|
Pakled posted:I think it's pretty clear what direction SA's going to go in 1876. Hayes was a shitbag who ended Reconstruction and turned a blind eye to the South's suppression of African-American political rights in return for being handed the presidency, and the Democrats were involved in widespread voter intimidation against African-Americans, but Peter Cooper of the Greenback party was in favor of fiat currency, breaking up monopolies, labor rights, and Native American rights. Plus he had a glorious beard. fiat money? well i for one am sold.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Pakled posted:I think it's pretty clear what direction SA's going to go in 1876. Hayes was a shitbag who ended Reconstruction and turned a blind eye to the South's suppression of African-American political rights in return for being handed the presidency, and the Democrats were involved in widespread voter intimidation against African-Americans, but Peter Cooper of the Greenback party was in favor of fiat currency, breaking up monopolies, labor rights, and Native American rights. Plus he had a glorious beard. The Prohibition Party ran on a platform of women's suffrage, equal rights for minorities, an end to restrictions on immigration, breaking up monopolies, making the railways and telegraph a public utility, the direct election of the President and Senators, improved labor conditions, and (obviously) the prohibition of alcohol. They did, however, advocate for the gold standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
axeil posted:fiat money? well i for one am sold. If you stick with the Greenbacks the two elections after that you'll find yourself voting for Southern Confederate veterans for VP: Barzillai J. Chambers in 1880 and General Absolom M. West in 1884.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:The Prohibition Party ran on a platform of women's suffrage, equal rights for minorities, an end to restrictions on immigration, breaking up monopolies, making the railways and telegraph a public utility, the direct election of the President and Senators, improved labor conditions, and (obviously) the prohibition of alcohol. What's their position on freemasons
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
What I've learned in this thread: the British in the 1800s were even more racist than I previously thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What I've learned in this thread: the British in the 1800s were even more racist than I previously thought. Yeah, it should make you really roll your eyes at think pieces like "perhaps if the American Revolution failed, more people would be better off, because Britain has NHS and a Parliament and that's totally better than Congress." Like American culture diverged from British culture a lot, but some of the basic shittiest parts of both societies are shared.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
idk, Canada's pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:idk, Canada's pretty cool Tell that to the First Nations people! I mean America was worse, but Canada has had its problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
In this thread we realise that all nations have problems and no one land, society, or people is perfect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I actually genuinely hate Canada's smug brand of patriotism that downplays all internal problems in favour of blaming americans, I just wanted to be a prick. Canada had a huge amount of racism toward every creed and culture but we weren't as flashy about as you guys were so therefore we're a "good" countryMarsDragon posted:In this thread we realise that all nations have problems and no one land, society, or people is perfect. But we can at least agree that the south is objectively the worst
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:But we can at least agree that the south is objectively the worst On one hand if you're lucky, and don't buck the trend, you can graduate to "one of the good ones", while you're always a "friend of the family" to the north. Like the way I've seen it is that the North was for equality in general, but against it when it became specific, while the South was more accepting of it in specific cases, but had to hold on to be against it in general. We are all sinners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
foobardog posted:On one hand if you're lucky, and don't buck the trend, you can graduate to "one of the good ones", while you're always a "friend of the family" to the north. I think it's probably best explained in that the more actual black people there are around you, the more likely you are to have a black friend, but the places with the most black people tend to have the worst systemic racism. If you're not around people of any minority its much easier to other them on a personal level even if you are broadly for equality. In my limited understanding this is all applicable today at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:there was actually a confederate raider that made its way up to Alaska and captured a decent chunk of the American whaling fleet Jesus, talk about entrepreneurship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I think it's probably best explained in that the more actual black people there are around you, the more likely you are to have a black friend, but the places with the most black people tend to have the worst systemic racism. If you're not around people of any minority its much easier to other them on a personal level even if you are broadly for equality. In my limited understanding this is all applicable today at least. Pretty much. Like during the 2008 primary, Obama did best in very black states and very white states. The very white states didn't have the same visceral tie to white supremacy as it was mostly academic to them, and the very black states made up for the anti-black vote by having enough black people come out to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What I've learned in this thread: the British in the 1800s were even more racist than I previously thought. I find it a little surprising. Not the racism itself but the fact they seemed to be on the side of the confederates. By the time of the civil war, slavery had been illegal for like 80 years on British soil, the slave trade was banned in 1807 and it was banned in every colony by 1843.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:I find it a little surprising. Not the racism itself but the fact they seemed to be on the side of the confederates. By the time of the civil war, slavery had been illegal for like 80 years on British soil, the slave trade was banned in 1807 and it was banned in every colony by 1843. I think British support was less ideological and more practical they basically saw it as a opportunity to weaken the United States plus the South was a big trade partner for them. I think I remember reading that a lot of citizens in England had problems with their government unofficially supporting a slavery nation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
SpRahl posted:I think British support was less ideological and more practical they basically saw it as a opportunity to weaken the United States plus the South was a big trade partner for them. I think I remember reading that a lot of citizens in England had problems with their government unofficially supporting a slavery nation. Yeah, I wasn't shocked at the government doing it but those cartoons made it seem like widespread opinion. Maybe it was just the 19th century version of Ramirez.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:Yeah, I wasn't shocked at the government doing it but those cartoons made it seem like widespread opinion. Maybe it was just the 19th century version of Ramirez. Puck was extremely widely read and probably among the most influential magazines in the world at its time. Tenniel had his biases, but the opinion of British elites ranged from ambivalence to outright hopes of Southern victory. Charles Dickens, famously, thought that the Civil War was caused by Northern protectionism and considered "abolitionism" just an attempt to disguise Lincoln's less admirable ambitions. Of course, the South's embrace slavery was abhorrent, but wasn't the North just as bad for allowing it for so long? And who was Lincoln to say who could and could not rule themselves? ((British colonies notwithstanding. I mean, those people were uncivilized. We're doing India a great favor through colonization.)) As you worked your way down the ladder of influence, opinion of the South (if there was any) tended to become more negative. The masses, however, don't own the press and so their opinions rarely got articulated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
SpRahl posted:I think British support was less ideological and more practical they basically saw it as a opportunity to weaken the United States plus the South was a big trade partner for them. I think I remember reading that a lot of citizens in England had problems with their government unofficially supporting a slavery nation. Along with what everyone said about support being an opinion of the elite, Britain never officially recognized the CSA's independence, signed any treaties, or exchanged ambassadors. The Union pointedly informed the Brits that supporting the rebels would be equivalent to declaring war on them, and they would risk hostilities in Canada and a loss of the United States as a trade partner if they tried.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
the fact that the South was an awesome provider of raw materials for British factories while the north was competing for the same raw materials to build up competing factories with tariffs and stuff (Brits have always been massive hypocrites about free trade, the whole cotton industry there was built out of keeping Indian cotton out of the market in the 18th century) is an economic reason for partiality, but an additional factor is that business was often personal, British traders and industrialists spent a lot of time in the South doing business and many southerners and British families that did business with each other ended up marrying into each other, and a lot of the richest and most powerful people in England were in laws to the people committing treason diplomatic realities, as noted above, and other countervailing forces like the real pride Brits had in their own abolitionist accomplishments running counter to the open embrace of slavery as a positive good in the South were sufficient to keep them out of the war, but there were a lot of connections between the uk and the South oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 20:28 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I think it's pretty clear what direction SA's going to go in 1876. Hayes was a shitbag who ended Reconstruction and turned a blind eye to the South's suppression of African-American political rights in return for being handed the presidency, and the Democrats were involved in widespread voter intimidation against African-Americans, but Peter Cooper of the Greenback party was in favor of fiat currency, breaking up monopolies, labor rights, and Native American rights. Plus he had a glorious beard. There's also the fact that Tilden was a good man, but would have died a year into his term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
von Metternich posted:There's also the fact that Tilden was a good man, but would have died a year into his term. Almost as bad as poor Horace Greeley
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
I am having a small crisis. Today, my computer went kaput, taking with it my write-up for this week as well as my access to a keyboard. While I can probably get my laptop looked at by a friend, the holiday means that I won't be able to take it in until Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning. I do not know when it will be fixed. Given this, I am conflicted on how to move forward. While I can post the results of the last election, I have no easy way of easily redoing a write-up for 1864. I see only a few options: 1. I can do the write-up on my iPad (which I am working on now) this evening. While I can probably put something together, my progress will be slow and there would likely be nothing posted until late tonight/ tomorrow morning; 2. Someone can do the write-up this week in my place. While I hate to push this on someone the Election of 1864, thankfully, has only two tickets; 3. I can put this thread on temporarily hiatus and post the 1864 poll mid-week, or whenever I find a temporary replacement for my laptop; or, 4. I can post the 1864 poll with no background material, given the likely outcome. I am hesitant to take this option because it ruins the educational aspect of the election. If you have any recommendations, or would like to volunteer to do a write-up, please let me know. I will be checking this thread and my private messages regularly. If I don't see any replies, I will just plan to do a write-up on my mobile tonight. Sorry for the inconvenience! QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 11:34 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
That really sucks, sorry to hear it. Hope you didn't lose too much else besides the write-up. I'm in favor of #3, nothing wrong with waiting for quality writing. Whatever works best for you, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:3. I can put this thread on temporarily hiatus and post the 1864 poll mid-week, or whenever I find a temporary replacement for my laptop; or,
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
The Confederacy strikes again!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
If that's the case, let's plan for later this week. Thank you for the feedback.Quorum posted:The Confederacy strikes again! p. sure it was the freemason menace
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
I vote #3 as well. Better to wait and get quality than rush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
#3's definitely the best option. Take your time, do whatever you need to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
#3
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Go with number 3 amigo, take your time 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
#3 Padre, you've done so much you deserve a break, even if the circumstances are less than ideal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:p. sure it was the freemason menace The freemasons conspired with the slaveholding south, the papists, and other anti-American groups to destroy this wonderful nation John Adams, Father of the Nation and Alexander Hamilton (pbuh) worked to create. Also, take your time, yeah, this is a great thread and that isn't going to change because of some technical issues slowing it down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Good thing we're almost to Reconstruction
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Good thing we're almost to Reconstruction I really wonder if we have any options for a different VP than Johnson for Lincoln in 64. Was there any way to keep Hamlin on the ticket?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Take your time. We'll be patient. (Mostly).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Take your time, man. It's cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Thump! posted:I really wonder if we have any options for a different VP than Johnson for Lincoln in 64. Was there any way to keep Hamlin on the ticket? especially pre-atlanta the context was such that a democrat had to be on the ticket for any hope of succeeding. i think. i mean we'll get a write-up soon enough i think in hindsight people really overestimate the degree to which this war was foreordained. a lot of people in the north really, really, really didn't like the abolitionist turn things took and also didn't want to die gotta die gotta die for your government die for your country that's poo poo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFkANvtxLoY
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
I'm glad I knew that was anti flag before I clicked the YouTube link
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
If you were following the national politics of the country, you'd probably see the war coming. I mean, very few people would actually expect the south to make good on the threats to secede that they've been shooting out for years, but clearly things are getting more and more intense and are coming to a head. And of course, there's lots of quotes from people that certainly sound like they're forecasting the civil war, but they probably meant more just vague trouble. The average man on the street who doesn't follow national politics wouldn't really see it coming at all, and that's probably the bulk of the population at this point, but every year national politics are becoming more important, especially with the rail system. This is probably the most important election in US history, so it seems fair for it to get some extra time to marinate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:25
|
|
