|
LP97S posted:Even though it is nowhere as detailed as a book I would recommend the Ken Burns documentary "Huey Long". It was quite impressive as it interviewed many people who actually lived during the time and it's pretty clear to see who hated him the most (Rich people and companies). When Long was nearly impeached it wasn't because of the corruption, the whole drat country would have to resign if that was true, it was because he had the audacity to tax a nickel per barrel of oil produced in Louisiana to fund social programs. Standard Oil sent it's musical band to rallies to encourage Long's impeachment. Long was a product of Louisiana through and through. Corrupt as all hell, but not in the sense that politicians these days are corrupt. Modern corruption would have Long taking money from Standard Oil to do a 180 on his oil tax, instead taxing crawdad sales to offset tax credits for SO operations in-state, and appointing a rockefeller-picked cabinet. Instead he basically took bribes for individual favors but swept it all under the rug of unapologetic populism. Oh to have such purehearted corruption be the mode again.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
If we're being nostalgic for that, another Ken Burns movie Prohibition brought up that breweries tried to sway public views to be anti-prohibition by pointing out how much they paid in taxes and paying the polltax for otherwise disenfranchised minorities in order to get support and votes. Nowadays it's voter suppression and overseas accounts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzLMRAz5G_4 Coughlin considered Roosevelt to be an elitist, something he was very much against. His weekly radio address began as sermons, but into the 1930's took more of a political bent. He railed against Roosevelt for raising taxes and creating all of the alphabet soup social programs that were a complete waste of taxes because the United States was a nation of wealth, so the dole was unnecessary. He also preached about the Russian Revolution and federal reserve being an evil plot by the international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world (Protocols of the Elders of Zion was still a very real thing) and spoke favorably of Mussolini and Hitler. He was kicked off the air in 1940 but his newspaper was still published until 1942. After Pearl Harbor the church told him he could either shut the hell up and stick to being priest of his parish, or be defrocked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Could someone tell me about the bad ol Jimmy Carter days that apparently led to Reagan's election? I understand inflation and interest rates were high but why was it high? I've heard people say that labor had too much power and they were hindering economic growth. Yeah are there any good sources about the 'hard times' that led to Reagan's rise to power? 'What millions had once believed glorious, was now being revealed as murderous. The Germans called it Zero Hour; the destriction of all belief in the Past.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xoM6-1SWl4
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Could someone tell me about the bad ol Jimmy Carter days that apparently led to Reagan's election? I understand inflation and interest rates were high but why was it high? I've heard people say that labor had too much power and they were hindering economic growth. I was under the impression that it was more to do with the aftereffects of the Iranian revolution and seeing the ruskies invade Afghanistan while your president tells you to stop wasting energy and talks about how things suck. Then this smooth-talking Californian man comes in and starts talking about great America is and how to make it great again while taking the fight to those godless liberals and communists that just made the last decade hell for you. (gee I wonder who that sounds like  )So Americans im sure felt like their country had gone  over the 70s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Carter's administration was also the first time the new Right and their media really got going in earnest (the Right we are living with today and that launched Reagan.) Re above, yes there was an oil shock in Carter's term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1400077249/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1383228713&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70 This I found was a pretty good book about the time period. Nixonland is another good one, as is a book called Staying Alive that's more about labor in 70s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Does anyone know about the Philippines and how the US treated them after it gained possession of them after the Spanish-American War? Did the US have adverse colonial effects on the locals or did we more or less leave it in the same spot the Spanish left them (which based on Cuba I'm guessing not very well)? Dan Carlin's Hardcore History did an episode about just this topic. In a nutshell, Filipinos under Gen Emilio Aguinaldo declared their independence from Spanish colonial rule in 1898, but this was not recognized by Spain or anybody else, such that when Spain signed the Treaty of Paris to end the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was part of that which was ceded to the US. The Filipinos did not of course like this, and their resistance to the American take-over resulted in the Filipino-American War, from 1899 up until a cessation of hostilities in 1902. I don't want to get too much into the details of this particular war because I'm very biased as a Filipino myself, but concentration camps (in the Cuba/Boer War sense) were used, Filipinos were regarded as less-than-human by portions of the military resulting in atrocities, and the guerrilla nature of the war eventually soured public opinion. The long-term effect of the colonization though was I would say overall positive, not the least of which was because the McKinley administration recognized the need for eventual independence of the Philippines by as early as 1899. Reforms and policies were established to "prepare" the Philippines for self-government, and autonomy was little-by-little granted from the municipal level on up. As far as comparisons to Spanish rule, the Americans were arguably better: Large amounts of land owned by the Catholic Church was redistributed as a sort of agrarian reform, free public education was established (albeit at the cost of English-only education) and there was a civilian bicameral gov't in control. The Tydings-McDuffie Act established a Philippine Commonwealth by 1935 with the intent of granting full independence after 10 years. It was delayed by 1 year to July 4, 1946 because of World War II.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Even though it is nowhere as detailed as a book I would recommend the Ken Burns documentary "Huey Long". It was quite impressive as it interviewed many people who actually lived during the time and it's pretty clear to see who hated him the most (Rich people and companies). When Long was nearly impeached it wasn't because of the corruption, the whole drat country would have to resign if that was true, it was because he had the audacity to tax a nickel per barrel of oil produced in Louisiana to fund social programs. Standard Oil sent it's musical band to rallies to encourage Long's impeachment. Any discussion on Long has to recognize that his body wasn't even cold before all the moneyed interests that he had pissed off began smearing his name. Huey did a lot for Louisiana and I think it is noncontroversial that Huey's agitating at FDR from the left directly led to more progressive/populist New Deal policies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Carter's administration was also the first time the new Right and their media really got going in earnest (the Right we are living with today and that launched Reagan.) Part of it was the "Nixon shock" the full switch to fiat money probably did increase the amount of inflation happening for a while, it is hard not to but obviously the 1973 then the 1979 fuel crises accelerated it. Inflation from 1972-1973 was around 2-3% not exactly nightmarish, was around 5-7% by mid year and was up to 8% at the end of 1973 through 1974 it was roughly 10-12%. The first fuel crisis almost certainly had a lot to do with it. Inflation in 1979-1980 was slightly higher 10-13%. My hypothesis is that the "Reagan revolution" was a confluence of factors, one was generational, the silent generation born in the 1930s and now in their 40s was tired of the counter-culture of the late 1960s and 70s wanted for things to "return to normal." Moreover, as a generation they had done pretty well and had reaped a host of benefits from the post-war years, high inflation cut into some of those gains since their assets were in dollars. In addition, many of them thought the withdrawal from Vietnam was humiliating. In addition, you had the big change in the South because of Civil Rights and more and more southern whites identifying with the GOP on at least the federal level. Basically, conservative white middle America was pissed because things weren't working out how they dreamed it would (the 1950s forever basically) and wanted a morning in America where they would be back on top. Edit: That said, from everything I have seen, circumstances in the 1970s weren't really that hard and beyond inflation/fuel prices, I don't they could even be really compared to the poo poo going on right now. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Anyone know when British and American accents began diverging into distinct things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Anyone know when British and American accents began diverging into distinct things? They became separate not too long after the colonization. The early colonists were from across England so those various regional accents merged together and as early as 1764 British visitors noted a distinct accent not heard anywhere on the British islands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Anyone know when British and American accents began diverging into distinct things? Joke answer that is historically true; As soon as you put a large body of water between them. Modern American spelling is almost all due to Noah Webster publisher of the first American dictionary. He was a spelling reformer so most of the spelling differences between American and British English rest solely on his polyglot shoulders. Vocabulary too he codified a lot of what was already true; there were a poo poo load of things in the New World that were not discussed in England so his dictionary includes over 10,000 terms not found in equivalent British dictionaries. Add all three together and you arrive at such wonderful things like "to table the issue" meaning the exact opposite of each other in the two dialects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Peruser posted:They became separate not too long after the colonization. The early colonists were from across England so those various regional accents merged together and as early as 1764 British visitors noted a distinct accent not heard anywhere on the British islands. Surprisingly, however, the prevailing theory is that the major differences developed mostly due to the English changing their accents; not because the American colonists developed their own. What we identify today as the "English Accent" started forming right around the time of the American Revolution, when the English upper classes stopped using rhotic speech---basically, stopped pronouncing the "r" in most words. The English education system quickly adopted this form of speech as proper. "American" accents were thus closer to traditional English accents than the modern English accent is. However, in cities like Boston and New Orleans, where the English presence remained strong, non-rhotic accents began to develop as well--which is how the Boston accent formed. But you're right, the waves of immigration distorted accents to the point where accents were bound to split anyway. When Martin Scorcese was making "Gangs of New York," he hired researchers to figure out what a New Yorker in the 1830s would have sounded like, and it turns out that the "Brooklyn accent" was in full force even back then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Anyone know when British and American accents began diverging into distinct things? As others have posted, it started the moment they got on the boats. However, just how that shift has occured is a fascinating read and I wish I knew more about phonology to fully understand these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_English_regional_phonology For fun see what regional groups you can pigeonhole yourself into!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:As others have posted, it started the moment they got on the boats. The study of American dialects is fascinating, along with our perceptions of them. For example, what we know as the "southern" accent was brought to America by upper class or aristocratic English who settled in the American South. Similarly, most features of the "black American" accent were adopted from the southern Aristocratic speech. Today, both accents are considered a crude, uneducated accent by lots of Americans, despite its aristocratic origins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
So I realized that while I have a pretty good idea of the American Civil War from the North's point of view, thanks to books and movies and whatnot, I really don't know how things were in the south. Anyone have a good book/documentary/website/anything on the Confederacy to recommend? Preferably something that doesn't attempt to whitewash it. Kind of off-topic, I found something I never expected a few months ago. As I walking in downtown Montreal (my city), I noticed a memorial plate honoring Jefferson Davis, apparently paid for by the Daugthers of the Confederacy. I looked it up, and it seems that Davis and his family lived in Montreal for a few years following the end of the Civil War, and was well-regarded by the anglo community. Ironic, considering how many escaped slaves followed the underground railroad all the way to Canada.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:So I realized that while I have a pretty good idea of the American Civil War from the North's point of view, thanks to books and movies and whatnot, I really don't know how things were in the south. Anyone have a good book/documentary/website/anything on the Confederacy to recommend? Preferably something that doesn't attempt to whitewash it. Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War is a great place to start. Ed Ayers In The Presence of Mine Enemies is also good. Mary Chestnut and Kate Stone were both plantation owning women who wrote diaries that were published after the war and are readable, fascinating primary sources. The Southern view of the Civil War also needs to include the experience of the millions of enslaved people who lived the war in the South. James McPhearson's The Negro Civil War is a little old but still considered a great starting place for this. Davis being well-regarded isn't so much of a surprise, by the way. He was a wealthy statesman, and that was one of the biggest parts of his identity. Remember that he was an important anti-secessionist Senator up until just after Lincoln's election, good public speaker, etc. In the 19th century, people of that kind of social stature had to do pretty vile stuff in the eyes of the community to be robbed of their status. Hell, the first people Southern states re-elected when Johnson let them back into the Union were Confederate officers because they were men of standing, wealth, class and connection within their communities. I know this is a slow thread but I'm gonna be up lateish and need a distraction, so throw questions my way if you have them. My strongest areas in American history are 1760s-1810 some on the non-military side of the Civil War, and a smattering of 20th century topics, mostly late and post-Cold War domestic culture and politics. BrotherAdso fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:So I realized that while I have a pretty good idea of the American Civil War from the North's point of view, thanks to books and movies and whatnot, I really don't know how things were in the south. Anyone have a good book/documentary/website/anything on the Confederacy to recommend? Preferably something that doesn't attempt to whitewash it. Wow I didn't know this. Doesn't Montreal have a statue commemorating Jackie Robinson? That's incredibly ironic. Also Drew Gilpin Faust's Mothers of Invention shows the hardship many women plantation owners faced during the war while the men were away. I have a reading list somewhere from grad school I'll have to look it up later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Wow I didn't know this. Doesn't Montreal have a statue commemorating Jackie Robinson? That's incredibly ironic. Seconding this. Republic of Suffering got more press, but this was also a great book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Weird question, but how much chance did the slavers have of managing a diplomatic solution to the war? Rebels fired the first shots, right? If they'd hadn't shelled Fort Sumter, what could they have conceivably achieved at the negotiation? Or were they just hosed from the get-go?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Weird question, but how much chance did the slavers have of managing a diplomatic solution to the war? Rebels fired the first shots, right? If they'd hadn't shelled Fort Sumter, what could they have conceivably achieved at the negotiation? Or were they just hosed from the get-go? Congress was willing to make the Missouri Compromise line go out to the Pacific and have slavery enshrined in the Constitution, plus Lincoln was not a hard core abolitionist when he was elected. They really just jumped the gun and bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Congress was willing to make the Missouri Compromise line go out to the Pacific and have slavery enshrined in the Constitution, plus Lincoln was not a hard core abolitionist when he was elected.  Holy poo poo no wonder the Civil War is tied with WWII as a favorite subject of alternate history scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Lincoln was willing to entertain Constitutional protections of slavery where it already existed but was adamantly opposed to the expansion of slavery throughout the territories as he saw it as essentially allowing the South to overturn the results of the election of 1860 (in which the main Republican plank was opposition to the expansion of slavery) through threats and intimidation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:"American" accents were thus closer to traditional English accents than the modern English accent is. However, in cities like Boston and New Orleans, where the English presence remained strong, non-rhotic accents began to develop as well--which is how the Boston accent formed. The brogue, man. The brogue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZgw09CG9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-O-cdA9dU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csfyrRqc5TU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtVkjILQNx0
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Lincoln was willing to entertain Constitutional protections of slavery where it already existed but was adamantly opposed to the expansion of slavery throughout the territories as he saw it as essentially allowing the South to overturn the results of the election of 1860 (in which the main Republican plank was opposition to the expansion of slavery) through threats and intimidation. Yeah, the Republican party was essentially founded as an Anti-Slavery party, but that defining position in of itself represented a whole coalition of different interests. You had diehard abolitionists who wanted slavery to be ended with as soon as possible on one end of the spectrum to more moderate positions merely opposing the creation of any more slave territories on the other. The 1860 Republican platform of "absolutely no more slave states, ever" was the most politically viable position that would appeal to the broadest portion of the electorate while still not compromising the values of the party. Of course, the Southern political establishment saw any curtailment of slavery in the territories as an existential threat to their way of life and control over Southern society. All the gentleman's agreements between the North and South during the early republic were being frayed apart due to the territorial and demographic growth of the USA, and antislavery sentiment in the north slowly was growing during the antebellum period. The only way that the South could be secure from Abolition was through control of the federal government. As the population in the north grew more quickly than in the south, control of the Senate was key to blocking any antislavery legislation. Thus, the South needed to keep an equal parity between slave and free states which led to insanity like plans to conquer Cuba and Central America and add them as slave states. It's true that the south was a politically distinct region from the north, but it was critical for them to not have a regional party and instead be part of a national party. For much of the time period, the South didn't have the votes to elect a South-only president. The only way southern politicians could be sure about the Executive not infringing on their region's power was by being a major component of national parties such as the Democratic party. That being said, I remember reading in my history classes that the regional Whig and Democratic parties had almost completely different platforms depending on if it was in a northern or southern state, effectively making the Second Party System a four-party system. When it became apparent that the wholly northern Republicans would win the 1860 election without any need for southern electoral votes, the Democrats went loving insane and split back into the two regional parties they were all along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
The parties having "completely different platforms" in North and South is something of an exaggeration, but they certainly emphasized different aspects of their platforms or candidates depending on sectional location. This process started to break down by the 1850s as new communications technology made such local campaigns much more difficult to isolate, helping to contribute to the implosion of the Whigs and split in the Democrats. Prior to the late 1840s/1850s, however, party and not region was the line on which Congressional votes tended to divide.
Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:The parties having "completely different platforms" in North and South is something of an exaggeration, but they certainly emphasized different aspects of their platforms or candidates depending on sectional location. This process started to break down by the 1850s as new communications technology made such local campaigns much more difficult to isolate, helping to contribute to the implosion of the Whigs and split in the Democrats. Prior to the 1850s, however, party and not region was the line on which Congressional votes tended to divide. Yeah, I think I may have overstated the difference between northern and southern platforms. You're right that it was more of a difference in policy emphasis than outright differences, but my basic point was that while nationally the two parties had a unified platform, there were distinct regional differences within state politics. It does make sense that technological development in communications factored into the ruin of the Second Party System. As an aside, has there been a definitive work on or timeline definition of the 6th Party System? It's a bit tough to give or pinpoint a good starting date (1968? 1980?), and it seems based on the GOP's tailspin that it's going to end in the near future, so it may be a good thing for political scientists to start organizing their notes and contacting publishers. I don't know if the ascent of the New Democrats under Clinton or the Contract with America could be seen as a mini-realignment or 6.5th party system or something, since the parties after 1992 and the end of the Cold War changed in policies (for the Dems) and tactics (GOP). Of course, the post-WWII Democratic and Republican parties had similar shifts and they're just considered to be part of the 5th Party System period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Can y'all recommend any works on the growth of the party system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Congress was willing to make the Missouri Compromise line go out to the Pacific and have slavery enshrined in the Constitution, plus Lincoln was not a hard core abolitionist when he was elected. Yeah, something I think gets overlooked is that the Confederacy formed before Lincoln was even inaugurated. South Carolina began its official movement towards secession two days after Lincoln's victory. Even most pro-slavery Southerners thought this was a pretty bad idea but wound up going along with it because a) the state legislatures were far more radical than their nationally elected counterparts and their hands were forced, and b) negotiations crumbled when the Republicans were willing to surrender only most, not all, of their stances on slavery in negotiations. This fact really drives a steak in the heart of the idea that the Civil War was in any way a war of "northern aggression" or a blowback against Northern domination or policies. It was basically a freakout by extremists who were furious that the guy they hated won the Presidency, one that spiraled out of control against the wishes of just about everyone outside the fringe. Emanuel Collective fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:It was basically a freakout by extremists who were furious that the guy they hated won the Presidency, one that spiraled out of control against the wishes of just about everyone outside the fringe. Wow. Talk about history repeating itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War is a great place to start. Ed Ayers In The Presence of Mine Enemies is also good. Mary Chestnut and Kate Stone were both plantation owning women who wrote diaries that were published after the war and are readable, fascinating primary sources. The Southern view of the Civil War also needs to include the experience of the millions of enslaved people who lived the war in the South. James McPhearson's The Negro Civil War is a little old but still considered a great starting place for this. Thanks, I'll see if I can't find those at my local bookstore(s).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:
Slightly outside the scope of those topics, but I highly recommend The Destructive War for anyone interested in reading about motivations and history behind both Sherman and Jackson. It's very much an academic research paper so it can be hard to read in one setting, but it really is the most complete book I've come across when it comes to understanding the evolution of thinking and tactics that became the first use in modern history of waging total war between two of the most interesting generals of the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:49
|
|
Books
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Yeah, something I think gets overlooked is that the Confederacy formed before Lincoln was even inaugurated. South Carolina began its official movement towards secession two days after Lincoln's victory. Even most pro-slavery Southerners thought this was a pretty bad idea but wound up going along with it because a) the state legislatures were far more radical than their nationally elected counterparts and their hands were forced, and b) negotiations crumbled when the Republicans were willing to surrender only most, not all, of their stances on slavery in negotiations. If you want to read the 19th century version of Tea Party tears, read the secession declarations by the Southern legislatures that joined the Confederacy. They're basically one continuous  MY SLAVERY meltdown.quote:A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. BUT THE CIVIL WAR WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY OK 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:Of course, the Southern political establishment saw any curtailment of slavery in the territories as an existential threat to their way of life and control over Southern society. All the gentleman's agreements between the North and South during the early republic were being frayed apart due to the territorial and demographic growth of the USA, and antislavery sentiment in the north slowly was growing during the antebellum period. Spiderfist Island posted:The only way that the South could be secure from Abolition was through control of the federal government. Spiderfist Island posted:It's true that the south was a politically distinct region from the north, but it was critical for them to not have a regional party and instead be part of a national party. For much of the time period, the South didn't have the votes to elect a South-only president. The only way southern politicians could be sure about the Executive not infringing on their region's power was by being a major component of national parties such as the Democratic party. Spiderfist Island posted:When it became apparent that the wholly northern Republicans would win the 1860 election without any need for southern electoral votes, the Democrats went loving insane and split back into the two regional parties they were all along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
And the funniest thing is, by seceding, the South pretty much squandered all the political power they had before the Civil War. I think James McPherson noted this in my old APUSH textbook, that two-thirds of the presidents, most of the Supreme Court justices, and most Speakers of the House came from the South, whereas after Andrew Johnson it would be another half-century before a native-born Southerner would be president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:These so called gentlemen's agreements were actually quasi-constitutional compromises that all large federal states have to make to survive. A united and (thanks to the 3/5th's clause and the cotton boom) politically powerful South repeatedly overthrew these in the mid 19th century in favour of deals that would expand slavery further. If southerners hadn't thrown out the Missouri compromise there's no way the Republican Party would have even formed, true abolitionists were few and politically powerless prior to that point. DynamicSloth posted:Ironically the opposite was true, the only way slavery was threatened in the South was by launching hostilities on a far more powerful region that by and large could not give a gently caress what happened to blacks South of the Mason Dixon. Lincoln himself would readily admit the U.S. Constitution already guaranteed the existence of slavery in the slave states. DynamicSloth posted:It's coming off like the South was in dire straits prior to 1860 but their paranoia (fed by living in a society where slave rebellions had led to a complete ban on anti-slavery arguments) made them a unified voting bloc that dominated American government (see also the South in the twentieth century). They've elected more Presidents than any other region of the country, far beyond what you'd expect from their population base. DynamicSloth posted:The other way around actually, it was not a certainty that the Republicans would win until the Democrats split. The Democrats did not go insane either a small group of radical Southerners very deliberately poison pilled the Democratic platform demanding that the Democratic party recognize and fight to protect slavery in the Territories and recognize the full effects of the Dred Scott decision, which would have required the North to let Southerners brings their slaves into free states unencumbered. You're right on all this, and I should have been a bit more careful when writing my post. With regards to your last point, I remember that there was a study a while back that looked at the 1860 presidential election which concluded that, all else equal, if the Democrats didn't split into regional candidates for president the Republicans would have still won based on votes. But yes, there was a lot of uncertainty during the 1860 election so that paper doesn't say much. Are there any good books on the 1860 election that you could recommend me? I liked the brief stuff on it at the beginning of Team of Rivals and I'm interested in a book that covers it more thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:You're right on all this, and I should have been a bit more careful when writing my post. With regards to your last point, I remember that there was a study a while back that looked at the 1860 presidential election which concluded that, all else equal, if the Democrats didn't split into regional candidates for president the Republicans would have still won based on votes. But yes, there was a lot of uncertainty during the 1860 election so that paper doesn't say much. Are there any good books on the 1860 election that you could recommend me? I liked the brief stuff on it at the beginning of Team of Rivals and I'm interested in a book that covers it more thoroughly. While it's true that if you add up the votes of the Southern and Northern Democrats Lincoln still got more votes but that's hardly disproves the counterfactual of what would have happened if they had not split. Half a party only has half the resources of it's former self, and the voting public usually doesn't look that kindly on fundamentally dysfunctional political outfits. Douglas spent most of the campaign frantically courting Southern and border state voters who would've been voting lock step for him without Buchanan on the ticket. Imagine the 2012 campaign but Obama is too busy with a popular Nader camapign in Calafornia to spend any money on Ohio or Florida.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:And the funniest thing is, by seceding, the South pretty much squandered all the political power they had before the Civil War. I think James McPherson noted this in my old APUSH textbook, that two-thirds of the presidents, most of the Supreme Court justices, and most Speakers of the House came from the South, whereas after Andrew Johnson it would be another half-century before a native-born Southerner would be president. These are good points, but remember that with a ban on slavery in the territories, it would be very difficult to create new slave states, and eventually the South would lose control of the senate and the electoral college. From that point of view, the South had already waited too long by 1860 to secede. In 1790 the South controlled the federal government almost completely. By 1820, it would still have been impossible for the North to subdue the South. By 1880 it's questionable whether the Civil War could even have lasted as long as it did given the trends, and by the 1890s the Union was capable of going toe to toe with European powers and winning. It's true that nothing Lincoln did or said directly justified the secession, but given the South's goal of a national government under their control, Lincoln's election was an undeniable indicator that the North was becoming overwhelmingly powerful and if they wanted to control the nation they'd have to make their own and it was now or never. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:These are good points, but remember that with a ban on slavery in the territories, it would be very difficult to create new slave states, and eventually the South would lose control of the senate and the electoral college. From that point of view, the South had already waited too long by 1860 to secede. In 1790 the South controlled the federal government almost completely. By 1820, it would still have been impossible for the North to subdue the South. By 1880 it's questionable whether the Civil War could even have lasted as long as it did given the trends, and by the 1890s the Union was capable of going toe to toe with European powers and winning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 20:25
|
|