The United States 1860s: The fourth Revolution - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14156938
My thesis is that modern America is the result of four revolutions. All four revolutions either led to or emerged out of civil war. All resulted in a new post revolutionary settlement.

The First revolution was in Britain in the 1640s and 1650s. It emerged out of the so called English civil war although the conflict at some point involved the whole of the British Isles. The restoration of Charles II only partially rolled back the revolution. The post revolutionary settlement was radically different to what had preceded the conflict.

The second revolution was in 1688. It led to civil war with the Jacobites. The last significant battle was in 1745 but the Scottish Catholics didn't swear allegiance to the Hanoverians until 1688, a hundred years after the "Glorious revolution". The ideological drive behind the early Tories was to try and deny to themselves that a revolution had taken place and pretend that the current regime was the legitimate successor to the previous.

The third revolution emerged out of the so called war of independence in the 1760's and 1770s. It was a genuine civil war. Many supported the British crown, possibly even more than supported the revolution, but in any case as in all such conflicts the majority were not totally committed to supporting either side. Both sides looked to outside intervention. The Loyalists to the British, the Republican rebels to the French, Spanish and Dutch. History being written by the victors has erroneously portrayed it as a conflict between Americans and British. There was huge sympathy for the rebel cause in Britain, even amongst those in the British government, parliament and armed forces who prosecuting the war. George III was not a particular popular monarch like Elizabeth II or the latter years of Victoria. By default the power to large degree fell into the hands of the States, the successors to the colonial administrations. The colonies had been self governing to a huge degree and British appointed governors had generally been very limited in their effective power. The states to significant degree matched the contours of religious sectarian difference. Religious divisions were to play a quite limited role in the United States future conflicts, but looking back from the time of independence, religious sectarian difference loomed much larger as a possible source of national divison than it appears with the benefit of hindsight. Hence the states at the time of independence were a limited focus for cultural/ national identity and that was declining.

What emerged out of the so called war of independence was a Bi-national state. Yankee and Dixie. States rights were already and were increasingly to become a proxy for Dixie nationalism. Right from the formation of the United States, the Dixiecrats were aware of their minority status vis a vis the Yankees. Hence States rights was the natural refuge for furthering their collective national interests. We can see this in the constitution. The fugitive slave clause made an utter joke of all the enumerable claims to liberty made by the founders. It was a direct rejection of Somerset vs Stewart. Suffrage was more restrictive amongst Southern states even for White Protestants than in Northern States. Hence the use of delegates rather than direct voting for President. The three fifths rule was the most blatant abnegation of democracy made as a concession to Dixie nationalism. Everyone at the time knew what this was about. Hence Jefferson's description as the Negro president. The Bill of rights was in reality another concession to Dixie nationalism. It most certainly wasn't about individual rights and no one at the time thought it was. The American Constitution was a bastardised anti democratic and anti individual liberty very much in the style of the monstrosity that is Lebanon another multi national state.

Southern states banned the distribution of abolitionist literature. They were not even concerned with the rights of individual slave owners, putting a whole number of restrictions on the slave owners private chattel property, notable making it very difficult to free slaves as this was seen as going against the collective interests of Slave owners and being inimical to the whole foundation of Dixie national culture. Its often said that the majority of Southern Whites didn't own slaves, so the 1860s civil war wasn't about slavery. But this misses the point. The enslavement of Blacks by Whites was the very foundation of Dixie culture. Dixie without slavery or at least a Jim Crow approximation wouldn't be Dixie. Its like having Nazism with equal opportunities for Jews and Slavs. The Southerners cared nothing for individual rights and they cared nothing for States rights hence their 1850 Fugitive Slave act and Dredd-Scot. They didn't even care about Southern States rights as can be seen when the Confederacy tried to abolish the right of Constituent States to abolish slavery. Very early on the Dixiecrats used tax payers money to support the slave owners in what was to become Haiti. They had no interest in limited or small government. They had no problem about raising taxes and spending it on the welfare of people who weren't even Americans, English speakers or Protestants.

The fourth revolution emerged out of the 1860s civil war. It established America as a Yankee mono national state. The reconstruction amendments could never have been passed via the established constitution. The post reconstruction regime is not the legitimate successor to its predecessor, it was a new post revolution settlement. Although with the new Amendments the letter of the old constitution was maintained. It is utterly worthless. It is a constitution designed for a bi national state. The bill of rights has been wilfully misinterpreted by both right and left in America and by both high and low as a document of individual rights. It was designed to protect the collective rights of a Dixie regime that has been overthrown. Right Wing American Constitutionalists are like the early British Tories. They are contemptible. They are moral cowards. The Tories didn't want to restore the Stewart monarchy. The Constitutionalists don't want to restore slavery or in most case even Jim crow. They don't want to restore the rule of Dixie, but like the Tories they want to pretend that a revolution never happened.
#14160062
It seems, under your characterization, that these revolutions are instances of the competition between a progressive faction and a conservative faction boiling over, with the result being an ugly compromise between the two. If this is the case, then how would you characterize the third revolution? Was American independence a compromise?

Do “Constitutionalists” want to do anything in particular, other than pretend a revolution never happened?

Rich wrote:Southern states banned the distribution of abolitionist literature. They were not even concerned with the rights of individual slave owners, putting a whole number of restrictions on the slave owners private chattel property, notable making it very difficult to free slaves as this was seen as going against the collective interests of Slave owners and being inimical to the whole foundation of Dixie national culture. Its often said that the majority of Southern Whites didn't own slaves, so the 1860s civil war wasn't about slavery. But this misses the point. The enslavement of Blacks by Whites was the very foundation of Dixie culture. Dixie without slavery or at least a Jim Crow approximation wouldn't be Dixie. Its like having Nazism with equal opportunities for Jews and Slavs. The Southerners cared nothing for individual rights and they cared nothing for States rights hence their 1850 Fugitive Slave act and Dredd-Scot. They didn't even care about Southern States rights as can be seen when the Confederacy tried to abolish the right of Constituent States to abolish slavery. Very early on the Dixiecrats used tax payers money to support the slave owners in what was to become Haiti. They had no interest in limited or small government. They had no problem about raising taxes and spending it on the welfare of people who weren't even Americans, English speakers or Protestants.


This paragraph conflates the Confederacy, the “Dixiecrats,” and the aspects of the Constitution amenable to slave-owners as a force for statism, presumably against the anti-statist opposition. However, at all historical moments prior to the twentieth century, the party most at home in the north was the more statist of the two main parties. First, it was the Federalists, then the Whigs, and then the pre-market liberal Republicans.

@Negotiator , Many populations don't support goi[…]

Cricket

:roll: It's either "I don't care", or &[…]

One would imagine that any sentient being would re[…]

The Central Plaza mall parking lot at opening time[…]