Northern Aggression or Southeron Freedom?

[buford]

Some members of the SFTT 'lost patrol' were discussing this and it arose partly because I love reading about but have never talked to anyone about the civil war, partly because I wanted to ask Whitey about his civil war forbears, and partly because he kept comparing Lincoln to Stalin and I thought this was worth chasing down. The discussion canvassed issues such as:

1. What the war was 'really' about.

2. Tactics and strategy, partlculaly in relation to Gettsyburg, lots of 'what ifs', what Longstreet wanted to do, what if the South had resorted to G tactics? etc.

3. Hypothetical (which was me being a bit silly), if you had a first aid kit and could go back in time which military or political figure would you save and why?

4. The 14th ammendment and its relationship to the Bill of Rights.

5. The relationship between State and Federal in the republic.

I was (and still am) trying to come to grips with the difference between a republic and a social democracy.

We were just to the point where we were looking at the proposition that Lincoln was a dictator, in terms of his a) suspension of habeus corpus and ignoring of the ruling of Supreme Court Justice Taney b) arresting editors and supression of freedom of the press c) arresting members of state legislators etc etc. (with a side issue on the question of whether Sherman was a sociopath, which I am definitely coming back too).

Whitey I read the artlcle on the link you posted and it reminded me of a section in Gore Vidal's book Lincoln. Apparently Seward (after he lost the nomination to Lincoln) was plotting behind the scenes as Sec of State to become the power behind the throne as it were. His solution was to unite with the South and declare war on France. The section deals with the moment in time when Seward becomes aware that the wisecracking, story-telling, homely looking supposed hick from the west had completely outmanouvred him, and become am even greater dictator than Seward himself had plotted to be. I think you'd like that bit.

You still need to convince me about the Stalin allusion though. Sure they both might have been ruthless, determined to build or hold a nation together at any cost, and many citizens of those nations lost their lives in the process. But Stalin was a monster. His actions resulted in the death of millions. He ruthlessly subjugated other countries not just his own.. the Baltics, the Ukraine,etc etc. There were far fewer freedoms in soviet Russia than in post Lincoln America.

Also, I don't think Lincoln had the same degree of hubris. He knew what he was doing (or its result) was beyond dreadful. If you read about his dreams, and from the diaries of Hay and Nicolay it seems also that he knew he personally would pay the price for what he did. He was careless of his personal safety, almost to the point where you think he must have been daring fate. From what I can tell, Stalin enjoyed the suffering he caused, and experienced no quams of conscience at all.

[Pasha]

Hello Buford,

Reference your:

difference between a republic and a social democracy.

I don't understand why the two concepts are deemed dichotomous. If we take a republic to be; 1) A nation in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2) A nation in which the head of government is an elected or nominated president as opposed to a monarch. Am I missing something from the original debate?
Best regards!

Pasha

[Whitey]

Yes Pasha you are missing something. In a Republic not everyone with a pulse could vote. In a social democracy you get rule of the mob/mobocracy. They become socialist's at their own hand thinking they are free and the decay of your culture, country and laws ensue.

[Pasha]

Hmmm, interesting point of view. Surely the extension then of what you term as "Social Democracy" (as you would define it), would amount to an elected dictatorship which mollifies its populace with 'bread and circus'? I am uneasy in the way that you use the term Social Democracy and would be interested to know when and why you first did so. In Europe, a Social Democracy is a broad term that can be used to describe any number of different democratic systems where a legislative body is directly elected with a mandate for communal welfare. This would include the UK's paliamentary system with our constitutional monarchy (hardly a Socialist body), and the French Fifth Republic.

As for republics, any tin-pot banana Oligarchy can term it self as a republic. Yet indeed they have, witness the number of Socialist Peoples Republics, Islamic Republics, etc. that have littered our atlases over the past hundred years. Perhaps a better question to explore would be "Does our nation have an Establishment or an Oligarchy?" and to illuminate this for you I shall quote Lester Thurow, a prominent economist;

Every day I pick up the papers and journalists describe - and I think they're right - Japan as having an establishment - that is, Japan has a group of people at the very top who may, in fact, be as selfish as any other ruling elite of powerful capitalists. But the members of the Japanese establishment know that they and their children cannot succeed, particularly in so small and vulnerable a nation, unless most of society succeeds as well. So members of this establishment are willing to sacrifice some of their own personal privilege and power and riches in order to ensure that the larger society works and is regenerative.

At the same time, when virtually the same journalists describe Latin American countries, the phrase they invariably use to describe the leadership is the word 'oligarchy'. They are describing a very small handful of privileged people who have it very good and who plan to continue to have it very good and don't care at all about the fact that the rest of the country is doing poorly. In effect, an oligarchy believes it can be successful even if the rest of the country is unsuccessful. Which is why those countries remain so unsuccessful.

And that's the system we're moving toward. At different times in this country's history [He's writing about the USA] we've had an establishment, and at other times we've had an oligarchy. Right after World War Two we had an establishment which knew we needed something to make Europe healthy because our own health depended on it. So it helped impose a Marshall Plan on an America where great segments of the population were still extremely isolationist and probably did not want it.

He said that about fifteen years ago, but never were such a question relevant as it is now. Especially given the composition and nature of the present American administration, and the subsequent effects that has on the rest of us.
Best regards mate!

Pasha

[El Prez]

Pasha, slight deviation of thread, (nothing new there!); do you teach economics/socilogy or is this all part of your journalist training?
It's fascinating, way beyond my dim mind until read two or three times, then Doh!! a light flickers dimly along the corridor. Thanks, very enjoyable read.

[Whitey]

. What the war was 'really' about.

Fighting communism before it was called that. And unfair taxation. The real reason for the war was money then slavery was the moral reason issued to gain support as the Union Army was repeatedly beaten. Like Bush said Iraq was WMD's now it is to free Iraqi people then giving the middle east democracy. Reasons always change as the war goes on. We didn't have to have a war about slavery, but you'll have to fight me for my money.

Tactics and strategy, partlculaly in relation to Gettsyburg, lots of 'what ifs', what Longstreet wanted to do, what if the South had resorted to G tactics? etc.

Originally the KKK was a Guerilla force during reconstruction, only right before the Wilson Admn. did it turn into an intimidation force used soley on blacks even in the north.

The 14th ammendment and its relationship to the Bill of Rights.

It creates a whole new system of government while keeping the old one. Instead of rights comming from the individual and the country answering to the individual you now answer to the Super Nationalist State and it answers to its self. In short tyranny with a mask.

The relationship between State and Federal in the republic.

States are now subordinate to the Feds instead of the old way. Like Soviet states were.

What kind of president raises an army against his own country without congressional approval? If Bush declared war on Democrats, what would you think? Tommy Franks and his tanks rolling into Vermont pushing over maple tree's, burning their homes in the winter and torching their towns. Same thing just the other way around happened really.
Lincoln was not fit to be president. Slaves could have been freed without a war, after the war they remained the same, just paid low wages, kind of like illegal aliens today. Free, but still servant class. War didn't change much but the subordination of states to government absolutely the quality of life improved with industrialization and machinery.

[Whitey]

Pasha in the American Republic any man could be president, but look at our mobocracy today. You have to be oligarchy to get in. Andrew Jackson would never be president today in our oligarchial banker ruled country.

[snyder]

I found myself in a conversation last night about how the Indians (aboriginal North Americans) got hosed, and I said, well, my paternal grandparents immigrated in the 1880s and my maternal grandparents immigrated in the 1920s so I don't have a dog in that fight, nor do I have a stake in the Civil War.

My friend says, so may I take that to mean that you're not too high on reparations to the Indians and the blacks? I said, look, they have casinos and pro basketball. Time to stand on their own. As for the South, all I can say is guys, you won. We can't even have an all-northern presidential ticket anymore, which means that whatever happens I've got to listen to y'all this and y'all that. What more do you want?

[Whitey]

The Bill of Rights unwordsmithed by trial lawyers and the ACLU is what most want and to be left alone.
Bush is about as much from Texas as I'm from NYC.

[snyder]

Actually, Whitey I think Bush Jr. is an authentic Texan, and I think this explains a lot.

[Frank S.]

The greatest art of the devil is to convince man he hails from Texas.

[snyder]

I had a longstanding career rule: No matter how bad it ever gets, never Texas

[Pasha]

Prez,

Guilty as charged squire. When it comes to thread deviancy, I stand before you as a serial deviant (but I guess I'm in good company on this forum ). No, I have no formal education beyond A'levels. My knowledge and interest in politics stems soley from years of attending press conferences by the great, good and greasy and finally realising that I'd better research what they're trying to ram down our throats. To that end, my thanks to Buford and Whitey for enlarging the debate.

Whitey, your point about Andrew Jackson is a salient one, and one that I was alluding to also. In truth, it could equally apply to Lincoln. The fact is that America is becoming increasingly governed by a class soley concerned with its own immediate enrichment. A tendancy not harmonious with the greater good methinks.
Regards all!

Pasha

[snyder]

The fact is that America is becoming increasingly governed by a class soley concerned with its own immediate enrichment. A tendancy not harmonious with the greater good methinks.

Bingo! Give that man a $264 million lottery prize plus a Big Mac, a tub of fries and a quart-sized container of diet Coke. A friend of mine lives down the street from some people who won the Illinois Lottery and says the neighbors are constantly complaining about the Clampetts. I must say, the four-wheel drive trucks on the lawn, skid marks on the driveway and firecracker burns on the sidewalk did rather clash with the ambiance of the neighborhood ...

[Ardennes44]

Hey, Buford! I think Herky is still in the pigsty!!