Trranslation: I have no freaking idea what I'm talking about. Therefore here comes a dismissive mildly amusing deke-out. Ignorant gibberish. Which is why you had a century of slavery after that set-up left the chocks. Wait a second. You just said how great minority rule was. (And boy, do you ever have minority rule now.) C'mon, Jenee, just a summary definition of republic. Pretty please.
And you are wrong on all of these issues. This is now the fourth post I've made on the subject and you're no closer to dealing with the actual issues I'm raising. I'm going to make it as simple as possible. 1) You are wrong about what democracy is. Democracy, like autocracy, is an abstract concept. It does not imply anything specific about a political system. You are ignoring this issue with your definition of democracy. You are further ignoring that a "democracy" that denies half its population (ie, women) the right to vote is not a democracy. 2) You are flat-out historically wrong to say that the aspects of the US political system designed to protect minority rights were responsible in any way for the abolition of slavery. As I have explained, the characteristics of the US society which were designed to preserve minority power had zero, zip, nada to do with the abolition of slavery. In fact, those institutions - from the Supreme Court, to the electoral college, to "states' rights," to the enforcement of property rights - acted in precisely the opposite manner - they hindered the anti-slavery political forces and acted on behalf of the slaveholding class, which is pretty unsurprising since that's what they were more or less intended to do.
The point is that holding public office is not a requirement and experience can come in many forms. Surprisingly enough, Trump is getting things done. Hopefully they will work to move this country forward and hopefully rule of law will return to this country.
We don't know how slavery would have ended if the civil war never happened. What if the Fugitive Slave Act was enforced strictly or the compromise of 1850 or before that the compromise of 1830? What if abolitionists weren't so rabid about abolishing it and rather allowed it to die out? What if Lincoln payed for the freedom of the slaves and industrialized the South? A lot of things could have gone differently. It's stupid to say that a majority of people would have voted to abolish it, maybe people would have allowed slavery only in certain states or in viable cotton priding areas, maybe some other compromise could have been reached? Maybe Lincoln could have let the South go? We just simply don't know because we had a war instead.
I'm more worried about Trump's thin skin and vanity. Inexperience? That is what good staff is for. But angry decisions based on a trollish tweet that can influence half the planet? Ugh.
I have not defined "democracy" any further than "mob rules". This is why our founding fathers did not state "democracy" in the constitution. We are a representative republic. I am not ignoring that a "democracy" that denies half its population the right to vote is not a democracy. That is exactly what I'm saying. I have no idea where you are getting this. I did not say any aspect of our political system designed to protect minority rights were responsible for the abolition of slavery. I said if put to a popular vote, slavery would not have been abolished. Even if voted in our representative republic, at the time, slavery would not have been abolished. Abraham Lincoln did not in any way state that if he were elected he would abolish slavery - in fact, he said the opposite. Now, stop trying to pull me into deep conversations. I am only here to give quips and quotes and a few snide remarks. If you write more than two or three lines in a paragraph, it's safe to say, I'm not going to read it. I come here for entertainment.
Well there's your problem right there. I will also tell you that if you are a 'bleeding-heart liberal' this stance with respect to democracy does far more harm than good to your political goals. You choose whether or not to respond to my posts - if you don't want to be 'drawn into deep discussion' then simply don't respond to them. In the meantime, I'm going to continue exposing your historical ignorance, because that's what I find entertaining. You know, kind of like this:
You are just wrong. Direct democracy is indeed a form of government which has been used in the past albeit in ancient times and only on a small city scale. It was largely dropped due to impracticality but it is a form of government and it has been used in the past.
I don’t read a lot of alternative history novels. In my observation they tend to run along the lines of “What if Hitler won the war?” and “What if the South had won the Civil War?” I doubt anyone’s ever written an alternative history along the lines of “What if Lincoln had just said ‘Fuck ‘em! Let ‘em go!’” Create a genuine Underground Railroad, infiltrate slave markets and plantations, station troops along the Mason-Dixon line to get as many runaways through as possible but, in all other respects, let the South go about its business. Put diplomatic pressure on overseas markets for Southern cotton. Cut the South off from the industrial North so that it had to build its own factories. IOW, starve ‘em out. Mexico – which freed its slaves in the 1840s – would take the opportunity to reclaim its territory. France might want to be a player as well. For a while there’d be two “Americas” – one a flourishing northern industrial and agricultural (pushing further west) nation, the other a third-world nation whose one-crop farming had destroyed its soil, leaving it destitute. By the turn of the 20th century, Arkansans would be speaking Spanish, the generational scars of slavery would have started to heal that much sooner, and the rest of us wouldn’t have to put up with Red State nonsense. Tempting scenario. The only glitch I see is that without the loss of those hundreds of thousands dead, we’d have had to come to grips with population issues that much sooner but, without the “sex is a sin” mindset that oozes up out of the fundamentalist swamps, universal sex education and safe, effective contraception would be a given. Just a thought. As fiction, though, the structure’s lopsided. All the action’s in the first 200 pages. Once Mexico reconquers its former territories and keeps going right up to the M-D line, and there’s a treaty between the two Americas, where does the author go from there? Where’s James Clavell when you need him?
Harry Turtledove has a series that posits a Confederate victory in the campaign that in real life ended in the battle of Antietam, which results in Britain and France leaning on the US to recognize Confederate independence. The USA and CSA are drawn into the European Great Power system, and after fighting another war in the 1870s over Confederate purchase of the Mexican states Sonora and Chihuaha, which the US loses badly and humiliatingly, the US gears up for war big time. During that war the CSA manumits the slaves in exchange for British and French assistance. World War I breaks out pretty much as it did in real life, execpt that the US is allied with the Central Powers and the CSA is allied with the Entente. The CSA is wracked by a series of Marxist uprisings by black people, which are blamed for losing the war. The Central Powers win WW1, which causes fascists to take power after the Depression in the former entente powers- reactionary Catholic monarchists in France, a Churchill-Mosley coalition government in the UK, and a Hitler-analogue who ends up exterminating black people in gas chambers in the CSA. None of this is very historically plausible but it's a very fun series. Much cooler World War I than the one that really happened, imo.
CSA wpuld probably have been allied ith the UK due to cotton exports and a culture which stressed Anglo-Saxon culture and ties.
That's part of it. But it's not really the whole story. In fact, the classes in the North most involved in exploiting the South (the banking and mercantile classes specifically) were also the ones most opposed to the war, for obvious reasons.
I think you're being pretty generous with the capabilities of the Mexican Army. The South might not have had the industrial might to keep up with the North, Mexico would've had a tough time taking back everything they lost between 1836 and 1848.
Billy Yank: Why are you fighting this war Johnny Reb? Johnny Reb: Fightin' for our rats. Billy Yank: You're what?!?
I went on a couple dates with this guy in college - in West Virginia. He was a total hillbilly, but he could carry a conversation, so .. He said his last name was Rally. When I saw his name in writing, it was Rowley. True story.
Stolen from a (Hispanic) friend's Facebook page. Dear President Trump: I have fronted a lot of Mexicans a lot of money in the past. WORD OF ADVICE: They rarely pay up. Oh, they keep promising they'll take care of you next pay day. But then some crisis comes up. The rent's past due, someone has a serious illness, little Beto needs pendejo therapy. But they swear on their momma's life they will pay you back. But then you will see them driving a new car, or with lots of bling, or buying drinks for all of South america at the club. After a while, they'll be dodging you at the UN Assembly, say they've got the money, but have to go to an ATM. You'll never see them again.
The term "direct democracy" is often used to describe such a government, but I'm not sure another term wouldn't be more useful. At any rate, it's silly to insist that direct democracy is the only possible form of democracy.
