As Confederate Statues Come Down, It's Worth Remembering That the Civil War Wasn't the Only American Conflict Involving Slavery [Mega Hurl]

Time ^ | June 22, 2020 | Phillip Goodrich

[KC_Lion]

Thank You for the quotes lizma2.

The Second Amendment is the great equalizer.

[OHelix]

"The Democrats of the 19th century WERE the ConstitutionalConservatives of the day."

How do you come to that conclusion?

[FLT-bird]

“A man’s rights depend on 3 boxes.

The ballot box
The jury box
And the Cartridge box.

Frederick Douglas

[central_va]

How do you come to that conclusion?

Anyone that studies history and doesn't make the mistake of projecting the current cultural milieu and political positions of the 21st century onto the 19th century knows this. The South believed in the rights of states to retain sovereignty, they wanted to preserve the status quo, mostly agrarian; they were little 'r' republicans.

OTH the Republican Party of the 19th century was the upstart LIBERAL party and aligned to some degree with abolitionists the militant wing of which would be considered terrorists by today's standards.

[myerson]

If you want your eyes opened, ask random people of all ages if Abe Lincoln owned slaves.

[OHelix]

I enjoy learning new things from all kinds of people, especially people who are way smarter than me. There are a lot of people like that here.

When you respond to a question asking for the reasoning behind your own assertion by insultingly implying only the historically ignorant, or people "projecting the current cultural milieu and political positions of the 21st century onto the 19th century" would not already know your reasoning without asking, makes you look, the opposite of a fount a knowledge from which others can drink.

I originally responded to your post, "The Democrats of the 19th century WERE the ConstitutionalConservatives of the day" because it seemed patently absurd to me based on my, admittedly, limited knowledge of 19th century politics. I genuinely want to know how you come to that conclusion, so I will try again:

How do you come to that conclusion?

[9422WMR]

Yes, and after the civil war the democrats fought the union carpet baggers from the north who were mostly republicans. Jim Crow and the KKK in the south from 1870-1960 was DemocRATS. A republican couldn’t be elected to office through the south until in the late 60’s. We here in Texas couldn’t get a republican majority until after the 1980’s. When Republicans started winning majority of races in state and local politics, the rats changed party and became rinos. Now they use socialism to get votes. Handouts for everyone! Vote for the rats. What could go wrong? 🤦🏻‍♂️

[DiogenesLamp]

Confederates were democRATS, every stinking one of them.

Parties flipped starting around 1930. The Liberal Big City Republicans became Democrats, and the Democrats became conservative Republicans.

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat, if that helps you to understand what happened.

Democrats of 1860 were opposed to taxes and big government, just like modern Republicans. Republicans of 1860 were race obsessed big city liberals that loved to tax and spend on big government projects so they could get kickbacks for their crony capitalist buddies, same as modern Democrats.

[DiogenesLamp]

I originally responded to your post, "The Democrats of the 19th century WERE the ConstitutionalConservatives of the day" because it seemed patently absurd to me based on my, admittedly, limited knowledge of 19th century politics. I genuinely want to know how you come to that conclusion, so I will try again:

I do not know if you are familiar with the difference between Alexander Hamilton's philosophy of governance versus Thomas Jefferson's philosophy of governance, but this is the real distinction between the two sides of what became modern Democrats and Republicans.

Alexander Hamilton believed the government should use it's power to promote business and also to use the power of money to control things. He was all about banking and finance and government power.

Jefferson believed in peaceful agrarianism. He felt the government should mostly leave people alone, and only do those things which were essential to maintaining itself and protecting the people.

Hamilton was big city. Jefferson was rural country.

You should look them up to better understand their differences in philosophy. The South was mostly Jeffersonian in outlook, and the North was mostly Hamiltonian in outlook.

This is the true dividing line between the two sides, not the labels they were called.

The Jeffersonian philosophy aligns with Modern conservative Republicans, and the Hamiltonian philosophy aligns with Modern Liberal Democrats.

Only the names have changed, the philosophies are basically the same as they have always been.

[hanamizu]

But it’s their ‘truths’ that are important—not facts.

[Vendome]

These authors, whose work has more recently been cited by the New York Times’ 1619 Project, arrive at a single conclusion.

Almost stopped reading there but, Here is the punchline:

Therefore, depending upon how one wishes to take up the debate, or count the wars, it would appear that the Civil War was not the only time the United States of America engaged in battle over the preservation of slavery in the American south.

Today, as the country asks what to do about monuments to the Confederacy, some might also raise such questions about the Revolutionary War. What about Mount Vernon? What about Monticello and other plantation monuments? The restored plantations of four of our first five presidents are supported by foundations that enjoy a tax-free status. While the southern politicians who fought for freedom from Great Britain were “men of their times,” perhaps we are overdue in reexamining these monuments through the lens of our own.

The premise and implication of the article is idiotic

[SES1066]

So that we may know more about the author ...

His biography on this self-owned website; "Phillip Goodrich is a practicing general surgeon and has been active on physician forums for the past fifteen years. This is his first foray into the realm of narrative American history. An American history buff and graduate of Northwestern University and the University of Southern California, he has spent countless hours in research of American history. He lives with his wife Melodee and their geriatric dog and cat in Platte City, Missouri."

The squib for this book is; "Somersett is a narrative history of the secret plan of Benjamin Franklin, working with friends in London, to incite the American Revolution through political motivation of the colonies.
Benjamin Franklin, frustrated with the recalcitrance of the British proprietors of Pennsylvania regarding defense and financial support of the colony, conspired with friends in London, utilizing two major political events, to incite the thirteen colonies to revolution. This is the story of that plot, Franklin’s role in London, Philadelphia, and Paris, and the conspirators in London who successfully brought it to completion."

My opinion of the thought that Ben Franklin caused the American Revolution (AR) because he was 'pissed' at the 'British Proprietors of Pennsylvania Colony'? Well he was definitely on the 'outs' with the British Establishment of the times but to says he concocted a secret plot that successfully caused the AR both gives him too much credit & power and far too little blame to a class-ossified British Establishment & Government that made almost every error possible to generate the predicates and conditions leading to the war.

[central_va]

I already posted why I think that. You can study history and come to your own conclusions.

Take my post and counter my assertions especially my assertion about the 19th century Republican Party.

Or not. Just go away.

[xkaydet65]

And in NC it was naval stores which Sister Thomas explained to us in 8th grade were tar and turpentine for use in waterproofing the vessels of the RM and Royal Merchant Marine.

[OHelix]

"You should look them up to better understand their differences..."

I am asking YOU to explain YOUR assertion.

Again, insultingly implying that if I only did a little research I would fully understand your assertion without you needing to defend it yourself, makes you look like someone who lacks the intellectual ability to substantiate their own assertions.

If I read your latest post correctly, you seem to be delineating Jeffersonian and Hamilton philosophy as agrarian vs pro business.

Being from NC, I see the agrarian side of Jeffersonian philosophy being mostly inherited by the populist party towards the end of the 19th century, and the pro buisiness being inherited by the Whigs before the civil war, and then the Republicans after the war. Both populists and republicans joined together into fusion party to oppose the Democrats.

I am curious what you mean by the "militant wing" of the abolitionists that you say would be considered terrorists by todays standards.

When I think of 19th century terrorists, I think of the Democrats who used violent mobs to intimidate and oppress their political opponents. I do, in fact, see a direct parallel with current politics in that regard. They used the popular media of the day to demonize a catastraphized straw man, and foment fear and hatred of that strawman sufficient to gain impassioned fearful and hate filled supporters.

I am not sure how you define and equate Jeffersonian philosophy and modern Constitutional Conservative philosophy. I would be grateful for your explanation.

[OHelix]

I am sorry to both of you. I mistakenly responded to DiogenesLamp thinking he was central_va.

To central_va:

"I already posted why I think that. You can study history and come to your own conclusions."

"Take my post and counter my assertions especially my assertion about the 19th century Republican Party."

"Or not. Just go away.

I asked YOU to substantiate YOUR assertions. I mentioned in my post to DiogenesLamp some of why I was wanting further explanation. If you are capable of defending your own assertions, I would enjoy reading them and hopefully learning from them.

If "Or Not. Just go away." is indicative of the nuggets of knowldege I might otherwise glean from you, then I'm perfectly pleased to end our conversation.

[central_va]

FACT: The South believed in the rights of states to retain sovereignty which is ultimately conservative

FACT: They wanted to preserve the status quo - conservative

FACT: The South was mostly mostly agrarian which is usually considered Conservative over urban/factory based society.

FACT: they ( the South ) were little 'r' republicans that believe in states rights. Highly Conservative.

FACT:Republican Party of the 19th century was the upstart LIBERAL party and aligned to some degree with abolitionists the militant wing of which would be considered terrorists by today's standards.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am asking YOU to explain YOUR assertion.

I thought I did a fair job of doing just that. Clearly there is some aspect which needs to be explored further to qualify for your satisfaction.

Again, insultingly implying that if I only did a little research I would fully understand your assertion without you needing to defend it yourself, makes you look like someone who lacks the intellectual ability to substantiate their own assertions.

Any perception of intended insult is yours. I speak with many people and I find it not uncommon for people to have no knowledge of either Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian philosophies of government. It is the norm, not the exception.

If I read your latest post correctly, you seem to be delineating Jeffersonian and Hamilton philosophy as agrarian vs pro business.

That's not quite right. It is "pro business" insofar as it feels government money and power should be spent to prop up industries. It also creates an inherent "elite" that are better suited to run everyone's lives. Crony Capitalism is a predictable outcome of a government bent on enhancing opportunities and profits for businesses. This philosophy is not all that distant from Fascism.

I am curious what you mean by the "militant wing" of the abolitionists that you say would be considered terrorists by todays standards.

I didn't say that. I think you are confusing me with someone else whom I noticed said that somewhere upthread...but I agree with that point. Yes, the abolitionists were the militant wing of the Big City Liberal party, just as BLM and Antifa are the currently named militant wing of the Big City Liberal party.

I think of the Democrats who used violent mobs to intimidate and oppress their political opponents.

Before or after the war? Because it makes a big difference.

I do, in fact, see a direct parallel with current politics in that regard. They used the popular media of the day to demonize a catastraphized straw man, and foment fear and hatred of that strawman sufficient to gain impassioned fearful and hate filled supporters.

I am at a loss to understand your particular reference here. I can't think of a group more demonized than Southern slave owners.

I am not sure how you define and equate Jeffersonian philosophy and modern Constitutional Conservative philosophy. I would be grateful for your explanation.

Limited and minimalist government.

"In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

[DiogenesLamp]

Odd. Somehow it made a double post. Moderator, could you delete one of them?