A The Civil War... and modern day parallels (nadin, of course)

[EagleKeeper]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021123587

nadinbrzezinski (107,671 posts)

Yesterday I was talking to a fellow historian. His specialty is the civil war, no, not the orders of battle or who led what army in what battle... we leave that to the military historian. No, no, the social and economic conditions that led to it.

First, like me, he sees the dam parallels and the trends are NOT good.

Second, like the period preceding the Civil War the country is getting southern style politics as they try to impose their values on the rest of the country.

Of course the election came up and the POSSIBILITY that neither candidate will get the 270 electoral votes. 1876 is the last time that happened...

We are, as I have said it before, in the middle of a constitutional crisis.

Other subjects came up like the 2nd amendment (I will leave it at that), and our penchant from the earliest of days to use cheap labor.

It was both a gratifying and terrifying conversation.

nc4bo (10,375 posts)

1. What makes '12 different than '08?

Honestly, I thought '08 would have been THE catalyst.

nadinbrzezinski (107,671 posts)

2. What led to Fort Sumter?

We are at the point that the radical right, especially if they get punched in the elections, that the only way they see they can impose their will be the ammo box.

Realize, a civil war will be short and sharp... nothing like the blue and the gray... unless we see the rise of multiple guerrilla cells all over.

Now knowing this does not mean I am looking forwards to that... in any way, shape or form. But after 2008 the militia movement got an injection on steroids and have grown by leaps and bounds. 

rrneck (10,505 posts)

3. Economic disparity makes things look more like

Gilded Age, pre depression United States or perhaps early 20th century Russia.

The south "imposing their values" is just spin. Political affiliation is more closely related to population density than regional identification.

We are in the middle of a resource depletion crisis which is contributing to an economic crisis. 

FarCenter (10,885 posts

4. Prior to the Civil War, it was the North that was attempting to impose its values on the South

Slavery had been legal, if not very common, in many of the northern states in the early 1800s.

The attitudes towards slavery changed first in the northern states because of the abolitionist movement. Then the northern states attempted to prevent the establishment of slavery in the new states in the west, even when those states were populated by settlers from the south.

So the imposition of values came from the north. The values in the south had not changed much at all. 

Heh...I towed this over for entertainment purposes.

[thundley4]

Second, like the period preceding the Civil War the country is getting southern style politics as they try to impose their values on the rest of the country.

What "southern style" politics?  A belief in God, Country, and Personal Responsibility?

[98ZJUSMC]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021123587
Heh...I towed this over for entertainment purposes.

To say the least.

No, the (D)Ullards do not want to go there.

What "southern style" politics?  A belief in God, Country, and Personal Responsibility?

Yep.  The "wooden stake" for (D)Ullards.

[Airwolf]

Someone has failed history again I see and for someone trained as a historian you would think it unacceptable by any standard. The bald gnome needs a new hobby that's not on line and interacting with people.

[vesta111]

Someone has failed history again I see and for someone trained as a historian you would think it unacceptable by any standard. The bald gnome needs a new hobby that's not on line and interacting with people.

Say,    now by Nads interpretation I VESTA am now a Trained Historian.

Yup I belonged to a book club many years ago and read every thing Louis L'Amour had written.    Yup I now knew all about how the west was won and the names of all the western Indian Tribes. 

Not to put the author down, he broke his Ass to be accurate and few ever found fault with his history. I miss the old dude, but belonging to a book club, discussing his books, until I met and read Nads on line did I realise I was also a Trained Historian.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Dam parallels?  What do artificial obstructions to the free flow of water have to do with the cause of the civil war?

[Skul]

At least someone over there has the guts to call the Gnome on it.

nadinbrzezinski (107,685 posts)
5. The South was attempting to expand slavery BS, Gnads. You should know better than that. DUmbass.

That is what the whole Kansas Little War was about.
Of course the Grand Compromise was the seed for the war in some ways, but. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:34 PM
 zappaman (5,754 posts)
6. So, you are predicting a civil war.

I say Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Wanna bet?
I don't care how "trained" you are as a historian. To say there will be a civil war if Romney loses is jut irresponsible and more of your doom and gloom fearmongering.
And Obama will win the electoral...wanna bet?

Here's my prediction....like all of your predictions, this will not happen.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Latter-day Confederate apologists and reconstructivists post some unbelievably wrong and distorted things on the internet attempting to explain why the South was pure as the driven snow and right all along, which makes for great pointless catfights as Snugs for one can attest, but for once I have to say they actually look right compared to the Nads version of history.

[Big Dog]

Star Member nadinbrzezinski (107,686 posts)
2. What led to Fort Sumter?

Apparently I missed the abolition of slavery and the secession of South Carolina after Obama's inauguration, and a tariff on cotton exports from the Carolinas. Good thing that nads, Girl Reporter is on the job!

nadinbrzezinski (107,686 posts)
5. The South was attempting to expand slavery

View profile
That is what the whole Kansas Little War was about.

Of course the Grand Compromise was the seed for the war in some ways, but.

"Kansas Little War"? "Grand Compromise"? No such animals by those names. You'd think a self-proclaimed historian would know the proper names of Bleeding Kansas and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Missouri Compromise was the polar opposite of nads' characterization.

[Randy]

Shitcago and Dullaware
Utah and Wisconsin

All 4, strongholds of southern politics.      

[franksolich]

Say, now by Nads interpretation I VESTA am now a Trained Historian.

Yup I belonged to a book club many years ago and read every thing Louis L'Amour had written.  Yup I now knew all about how the west was won and the names of all the western Indian Tribes. 

Not to put the author down, he broke his Ass to be accurate and few ever found fault with his history. I miss the old dude, but belonging to a book club, discussing his books, until I met and read Nads on line did I realise I was also a Trained Historian.

Damn.

You hit the nail on the head on this one, vesta dear.

[Big Dog]

Say,    now by Nads interpretation I VESTA am now a Trained Historian.

Yup I belonged to a book club many years ago and read every thing Louis L'Amour had written.    Yup I now knew all about how the west was won and the names of all the western Indian Tribes. 

Not to put the author down, he broke his Ass to be accurate and few ever found fault with his history. I miss the old dude, but belonging to a book club, discussing his books, until I met and read Nads on line did I realise I was also a Trained Historian.

Vesta, between this post and your post about old women's vaginas, I have only one thing to say:





I love you.

 

[Skul]

Vesta, between this post and your post about old women's vaginas, I have only one thing to say:

I love you.

 

Dog, exactly what, is in that cigar? 

[dane]

"Kansas Little War"? "Grand Compromise"? No such animals by those names. You'd think a self-proclaimed historian would know the proper names of Bleeding Kansas and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Missouri Compromise was the polar opposite of nads' characterization.

One might think that she would know and use the proper names, but what with it being this particular historian, one would be wrong.  I recall she got the wrong king involved at Agincourt (Normandy), and no amount of suggestions would talk her into a correction.

An over-active arrogance gland might be one of her many problems.

[Skul]

One might think that she would know and use the proper names, but what with it being this particular historian, one would be wrong.  I recall she got the wrong king involved at Agincourt (Normandy), and no amount of suggestions would talk her into a correction.

An over-active arrogance gland might be one of her many problems.

Do not say gland, when referring to Gnads. 

[FiddyBeowulf]

Maybe the reference books Nads is using were writen by Harry Turtledove?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove

[Mr Mannn]

Once again, the DUmmies prove that really are capable of getting EVERYTHING wrong.

[Skul]

Maybe the reference books Nads is using were writen by Harry Turtledove?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove

From your link to wikipedia..

"The Master of Alternate History"Turtledove has been dubbed "The Master of Alternate History".[6] Within that genre he is known both for creating original alternate history scenarios such as survival of the Byzantine Empire or an alien invasion in the middle of the Second World War and for giving a fresh and original treatment to themes previously dealt with by many others, such as the victory of the South in the American Civil War and of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. His novels have been credited with bringing alternate history into the mainstream.[7] His style of alternate history has a strong military theme with scenes of combat happening throughout many of his works.[8]

It appears you've found Gnad's source for her lame understanding of history.  

[GOBUCKS]

Yesterday I was talking to a fellow historian.

Funniest line in the whole thread.

[Vagabond]

Latter-day Confederate apologists and reconstructivists post some unbelievably wrong and distorted things on the internet attempting to explain why the South was pure as the driven snow and right all along, which makes for great pointless catfights as Snugs for one can attest, but for once I have to say they actually look right compared to the Nads version of history.

They are right about one small thing.  The South squawked about States' Rights while simultaneously forcing northern states to abide by fugitive slave codes.  No hypocrisy involved there at all, nope, not a bit. 

I may believe the South had a right to secede.  I don't necessarily believe that they were right to secede.

As far as any history, I've looked at it long and hard.  While I am not a trained historian, the South could not win the Civil War, defined by achieving independence and diplomatic recognition from the US, after November 1862.  The Confederacy made innumerable mistakes in the Civil War, and too often failed to learn much from them. 

[Bodadh]

nadinbrzezinski (107,671 posts)

Yesterday I was talking to a fellow historian

That is as far as I could go.

[DumbAss Tanker]

They are right about one small thing.  The South squawked about States' Rights while simultaneously forcing northern states to abide by fugitive slave codes.  No hypocrisy involved there at all, nope, not a bit. 

I may believe the South had a right to secede.  I don't necessarily believe that they were right to secede.

As far as any history, I've looked at it long and hard.  While I am not a trained historian, the South could not win the Civil War, defined by achieving independence and diplomatic recognition from the US, after November 1862.  The Confederacy made innumerable mistakes in the Civil War, and too often failed to learn much from them. 

I won't start a pie-fight by going into any political or legal analysis, but militarily, yeah, Chancellorsville was the high-water mark of Southern fortunes, and even at that it was capped by the death of their greatest tactician.

Using Harry Turtledove's work as a reference would explain a lot about nads, I have to admit.  The whole 'Master' schtick is a little bit too much for me after reading most of his stuff, Guns of the South was great, but when he tried to spin the related idea out into an endless series it became tedious and increasingly filled with depressingly-obvious contrivances and wholesale borrowings as it progressed.

[AprilRazz]

I learned more civil war history just by reading John Jakes than nads will ever know.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

nadinbrzezinski (107,671 posts)

2. What led to Fort Sumter?

We are at the point that the radical right, especially if they get punched in the elections...

Like in 2010?

[GOBUCKS]

I learned more civil war history just by reading John Jakes than nads will ever know.

I learned more civil war history just by watching "The Simpsons" than the crazy bald dwarf will ever know.