Free Republic

I’m familiar with the development of that particular Wiki article and you should know that it is HIGHLY unreliable and driven by an (admittedly) activist agenda.

I have had good (mixed) luck using Google translate on key words to produce a searchable result which, in turn, brings up search engine hits with the option to translate back into English.

Which means that Palestinians have as much right to a state as Israelis.

Perhaps they could call it "Jordan".

We need to inform all disgruntled newcomers that the only thing they will ever get is a settlement disbursement IF they join in on a class-action against Soros and WEFs. Then we need to make that the Manhattan project of the Justice Department.

"Only Princeton and Yale were every “elite” in the sense..."

Uhgg. "were ever". Word wrap gets me every time.

The “Ivy League” was a proposed intercollegiate association pitched by sportscaster Stanley Woodward during the interwar period and wasn’t formalized until the mid-fifties. It is not an old name for elite schools, as many people believe. Only Princeton and Yale were every “elite” in the sense of class pretension, U Penn was an “honest earner” performance uni, and Harvard and Brown, particularly, were laughingstock shitholes.

Oxford Crown Court heard that there was a high level of 'dangerousness'

Or, "of danger", as an American would say. This is yet another example of a type of British misconstuction we see in words like "orientating" and "manufacturation".

i>Sure, by definition. And, by definition, a slaveholder's spouse, children, parents and other relations belong to the family of a slaveholder, and benefit from slavery.

But you don't get from 1.6% to one third of all soldiers, mathematically, just by implicating the nuclear family. That would require tainting everyone who ever showed up at Johnny Reb's for Thanksgiving, including second cousins and step nephews.

Also, slaveholders often hired overseers and other white workers who benefitted directly or indirectly from slavery.

So, NOT owners. But we would never accept such a sloppy claim in any other area of economic history. Let me demonstrate:

There are employers and employees. Some employers directly manage their people, but sometimes employers hire managers to oversee front-line employees. Now, suppose you are tasked with producing an economic report for the made-up town of Plainsburgington and its surrounding area and you, through very thorough and exacting census, determine that the whole region's population (suspiciously numbering exactly 10,000) strangely enjoys 100% employment or self-employment and that, further, there are (all too conveniently) exactly one hundred self-reporting employers (as determined through taxes and licensing), that is, one hundred who are not themselves employed by another person. When you compile the census data according to JOB TITLE, you find that exactly one hundred people report that they hold the position of "Manager". However, when you cross compare the job title study with the tax records, you find that fifty of the managers are, themselves, salaried and employed by fifty of the previously determined one hundred regional employers. How many employers will you claim for this economic zone in your report?

For McPherson, it wouldn't be the obvious answer. He would have to decide if employment was a moral good or not, and he would have to decide how he FELT about it. He would have think about how he FELT about Plainsburington and whether the historical narrative, as a morality tale, should lionize or demonize the town. If employment is virtuous industry, and if he likes Plainsburgingtonians, he might claim that there are two hundred employers. If employment is the blight of exploitation, he might claim that one hundred reduced the remaining 9,900 to labor. If he hates Plainsburgingtonians, and wants to cast them as shiftless lowlifes, he may claim that only fifty ever rose above the dregs. If he wants to write about the rise of the Plainsburginton middle-class, he might claim one hundred and fifty. He would have to choose his pre-concluded conclusion before settling upon a half-assed rationalization from the breech end of the argument.

And beyond the immediate slaveholding community, the broader US economy, indeed the global economy, benefitted hugely from Southern slave labor.

And if we trace the fungible liquidity of wealth generated by the SLAVE TRADE, we can determine that most major institutions of the North East are likewise tainted. All principled people, even having different principles, nevertheless demand consistency.

I think that helps explain why so many Northern Democrats were willing to tolerate slavery even when they themselves owned no slaves.

Or, perhaps, they were eye witness to the horrors of industrial child labor and also had a sense of proportion.

No, of course not, but clearly family members of slaveholders, as well as their wider communities, benefitted from slavery, and supported it.

As a rule, I don't like to contest a statement on the matter of its generality, regardless of purpose, saving that the base claim be generally untrue, itself. I have doubts about this. I don't deny that generational wealth-building, slave (property) holding included, could benefit an heir as easily as a coin purse, a tract of land, or a good stable of horses; Washington's estate, slaves included, did pass through the Custises into Lee's hands, though he did not purchase slaves and, on the balance, he was increased. However, consider the I-just-made-it-up-right-now parable of the two sons who split their father's property inheritance BEFORE slaves are purchased. If one brother then buys slaves to work his cash crop, the other brother and his wage laborers must economically compete in a market affected by any eventual cost-saving the first brother might enjoy. But even if the second son also turns to slave-labor, he can never more than match his brother (assuming perfectly equal apportionment of land), and then nether can risk the potential economic harm to their own immediate heirs in being the first to disentangle their business lest the grandsons economically be overmatched and financially consumed by their cousins. If the second son is a sincere abolitionist and refuses to resort to slave labor, he is just as well painted by the whole "familys own 'em" brush. It's easy to see how, as the slave population began to age out, the maintenance of slavery came to be seen by the upper-class as a noblesse oblige of the landed gentry, a burden to many estates.

what is "Continental methodology" and what "peers" or "dissenters" are you talking about?

The two prevailing schools of discourse are the so-called Continental and Analytical, loosely associated with left- and right-wing philosophies, respectively. Whereas Analytical dialectic is concerned with the construction of categorical language and its argumentation more logical, the Continental approach (which should probably be called the "Commentary" approach) is more wholly rhetorical and relies upon building up outweighing bodies of commentary, usually not subject to analysis. If you've ever watched a Young Republican trying to explain to a SDS student that Christianity can't be fascist, given history and the actually definition of "fascism", only be called a Nazi, then you've seen how the two methods compliment each other./s

A hallmark of the Analytical method is that it enjoys critical thinking, that is, a line of thought which entertains the potential to falsify one its own principles, for truth-finding purposes.

The Analytical is traditionally associated with the inherited intellectual culture of British higher education, whereas the Continental is usually associated with, well, Continental Europe and arises from the pretensions of newly literate, self-styled middle-class intellectuals who haunt coffee houses and LARP as underdog revolutionaries. My old professorate liked to contrast the two with readings from the Spanish Civil War, with "Oxbridge" classicists expressing the last gasp of original English conservatism in journalistic debate with Spanish Communists and their orbiters who thought the the height of intellectualism was be seen reading over a pair of fake reading glasses.

Now, seriously, you're just babbling nonsense, and why?

Back in the 90s, there was a fierce debate over the utility and morality of objectivity. McPherson decidedly came down on the anti-objectivity side. He believes that history is a political narrative and that historians should be politically dutiful storytellers. He has the same relationship with the scholarly study of history that Anthony Fauci has with the scientific integrity of medical research.

A slave owner has the legal power to dispose, by selling or freeing, the slave in question. Anyone who does not possess such a power is proven, therefore, to not be a slave owner. There was no such 'familial' power, a near-relation did not have a legal right to sell or free a slave, and a non-slave owning relation could hardly be condemned for a moral crime he could not have vacated through inaction. This is matter of definition and is not really subject to the emotionally-weighted word piling of the Continental methodology. There is no real argument among peers, because dissenters are not peers.

Story tellers like McPherson aren't writing for the approval of educated historians or truthseekers, he writes specifically for the approval of non-historians who hate the idea of objective history.

The blacks took back their land in most horrific ways and now all that is ancient history.

That is not true. When the Dutch first arrived in SA, they found the place depopulated. People are often surprised to learn that, prior to the Nineteenth Century, the whole black population of Africa was restricted to a narrow band about the equator. The Dutch WERE the first large migration to the region. The Zulus didn't reach south until well after white settlement.

She, her husband

She stopped being the author's responsibility when she was given away at the wedding.

It sounds like a satellite campus is being downgraded to an affiliate community college.

They should have written it in cursive script. Then nobody born after 1980 could have read it.

The border patrol has shown it “vill follow zee orrrderrrrrs”. Screw them,

I think that they are actually engaging in passive-aggressive "malicious compliance" and just letting Texas recycle the wire right back into barricades after exerting minimal effort to move the wire.

made the point that the gist of the bill was a way to give the losers in historical conflicts equal time with the winners.

Firstly, that is a lie. That was not the gist of the bill. And, secondly, the right of Yankees to dispose of Southern memorials in the South is equal to the right of the Vietnamese to dispose of Vietnam War memorials in the US, losers being losers and all.

Were the Japanese justified in that whole Bataan Death March thing? Well, there’s two sides to that issue, and it’s important to have a neutral viewpoint ... Jonas Salk invented a polio vaccine that worked very well. Was this a good thing? Well, there’s two sides to that issue, and it’s important to have a neutral viewpoint ...

An unbiased interpretation of history would still condemn the Japanese because the Bataan Death march OBJECTIVELY was a moral crime. An unbiased history of medical science would lionize Salk because his discovery was OBJECTIVELY beneficial to all mankind. Only an extremely biased interpretation could depict those Japanese favorably or defame Salk.

"WWII Japs bad" and "polio vaccine good" ARE morally neutral positions.

The central bank’s losses could continue for as long as short-term interest rates remain near current levels.

Hamiltonians most affected!

I disagree with the headline. That Gen Z girl doesn’t get it. There’s no mention of Biden, the Deep State, entrenched politicians, inflation, etc. She’s just lashing out at older people in general. She doesn’t get it. Not at all. Which means she’ll just vote for Newsom, AOC, or some other younger politician who can flash a nice smile.

No, you don't get it. The politicians in power have been in power because the previous generations elected them. GenZ hasn't been voting long enough to hardly be held responsible for our current situation. You would castigate her for voting for Biden or Newsom without considering how they even came to be options on the ballot. YOUR generation put them there in the first place.

Any such a list which fails to include Silent Spring really isn't trying.

From my limited knowledge of Quakers I believe they are both abolitionists and pacifists.

Actually, the Quakers could be very violent. The Mason-Dixon line, despite what most people think, was a line of separation dividing the region by religion, so as to protect Catholics from the fairly aggressive Quakers of the day.