Ever read about the US in WW1? Wison lead a - I want to say crusade - that turned the country into a totalitarian state, with elections. Enthusiastically supported by all the unarrested opinion leaders (which were basically newspaper editors, in those pre-radio times). And many objecting editors were 'detained', or fired.

The nascient advertising industry was used, and in those more innocent days, worked with quite open official pressure to shape and force public opinion into one stream. For example, the Washington Post all but endorsed linchings of IWW (early, extreme, communist, union organisers) members.

It may have been necessary. Don't know, wasn't there. Suspect not, though.

Originally Posted by The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, stirring debate on the worrisome possibility of a bird flu pandemic, suggested dispatching American troops to enforce quarantines in any areas with outbreaks of the killer virus.

Bush asserted aggressive action could be needed to prevent a potentially crippling U.S. outbreak of a bird flu strain that is sweeping through Asian poultry and causing experts to fear it could become the next deadly pandemic. Citing concern that state and local authorities might be unable to contain and deal with such an outbreak, Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to call in the military.

The president has already indicated he wants to give the armed forces the lead responsibility for conducting search-and-rescue operations and sending in supplies after massive natural disasters and terrorist attacks - a notion that could require a change in law and that even some in the Pentagon have reacted to skeptically. The idea raised the startling-to-some image of soldiers cordoning off communities hit by disease.

"The president ought to have all ... assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant," Bush said during a 55 minute question-and-answer session with reporters in the sun-splashed Rose Garden.

Reprinted for discussion purposes only.

Originally Posted by Bruce

Ever read about the US in WW1? Wison lead a - I want to say crusade - that turned the country into a totalitarian state, with elections. Enthusiastically supported by all the unarrested opinion leaders (which were basically newspaper editors, in those pre-radio times). And many objecting editors were 'detained', or fired.

The nascient advertising industry was used, and in those more innocent days, worked with quite open official pressure to shape and force public opinion into one stream. For example, the Washington Post all but endorsed linchings of IWW (early, extreme, communist, union organisers) members.

It may have been necessary. Don't know, wasn't there. Suspect not, though.

The I.W.W. was an anarcho-syndicalist dis-organization with little use for the vanguard so popular with other progressive types. My maternal grandfather was blacklisted after the strikes on the Range and came to enjoy the idiocy of rural life as an early out sourced worker.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Wobblies differed from other union movements of the time by its promotion of industrial unionism (often confused with syndicalism); they were one of the largest examples of anarcho-syndicalism in action in the United States. They emphasized rank-and-file organization, as opposed to empowering leaders who would bargain with employers on behalf of workers. They were one of the few unions to welcome all workers including women, foreigners, black workers and immigrants (like Mexican miners and Asian workers).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by freivolk

Originally Posted by Samarah, teenage girl

Here's today's evidence we're in a Third Turning:

Bush's approval rating: 40% (58% disapprove)
Bush's handling of Katrina aftermath: 41% approve (57% disapprove)
Bush's handling of the Iraq war: 32% approve (67% disapprove)
Invasion of Iraq was a mistake: 59% agree
Recall some or all troops from Iraq: 63% agree
Cut war spending for disaster relief: 54% agree
Bush's handling of the economy: 35% approve (63% disapprove)
Bush's qualities: 51 percent did not consider him strong and decisive, 50 percent would not call him honest and 56 percent said he didn't care about people like them.
Confirmation of John Roberts: 60% favor, 26% oppose (the one exception to the pattern).

Would like to see Mr. Lincolns approval rating in summer 1864.

Let's all sincerely hope that's not the popularity model Generalissimo El Busho follows. Surely we can all agree that the last thing this country needs is a high-profile martyr to Wilsonian crusading :shock: . Lincoln's death continues to taint states' rights supporters more than 100 years later.

Oh yes, when you start a rebellion against the elected goverment, which leads to a civil war where nearly 3/4 million people are killed and the president is murdered and you do this all to save slavery, then it really gives your cause a bad name.

Originally Posted by freivolk

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Let's all sincerely hope that's not the popularity model Generalissimo El Busho follows. Surely we can all agree that the last thing this country needs is a high-profile martyr to Wilsonian crusading :shock: . Lincoln's death continues to taint states' rights supporters more than 100 years later.

Oh yes, when you start a rebellion against the elected goverment, which leads to a civil war where nearly 3/4 million people are killed and the president is murdered and you do this all to save slavery, then it really gives your cause a bad name.

See what I mean? Even a bad guy who deserved it gets a bye for being offed in office. Martyrdom is a very powerful thing.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by freivolk

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Let's all sincerely hope that's not the popularity model Generalissimo El Busho follows. Surely we can all agree that the last thing this country needs is a high-profile martyr to Wilsonian crusading :shock: . Lincoln's death continues to taint states' rights supporters more than 100 years later.

Oh yes, when you start a rebellion against the elected goverment, which leads to a civil war where nearly 3/4 million people are killed and the president is murdered and you do this all to save slavery, then it really gives your cause a bad name.

See what I mean? Even a bad guy who deserved it gets a bye for being offed in office. Martyrdom is a very powerful thing.

You going to advocate bringing back slavery this Crisis, Justin?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by freivolk

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Let's all sincerely hope that's not the popularity model Generalissimo El Busho follows. Surely we can all agree that the last thing this country needs is a high-profile martyr to Wilsonian crusading :shock: . Lincoln's death continues to taint states' rights supporters more than 100 years later.

Oh yes, when you start a rebellion against the elected goverment, which leads to a civil war where nearly 3/4 million people are killed and the president is murdered and you do this all to save slavery, then it really gives your cause a bad name.

See what I mean? Even a bad guy who deserved it gets a bye for being offed in office. Martyrdom is a very powerful thing.

You going to advocate bringing back slavery this Crisis, Justin?

Har har. Funny how the martyrdom helps obscure his starting a war that killed a huge portion of the population of the country he claimed was his own. Slavery, as an institution was dying out; the writing was on the wall, as it had started to fall worldwide more or less peaceably even before his election. On the other hand, the Republicans picking up the mantle of Supporter of Entrenched Business Interests, did manage a double-whammy of solidifying the base for the American Empire, and setting phenomenal precedent towards the Federal Government's abrogation of it's responsibility to abide by its chartering document.

But never mind, he was killed in office :arrow: he was a martyred hero :arrow: he could have done no wrong :arrow: all of his actions were all correct, appropriate, and necessary (and those of his opponents, therefore, the exact opposite). See how it goes? Bush needs to end in an ignominous old age; the country is doomed otherwise.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Har har. Funny how the martyrdom helps obscure his starting a war that killed a huge portion of the population of the country he claimed was his own. Slavery, as an institution was dying out; the writing was on the wall, as it had started to fall worldwide more or less peaceably even before his election. On the other hand, the Republicans picking up the mantle of Supporter of Entrenched Business Interests, did manage a double-whammy of solidifying the base for the American Empire, and setting phenomenal precedent towards the Federal Government's abrogation of it's responsibility to abide by its chartering document.

But never mind, he was killed in office :arrow: he was a martyred hero :arrow: he could have done no wrong :arrow: all of his actions were all correct, appropriate, and necessary (and those of his opponents, therefore, the exact opposite). See how it goes? Bush needs to end in an ignominious old age; the country is doomed otherwise.

As I read it, the south wanted to protect its power in Congress to protect slavery, and thus was not allowing new states to enter the union, and thus expansion west was being blocked. They also wished to take their 'property' with them west, thus putting free and slave labor in competition. And, yes, the northern industrialists wanted a federal government more friendly to industrialization.

If the handwriting was on the wall, few in the south could read it. They were willing to pledge their lives and sacred honor to defend the status quo. It is my belief that if the south had been willing to allow westward expansion without putting free and slave labor head to head, the north would have patiently allowed slavery to wither away. But, no, whenever it came time to add new states to the union, political and increasingly violent situations would develop. The north could tolerate slavery. They could not tolerate a reduced rate of western expansion. First things they did after secession was to start an intercontinental railroad, and set up a homestead act. It was a fight to determine whose culture would get to expand as much as a fight over whether slavery would continue.

Legally, I believe the southern states had a right to secede. Practically, I am glad that the 20th Century saw a united and industrialized United States of America ready to pit modern democracy against Fascism and Communism.

And that leaves aside the basic moral problem. Slavery was wrong. The south was not going to let it end. They rather stupidly allowed a war to start, rather than quietly hanging on to the states that seceded.

but Berger still speeds :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

but Berger still speeds :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Throw the book at him. Just make sure no pages are missing when you get it back. :wink:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But never mind, he was killed in office :arrow: he was a martyred hero :arrow: he could have done no wrong :arrow: all of his actions were all correct, appropriate, and necessary (and those of his opponents, therefore, the exact opposite). See how it goes? Bush needs to end in an ignominous old age; the country is doomed otherwise.

Don't blame the martyr, blame the assassin, the villainous mustachioed actor, John Wilkes Booth.

If he had decided to kill someone else (Andrew Johnson? Thaddeus Stevens?) Lincoln could have moved back to Springfield with his crazy wife and escaped martyrdom.



"I will call him mini-Booth"

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Club Turning

Where no one gets laid... :lol: Care for a pina colada?

Further evidence that Al Gore is setting himself up to be the GC:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2IU703.html

Why oh why couldn't he have shown balls like this in 2000?!

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Um.... Ptolmecised???

I'll take a crack at it.

Ptolmecize (Brit. Ptolmecise) v. : To defend a once noble but now disproven and/or maladaptive and/or dysfunctional viewpoint/paradigm by creating great complexity to recalibrate the view to new facts and creating greater and greater violations of Ockham's Razor.

E.g., Increasing complex epicyclic additions to the Ptolemaic solar system model; ever complex Scholastic philosophy attempting to reconcile mythic religion with rationality; Hopeful Cynic's longer posts.

HTH :wink:

That was not only informative, but funny as hell. Made my day! Thanks!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Har har. Funny how the martyrdom helps obscure his starting a war that killed a huge portion of the population of the country he claimed was his own. Slavery, as an institution was dying out; the writing was on the wall, as it had started to fall worldwide more or less peaceably even before his election. On the other hand, the Republicans picking up the mantle of Supporter of Entrenched Business Interests, did manage a double-whammy of solidifying the base for the American Empire, and setting phenomenal precedent towards the Federal Government's abrogation of it's responsibility to abide by its chartering document.

But never mind, he was killed in office :arrow: he was a martyred hero :arrow: he could have done no wrong :arrow: all of his actions were all correct, appropriate, and necessary (and those of his opponents, therefore, the exact opposite). See how it goes? Bush needs to end in an ignominious old age; the country is doomed otherwise.

As I read it, the south wanted to protect its power in Congress to protect slavery, and thus was not allowing new states to enter the union, and thus expansion west was being blocked. They also wished to take their 'property' with them west, thus putting free and slave labor in competition. And, yes, the northern industrialists wanted a federal government more friendly to industrialization.

If the handwriting was on the wall, few in the south could read it. They were willing to pledge their lives and sacred honor to defend the status quo. It is my belief that if the south had been willing to allow westward expansion without putting free and slave labor head to head, the north would have patiently allowed slavery to wither away. But, no, whenever it came time to add new states to the union, political and increasingly violent situations would develop. The north could tolerate slavery. They could not tolerate a reduced rate of western expansion. First things they did after secession was to start an intercontinental railroad, and set up a homestead act. It was a fight to determine whose culture would get to expand as much as a fight over whether slavery would continue.

Legally, I believe the southern states had a right to secede. Practically, I am glad that the 20th Century saw a united and industrialized United States of America ready to pit modern democracy against Fascism and Communism.

And that leaves aside the basic moral problem. Slavery was wrong. The south was not going to let it end. They rather stupidly allowed a war to start, rather than quietly hanging on to the states that seceded.

BB - An excellent summary

Originally Posted by Mr. Anderson

Don't blame the martyr, blame the assassin, the villainous mustachioed actor, John Wilkes Booth.

If you read up, you will see that is exactly what I was doing. Booth thought he was doing the right thing, but he acted without concern for the long view. And because of him, Lincoln's defenders (no matter how ill-informed) are granted the whole grounds of the debates (again, see above, freivolks well-thought-out response).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Slavery, as an institution was dying out; the writing was on the wall, as it had started to fall worldwide more or less peaceably even before his election.

It appears you are saying that because slavery in Latin America and the Carribean was dying out, this meant that slavery in the American South was likewise on the way out. Why should this be so? What caused slavery to die out in much of Latin America prior to the American Civil War? Did that cause apply in the American South? I'm not so sure it did. Or are you implying some sort of "domino theory" applied to slavery like our current administration holds applies to democracy in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But, no, whenever it came time to add new states to the union, political and increasingly violent situations would develop. The north could tolerate slavery.

If the north could tolerate slavery, then why did the North fight Southern attempts to expand slavery to the Western territories? Why did so many Northerners flock to Kansas to try to make that territory become a free state?

If slavery was a moral problem, then why was the North unconcerned about the continuation of de facto slavery in the sharecropper system, the rise of Jim Crow and all those lynchings during the 3rd great Awakening? Why did Northerners in large numbers join the KKK during the 1920's revival?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But, no, whenever it came time to add new states to the union, political and increasingly violent situations would develop. The north could tolerate slavery.

If the north could tolerate slavery, then why did the North fight Southern attempts to expand slavery to the Western territories? Why did so many Northerners flock to Kansas to try to make that territory become a free state?

If slavery was a moral problem, then why was the North unconcerned about the continuation of de facto slavery in the sharecropper system, the rise of Jim Crow and all those lynchings during the 3rd great Awakening? Why did Northerners in large numbers join the KKK during the 1920's revival?

Crises can be messy. The US Civil War involved moral, economic, territorial and racial issues. Not all individuals were equally concerned with all aspects. During the war years, those with moral objections to slavery, those who wished westward expansion, those who did not want to compete with slave labor, and those who wanted the federal government to favor industrialization were enough on the same page to fight a war. Once the west was open, slave labor banished and the pro industrial policies established, the coalition faded. It was one thing for a sizable population to have moral and economic objection to the institution of slavery. It is another thing entirely to be free of racism. For a century between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, there was no slavery but nothing even vaguely approaching equality.

There were northern abolitionists in the 1850s who moved to Kansas to vote the state free. There were also northern racists in the 1920s who joined the KKK. The existance of moral men does not exclude the existance of racists. I am not of the "All you northerners think...," "All you liberals think..." or "All you boomers think..." schools. Populations are diverse. Motivations are complex.

In the years before the Civil War a southerner named William Walker invaded Nicaragua as part of a plan to conquer central america for slavery. the south believed that it was being surrounded, choked off. they had hoped that even if world opinion turned against slavery, they could at least maintain what they had. once they realized they were being encircled, they turned southward.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In the years before the Civil War a southerner named William Walker invaded Nicaragua as part of a plan to conquer central america for slavery. the south believed that it was being surrounded, choked off. they had hoped that even if world opinion turned against slavery, they could at least maintain what they had. once they realized they were being encircled, they turned southward.

And (aside from tropical disease) his scheme only failed because he double-crossed Cornelius Vanderbilt, who wanted the stagecoach route for Atlantic-Pacific shipping (a pre-Panama Canal workaround). After that Vandy made sure he went down. This was Walker's second attempt; he'd tried to conquer Baja California before that. Despite the popularity of his attempts in the South, he was an idiot who never had any idea what he was doing.

It's an interesting story, but why do you bring Walker up?

ref:Walker on Wikipedia

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In the years before the Civil War a southerner named William Walker invaded Nicaragua as part of a plan to conquer central america for slavery. the south believed that it was being surrounded, choked off. they had hoped that even if world opinion turned against slavery, they could at least maintain what they had. once they realized they were being encircled, they turned southward.

And (aside from tropical disease) his scheme only failed because he double-crossed Cornelius Vanderbilt, who wanted the stagecoach route for Atlantic-Pacific shipping (a pre-Panama Canal workaround). After that Vandy made sure he went down. This was Walker's second attempt; he'd tried to conquer Baja California before that. Despite the popularity of his attempts in the South, he was an idiot who never had any idea what he was doing.

It's an interesting story, but why do you bring Walker up?

ref:Walker on Wikipedia

All the talk about panicking southerners and the non-expansion of slavery.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Crises can be messy. The US Civil War involved moral, economic, territorial and racial issues.

I agree.

Not all individuals were equally concerned with all aspects. During the war years, those with moral objections to slavery, those who wished westward expansion, those who did not want to compete with slave labor, and those who wanted the federal government to favor industrialization were enough on the same page to fight a war.

Let us focus on the motivations for the anti-slavery faction in the Western terroritories such as Kansas. Both Southerners and Northerns, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, supported Westward expansion, so this was not at issue. Most anti-slavery people did not object to slavery on moral grounds, they opposed the spread of slavery to Western territories.
Of those fighting on the slave issue in Kansas, few were motivated by industrial policy.

The only one of the factors you mention that was a major motivation of the anti-slave forces in the West was the desire not to compete economically with slave labor. This certainly was a factor, but there is more along these lines. Most Northern settlers were racists; many did not want to live amongst black people. If slavery were permitted, this would happen. Another fear amongst poor white settlers from the North was the possibly that they might fall victim to debt slavery.

Northerners did not come from a culture in which slavery was restricted only to black men and lenders had few rights. Rather they came from a culture where lenders had strong rights and debtors could be imprisoned (and enslaved were it legal?). Expansion of Southern-style slavery into territories might produce hybrid in which both black men (imported from the South) and white men (debtors) could be enslaved.

I know this seems far fetched, but think of how far fetched some modern conspiriacy theories are--but people believe them.

The slave issue was a true culture war, in which the two sides didn't really understand each other and had sometimes bizarre ideas about what the other side intends to do, just like the Red/Blue conflict today.

The Southerners felt that their way of life was under sttack. It was. Justin talks airly about how slavery was "on the way out". Can you impagine how angry Southerners of the time would be by such a characterization, that Southern civilization was doomed by its own social retardation.

One can also see conspiracy-minded Northerners who had fled the crowded East for a new life in the West, see the "Slavocracy" as their equivalent to ZOG, who sought to enslave them and force them to live amongst blacks.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I know this seems far fetched, but think of how far fetched some modern conspiracy theories are--but people believe them.

The slave issue was a true culture war, in which the two sides didn't really understand each other and had sometimes bizarre ideas about what the other side intends to do, just like the Red/Blue conflict today.

Yep. I'm pretty much with you on your entire post.

I note that Lincoln's Republican platform was to contain slavery, prevent its western expansion, but not interfere with slavery where it existed. Before the election, many in the south proposed secession should Lincoln be elected. Neither really believed the other. Both factions held deep beliefs, but did not understand the intensity of the other's.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Both factions held deep beliefs, but did not understand the intensity of the other's.

Yep. That's why watching spirals of violence is scary. :cry: