Er, didn't the USA have a Whig Party until sometime in the 1850s?Do we need to have the word 'Whig' in a debate about American history? Pssh, keep these limeys out of this.
Er, didn't the USA have a Whig Party until sometime in the 1850s?
OK, I had to come back for this:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAH
*breathe breathe breathe*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAhA
*wheeeeeze*
HAHAHA
HAHAHA
HA
HA
h...
Snake has yet to list a single number of any type. You would think he'd never heard the word 'statistics' before. He has built up a funny little narrative grounded in NO actual evidence except for broad generalizations about the history of the period and you people seem to be intent on pretending that makes him an expert.
This is absolutely sick. Are you people 12? Have you finished high school yet?
I would abandon this topic, but it seems like future discussions about the Civil War period are going to be colored by the outcome here so I just want to get this absolutely, positively straight: Snake does not know a damned thing about the Civil War. I'd be willing to be he hasn't graduated college yet, let alone received a degree in the field like some of the people I've seen him argue against.
I may dislike 67th Tiger, I may KNOW he has a habit of being dishonest, of fudging numbers and outright mis-citing them.
But at least he has had numbers to fudge. He's ten times the Civil War 'expert' Snake could ever be. I would take his word over Snake's any day, even though I would 90% sure he was lying.
This whole thing is one, big, fat joke. Pretending you're being reasonable is not rationality. Logic, reason, the actual discipline of history, is based in evidence a little more nuanced and deep than just asserting that somebody said something somewhere. Like I said earlier, talk is cheap. I want numbers. I want evidence that there would be the votes to deprive millions of men of their hard won votes a decade or more after they won them, especially after they've fought a war for their independence and freedom.
Truth is everything that Snake believes about the Civil War, about the contemporary North and South, smells, no, reeks of bullshit he believes because he buys into the variant of the Just World fallacy known as Whiggish history: Evil people only ever do evil things, in a very incompetent ways, and history always shits on them from great heights. Everything in our history was an inevitable, glorious path towards building what we have today. Blah blah blah etc etc jesus christ do I really have to do this.
Read a fucking book.
Yes, it was a short-lived replacement of the Federalists and a lot of Whigs went on to become Republicans.
You are correct. Lincoln, for one. was a Whig before he was a Republican.
I find it funny that you Matt just attacked snake for disagreeing wiht you. It says alot about the kind of person you are.
No citations would ever be listened to, they would all be dismissed.
Tried what, exactly?
All you've done this entire topic is me-too Snake.
OK, I had to come back for this:
SNIP A CLASSIC RANT
...book.
Classic. I haven't laughed so hard in these forums for a long, long time. Not because I agree with MAlexMatt, but I recently watched Planes, Trains and Automobiles. This reminds of the scene where Steve Martin goes ballistic at the rental car counter. Just a balls out classic rant. Good show, chap.
As for the argument at hand. The disenfranchisement will be more subtle than Snake contends. But it was already occurring to some degree (of course make no mistake about it occurred in spades in the North as well). The art of vote buying has a long a glorious history in this country that continues to this day.
In the antebellum South it worked a by having the wealthy plantation owners loan money, land (in the form of unneeded acreage) or labor (in the form of slaves) to the poorer farmers that neighbored the plantation. Given that banks were scarce in the South these wealthy aristocrats were the only available source of borrowable capital. Also given that immigrants moved far less into the South they were also some of the only sources of extra labor that might be needed during a particularly good harvest. In exchange the small farm holders were expected to defer to the leadership of those who held the land and the wealth. This meant voting to maintain the current system and support the plantation system.
It's one of the reasons why slave owners were so over represented in the governments of the slave states and in the secession conventions.
If you'd like I could site some sources, probably by tomorrow some time. I know John Majewski's A House Dividing: Economic Development in Virginia and Pennsylvania Before the Civil War touches upon this. Other authors may do so as well.
Benjamin
I apologize for not having the saintly patience to put up with stubborn idiocy forever.
Like this:
Notice he has NEVER actually posted any actual citations, so he doesn't know this? At worst he's outright dodging, saying this in a slimy little attempt to not have to. At best he's fooling himself, lying to himself so he can be personally convinced he doesn't have to.
ANYTHING to protect his ego and the narrative it made up for itself.
In the antebellum South it worked a by having the wealthy plantation owners loan money, land (in the form of unneeded acreage) or labor (in the form of slaves) to the poorer farmers that neighbored the plantation. Given that banks were scarce in the South these wealthy aristocrats were the only available source of borrowable capital. Also given that immigrants moved far less into the South they were also some of the only sources of extra labor that might be needed during a particularly good harvest. In exchange the small farm holders were expected to defer to the leadership of those who held the land and the wealth. This meant voting to maintain the current system and support the plantation system.
It's one of the reasons why slave owners were so over represented in the governments of the slave states and in the secession conventions.
Yeah, It'll be more like a Latin American nation politically, as you'll see this more often (there's a name for it, but I forget,) along with Managed voting, blatant electoral fraud, and the occasional bout of Voter intimidation. So, pretty much every election would be considered completely illegitimate today,(1) but it'll keep the Planters from insurrection.
More Rural, and less plantation oriented regions would be different, and either more democratic, or openly autocratic.(2) Unless Cattle, Coal, and Sugar Barrons get in on it as well. Which they probably will.
You'd also see fairly little internal investment,(3) as the planters didn't generally go for things unless it was directly in their own interests, or they could make it a profitable investment quickly. The Mississippi would be utterly vital, and most places further than a few miles from navigable waters, or more rarely a railhead, wouldn't advance much beyond Liquors and other low-volume cash crops for trade by the end of the century.
Honestly, I'd argue that the planter class basically ran the South in OTL until WWII, the spread of air conditioning, and the movement of factories south to avoid unions/high wages. I see no reason to believe things'd be different TTL.
I apologize for not having the saintly patience to put up with stubborn idiocy forever.
Like this:
Notice he has NEVER actually posted any actual citations, so he doesn't know this? At worst he's outright dodging, saying this in a slimy little attempt to not have to. At best he's fooling himself, lying to himself so he can be personally convinced he doesn't have to.
ANYTHING to protect his ego and the narrative it made up for itself.