[annatar1914]

@blackjack21

It's more conservative than right wing. Leftists think "right wing" sounds more scary and deranged so they use that a lot. Apparently, NBC activists contacted Google to get advertising banned on The Federalist (a conservative outlet) and ZeroHedge (a libertarian outlet) by characterizing them as "far right wing," when they are anything but that.

The Russian saying; ''call me a 'pot', but touch me not'' comes to my mind. My point was that outside of the United States, our whole national political discourse is senseless, because it all sounds like a number of libertarian sects hashing it out over various points of ideological shibboleths alien to outsiders. I happen just to be an American that has finally decided that it really is senseless to a great degree.

Secession is allowed under the constitution, it just takes 2/3rds of the state legislature and the federal legislature.

President Lincoln and the GOP disagreed, saying that Secession is essentially a violation of the previously mentioned Article 4 section 4 of the US Constitution, guaranteeing to the states an assurance that the Presidency and the Federal government would maintain a republican system of government within the individual states, something the Federal government can't do if a state wrongly decides to go it's own way and become a new nation or part of another country.

So campaigning for secession is firmly within freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Insurrection is not. Sedition is more of a gray area.

I disagree. campaigning for secession is treasonous. Only if the whole country collapsed could a remnant state organize it's affairs as a new nation or part of another.

The confederacy was a democratic republic. It wasn't totalitarian at all. It was just classically racist, which was nothing novel or unconstitutional at that time.

It was ''totalitarian'' to the Slaves and the free whites it conscripted to fight in it's rebellion, was it not?

[blackjack21]

President Lincoln and the GOP disagreed, saying that Secession is essentially a violation of the previously mentioned Article 4 section 4 of the US Constitution, guaranteeing to the states an assurance that the Presidency and the Federal government would maintain a republican system of government within the individual states, something the Federal government can't do if a state wrongly decides to go it's own way and become a new nation or part of another country.

Lincoln was wrong. Even many abolitionists wanted to secede to separate New England from the South. States cannot unilaterally secede, but by 2/3rds of the state legislature and the federal legislature, it may be done. This is why the Civil War is interesting subject matter. West Virginia should not exist as a separate state, because the legislature of Virginia did not agree to be subdivided. Yet, it happened.

It was ''totalitarian'' to the Slaves and the free whites it conscripted to fight in it's rebellion, was it not?

Conscription occurred on both sides.

[Sivad]

campaigning for secession is treasonous

That assumes there was some obligation of loyalty. I'm hoping a major secessionist movement kicks off the next time the dems take control of the federal government, I think ultimately people who don't want to be dominated by authoritarian collectivist freaks are gonna have to break away from the US and set up our own thing.

[Tainari88]

@blackjack21 my quotes on the cheapo Samsung I have is not functioning. I am suspecting the little son dropped it and damaged it because the sound for videos is only half functioning too.

Anyway, what you said about capitalism not being responsible for class systems is so false and untrue in its entirety? That I am debating in my head if I should continue with you on that point? Because you are not Hiney. You are a very intelligent, well-read man and fairly cognizant of what you write on this forum. I have a few doubts about if you read Marx well? Because even very right-wing people and anarchists who have read him do concede that the way Marx analyzed the class system in capitalism is truth. Even classic capitalists like Rockafeller knew that Blackjack21. To think that you deny that as the system and that capitalism wants to abolish class systems? Is sheer fucking foolery BJ.

The only thing that might save your ass is if you admit you never read Marx? If you admit that? I might have a shot at believing you? If you don't? then I am sorry BJ. But Annatar1914 is going to be right about you. He will checkmate you forever and if he pins you as an anarchist? In many critical points? Then your class conscious shit til now is invalid. The anarchists are divided between left (Noam Chomsky) and the right (a bunch of anarchist racists who also don't make sense because any power structure or government is suspect and they would have to decide to admit Black anarchists, Mexican anarchists into their ranks or devolve into some chaotic semi Master Race loose piece of shit philosophy with no hope in hell of being able to make for a decent society).

There is nothing wrong with being unsatisfied with a government and with abuse of power. For me Anarchists have a lot of very truthful points. But if they don't know which societies have been successful without a structure and how that works? They are not ready for the demands human societies place on systems. Even anarchy is a system. A philosophy. The most successful ones are from Spain. In a history that is true. But if you are a racist fool and only think your group has all the answers and don't think in internationalist terms? You don't study the Spanish anarchists. But I digress. Blackjack21, Senor, go ahead and lay out a cohesive philosophy you deal within your life. If it is simply about tumbando los Democratas?

Didn't you read the debates between Lenin and Trotsky? Lenin criticized Trotsky for thinking permanent revolution is the way to cope with human societies. Human beings don't have the energy for permanent revolution. People need structure and avoid chaos and instability with a lot of vigor. They only get motivated to go for a revolution when a society is severely dysfunctional! Not when you can work in peace, make money, pay bills, raise kids, and do things and all is well. No one is getting motivated for change with stability. Most societies seek stability. All these 'crisis' have been debated before in human history. The Left by definition is self-critical and always fighting hard and strongly among itself. Always. The Leftists fight really hard in the group. precisely because if you are going to replace a class system with one who is far less or is not class conscious you better be aware of how many ways it can devolve into some oppressive piece of shit. And the first societies you analyze are the ones already in play. Like capitalist systems BJ. I assumed you knew all this shit by now. I assumed wrong.

I am shocked at what you said. it means you have no grasp of what you thought your society was about. You had no clue.

[Politics_Observer]

@Tainari88

Yeah, I agree that Karl Marx's assessment of the capitalist systems is correct. It's just that there is no viable alternative to capitalism and he was wrong about communism. Hence the common meme that is in my view truthful that Marx was right about capitalism but wrong about communism. And we have a whole history where Marx's ideas were at least attempted in some shape or form only to find that many of those systems ended up going back to capitalism.

And really, even when those systems were in place, it was the communist leaders who became the new rich class while everybody else was still poor and not doing well in those countries. Even in the communist system you had classes, with communist leaders being the new wealthy elite. And so goes the old saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Eventually, countries that form governments in the name of Marx end up either collapsing completely or going back to capitalism while being communist in name only.

It would appear that no matter what you do, even if you make capitalism illegal or try to legislate capitalism out of existence, you will still have capitalism. You can't legislate capitalism out of existence as it is a fundamental part of human nature. The world has limited resources and people are selfish and don't like to share. They also have to have an incentive to work and produce given that selfish nature. But selfishness shouldn't be taken to an extreme as that can be destructive. Hence, why capitalism needs rules and regulation from government.

A lot of people like to apply overly simplistic solutions to complex problems. Poverty is a serious problem with the vast majority of the population while the few prosper and do well? Well, let's just make the country communist. You have an inefficient economic system that can't produce the goods and services that society needs? Well, lets just make everything capitalist with no rules or regulation. That's what people want to do when they see those kinds of problems. But things don't work that way in the real world. You can't do that if you want REAL solutions. REAL solutions to problems are not simple or easy.

They are hard and tough. But everybody wants a quick, easy and simple solution and things just don't work that way. Seemingly easy, quick, simple solutions are politically popular with people who are experiencing hardship at the time, but those seemingly easy, quick, simple solutions to problems that people are experiencing are NOT REAL solutions to their problems and could very well create even bigger problems. In many cases, problems are hard to solve and solutions are not easy and REAL solutions take time and require patience (something that people don't have, they want solutions and fixes RIGHT NOW this instant but that's not how things work). Their is trade offs to every thing.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88

Yeah, I agree that Karl Marx's assessment of the capitalist systems is correct. It's just that there is no viable alternative to capitalism and he was wrong about communism. Hence the common meme that is in my view truthful that Marx was right about capitalism but wrong about communism. And we have a whole history where Marx's ideas were at least attempted in some shape or form only to find that many of those systems ended up going back to capitalism.

And really, even when those systems were in place, it was the communist leaders who became the new rich class while everybody else was still poor and not doing well in those countries. Even in the communist system you had classes, with communist leaders being the new wealthy elite. And so goes the old saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Eventually, countries that form governments in the name of Marx end up either collapsing completely or going back to capitalism while being communist in name only.

It would appear that no matter what you do, even if you make capitalism illegal or try to legislate capitalism out of existence, you will still have capitalism. You can't legislate capitalism out of existence as it is a fundamental part of human nature. The world has limited resources and people are selfish and don't like to share. They also have to have an incentive to work and produce given that selfish nature. But selfishness shouldn't be taken to an extreme as that can be destructive. Hence, why capitalism needs rules and regulation from government.

You are a classic liberal Politics Observer. And your point of view is the dominant political philosophy and it is the practicing one in many mixed economy nations all over the world. The USA has had a shift from that classic liberal stance Politics.

Socialism started more or less officially in France Politics. It is the conspiracy of equals. Because the French Revolution was about people being sick and tired of the French Aristocracy and French peasants and urban dwellers literally having nothing to eat and being left to starve as the French Aristocracy having a lot of choices and that famous quote of Marie Antoinette's "Let them Eat Cake". Lol. The poor did not even have bread to eat and much less cake. She was out of touch with the people in the streets. That happens with people living in bubbles of prosperity in a sea of poverty.

The solution was proposed as a conspiracy of equals. That is what sparked the French Revolution in France. It made a monarchy into a republic (it also brought French imperialism to the surface with Napoleon Bonaparte emerging as the Emperor of France as he pretended to be the real change in French society--he wound up in prison on Elba and cast off as the solution to class conflict in that time period. The present French republic. The French motto or slogan if you will? Egalite, Fraternite, etc. Hee hee. Brotherhood, equality, freedom (liberte in French, libertad in Spanish, and liberty or freedom in English). Back to French socialism, Politics, I studied it very closely and read a lot of it in the original French. I also read a whole set of French Anthropologists like Levy-Strauss and others. Rousseau's philosophies about the nature of human society and human behavior and other philosophers in French history are critical in understanding the origins and motivations for socialist thought when capitalism had emerged and was taking over...even back then they knew it was a system that would have class divisions inherent in it. It just was a better system than the feudal one. I think American universities teach this but only in the best ones like Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc. Ivy league ones. The way people are educated in the USA nowadays has to do with specializing in a field and focusing on that and not going for broad-based education. In my day and age and due to my education in three nations? I got something different and it was very broad and very demanding. A multidisciplinary approach.

It is very useful for making connections and seeing societies holistically Politics.

I enjoyed your story about your great-great-grandfather etc and his fighting for the South. Your roots go very deep and explain why you wanted to defend the USA and joined.

I am sorry you suffer from your experiences. But you stay calm and focused and all will be well.

Capitalism will go off the rails Politics because the flaws in every human system will bring the failure forward.

The future of human beings rests on their ability to be truly civilized. And that means to prevent wars and negotiate and be truthful and have sound values but also be able to build societies that respond to the needs of the vast majority without exploiting and leaving huge groups of people in the gutter or behind and without any stability.

That is what I am shooting for my man. All of us have to understand history in depth of many nations in the world so you can see where we can build on our commonalities and help each other out in figuring out how to manage human societies in a humane, caring, and loving and intelligent and logical way. Progress is about improving constantly. Never being conformist in just thinking that life is about being static and unchanging. Because it never is Politics Observer. It never is.

Take care of yourself Politics Observer! What state are you in? I lived in Colorado up until last year. Denver. Now I am in Southern Mexico until I am buried I think. But I do want to travel to Europe and China and South America and Central America and two or three nations in Africa. If I can do that? Estoy Feliz. I am happy.

[Rich]

Didn't you read the debates between Lenin and Trotsky? Lenin criticized Trotsky for thinking permanent revolution is the way to cope with human societies. Human beings don't have the energy for permanent revolution.

I'm sorry Tainari but that is not what Trotsky meant by Permanent Revolution. That was never the basis for the disagreements between Lenin and Trotsky. In practical terms there was very little difference between Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" and Lenin's "Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry". The theory was that the Russian Bourgeoisie were weak and cowardly and incapable of carrying out the tasks of the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution. Hence the tasks of this "Democratic" revolution would have to be lead by the Proletariat. Trotsky argued that the Proletariat would inevitably go on to create the socialist revolution, rather their being an interregnum between the revolutions as dictated by orthodox Marxist theory. Hence it would be permanent, in Trotsky's rather misleading and unhelpful terminology.

The term Permanent Revolution conjures up the spectre of a Maoist style Cultural Revolution or indeed the demented frenzied paranoid Stalinism of the 1930s. Which is ironic really because it was Stalin in the 1920s who first tried to mis-portray Trotsky's views that way. By the mid 1920s, Zinoviev and Kamanev you will perhaps recall had moved from the far right of the party in 1917, to the left of the party to join Trotsky, while Bukharin had moved to the right of the party from its far left leaving Stalin in the centre. But pretty much all the party accepted the NEP including Trotsky. Stalin having comprehensibly defeated the United Left opposition, swung violently to the left, attacking his recent ally Bukharin, instituting break neck collectivisation and Third Period Stalinism.

[Julian658]

Guys:

When all confederate symbols and flags are destroyed.
When the Washington and Jefferson monuments are demolished (they were slave owners).
When all streets and avenues are renamed.
When all books are burned.
When all military bases are renamed.
When we elected another Obama as president.
When all cops are like Mother Theresa.

The poor people in the black community will still be fatherless, not graduating from high school, teen pregnancy will remain high, and the kids will murder each other over drugs. Why not tackle these issues instead of a stupid flag?

[Tainari88]

I'm sorry Tainari but that is not what Trotsky meant by Permanent Revolution. That was never the basis for the disagreements between Lenin and Trotsky. In practical terms there was very little difference between Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" and Lenin's "Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry". The theory was that the Russian Bourgeoisie were weak and cowardly and incapable of carrying out the tasks of the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution. Hence the tasks of this "Democratic" revolution would have to be lead by the Proletariat. Trotsky argued that the Proletariat would inevitably go on to create the socialist revolution, rather their being an interregnum between the revolutions as dictated by orthodox Marxist theory. Hence it would be permanent, in Trotsky's rather misleading and unhelpful terminology.

The term Permanent Revolution conjures up the spectre of a Maoist style Cultural Revolution or indeed the demented frenzied paranoid Stalinism of the 1930s. Which is ironic really because it was Stalin in the 1920s who first tried to mis-portray Trotsky's views that way. By the mid 1920s, Zinoviev and Kamanev you will perhaps recall had moved from the far right of the party in 1917, to the left of the party to join Trotsky, while Bukharin had moved to the right of the party from its far left leaving Stalin in the centre. But pretty much all the party accepted the NEP including Trotsky. Stalin having comprehensibly defeated the United Left opposition, swung violently to the left, attacking his recent ally Bukharin, instituting break neck collectivisation and Third Period Stalinism.

Your nuanced corrections are quite a welcome Rich. I always disliked or very closely hated Stalinist tactics for conformity and controlling the party. In fact, I found it repulsive. But? One has to sum up what the Soviet Union was facing in WWII too.

I will never approve of the wholesale killing of oppositional thoughts. I am of the thought that if you have to kill millions of people to dominate? How the hell do you become the superior system? You don't. Some think violence is the only way for change to happen. I disagree. Non-cooperation with a bad system works if many participate. But it is far harder making millions cooperate indefinitely until the change is done than to have a few thousand or a million go out and use violence and mayhem for change. It tests the true limits of human self-discipline and self-control. Who knows when we as a species will be ready for that one Rich? Your guess is as good as mine?

You are always welcome to elaborate. But permanent revolution is not possible in any society. The goal is stability. You have to have that. Or the alternative is successive chaos, Rich.

[annatar1914]

@blackjack21 ;

Lincoln was wrong.

Was he, my friend? What good is a ''Union'' if one can enter or leave it at will, nullify it's laws if a State government doesn't like it, secede if they don't like the results of a national election? We're dealing with much the same issues potentially once more, ironically from the same Democratic party machine that you decry.

Even many abolitionists wanted to secede to separate New England from the South.

And many of them, like Lysander Spooner, weren't very much believers in the US political system to begin with. President Lincoln opposed slavery and destroyed it, but wasn't an ''Abolitionist'' per se, an important distinction pregnant with meaning...

States cannot unilaterally secede, but by 2/3rds of the state legislature and the federal legislature, it may be done.

Debatable.

This is why the Civil War is interesting subject matter. West Virginia should not exist as a separate state, because the legislature of Virginia did not agree to be subdivided. Yet, it happened.

Interestingly, West Virginia's State Constitution has language that can enable a county from the State of Virginia to become part of West Virginia if it so chooses even to this day, because really West Virginia was originally conceived as a ''Free Virginia'' more than something different in kind than the State of Virginia.

Conscription occurred on both sides.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and contradictions of the CSA, not saying conscription is ''totalitarianism'' when it isn't anymore than taxation would be for example.

[annatar1914]

That assumes there was some obligation of loyalty. I'm hoping a major secessionist movement kicks off the next time the dems take control of the federal government, I think ultimately people who don't want to be dominated by authoritarian collectivist freaks are gonna have to break away from the US and set up our own thing.

There's always an obligation of loyalty. Only if the whole thing falls apart would people justifiably be right in setting up new governments.

[Tainari88]

There's always an obligation of loyalty. Only if the whole thing falls apart would people justifiably be right in setting up new governments.

Authorities and structures exist in a human society for various reasons. I think the anarchists sometimes believe that structure is not necessary.

Some of them are undisciplined foolish immature people who have no idea what it takes to be responsible in life and won't even take minimal responsibilities on. Then they cry and think they are superior to 'black' people. Fools of the worst sort.

New governments are only formed when the old ones totally fade away from incompetence that is extreme and everyone abandons the foundations of the society it was trying to form.

[annatar1914]

Authorities and structures exist in a human society for various reasons. I think the anarchists sometimes believe that structure is not necessary.

Some of them are undisciplined foolish immature people who have no idea what it takes to be responsible in life and won't even take minimal responsibilities on. Then they cry and think they are superior to 'black' people. Fools of the worst sort.

New governments are only formed when the old ones totally fade away from incompetence that is extreme and everyone abandons the foundations of the society it was trying to form.

I pretty much agree, especially with your comment about Anarchists. I've never met one yet that wasn't a bum with a personal sense of entitlement.

[Politics_Observer]

@Tainari88

You are a classic liberal Politics Observer. And your point of view is the dominant political philosophy and it is the practicing one in many mixed economy nations all over the world. The USA has had a shift from that classic liberal stance Politics.

You are absolutely correct and the U.S. is having serious problems right now because it did shift away from classic liberalism. It went from classic liberalism to neo-liberalism and it appears under Trump there was a serious threat that the U.S. was on the verge of going from neo-liberalism to fascism.

It is very useful for making connections and seeing societies holistically Politics.

I agree. For example, the wealthy capitalists today divide workers from different countries against each other and get them to compete with each other for their businesses and capital. In this respect, Karl Marx is right, unity of workers globally no matter where they are from is necessary to ensure that they are paid enough for their work. Which again, enough being defined as having a enough to buy a home, afford a family, own two cars, feed your family, have excellent medical care and be able to go on a two week vacation once a year and retire at the age of 65 years old comfortably and not have to work again if you don't want to. That's my definition of enough. That's realistically possible too and has been sustainably been done before.

This means any global trade deals has to give a real voice to workers who will be party to these international trade deals to ensure their interests are looked after too and not just ONLY the interests of the wealthy. Past international trade deals threw working people under the bus while wealthy people got richer at the expense of working people who got poorer from these international trade deals.

Past international trade deals didn't even take working people and their interests into the equation and that's a big problem. That's got to change. I have no problems with international trade so long as they also ensure that there is shared prosperity where workers also make enough too and are not left in poverty without enough to live a decent life while the rich get richer.

[Pants-of-dog]

[Rich]

Was he, my friend? What good is a ''Union'' if one can enter or leave it at will, nullify it's laws if a State government doesn't like it, secede if they don't like the results of a national election? We're dealing with much the same issues potentially once more, ironically from the same Democratic party machine that you decry.

What an astounding position you take. I can see how one could support the democracy and support the Confederacy. I could also see how one could want to rejoin the Union, the Union of the United kingdom, if one supported Constitutionalism, conservative legitimacy and progressive rights. Remember the revolution against Britain was very explicitly White supremacist. It rejected "Somerset vs Stuart" and the proclamation line. The American revolution was a resounding embrace of Black slavery, a rejection of abolitionism and a call to ethnic cleansing of the American Indians.

The Metropolitan elite had always been cooler on slavery than the plebeian settlers. If human rights had been a priority Americans should have stayed in the (United Kingdom) Union. That the vile and loathsome Republican hypocrites should whine about the attack on Fort Sumter just beggars belief. There were numerous attacks on property prior to the outbreak of war in 1775, the Boston Tea party being just one, there was revolutionary violence against the representatives of the crown. By denying the right to preemptivly disarm Fort Sumter the Republicans undermined the very founding legitimacy of their own state.

The colonists of Georgia had to struggle for many years against the bleedin heart Metropolitan elite, in order to win the right to won slaves. A lot of leftists seem to live in a pathetic fantasy world where White supremacism was something imposed by the upper classes, or finance capital or some other such drivel. Who was it wanted Apartheid in South Africa? It sure as hell wasn't the Anglo business elite, it was the Afrikaans plebians.

[Tainari88]

What an astounding position you take. I can see how one could support the democracy and support the Confederacy. I could also see how one could want to rejoin the Union, the Union of the United kingdom, if one supported Constitutionalism, conservative legitimacy and progressive rights. Remember the revolution against Britain was very explicitly White supremacist. It rejected "Somerset vs Stuart" and the proclamation line. The American revolution was a resounding embrace of Black slavery, a rejection of abolitionism and a call to ethnic cleansing of the American Indians.

The Metropolitan elite had always been cooler on slavery than the plebeian settlers. If human rights had been a priority Americans should have stayed in the (United Kingdom) Union. That the vile and loathsome Republican hypocrites should whine about the attack on Fort Sumter just beggars belief. There were numerous attacks on property prior to the outbreak of war in 1775, the Boston Tea party being just one, there was revolutionary violence against the representatives of the crown. By denying the right to preemptivly disarm Fort Sumter the Republicans undermined the very founding legitimacy of their own state.

The colonists of Georgia had to struggle for many years against the bleedin heart Metropolitan elite, in order to win the right to won slaves. A lot of leftists seem to live in a pathetic fantasy world where White supremacism was something imposed by the upper classes, or finance capital or some other such drivel. Who was it wanted Apartheid in South Africa? It sure as hell wasn't the Anglo business elite, it was the Afrikaans plebians.

I don't agree with your conclusions sometimes Rich, but I really enjoy your perspectives. They make me think hard and they are not conventional. The lack of conventional thinking I appreciate.

I just think you have underlying assumptions that I find difficult to understand.

You kind of undermine your own intelligence? If that makes any sense?

Where do you live Rich?

[Rich]

I don't agree with your conclusions sometimes Rich, but I really enjoy your perspectives. They make me think hard and they are not conventional. The lack of conventional thinking I appreciate.

I just think you have underlying assumptions that I find difficult to understand.

You kind of undermine your own intelligence? If that makes any sense?

Where do you live Rich?

England.

Well that last post was slightly tongue in cheek, and was very specifically meant to engage with the views of @annatar1914. Whether it did that successfully is another matter. A lot of my posts are attempting to attack moral absolutism. Both sides in the Union /Confederate debate tend to lapse into moral absolutism and both tend to have inconsistencies. My real grounded view is that the people of history, were just not their to fulfil our modern identity needs, whether they were White, Black Brown, rich, poor, civilised or uncivilised. But as long as the past is the number one football of the Culture wars, I'm going to join in (I fear I may have mixed metaphors there).

Like most people I try to produce what I appreciate from others. From time to time on various forums, I will come across a post, an argument and I will think what absolute nonsense, but then a couple of pages later I'm starting to think hang on he / she has got a point. It doesn't happen that often but I enjoy having my mind changed by what seemed at the start an outrageous proposition. I enjoy some of what I write and some people at least some of the time seem to appreciate it, so what more can one ask for. I'm not trying to build a movement, so I don't need to be right all the time.

[annatar1914]

What an astounding position you take. I can see how one could support the democracy and support the Confederacy. I could also see how one could want to rejoin the Union, the Union of the United kingdom, if one supported Constitutionalism, conservative legitimacy and progressive rights. Remember the revolution against Britain was very explicitly White supremacist. It rejected "Somerset vs Stuart" and the proclamation line. The American revolution was a resounding embrace of Black slavery, a rejection of abolitionism and a call to ethnic cleansing of the American Indians.

The Metropolitan elite had always been cooler on slavery than the plebeian settlers. If human rights had been a priority Americans should have stayed in the (United Kingdom) Union. That the vile and loathsome Republican hypocrites should whine about the attack on Fort Sumter just beggars belief. There were numerous attacks on property prior to the outbreak of war in 1775, the Boston Tea party being just one, there was revolutionary violence against the representatives of the crown. By denying the right to preemptivly disarm Fort Sumter the Republicans undermined the very founding legitimacy of their own state.

The colonists of Georgia had to struggle for many years against the bleedin heart Metropolitan elite, in order to win the right to won slaves. A lot of leftists seem to live in a pathetic fantasy world where White supremacism was something imposed by the upper classes, or finance capital or some other such drivel. Who was it wanted Apartheid in South Africa? It sure as hell wasn't the Anglo business elite, it was the Afrikaans plebians.

@Rich ;

You and I have both been posting here for years now I think. Both of us no doubt have a common reputation for idiosyncratic takes on the political situation, both past, present, and future. It seems to me that you are a Monarchist, legitimist, something of a right-winger, but again with positions not easily placed within the cluster of the usual reactionary and traditionalist politics. Like you, i'm not afraid of historical revisionism when justified by the facts.

I myself have had as i've described it a ''Tsar and Soviets'' political stance, but essentially my attitude in this particular instance is being against the principle of rebellion in general, as something base and immoral. And yes, I do square that particular circle and avoid logical inconsistency.

Therefore, I fail to see where the Union ''hypocrisy'' existed, while being aware that this is exactly what certain British thinkers crowed about while the American Civil War was dragging on. That is, that the Americans had ''seceded'' from the British Empire and then in 1860-65 prevented the Confederate rebels from doing so in turn, presumably unjustly because King Cotton, of course.

But we're not talking about the conditions of the American polity in 1776 and the rule of the Articles of Confederation, but the US Constitutional regime of 1789 which replaced the previous dis-order. And that 1789 government order is what the CSA rebels had turned against.

So unless you want to get into the hypocrisy of constitutional monarchy, which limits the monarchial authority to almost nothing, leaving the royals little more than figureheads as weak as the Merovingians...

[Tainari88]

England.

Well that last post was slightly tongue in cheek, and was very specifically meant to engage with the views of @annatar1914. Whether it did that successfully is another matter. A lot of my posts are attempting to attack moral absolutism. Both sides in the Union /Confederate debate tend to lapse into moral absolutism and both tend to have inconsistencies. My real grounded view is that the people of history, were just not their to fulfil our modern identity needs, whether they were White, Black Brown, rich, poor, civilised or uncivilised. But as long as the past is the number one football of the Culture wars, I'm going to join in (I fear I may have mixed metaphors there).

Like most people I try to produce what I appreciate from others. From time to time on various forums, I will come across a post, an argument and I will think what absolute nonsense, but then a couple of pages later I'm starting to think hang on he / she has got a point. It doesn't happen that often but I enjoy having my mind changed by what seemed at the start an outrageous proposition. I enjoy some of what I write and some people at least some of the time seem to appreciate it, so what more can one ask for. I'm not trying to build a movement, so I don't need to be right all the time.

You know great literature has universal truths about human beings and their human behaviors. And rarely is anyone all one thing or the other. Most people are parts of good and parts of bad and they fuse together and they go through life struggling with their internal contradictions.

You remind me of that a lot Rich.

I think human life is very fragile. Should not waste time on thinking that you are right always. Because it is not true.

English are you?

I think you don't like liberalism at all. But I presume. You should speak for yourself.

Nothing bores me more than conventional thinkers and lazy people who think they know a lot and never bother to put in any efforts to try to understand what might be more complex than they initially thought it was.