|
washington made a lot of money finding nice native american land, surveying it, telling his rich friends and getting a slice, then throwing desparate white people at the indians until they, um, went away i'll vote a jay/adams ticket bc whatever. it's important to have bobby hill in a wig as vp. also there should only be like two eligible voters in this thread and the rest of us are just writing vicious lies in newspapers
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
this thread is gonna be awfully federalist for a while i suspect. all these people are awful but the ones who like centralized power feel a little less awful i feel bad for rutledge though  where my pro-slavery goons at
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
this election really has very little to do with the rest, even the next one, because the ridiculous fiction of american politicians being above party politics was still at least imaginable in the atmosphere of 1792. i think by the next election there were already anti-federalist attack pamphlets out against washington, though that was an extreme minority position. this election, though, wasn't even really a dry run for american democracy we'll really be able to get into our groove starting in 1800 the big questions for the electoral historiography of this thread are already starting to form however! how ahistorical/lf is too ahistorical/lf, are we going to form our own parallel narrative, probably other things ive been skimming over i see a great future of meaningless arguments ahead for this thread
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
i want to emphasize that george washington was a profiteering land speculator would it be too much to say that the only reason he rebelled was because the british crown tried to protect the rights of their indian subjects against his white supremacist land grabbing? yes. but i still really want to say it. so just pretend i said it also pretend i compared this to israel and palestine, that's really what this thread needs
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:Oystertoadfish, I always appreciated you. This post is a good example of why I appreciate you. thanks! if that other octoberwhatever guy i remember from when i posted in sas is reading ( i never remember anybody's names its nothing personal) i want to let him know that i tried to watch a maryland game but turned it off angrily when they started winning i could maybe handle a maryland away game. probably not edit: that guy nobody's voting for would definitely be a terps fan, terps are pro-slavery just like lefty driesell tried to enslave moses malone oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 05:13 on Nov 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
i think in the constitutional convention they honestly expected presidential elections to be conducted almost purely on a 'favorite son' basis where someone with support in one or two states would rally the electors to his side, in which case actual political positions would be baked in, the electors being people who had known the candidate for years and been won over on the basis of regional/local politics, and the whole thing would really just be a power struggle among local elites. george mason thought 95% of elections would end up in the house of representatives, not decided by the electoral college, because back then they just couldn't imagine the whole country unifying behind two candidates. which happened within a decade the founders were dumb shits who hated everything we pretend they loved actually it might be more accurate to say they pretended to hate everything we pretend to love, but loved everything we pretend to hate. im not really gonna overthink this it sounds too good to revise edit: just read that one page of that book and realize how deeply unable these people were to imagine the consequences of their constitutionally conventionary actions. and we like to pretend they had a 200+ year vision oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 05:30 on Nov 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
^^^^ i think i saw a wikipedia thing saying 0.88% lemme find a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1792#Popular_vote footnote (b) here gives that number. which only strengthens your pointA Neurotic Jew posted:That makes sense, I had a feeling the reason would be because he's a piece of poo poo in one way or another. I'm definitely curious to see if any of these candidates, especially in the first thirty years or so, will be Actually Good. none of them will ever be good. actually either within the purview of this thread or before the heat death of the universe oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 05:59 on Nov 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:That's for the 1792 election, but yes voter turnout was very low back then haha i wasnt paying any loving attention fair point. i am owned. i own it to be so edit: as a patriotic slave i demand that my vote be invalidated
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
I was being dumb calling the founders dumb shits, the ones who played a leading role were mostly lawyers with a track record of being good at thinking and reading and stuff. I should've just said they couldn't see the future, which wouldve helped make my little point about the motives people impute on them and the causes they make them carry water for the worst thing about being so simplistic as to call them dumb though is that it's just another way of avoiding the difficult and interesting task of trying to understand events and ideas from their perspective. Which will be a strange thing for this thread to deal with they were big believers in good government by any standard. They were democratic by the standards of their time and they were anti democratic by any modern respectable American standard. They used classical sources in the same self centered way we use their lives and writings today. It's interesting to swim against the current on analysis and I obviously indulge in that but the really interesting thing is to try to put yourself in everyone's shoes and immerse yourself in the murky uncertainty of history My phone wants to capitalize and I think the true test of my ideals is that I'm too lazy to change the settings and stop it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
i want to vote for hamilton! oh well. im going to keep being a partisan federalist until the hartford convention, and also voting in a stubbornly ahistorical manner adams/washington, in that order
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
also the interesting work 'the education of henry adams' http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2044, which has been very highly ranked among the best non-fiction works in english basically the later adamses knew a ton of important people but weren't very powerful. this guy was perceptive enough to notice the world moving on from his viewpoints and smart enough to write up some interesting observations regarding this, in the third person no less. the chapter 'the virgin and the dynamo' is particularly well regarded. on the other hand he had a casual hatred of jews that shines through at various points in the work and it's been noted that it's basically an extremely biased and convenient autobiography. he never mentions his wife, who committed suicide, once in the work, for example. i'm glad i read it though, it's pretty unique also the chapter about diplomacy in london during the civil war is really interesting since he was there as a clerk for his dad who was the ambassador in that crucial time and place, one of the last of the adamses to really do anything worth showing up in a history book one of the most interesting things about the book is the significance of the very brief treatment it gives of one of adams' closest friends, clarence king, who led a double life. on the one hand he was a famous geologist who surveyed the west, the first director of the united states geophysical survey, and sufferer from depression and business failures; on the other hand, he had five kids with a black lady who supposedly never knew that this blue-eyed dude was just pretending to be a black railroad porter so he could be with her until he confessed it on his deathbed. there were a lot of people who 'passed' in one direction or another (including their kids; two daughters who married white men, two sons who fought as blacks in wwi) and racism has always been a social distinction above all so maybe pale blue-eyed black dudes were more normal in those more strongly hypocritical days but i feel like there's probably more to the story than wikipedia has to tell us but adams has just a few things to say that touch on this secret life of his friend; one is that king didn't care for white upper class women, he liked stronger stuff. another was that he was a defender of 'the archaic races', indians and blacks (in other words he wasn't as racist as most rich white dudes! i wonder what it was like to have avant-garde views on race and still participate in high white society). i feel like adams might've known more than was apropros to share in this book it's those kind of things that make me realize how complicated and impossible is the task of putting oneself in the shoes of someone who grew up, lived, and died in a society complete alien to one's own oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 20:38 on Nov 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
federalist till i or the party dies and apparently im immortal so
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
i like that washington is going to benefit from being the crypto-federalist in a race with only one open federalist in the election; he'll probably win, whereas he lost this thread in the last election because there were two pro-federal anti-slavery candidates the dynamics of the immortal ironic internet socialist voting bloc are fascinating
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Thump! posted:To be fair, none of us would be allowed to vote were we alive back then. Surprise surprise, poor people from the 21st century know how much of a shitfucking loon states rights are. slavery was the great voting-against-your-own-interest thing of its era, analogous to the stuff that modern liberals get really angry at poor people for supporting with their votes. opposing obamacare, keeping the minimum wage low, stuff like that. it was understood that slavery depressed the white man's wages - this is why republicans tended to oppose both slavery and the right of black people to move to northern states, where slave or not they would be desparate enough to undercut local wages (and also practically everybody was racist then BUT I DIGRESS FROM MY DIGRESSION) - but all those poor southern whites were induced to vote for slavery by culture it's somewhat of a moot point in this election, however, both because the poor whites are disenfranchised by the intent of the framers of the constitution and because slavery at this point, still two years before eli whitney (a new englander) patented the cotton gin, was not at all the integral part of southern culture it became in the tremendously profitable decades to follow. at this point it was still a thing to do in practice but hate in principle, like so many other things then and now i guess i should spoiler tag that lol oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 01:09 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
adams/jay i kind of want to vote for pinckney because his picture is the best. he's so hot
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
on the one hand, the union would've shattered the moment we didn't pick george washington on the other, if we're the voting public then the union would've done, to some extent, whatever we wanted it to do! so we can free the slaves and end state's rights i don't think there's a coherent narrative to be wrung out of consistently voting against history but sticking with the historical roster of candidates every time, but maybe someone else will find it fun to try
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
voting for jay and adams to keep the federalist party in power - i hope jay gets the most votes. i'd love to give hamilton power by voting for his puppet but i don't want open war with france. we might want to buy something from them in a few years...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
hamilton once argued that black people had "natural faculties as good as ours". he also said “women and children are rendered more useful, and the latter more early useful, by manufacturing establishments, than they otherwise would be.” he was also perhaps the first great american figure to admit to having an affair. i would like to vote for alexander hamilton
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
voted federalist, it's what hamilton would've wantedPlatystemon posted:pbuh
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
in a few weeks we'll see the first, relatively informal system of party nomination collapse; a few cycles later the national convention becomes formalized, but the methods used by the states to nominate their delegates to that convention continue to be very murky and controversial. in the early 20th century primaries are a Progressive reform, with the 1912 election seeing a dozen states bind its delegates to the winners of a 'presidential preference primary'. in the next few cycles up to 20 states used the primary, then it went back to a dozen for the 30s-'68 era. in that time there was a mix, then, of primaries more or less as we know them and backroom politics deciding a state's nomination. '68 saw some really violent and controversial scenes at the democratic national convention and that party made a concerted effort to broaden the use of the primary. the republicans followed along and primaries decisively took the upper hand over the now-more-formalized caucus system. in the 90s you started to see slapfights about whose primary would be the first and the setup of the modern system, and this cycle i think saw some procedural reforms that further strengthened the primary over the caucus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
practically none of these folks would've expended significant political capital to help black people, even the anti-slavery ones, i don't think. even the radical republicans during and after the civil war were pretty ambivalent and barely propped up reconstruction for a decade before abandoning blacks to their fate, and that was the absolute high-water mark of pro-black politics in the usa before the 1960s and all of these candidates are in effect pro-genocide when it comes to native americans, as they wouldn't have called them the conversation wasn't entirely one-sided, there were some quakers and poo poo, but nobody got their names into the presidential discussion without kowtowing to the preoccupations of the great majority at the time so we would be even more disappointed in these candidates with respect to our invented motivations for them than we are in the politicians we vote for in real life
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
we're gonna get beat the gently caress up and shot
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
where my federalists at ride till i die (pinckney/king)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
this is probably the period where america came closest to being a one-party state so i guess it makes sense
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
oh i thought we were already there sorry
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
counterpoint: white americans deserve to be enslaved
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
yall already knowAliquid posted:Federalist til I die, all hail president king also every election after that when we all submit write-in votes for rufus king
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
this is the last chance we have to vote for king, don't ruin it  the alcoholic would be the candidate I would most like to have a beer with but I think my VP vote will go to the crypto atheist
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
i'm not feeling the vp-only strategy, federalism doesn't need to go down like that. i went with clinton
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
SpRahl posted:Well speaking of slavery were there any serious movements after the war to "bring it back" or something? immediately after the war southerners used vagrancy laws and unilateral contracts to tie black workers to the land, but reconstruction gave the freed slaves the vote, which resulted in the real but meager gain of escaping gang labor and allowing individual black families to operate as economic units, with parents deciding how much their kids would labor, even if they were still living on the same master's land and stuck in debt slavery paying him more for food than he paid them for their cotton. that's sharecropping, and it worked - by 1870 america was already growing more cotton than it had in 1860 - partly because poor white southerners who had been subsistence farmers before the war became cotton growers just like the black sharecroppers on the former plantations. it took some investments in bureaucracy, transportation infrastructure, and bringing things like those vagrancy laws in to use the state as an overseer - it's not a victory of free labor, it's a victory of modern forms of coercion over the forms used in slavery, as we can see by the descent of poor whites into pretty close to the same situation the former slaves were in. soon, southern white terrorism overcome the northern appetite for military occupation and black political rights were extinguished in the south for almost a century, freezing the sharecroppers in place basically until the great migrations of the early 20th century that's the impression i get from this book empire of cotton. here's some more context of what i can understand from memory, having read the chapter about this last night: the blacks had wanted to become subsistence farmers, which made most of their former northern supporters cast them off as 'lazy' (not all, thaddeus stevens and a few other radical republicans were willing to accept lower cotton profits), but the same processes that drew poor whites into the cotton trade made it impossible for blacks to stay out. from what i can understand, new railroads and the expanding market economy allowed poor farmers to sell lots of cotton with low transportation costs, but also led to them going into debt buying both consumer goods and the food they weren't growing for themselves any more. meanwhile, the price of cotton dropped with increasing supply but southern farmers couldn't grow anything else their creditors would accept as collateral because cotton was still reliably saleable, so the farmers kept falling behind, their debt increased, and as time went on more and more farmers dropped from owning or leasing land to being pure agricultural wage laborers at the same time the former plantation owners and now major landlords remained locally rich but lost pace with elites from other regions. cotton manufacturers paid less money for more cotton and held more and more debt from the farmers they were buying from. it made the south poorer but kept the world cotton industry running on southern cotton, which no-one had expected when emancipation first hit the same thing happened to farmers in india, egypt, and the ottoman empire. in egypt the landlords' mortgaged their farms to british creditors on a massive scale, which led to the british occupying the country for about forty years to guarantee their investments. probably not totally accurate, but it's what i can remember
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
love how the slavery supporters are getting nastier and nastier. also love how the guy who likes it least has the guy who likes it most running with him as candidate for vp. at least adams and calhoun are talking about maybe not driving the civilized tribes into the west, that's kind of nice of them anyway, i'll go for adams and calhoun because we all love former federalists from new england and maybe we can get adams to take his father's old presidential titles... inherit them if you will
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Ibogaine posted:Edit: Once JQA is elected, the constitution should be amended to make him president for life so that we can go without the divisive and ultimately distructive process of elections for the time being. until we can figure out what's going on
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
every election is awful. voting jqa protectionism is also 'good', the brits used it to build up their national industries and only began advocating free trade when they needed to flood other people's markets with cheaply produced goods. after things like the american system protected american industry in its growth phase, of course, we began advocating free trade as well. protectionism is necessary to avoid becoming an export-oriented banana republic. either way you're in the 19th century and everything is awful - child labor is a given in either situation for example i guess you can argue that industrial workers have a greater ability than agricultural workers to unionize and use the vote to create things like any labor laws at all and a social safety net. importing, industrial countries tend to control the governments of exporting, agricultural countries and not vice versa which means the working class of the former at least only have one set of elites holding them down oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 21:52 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:I find it interesting to compare the Candidates views on slavery in this election to those at the first way back at the threads beginning. Back then some of the candidates are outright opponents of slavery or work to end it. Even those who themselves are slave-owners will admit they should stop or even like John Jay take efforts to eliminate it. Here on the other hand everyone either likes slavery, or if they don't, shuts up about it. It kind of shows a flaw in the conventional narrative of a linear upwards history. It in fact seems to show that the nation was less racist at it's founding and slid further and further down that racism slope till the Civil War happened. the economic benefits from slavery ramped up hugely in the decades we've been covering and everything, from politics to culture to opinions about race, responded to that. the people who opposed slavery, including john adams, were not at all race-neutral - his celebrated defense of the british soldiers in the boston massacre was partly based on calling the rioters a bunch of mulattoes. i mentioned earlier that hamilton casually mentioning 'their faculties are no worse than ours' is about the best you're gonna get. part of the anti-slavery argument right past the lincoln-douglass debates was that black people corroded american society by their very presence. also, 1865-1877, reconstruction, was a blip on the radar. it has been argued for generations that the 1877-1901 period, roughly, is the period in which american race relations were worst of all another fun (note: not fun) thing in grant's memoirs was him saying, in the context of it having been a mistake to give black people the vote (argued with 'white man's burden' style stuff about how they'd be ready someday once we'd educated them), that he wished he had annexed the dominican republic as president, made it a state, and sent all the blacks there, from which i guess he would've deigned to allow them to continue sending republican congressmen. a very interesting perspective, written during the nadir of american race relations
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
babypolis posted:i loved this post btw. oystertoadfish is a forums treasure oh hey thanks
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:someone who can form bonds. Someone with pep. The tides of this battle can yet be turned holy poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Corek posted:Oh, I forgot that South Carolina still awarded its votes from the legislature. i think that by 1860 they were the last state who still did this. basically the least democratic state in the nation and the germinal point of secession, which is not at all a coincidence imnsho interestingly i feel like they were also the last stronghold of southern whigs. i'm not sure i remember right, but i bet it's the same elitist anti-democratic processes that allowed that edit: btw im voting clay because he's a combination of not-worst option and not-worst chances of winning. i guess that generally results in a 'second-worst' strategy oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 02:19 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
im the hoods with 'divorced' written on them
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
i guess in theory if the whigs had nominated candidates with the local appeal to win states with more than half the EVs (although i forget the timeline on when different states went from proportional EV allocation to all-or-nothing) and split a majority of the EVs amongst themselves, sending it to the house, then van buren could still have won the popular vote by running up his total in states where the whigs hadn't nominated a favorite son, and it wouldn't have mattered but that didn't happen either
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
ill go with webster
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 20:26
|
|