I'm starting to root for the next American Civil War

Post Reply New Topic

By victors I assume you mean the north? I know a US civil war expert (by curious coincidence) who was doing his PhD on the US civil war in the history department of one of our local universities. He also teaches a lecture on the causes of the US civil war. He says there are two contentious issues
1. Why the south wanted succession
2. Why the 3/5 compromise was enacted in the US constitution

According to this academic (who is Australian and has no stake in taking sides) the fundamental reasons for the civil war are linked to both these issues. Firstly the sheer economic reliance in southern economies on slavery, it represented the largest commodity in the south, Linked to this was the political power of the south which is directly linked to the 3/5 compromise in the US constitution which protected the political power of southern plantation owners

Not so shocking how this all happened when you realise that the founding fathers were all southern plantation owners (Washington had tobacco plantations) so they doctored the constitution so that
a) it benefitted their own self-interests and
b) it kept black people in the position of being subhman (3/5 human) so they had no voting rights and could be maintained as a commodity/chattel for economic purposes

In conclusion everything about the US civil was (including the 600,000 dead combatants and untold number of slaves) was about slavery, I am fairly confident that one of the reasons the GOP is trying to erase study of this institution of slavery in the US education system is to hide how economically the US was built on the back of human trafficking.

So basically you hate everything about the south and see no redemption for any white person from this region?

It always amuses me when people who claim to fight against bigotry express their own bigotry. But hey, it's sexy to hate the south. Right?

A lot of southern Black people DID "just abandon this less desirable part of the country and move up north" between 1910 and 1970, especially during the 1950's or so. This is known as the "Great Migration."

But you are correct that there's plenty of racism in the North too. It just tends to be more subtle.

You do realise I am talking about the 1860s don't you? and where did I say I am blaming the entire south for slavery?

I don’t hide the fact that I’m more Conservative leaning, but I don’t identify as a modern-day Conservative. I’m more of a “classic liberal” or libertarian, though I don’t exactly like that label, either. I just prefer to think for myself and not paint myself into any corners.

My problem with libertarians is that you cannot hope to solve the problems of government with government. Libertarian goals are anti-government by nature and can only be achieved when a majority of Americans decide on their own to freely work to achieve the goals of individual freedom and limited government. No politician can fix problems caused by politics. It has to happen at the grassroots level.

I believe the Republican Party is in a better position to achieve a libertarian agenda than Libertarian Party candidates. But what had the Republican Party actually done to oppose destructive policies? Very little. Republicans will not take a stand against wasteful entitlement programs because they’re too afraid of losing elections. Plus, the more Democrats cause trouble, the more Republicans have to campaign on. If a Republican ever solved a problem caused by Democratic policies, he wouldn’t have anything to run on in the next election.

It’s like another fact of modern life I absolutely despise: software development. In theory, it’s more useful to have buggy software that mostly gets the job done even if it isn’t perfect and release updates as needed. But why not just release software that works perfectly to begin with and focus on enhanced features over time and compatibility? But no, we’re setting a deadline and this is what you get.

After a while, it’s an ongoing struggle between releasing bad software that we have to pay over time and planned obsolescence so we have to constantly buy new products. That’s where I see our political system. Both parties work to maintain a status quo. Someone causes a problem, and everyone on the other side of the aisle debates endlessly on how to fix it without ever coming up with any real-world practical solutions. My lack of faith in the Republican Party is exactly due to that.

I know what everyone thinks about Trump. One thing he tried to do was “drain the swamp.” That’s why so many Republicans hated him. He ENDED careers. He did more damage to the Republican Party than any Democrat could ever hope to. But the Republican Party needed to be demolished and rebuilt. There are too many career Republican Party politicians with too much to lose from draining the swamp. So I think both Democrats and Republicans alike teamed up together to oppose Trump’s policies in getting rid of ineffective Congressmen.

Don’t misunderstand—this isn’t about singing Trump’s praises. There’s plenty to hate. It’s just that I think Trump’s public persona was largely impacted by how powerful Republicans reacted to the positive changes Trump was making.

Some ideas Trump had for doing that were ripped straight from Obama’s playbook. For instance, Eric Holder was lock-step with Obama at the justice department. Holder never had to get on the phone with Obama to get his orders. Holder was already in line with the same theory or MO as Obama, so they worked together in perfect harmony. The justice department ALWAYS had Obama’s back, and that made him a powerful president.

Trump’s issues with the justice department had to do with Trump’s assumption that his AG was in his pocket and would back him up. There was plenty wrong with Obama’s policies, too. But Obama never got called on anything. When Obama did something illegal, everyone looked the other way. When Trump proceeds to do something he promised to do in the election and there’s an investigation involved, the AG runs and hides. There was no agreement with Trump’s political theory, no clear sense of Trump’s agenda or loyalty to Republican policy. Republican ethical standards involve destroying their own people, whereas Democrats emphasize solidarity (something Democrats excel at, whereas it’s severely lacking among Republicans). And that, I believe, interfered with a lot of good Trump COULD have done and likely affected the re-election outcome.

What Trump did succeed in doing was interrupting the careers of ineffective congressmen by giving them new jobs that depended on his re-election. It would prove too difficult to go back home and start over after that. And their reputations were ruined because they performed terribly under Trump. Trump exposed a lot of weakness within the party. And reaction to Trump revealed who a lot of bad players were, like Cheney. Trump didn’t destroy Cheney. Cheney’s mouth destroyed Cheney, plus she was a terrible Republican anyway.

So, no, I’m not a fan of the Republican Party. Rule of law and ethical standards are not Democratic values, yet Republican standards are Democrats’ greatest weapons against Republicans. I think Republicans cower in fear of being called out by Democrats. I think Republicans get too defensive when they don’t owe anyone any answers. Republican policies are mostly mere reactions to Democrats rather than proactive measures towards progress in a positive direction.

I would love to see a third party challenge the Republican party. But there’s very little chance of that happening. What we need is a Republican congress full of fresh faces who will stand up to Democrats or, better yet, ignore the Democratic Party right out of existence.

Simple. What the parties stand for has changed over the years.

Thus, some Southerners remained loyal to the Democratic Party for the sake of traditional party loyalty, while others switched parties when the Democratic Party (or at least Democratic President Johnson) outright repudiated segregation and a Democratic-dominated Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, whereas the Republican Party (as personified by Barry Goldwater) seized an opportunity to appeal to Southerners by arguing for "states' rights."


That's quite a stretch, IMO. Both parties have changed a lot more than they've stayed the same. If anything, both parties have evolved into almost (though not quite) the opposite of what they were 160 years ago.


Uhh, no. People in both parties, for the most part, would prefer their own values to prevail everywhere in "a unified nation of states". The people talking about secession are mostly extreme right wingers.

As for "rights of individuals," that depends WHICH rights you are talking about. Same-sex marriage, for example, was legalized first in blue states.

Neither party has consistently championed "freedom," whether today or in the past. Even the 1860's-era Republican Party, although it ended up freeing enslaved blacks, did not exactly champion the freedom -- or the property rights -- of indigenous American tribes.

As for "statists":

Lincoln was certainly a "statist." Even during the already very expensive Civil War, he also spent lots of federal government money on, for example, the Transcontinental Railroad. (Personally I think railroads were and still are a good thing, although many of today's Republicans may disagree.)

(See Abraham Lincoln Looks West and Abraham Lincoln and the West.)

More later.

P.S. to the above: Neither major political party is consistently devoted to any specific worldview. Both major parties are, essentially, alliances of a variety of interest groups. Party platforms are an attempt to tie these alliances together with sets of abstract principles, but they are rarely (if ever) a perfect fit for what the elected politicians actually do.

The two party system (or the rule of two) is consistent across the English speaking western world

UK - Conservatives Vs Labour
US - Republicans Vs Democrats
Australia - Lib/National Coalition Vs Labour
New Zealand - Conservative/National Vs Labour