Turner writ large--and that was what the slaveowners lived in dread of--and always had wherever the slave population had started to exceed the white.    The example they saw was Haiti.

Slavery was not going to go peaceably. I've seen no evidence--from anybody--that it would.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:51 PM

When money is concerned, nuthin' is easy...

I kinda see where the "Union", as in the United Sates Governemnt would have had to step in with subsudies to farmers in the South, yes, even if "the South" was the CSA... Kinda like foriegn aid to a country that we don't agree with... There's no shortage of precidence here....

But as for "slaves today"??? Yes, it is very much a stretch for most people unless one has spent time in the Delta of Mississippi... No, not in the big towns like Clarksdale but in the rural areas...

I would love for "60 Minutes" to go there... People would first be amazed and then...

...ashamed....

Don't believe me... Go over to Tweedsblues.net and check out the "Como Chronicles" about me and Tweed going back into these areas... There's even a piccure of me playin' music on a porch way back in the country with no running water or electricity...

When white folks with computers in front of them even try to get there it's probably just about impossible to get there from their comforts... I have been there... The life for many folks haven't changed much since before the War Between the States...

This is the real deal... Go to Tweeds and see for yourself if you think I'm blowin' some kinda bull here... I have been there... Tween has been there... We have seen it... And this is some 50 years after the supposed death of Jim Crow...

Jim Crow was an angry reaction to the results of the War Between the States... It didn't have to happen that way... Black folks took the brunt of angry white Soiutherners... This ain't even debatable... Ji Crow was as bad as slavery and if you were a black person strung up because soemone ***said*** you ***looked*** at a white woman then it was worse as worse can be...

Yeha, Ron, you can rague that their is no evidence that slavery was on the way out but, hey, how about ***you*** provin' it wasn't???

See, you are fallin' back on the same ol' "Dickey:prove-it"...

Shame on you... You are are a better debater...

LH and I have offerd an alternative course of history here... Can you show us where we are wrong???

I mean no disrespect here but it's time to either back away or "prove" that the War Between the States" was the only way that slavery was goin' to end...

In a way, this thread has become kinda a microcosm of what might have beeen occuring in 1860??? I won't do any testimonials about how I undertand Southern thinking tho I have lived most of my life in the South but I do have some perspective here...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:17 PM

Bobert--

Sorry, I respect your views, your experience, and your musicianship a lot--I think you know that.

But if we're discussing history--and trying to project into the future at a juncture in history-- all we have to go on is the historical facts up to that time.

And the facts, as far as I know, are all on the pro-slavery side--- slavery in 1861 showed absolutely no signs of dying out in the South. In fact, the slavocrats were just fine with the system they had devised--and had plans to expand it.

As I've said before, I'm very willing to learn new facts--so if you have them, please share--especially if, for instance, they show a hitherto-unknown--at least I don't know about it---strong abolition movement in the South, for instance, before 1861.

We're all always learning--and I certainly don't claim to be the ultimate authority on anything. But facts are needed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:45 PM

So now we have illegal aliens re-building New Orleans for slave-wage prices. Maybe the reason so many of the former residents aren't coming back is because the wages are so low.

                   When the rebuilding first got started, George W. Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon wage requirements. He later rescined that, but the damage had been done. The locals who would have done the work had gone on to look for liveable wages, and companies had time to regroup so they could hire labor through brokers and bypass the law.

                   So it looks to me like slavery is alive and well along the gulf coast, and the people who have paid the highest price are the same folks who were wiped out in the first place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:26 AM

George Bush and Co. hate the Davis-Bacon act anyway, Rigs, and have been lookin' for a long way to suspend it... The problem I have with that is that my tax dollars are going to contractors, who in essence, have been exempted from following the law in regards to paying taxes and providing workman's comp on the folks they hire... In other words, Bush is saying, "It's okay... Just pay 'um under the table"... Ain't that like tax cheating???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:01 AM

Yes it is. If anything makes my blood boil it's somebody like George W. Bush, who's never worked a day in his life, telling the public that he's saving them money by suspending Davis Bacon, or encouraging people to hire folks under the table so they don't have access to accident insurance, unemployment, and etc.

                Why is that a good thing for the public?

                I'm the last guy on the planet to encourage illegal immigration, mostly for environmental reasons, but if somebody is working for wages, they deserve to be paid a fair wage, and the deserve the same benefits everybody else gets.

               This paying people under the table thing really is taking us back to slavery.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM

Not only that, Rigs, it robs the US treasury...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:59 PM

Yes, it does that too. One has to wonder why people tolerate it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:46 PM

Guess which 19th century President that Barbara Bush is related to...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:46 PM

I give up. Which one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 29 September 4:50 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.