|
axeil posted:I think Lincoln might win this unanimously amongst those not making irony votes. We already have abolished slavery several times, let's do it for real now.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
fade5 posted:So given that Lincoln is probably gonna win our election, now I'm wondering: when was the last time we voted for how history actually went? Or have we ever done so? I'm pretty sure one of the Adams presidencies was a historical victory. If not the Father of the Nation, the National Son.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So given that Lincoln is probably gonna win our election, now I'm wondering: when was the last time we voted for how history actually went? Or have we ever done so? I want to say it was one of the John Quincy Adams Presidencies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So given that Lincoln is probably gonna win our election, now I'm wondering: when was the last time we voted for how history actually went? Or have we ever done so? One of John Adams terms i think the third, Jefferson's second term and Quincy Adam's first term. Although I guess Quincy Adams gets a asterix given the corrupt bargain and everything. SpRahl has issued a correction as of 18:43 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
So, we're all voting for Lincoln, right? Okay, good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
If we don't vote him in, he might not die!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I honestly thought the only guaranteed elections were Washington, Lincoln, FDR and JFK. I was shocked when Adams became our King in the first years of the Republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
axeil posted:I honestly thought the only guaranteed elections were Washington, Lincoln, FDR and JFK. FDR and Catholic Jack aren't even all that guaranteed. I can see FDR losing votes to the left to Norman Thomas, William Z. Communist, and Earl Browder. JFK might have an easier time of it, just quickly scanning his election, but I will be voting ironically/not ironically for Richard Milhous Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
karmicknight posted:FDR and Catholic Jack aren't even all that guaranteed. Can we vote for the corpse of Huey Long in 1936?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
So here's the big one. There's no wacky Free Soil or Liberty party around to steal away 2016 voters with calls for immediate abolitionism, and the parties competing with Mr."Let's finally confront slavery" are: "Let's preserve the union and keep doing that popular sovereignty thing, that's been going great," "Let's preserve the union and try pretending we're back in the simpler times of the 18th century," and "Let's preserve the union and give the southerners more of a say than they already have." There may be issues other than slavery about, but finally the contention over slavery is drowning out everything else. And it's a shame that with all these calls to preserve the union, the guy in office right now is a wimp about it. Of course, what's really interesting about slavery as an issue is how much of it is just a matter of neither the North nor the South want to be pushed around by the other, and slavery is the deciding factor over whether a state is northern or southern. Right now it seems as if the south has made quite a few victories between the fugitive slave law and Dred Scott, but many of those seemed like appeasements to placate the southerners. It's weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
 Pictured: Herschel V. Johnson around the time he ran for VP. Dude looks goony as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
yeah, i voted for lincoln. no need for irony here. if the radical republicans had run a presidential candidate in 1864 the next election might be interesting but im guessing they won't be on our ballotNebakenezzer posted:Fun fact about the Panic of 1857: contributing to it was the sinking of the SS Central America. Without that gold, many banks became insolvent, economic panic, etc. huh, and now i know who herndon is named after (captain of the ship). interesting the story of the salvaging on that wiki page is interesting too
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_presidential_election,_1861 will you be covering this election QPQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Corek posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_presidential_election,_1861 I spent some time trying to find out who got the other 3% of the popular vote, but unfortunately Our Campaigns only lists Jefferson Davis's opposition as "Other" and "Nativist Electors." It's a shame because I would be interested in seeing the goon reaction to Jefferson Davis when the only alternative is someone like Quitman or Brown. karmicknight posted:FDR and Catholic Jack aren't even all that guaranteed. If I remember correctly, Browder is an actual Soviet agent and Thomas advocated peace talks in the middle of World War II. FDR may suffer electorally due to Japanese Internment. QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 16:07 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Going all in on "Others"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
It's just so super-convienient that we know what a candidate actually does in office and how well they did when we vote for 'em. We should do this in real life! Question for the thread: I imagine most of y'all have voted for Lincoln. If you didn't know the future, how do you think the vote would go? Lincoln condemned for not being hard enough on slavery?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Lincoln was decently "no more slavery" and the other choices are "a bit more slavery" and "as much slavery as possible" so I think Lincoln was winning this one regardless. I think his soft stance would be seen as an effort to win moderates and such, but who knows, if there was a free soil party we might have gone for that instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
The opposition is so, so much worse. Holding my nose and voting for that drat moderate Hillary. I mean, Lincoln.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's just so super-convienient that we know what a candidate actually does in office and how well they did when we vote for 'em. We should do this in real life! Lincoln was a moderate in the Republican party and was getting heat from the abolitionists because he wasn't FULL
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's just so super-convienient that we know what a candidate actually does in office and how well they did when we vote for 'em. We should do this in real life! I always vote for the most abolitionist president, and unfortunately Lincoln's the only option we have. If there was a candidate who advocated straight up for preemptively burning the South to the ground and freeing the slaves (it's a shame John Brown couldn't run) then I'm certain the goon hivemind would vote for him instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
I keep trying to think of arguments for not voting Lincoln for the sake of contrarianism, but I can't come up with much. I guess maybe John Bell has said that slavery shouldn't be expanded into the territories? But then, the supreme court has already come down saying that it can be expanded, and I can't see the "Constitutional Union Party" going against them...uh...maybe we should all consider that all those slaveholders have a lot of wealth tied up in those human beings that they own, and dismantling slavery as an institution would ruin them financially? Really, the best argument is that Lincoln's election will launch the country into the bloodiest war America's ever seen, and that's essentially what people have been arguing for decades now, but I don't think the lives of people who, from our modern perspective would be dead anyways by now, hold much influence over 2016 voters. Besides, all the past presidents who have been trying with all their might to compromise the problem into oblivion have only managed to make things worse and push the problem down the line. I guess maybe we could push the civil war down the road until it can get even bloodier, maybe the south will ally with the Central Powers! Or the Axis! Or the Soviets!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:Lincoln was a moderate in the Republican party and was getting heat from the abolitionists because he wasn't FULL Lincoln won over Garrison with his folksy wit and promise to bring abolitionism into the mainstream. He was disappointed by Lincoln moderate proposals and his refusal to condemn slave owners as inherently evil men, but thought Lincoln would expand the national conversation. Plus, he was better than any alternative. After Lincoln's election, several states seceded. While most thought this a terrible calamity, Garrison thought it was wonderful and advocated for letting the South run their dumb country into the ground. This reaction horrified Lincoln and he subsequently condemned Garrison as a radical. QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 17:14 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's just so super-convienient that we know what a candidate actually does in office and how well they did when we vote for 'em. We should do this in real life! Vote for one of the other guys because every day that goes by, the North gets stronger and the South gets weaker. The longer the war is postponed, the more decisive the Union victory is. Is that accelerationist or the opposite? I don’t know, but that’s the best argument I have for the losers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
 Vote for Bell or burn in Hell!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Vote for Lincoln, that's good thinkin'
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's just so super-convienient that we know what a candidate actually does in office and how well they did when we vote for 'em. We should do this in real life! Though he's been compared to Hillary Clinton so far, I think Lincoln, with us not knowing the future would be seen more like Obama. We would read a stronger abolitionist position into him than he actually has, and be enamored with his well-spoken but folksy ways. I personally feel like I would be hearing the idea of someone combining the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian vision of an agrarian America with actual support of human rights beyond white men. And still interested in internal improvements, and minimizing protectionist tariffs! No, Lincoln is pretty drat awesome, even if his voice is high and reedy and not deep and stentorian as he's portrayed in modern times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Vote for Lincoln, that's good thinkin'  Vote for Douglas, he is rhinoceros? foobardog posted:No, Lincoln is pretty drat awesome, even if his voice is high and reedy and not deep and stentorian as he's portrayed in modern times. mind blown
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Some music to get you prepared to fight for the freedom of all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSn3NddwFQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:mind blown http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ask-an-expert-what-did-abraham-lincolns-voice-sound-like-13446201/?no-ist Yeah, it's super weird. I understand we make a similar mistake with the accents we use for the Revolutionary War era. The RP accent was definitely not around yet, and particularly posh non-rhoticism wasn't either, so the sort of New Englander rich-white accent doesn't make sense either. I've heard implications that the current General American accent of the Midwest is the closest for both sides. (General American has taken on a bit of the California drawl, now.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
A high voice was an asset in those days because it carried better in long distances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Let's put a Southerner in the White House; Vote Lincoln
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
foobardog posted:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ask-an-expert-what-did-abraham-lincolns-voice-sound-like-13446201/?no-ist From what I've read and seen suggested, Washington, Adams, Franklin et al would have spoken in a way similar to a rural West Country or Dorset English accent rather than anything you would recognise as an American accent today. Here's an example of a rural Somerset accent from an 82 year old recorded 1956: http://sounds.bl.uk/Accents-and-dialects/Survey-of-English-dialects/021M-C0908X0065XX-0600V1 To be fair, educated city types like Adams and Franklin would be clearer than that, but a lot the general populace really would speak in an accent bordering on incomprehensible to us today. Maybe something closer to this one which isn't so extreme! http://sounds.bl.uk/Accents-and-dialects/Survey-of-English-dialects/021M-C0908X0021XX-0200V1 tanglewood1420 has issued a correction as of 20:52 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Vote for Lincoln, that's good thinkin' Up to bat comes old Abe Lincoln There's a guy who's really thinkin' Kept the United States from shrinkin' Saved the ship of state from sinkin'
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Vote for one of the other guys because every day that goes by, the North gets stronger and the South gets weaker. The longer the war is postponed, the more decisive the Union victory is. The south's just not getting weaker though. That was the point of all the hubub every time a new state was established. If it's a slave state, that's more power to the south, if it's a free state, more power to the north. At this point, the supreme court has practically just handed all of the territories into the arms of the south, which is why Lincoln's stance to limit the spread of slavery is a big deal now. It's basically taking the Supreme Court's decision and putting it to a popular vote. Maybe industrialism will continue to outpace the south's agriculture, but as more time passes, that's just giving the south an opportunity to industrialize on their own and figure out how to incorporate slavery into an assembly line. Popular sovereignty sounds okay and makes sense on paper, but anybody who insists on it is totally naive, especially after the jayhawkers in Kansas. It's all about the balance of congress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:From what I've read and seen suggested, Washington, Adams, Franklin et al would have spoken in a way similar to a rural West Country or Dorset English accent rather than anything you would recognise as an American accent today. Wow, I could definitely see those eventually morphing into GenAm. Like it's nearly crazy old farmer voice from a horror film. Language is cool, thanks! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Wow, I could definitely see those eventually morphing into GenAm. Like it's nearly crazy old farmer voice from a horror film. Language is cool, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
foobardog posted:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ask-an-expert-what-did-abraham-lincolns-voice-sound-like-13446201/?no-ist tanglewood1420 posted:From what I've read and seen suggested, Washington, Adams, Franklin et al would have spoken in a way similar to a rural West Country or Dorset English accent rather than anything you would recognise as an American accent today. i loved those links, thanks. i've heard this claim about the rural island accents of the chesapeake bay. take a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZgw09CG9E&t=37s i grew up 50 miles from tangier island but i absolutely cannot understand any of the conversational parts of this video i think somebody says he'll be tired tonight
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:i loved those links, thanks. i've heard this claim about the rural island accents of the chesapeake bay. take a listen Yep, Tangier is pretty cool and the accents can get pretty mind-boggling. Not that the accents haven't changed there, but they've changed in ways completely different from the outside world so it sounds nuts to anyone not from there (which is, like, everyone). Honestly, the Eastern Shore in general feels sort of alien to me anytime I go there, despite it being really close to the hyper-urbanized Hampton Roads and DC areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
i've only been to the eastern shore once, to this place for a marine biology thingy http://www.cbfieldstation.org/location.html the chesapeake bay is really nice and i'm glad people are starting to get their poo poo together and start murdering it a little bit less
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:45
|
|