Forget the novels, the reality TV and the politics for a minute, history still facinates me most, especially what was left out.
BC, I was a bit miffed at you and Lumpy once for painting Lincoln as a tyrant. As a Lincoln admirer I had read everything out there and came to the conclusion he was a great man of vision and wisdom. I still think he was a man of vision and wisdom but with the help of the internet it didn't take long to find out what I had been taught and what I had been reading was very one sided. He was a tyrant as president, possibly pocessed by some great evil or just plainly deranged by an earlier kick in the head by that stubborn mule.
Recently I have read that the distruction of Sherman's march across the south was caused mostly by the confederates not wanting to leave anything for the north to plunder as they disbanded in defeat. Most of what I find says scorch and burn was the intention of the northern military per Lincoln's orders. Later the tactics learned and practiced seem evident in Sheridan and others that cleared the way for the railroads while Canada managed to build a rail system without need of genicide.
It is amazing.................what history books leave out. But it should not surprise us. History is being made today and revised almost immediately. Even now, news organizations choose to report only that which agrees with their point of view.
Like you, I had read the history book version of Lincoln and recognized him as a great man also. A few years back, while listening to a very loyal to the US and his Southern heritaga gentleman who lived across the yard from me in the winter until Hurrican Ivan took his home. He absolutely despises Lincoln, which cause me some confusion at first, and until I started doing a little reading. I have nowhere close to the high opinion of Lincoln I once held and personally believe he is the root of our State's rights problems of today.
Shouldn't you be in bed? ;-) I am headed there Good night.
The revisionist history that I read is written by certified historians who possess several degrees, and have usually taught for decades at various universities. The revisionist history books that I read are well researched, and most importantly contain footnotes (I will not read a history book that doesn't contain footnotes). Regarding Lincoln; compare the work of historian Thomas DiLorenzo to the recent work of historian wanna-be Bill O'Reilly.
Lincoln is an important figure for the wrong reasons. I have backed off from the claim that he is the worst POTUS ever. I believe that honor belongs to Wilson. Then I read something that moves Lincoln back into first again. I would like to see a smackdown between the Lincoln and Wilson historians.
I have never claimed to oppose mala in se laws; only mala prohibita laws.
And BC is not "entitled" to his social security check, nor is anybody else outside of the political class for that matter.
"BC, I was a bit miffed at you and Lumpy once for painting Lincoln as a tyrant. As a Lincoln admirer I had read everything out there and came to the conclusion he was a great man of vision and wisdom."
Is it not possible for a man to be both a tyrant and a great man of vision of wisdom?
In ancient Greece, when the people found the wheels of democracy brudensome and contrary to the desires for progress, the people would toss aside their hard-won democracy in favour of tyranny. Tyrants, after all, have an ability to accomplish great things unencumbered by the processes of debate and of advice and consent.
Alexander the Great was certainly a Tyrant, but the still branded him 'the Great' (though some historians challenge that label). Peter the Great of Russia was another great tyrant.
Someday read some of the wonderful things Lincoln did for Missouri during the War Between the States.
Actually the political class can, has, and will spend SS taxes on whatever they wish. The SCOTUS decided that case almost a half century ago.
I think everybody should go ahead and get whatever they can. It will bring default much faster.
The SCOTUS decided that case almost a half century ago.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 9:51 AM
Is the SCOTUS a body part located close to the SCROTUM?
Yeah, had that explained to me once, couple of days back.
I have nothing to fear as I do not venture more than about 100 yards from home on Black Friday.
"Is it not possible for a man to be both a tyrant and a great man of vision of wisdom?"
Shapley, From my post, " I still think he was a man of vision and wisdom but with the help of the internet it didn't take long to find out what I had been taught and what I had been reading was very one sided. He was a tyrant...."
Thanks for the examples, I think many famed for their sucesses were tyrantal in their actions.
Me'Lange Good advise, I practice that stance regarding your posts. :) :)
Good for Cape! I hope they can find some federal grants to pay for that trolley also. I noticed several old buildings in the Themis area that are looking pretty shabby today. They may be historic. I am sure that there are federal grants for the preservation of possibly historic buildings. Grab it all. If we don't, somebody else will. The sooner the better.
Back to the original subject of this thread: I hear Lincoln is doing very well in theaters. Historically, this wasn't always the case...
"Back to the original subject of this thread: I hear Lincoln is doing very well in theaters. Historically, this wasn't always the case..."
In a somewhat recent survey, all Presidents were rated by 58 historians in the categories of public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision/setting agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within the context of times.
Lincoln was rated first with about 900 points, FDR, Washington and Roosevelt were next with between 810 and 875 points. Buchanan was last with about 300 points.
For obvious reasons I would lend more credence to an assessment by numerous historians, over that of a few Southeast Missourians.
Who, as always, are welcome to their own opinions.
The winner writes history. And we know some historians are extremely biased.
Take history like you do the internet. Use the filters God gave you. When the BS meter goes Braaaaaak, investigate a little for yourself.
Like Yoda said, make one great wars do not.
The "Civil War" wasn't even a civil war in the historical sense. Nor was the "American Revolution" a revolution.
"...a lot of Southeast Missourians put together is a whole lot of experience and knowledge combined."
Your claim reminds me of the Southeast Missourian who claimed to have 30 years of expeience. Turned out he had only one year of experience and had been doing the same thing for 29 more years.
I'll go along with the 58 historians.
Mathematics deals with quantifiable entities, numbers. 1 = 1. Unless you're an accountant or a lawyer, that is irrefutable.
History, on the other hand, deals with events of the past, recorded (or not) with conflicting testimonies by frequently-biased individuals. Sometimes there is solid evidence left by the events being recorded (photos, videotape, hard evidence (such as bullets, DNA, and such). Usually, the details have to be pieced together, CSI-like, from fragmented evidence altered by time and the effects of the four W's - war, wear, weather, and the will of God.
Oftentimes, as someone already noted, the only written History is by the victors. In civilized warfare, however, both sides often record the events.
Julius Caesar was noted for keeping extensive journals of his campaigns. Most of his opponents were less so.
The Chinese during the Han Dynasty recorded the events of the Battle of Red Cliff, both the winning and the losing sides filing reports. They are generally in agreement, and thus the account can be considered fairly accurate. This is rarely the case, particularly in wars of such age (~ 1,800 years).
American Presidents have left an extensive paper trail of official acts. However, details of their personal lives and of unrecorded events is subject to historical revision. Nearly all history is biased one way or the other.
Gore Vidal's "Lincoln a novel" is a good example of what Shapley mentions IMO. Not one part in my critique is unbelievable but most of the details are speculation.
He writes in an antedote of humor and says that when lincoln was asked if it was true that Lincoln told that story, Lincoln agreed it was probably fact based humor but said, I reckon it was charged to me to give it legs.
Maybe best not to contest the greatness of Lincoln as viewed through progressive liberal ideaolgy and let Common and others continue to feel good about themselves for lauding a Republican.
Revisionism about many people and events have been charged to history to give it legs.
Only anarchists support no government.
'Anarchy' generally refers to the total absence of government.
libertarians generally hold the concept of subsidiarity, which prefers no more government than is necessary to maintain order, and that government be emplemented at the lowest level possible.
"Yes , there were "Leaders" of "empires" , these were sacred positions more then "political" positions."
That is 'government', in the simplest context. Tribal leadership is the most local form of government. It exists in many nations today, sometimes to good effect, sometimes not.
"There were no campaigns , secret ballots , or local representatives."
NO battles for leadership? No challenge of authority? No intrigue or conspiracies to overthrown bad leadership? I find that difficult to beleive, mankind being what it is.
Was there no tribal council? Have we been misled for all these years?
"Yes , you have been misled for all of these years . A bias history , perhaps ?"
"It was something close to what people call "The Pope"."
"Our Pope has a hierarchical structure, which both selects him and answers to him after his selection. Beneath the Pope are the Cardinals, beneath the Cardinals are the Bishops and Archbishops, and beneath them are monsignors, priests, and deacons."
'Subsidiarity' is actually a Catholic concept, but is expanded into civil government. The dictionary defines it thusly:
"1. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over
"2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level"
There is an election of the Pope, but votes are limited to the Cardinals.
I find the Libertarian Party to be confused. On the national level, they are usually fairly good advocates of subsidiarity and freedom from overly-broad federal powers. Their selection process for candidates, unfortunately, is not so good, such that many also-rans seeking a party platform on which to run, whether conservative, liberal, or something else, have used the Libertarian Party's ballot access to run. As such, they tend to lack a clear message, even if the platform itself is well laid out.
They've also become dominated, at least in many areas, by the Marijuana-legalization crowd. As such they are tainted with the Hippie image, whether valid or not.
On the local level, they seem to be all over the place, from anarchists to those seeking to shift the braod powers exercised by the federal government to the states (a principle advocated by many conservative Republicans).
"I'm not impressed by those who worship Roman emperors like the child molester Tiberius, the incest of Caligula, the blood letting sexual drive of Claudius."
I'm not aware that anyone currently worships Roman Emprorers.
I believe that the failed federal war on drugs is the single most destructive offense unleashed on society in modern history. It's not about hippies smoking pot.
"I believe that the failed federal war on drugs is the single most destructive offense unleashed on society in modern history. It's not about hippies smoking pot."
I have no problem with ending the drug war. It's not about the cause, it's about the perception.
Ii visited the Libertarian Party's website a number of years ago to get more information. Browsing through the items advertised for sale in their store, one would have gotten the impression that the the Marijuana Leaf was the official symbol of the party. Drug legalization was the rampant theme.
You could buy books and pamphlets that dealt with other issues, as well as campaign buttons for various candidates, but by far the most common items all had Marijuana Leaves emblazoned upon them.
That may have more appeal today, but at that time (the late 1990s early 2000s), it wasn't going to win the favour of the majority of voters, particularly not the disenchanted Republicans looking for a serious states-rights' alternative to the Republican Party's establishment regulars.
I have been an involved member of the LP for several years now. I know what is preventing the LP from growing, and acheiving some political victories: people like me are involved members of the LP. I don't believe that there can be a political solution to the problems caused by politics. I see the LP as more of an educational vessel than a real political party. The LP can (and does) have success at the local level. There are advantages to being a member of an official political party. I have found some of the most hardcore anarchists in the country hanging around LP national conventions. It has street cred where it counts.
The worst thing the national LP ever did was allow itself to be co-opted by Republicans. Bob Barr was a disaster.
"The worst thing the national LP ever did was allow itself to be co-opted by Republicans."
So, you think the secret to the Libertarian Party's success is to keep people out of it? Good luck with that!
It depends on what the definition of "success" is. Of coarse Republicans are welcomed into the LP so long as they don't confuse themselves into believing that the LP is GOP Lite. They will be disappointed, just like the Ron Paul supporters are disappointed to find out that the GOP is the crony capitalisim / war party. Political parties should never sell themselves out in an attempt to grow their numbers.
Should the Dems try to attract new members by not supporting unions and taxes? Should the Repubs try to attract new members by becoming doves? The LP has core beliefs also, and while we sometimes stray, we aren't changing for some membership drive.
The LP experimented with courting disgruntled Republicans a few years ago. The Barr/Root ticket was the result, with Wayne Root being elected to the LP national committee. It was a dismal failure, with Root actually endorsing Romney this spring. The libertarians responded by electing a "radical" (ie, libertarian) national committee. Root finally resigned, rejoined the GOP, and took his handful of followers with him. It simply didn't work.
"They blame the failures of the economy on Democrat liberalism without realizing that their neoconservative leaders are also champions of the welfare state."
It's not a matter of 'failing to realize' anything. It's about electability. We can choose to be also-rans like the Libertarians or we can sacrifice on issues while trying to stem the tide of liberal over-reach.
President Bush conceded on the Prescription Drug benefit. It was clear we were going to have a prescription drug plan whether it was Mr. Bush's or Mr. Gore's. Mr. Bush's retained some degree of free market economics and individual choice. My preference would have been to not have a federal drug benefit enacted (as it has only opened the door to clamours for more and larger), but it was a necessary evil in the political climate of the day.
Yes, government gets bigger under Republicans. Do you really think Republicans 'fail to realize' that? What do you think I mean when I say we offer a 'slower handbasket'?
The Libertarians aren't going to win national eleciton. They've not been able to get a single federal candidate elected. Ergo, they will enjoy 'also ran' status for the foreseeable future.
You need only look at the gloating of the Democrats and their calls for even more and larger liberal policies over an election that basically changed nothing to see that the demands for more of other peoples' monies is only going to continue to grow. If the best we can hope for from Republican candidates today is a little less taxation and a little less government than will be enacted when they lose, I'll accept that until we can find a candidate that can win elections _and_ turn that around.
Currently, the demand for more of other peoples' monies to pay for the excesses of government is growing louder. It's not growing louder from Republicans, by and large, but it's growing.
We're not going to kill Social Security or Medicare, or Medicaid. We can reform then with free-market plans, but that shift has to be made gradually or it'll never be made at all. President Bush tries and failed. Mr. Ryan has such a plan, but with Mr. Romney's defeat is unlikely to see the light of day for at least two years. The Democrats have not plans nor desires to see them reformed at all. Some on here claim they support proposals to shore them up, yet they have never issued such proposals nor championed them.
There is a difference between the parties, whether you want to accept that. Yes, there are liberal republicans just as there are conservative democrats. Yes, the party regulars are career politicians who buy votes with other peoples' monies, just as the democrat leadership does. But, the rank-and-file have sway.
The T.E.A. Party movement tried to alter the Republican structure. They had some successes, getting rid of some party regulars and a few liberal-leaning Republicans that needed to go. This year was a disappointment. They will have to regroup, they will have to work harder and smarter if they are to effect change. They will have to screen their candidates better, and not let their messages be drowned out by the cacophony of the Democrats' election machine. There were stumbles, there always are when starting to walk, but walk they must if we are make headway.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM
I agree 100%. It's tough - I didn't like Bush's move to the medicare "donut hole" program. It's bigger government. On the other hand if he fights it the democrats get more seats in the house and senate.
The "they're all alike" talking point falls straight into the hands of the liberals. It disenfranchises conservatives. As I've posted before - the last seven years when democrats control both houses of congress deficits are nearly 10 TIMES the amount than the last 7 years when republicans control congress. Yes they both run deficits - why would anyone ignore the quantitative facts? It makes no sense.
The only word in economics that anybody needs to understand now is "default".
The tea party is dead. I don't even know if it stuck around long enough to warrant a footnote in Glenn Beck's next "history" book.
"Necessary" evil. "Lesser of the two" evils. Republicans sure do endorse a lot of evil.
I know that the LP will never win a federal election. That is why a lot of LP'ers are saying that we should focus on local races where we have found success. By local I mean city councils, water boards, police boards, school boards... the duopoly parties are too entrenched at the county level to make a dent.
"The tea party is dead. I don't even know if it stuck around long enough to warrant a footnote in Glenn Beck's next "history" book."
Just because the Democrats have declared them dead doesn't make it so. The people are still there, they are still mad, they just need a leader that can rally them. They were disappointed by the Republican nomination process, but they can recover. It's not as if the taxation issue that spawned them has gone away.
If they declare the Libertarian Party dead, will you start shopping for a cemetery plot?
I am going to be cremated.
What is the tea party mad about? Why would they care about the GOP nomination process? I thought the tea party was independent.
"Why would they care about the GOP nomination process?"
Because the selection of Mitt Romney left them with little choice in the election - the Northeastern liberal or the Midwestern liberal. Mr. Romney tried to portray himself as a conservative, but he did not speak the language well. Nor was he seen as a strong candidate.
"I thought the tea party was independent."
Independent of what? They have been focusing on the Republican Party, which they see as more attuned to the voice of the people. The Democrats are set in their big government ways, and that is of what their platform speaks. The change the Democrats requires changing the platform positions, which are heavily defended by the entitlement-minded membership.
The Republican platform speaks of subsidiarity and freedom and smaller government. Changing the Republican Party does not require changing the platform positions so much as it requires holding the candidates thereto. Thus, the T.E.A. Party has sought to effect change through the Republican Party by identifying candidates more in tune with what the Republican Party states it supports.
"Owning the means of production through the force of government, is no less welfare."
Not by any standard definition of welfare.
The government is supposed to responsive to the people. As it is, it is repsonsive to the people with the money to buy influence. The people with money seek influence because the government has garnered the power to grant them the favours they seek. Strip the government of that power, and the influence seeking will shrink...
All I want for Christmas is some Republican blinders. I can justify anything I do viewing life through Republican blinders.
You and your fellow Republicans remind me of my kids the first time they flunked a test in school: "you should have seen how many Johnny missed".
Libertarians are better than statists. How can everyone be for everyone?
Let's get out of the clouds for a moment and perhaps discuss the following to give us some real examples of how a libertarian would perform (not govern or lead - I know those are bad words).
Assume that in 2000 John Doe was just inaugurated as the first libertarian president. 8 months later radical muslim terrorists fly multiple planes into several targets and kill 3000 Americans. What, if anything, would be president John Doe's response be? As a libertarian?
"You and your fellow Republicans remind me of my kids the first time they flunked a test in school: "you should have seen how many Johnny missed"."
What, in my posts, makes you think of that?
The T.E.A. Party has had more successes, even in this election, than the Libertarian Party and yet you call them dead...
Fighting wars is a constitutional duty of the government. we started fighting wars 'over there' as far back as 1801, the year Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated. We sent the Marines to the shores of Tripoli to fight piracy in Northern Africa.
We obviously weren't successful, since today we are dealing with piracy in Northern Africa.
" The insurance companies and the people who suffered losses could put together a group of mercenaries after an investigation that would determined fault..."
Who would conduct the investigation and ensure that it is a fair and reasonable one?
Somehow, the idea of having insurance companies controlling armies of mercenaries to 'take out' those responsible for costing them money does not appeal to me.
-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 2:14 PM
Thanks. It was a serious question to move a bit from the theoretical political discourse and get to more WWLD - what would a libertarian do. That is how people vote and a little less etherial.
I consider myself ideologically conservative. But I support the republican party as the electable choice despite the fact that many republicans are liberal and I disagree with some of their positions.
I dunno. Sounds like an implausible scenerio.
First, we have never had, nor will we ever have a libertarian POTUS.
Second, none of those events could occur without a complicant government, an incompetent government, or a combination of the two. Which brings us back to the fact that we have never had, nor will we ever have, a libertarian POTUS.
Personally, I believe that 9/11 was a crime and should
have been treated as such. There have been a lot of facts (among other things) lost by treating 9/11 as an act of war.
We have to live in the real world, and that means we are highly unlikely to ever find a candidate, or indeed a party, with which we agree 100% of the time. Unless, of course we form our own party and become our own candidate.
Most of us, hopefully, agree with ourselves 100% of the time...
-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 1:34 AM
I would say it is not a proper response - as an armchair quarterback I feel they could have done this better and I'm confused why we are still there long after Osama is dead. I would agree that they *might* return to their tribal warring ways after we leave and the gov't of "Afghanistan" may exist in Kabul only.
I was just asking WWLD (see above)?
Today we are a nation full of heavy weapons capable of ending WWII in a few weeks if we fought like we did in WWII. When you send massive warfare into an area to "win the hearts and minds" you get a $2.6 Trillion war with a lot of deaths and continued terrorism. I have mixed feelings about helping people who are abysmally poor and uneducated. The real problem is al Qaeda and/or Iran's funding of terrorist, not the Taliban.
"Helping" people? LOL!
I don't laugh too much at abject poverty. Have you read or seen much some of the changes over there? I know of some local soldiers that have helped Afghan farmers with our farming techniques and helped repair farm equipment for them. And of course some of the schools for young girls that the Taliban despise.
I don't mind helping other people, I just don't know that our military should be doing peace corps work.
The poppy farmers are digging it.
How much has our global militarized FFA / Girl Scouts program cost ML? Was it worth it to you?
While searching for something else I see Peace has been euthenised. Yep, the turkey Obama pardoned last year is no longer a happily roaming free bird on the government farm. And some of you were worried Mitt was going to kill off Big Bird!
I wonder if the timing in the demise of Peace is some sort of secret omen of things to come.
"Dug, After a conservative estimate of $2.6 trillion and the lives of 6000 men and growing, would you consider that a proper response to 9-11?"
That's a liberal estimate, not a conservative one. The cost of allocations for the wars has totaled about $1.2 trillion.
"...not a conservative one. The cost of allocations for the wars has totaled about $1.2 trillion."
What a bargain... And at only 5000 lives.
And at only 5000 lives. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 9:13 PM
Most of which occurred under Obama in Afghanistan. Careful - you're speaking against the party and you cannot afford that.
"Most of which occurred under (President)Obama in Afghanistan."
Wrong again, as usual....
Of the 6644 American Military killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 4759 were during the President Bush administration, and 1785 during the President Obama administration.
"What a bargain... And at only 5000 lives."
I keep pointing out that fighting wars is a constitutional duty of government, paying other peoples' bills is not.
Thus, that amount, which is the cost over 10 years, is much less than we spend each year paying other peoples' bills.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 8:19 AM
Wrong again common. It's a bad pattern for you. In Afghanistan most deaths occurred under Obama.
More U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded in Afghanistan during President Barack Obama's first term in office than former President George W. Bush's two terms.
Under former President George W. Bush, 575 American soldiers died and fewer than 3,000 were wounded in Afghanistan. This means under Obama, at least 1,405 soldiers have died and nearly 15,000 additional soldiers have been wounded, which means 70% of the deaths and nearly 80% of the injuries in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama's watch.
While searching for something else: https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=...
Not on topic of the discussion but note the title of the thread.:)
Today while looking for the proper tie, I found someone snuck into my closet and shrank all my dress shirts. Oh well, I did tie my shoe laces. :)
You putting on a tie in the middle of the week. Sounds like bad news for someone.
Wheels, Bro in law's sister. Hate to admit it but I had known of her as long as I can remember but don't recall ever meeting her.
While looking for something else, I ran across this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherh...
Should Obama invite this guy for a "let's get a beer!" session?
Also, while looking for something else I ran across this from todays semissourian: http://www.semissourian.com/story/191861...
Easily passed over but the comment section leads to another one of Kens great posts with some interesting history. Cape to Jackson was Mo's first long distance telephone connection, Advance, College terraces and the "over a bottle of wisky" discussion on a Jackson porch.
You are right Old John. No telling what will pop up when you are looking for something else.
They are nothing but tiny human trackers to me..
-- Posted by .Rick Lately on Sun, Dec 2, 2012, at 10:31 AM
I could care less if they track me. If they figure there is a reason let em have a ball. They can track me through a few cemeteries and develope their conspiracey theories from that. if they find a reason to put me away doing that... they will just have to feed me.
I'm well aware of the hacking problem. Will not use it for online ordering,banking or anything of that sort.
Posting a comment requires free registration: