Posted on 12/15/2016 1:22:01 PM PST by PJ-Comix
Out of time for now, will respond later.
Pelham: "That’s certainly the authorized version that originated with New England’s band of prominent politicians and intellectuals known as the Essex Junto."
More important, antebellum Southern domination of Washington DC is a fact of history regardless of what the "Essex Junto" may have thought of it.
Southern Democrats dominated Federal Government almost continuously from 1788 through the election of 1860.
So, dissatisfaction with Southern rule is what drove the Essex Junto and the later Hartford Convention to threaten secession.
But it's important to note that such threats where soundly rejected by American voters and the end result was the extinction of the old Federalist party.
Pelham: "This group of influential New England Federalists were preaching secession as early as the election of Thomas Jefferson, whom they called 'the negro President' and labeled as the leader of the Slave Power."
That name, "Essex Junto" was first coined by John Hancock in 1778 to describe opponents of a new Massachusetts constitution.
In the 1790s, as the two-party system emerged, the "Essex Junto" became New England's core of the Federalist Party, opposed to Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans.
They supported Hamilton, but he refused to endorse plans for secession.
Later, Aaron Burr did agree to join them, and so was arrested by President Jefferson and tried for treason!
But the key point here is Southern domination of Jefferson-Jackson Democrats and Democrat domination of Washington DC, from Day One.
Much of this was accomplished as a result of the Constitution's 3/5 rule, granting slave-owners -- aka "the Slave Power" -- much higher representation in Congress and the Electoral College than free-state voters.
This extra representation is what elected Thomas Jefferson in 1800, leading his Northern opponents to label him "the Black President".
Pelham: "Always interesting to recall secession’s roots up in New England."
And to remember than since secession proposals utterly failed in 1814, the only consequence was bloodless destruction of the old Federalist Party.
When it succeeded in 1861, secession ultimately resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost.
Pelham: "Anyway the divisive cult of South-hating has a long and distinguished provenance going all the way back to the late 1700s and of course continues to this day."
Many antebellum Northerners could see no good reason why slave-holder Democrats should always rule in Washington DC, but Northerners were nearly always unable to prevent it.
So Northern Federalists only won the presidency in 1796 and Whigs only twice, in 1840 (Indianan William Harrison) & 1848 (Louisianan Zachary Taylor) -- otherwise Slave-Power dominated Democrats won every election and Congress until November 1860.
But alleged "South hating" on these threads is total Lost Causer false mythology.
Nobody here hates "the South" just as no Southerner here defends slavery.
Suggestions to the contrary are total rubbish & nonsense.
What we do hate is mythological lies & distortions intended to white-wash what really happened in favor of some Lost Causer fantasy which has no basis in historical reality.
Ken needs to cue up for his bitch slap.
Ken, feel the (butt) Burn. BTW, assuming the “fetal position” could put you at risk of a “pro-choice” infanticide.
Ken needs to put on his cowboy pants...if he can find a pair...
Accurate description.
“South-hater” is the Lost Causers race card. I’d be embarrassed to play it myself.
“So, dissatisfaction with Southern rule is what drove the Essex Junto and the later Hartford Convention to threaten secession.”
Your theory has the slight problem of the Essex Junto predating Jefferson’s presidency.
“When it succeeded in 1861, secession ultimately resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost.”
a case of post hoc propter hoc fallacious reasoning. Secession didn’t kill anyone. Lincoln’s decision to use force to compel the states back into the Union did.
“Many antebellum Northerners could see no good reason why slave-holder Democrats should always rule in Washington DC, but Northerners were nearly always unable to prevent it.”
Apparently demonstrating that they were the spiritual ancestors of Hillary voters who see no good reason that she shouldn’t be the next President just because she lost.
“Lost Causer false mythology”
the phrase itself demonstrates the point.
I’ll have to dig up President Franklin Pierce’s 1856 farewell speech where a major portion is devoted to warning that the North’s already busy hate campaign against the South could only lead to war.
Your comment here reveals your slight problem in reading comprehension, since I posted above:
Pelham: "a case of post hoc propter hoc fallacious reasoning.
Secession didn’t kill anyone."
It always amazes me how people who delight in making the most fallacious arguments imaginable are so, so quick to whip out their own Latin words to describe what they dislike. Oh well...
Of course secession itself didn't kill anyone, North or South, but it did drive secessionists to provoke war, start war, formally declare war and wage war against the United States, refusing to accept any peace terms more generous than Unconditional Surrender.
In stark comparison, the Essex Junto was a mere Sunday afternoon social club, no more dangerous than your typical Elks or Rotary meetings.
Pelham: "Apparently demonstrating that they were the spiritual ancestors of Hillary voters who see no good reason that she shouldn’t be the next President just because she lost."
Hardly. No, they felt exactly as you and I would feel had Hillary won and imposed her will on us.
Pelham: "I’ll have to dig up President Franklin Pierce’s 1856 farewell speech where a major portion is devoted to warning that the North’s already busy hate campaign against the South could only lead to war."
Former Democrat New Hampshire Senator Pierce was the very model of a "Doughfaced Northerner", who alone among the living former Presidents in 1861 opposed the Civil War, even after Fort Sumter.
As a Democrat Pierce was allied with the Southern Slave Power and did everything he could to defend them.
So what you here call a "busy hate campaign" was in fact Northern Republicans' refusal to accept the Slave Power's efforts to expand their "peculiar institution" into western territories and even, via Dred-Scott, into Northern states themselves.
In 1860 the vast majority or Northerners, even Republicans, were perfectly happy for Southern states to keep slavery within their own borders.
“busy hate campaign” - there’s that pernicious south-hater card again. They just can’t help themselves.
Merry Christmas!
He should just stay in it and die, and improve the state of human life on Earth.
The truly amusing myth is the claim that the North was denied their right to rule the country because they couldn’t manage to win elections. Again that’s the same sour grapes that we see on display by the Hillary gang, they deserve to rule and nasty elections have prevented them from getting what they deserve.
And then when the deep south states did the noble North a favor by leaving, effectively giving the North the lock on control of the US government that the self-pitying myth claims they had been denied, this gets spun into a military threat against the poor yankee government. So in a spasm of self-defense Lincoln blockaded the southern ports and marched a 75,000 man army to wage war in Virginia. Pretzel logic at its finest, and of course a religious belief among the adherents of the myth.
Surely, FRiend, even you are embarrassed by such a nonsensical sentence?
Don't you wish to rethink and restate that in some form which might make a little sense?
The fact is that from 1788 until the election of 1860 Southern slave-holders dominated the Southern Democrat party, which then dominated the entire Democrat party which itself dominated in Washington DC almost continuously -- in Congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court.
That's not a myth, it's a fact based on readily available data.
For example, consider this: before 1860 no openly anti-slavery president was ever elected, and the two elected Whig presidents (Harrison & Taylor) were both slave-holders.
Pelham: "And then when the deep south states did the noble North a favor by leaving, effectively giving the North the lock on control of the US government that the self-pitying myth claims they had been denied, this gets spun into a military threat against the poor yankee government."
Yet another nonsensical sentence -- what are you smoking, FRiend?
In historical fact, secession itself posed no military threat to the United States and so was not responded to militarily -- as you well know.
But secession did drive secessionists to provoke war, start war, formally declare war and wage war against the United States, refusing to stop fighting on any terms more favorable than Unconditional Surrender.
So secession in 1861 was never morality-neutral but rather was the source of everything which followed.
Pelham: "So in a spasm of self-defense Lincoln blockaded the southern ports and marched a 75,000 man army to wage war in Virginia.
Pretzel logic at its finest, and of course a religious belief among the adherents of the myth."
And now it just gets worse -- have you ever seen a doctor for that condition?
In historical fact none of that happened until after Confederates provoked war (seizing Union properties), started war (Fort Sumter), formally declared war (May 6, 1861) and began waging war in Union states (Missouri, Maryland & others) against the United States.
Those are simple facts of history, neither myth nor "religion".
Seriously, FRiend, you need to seek help for that condition.
When your replies are filled with ad hominems it’s a sign that you are unable to come up with a convincing rebuttal. A point for you to consider.
When your replies lack all substance, it's a sign...
In fact, there were no ad hominens in my post, merely factual observations that your own sentences make no sense, and a recommendation that you should seek help for whatever is causing that.
It being the Season, I thought I should be helpful, FRiend.
;-)
My sentiments exactly.
evidently your private definition of ad hominem excuses boorish asides.
“Don’t you wish to rethink and restate that in some form which might make a little sense?”
“Yet another nonsensical sentence — what are you smoking, FRiend?”
“And now it just gets worse — have you ever seen a doctor for that condition?”
“Seriously, FRiend, you need to seek help for that condition.”
Just trying to be helpful, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.