Slow Turning

A fan of Hosni Mubareck

We haven’t addressed what’s going on in the Middle East but it portends some really significant changes. First, Iran experienced a rebellion, then Tunisia collapsed into chaos. Now Egypt is experiencing a similar upheaval, and it looks as though Jordan is going through the same process. Much of this disruption is from a process that has been building over decades. What does it mean?

Several million Egyptians unite

 

Will it continue throughout the rest of the region and what effect will it have, in particular, on Israel? What does it mean for the rest of the world? What should the American response be?


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to Slow Turning

  1. Bart DePalma says:

    We should clearly and unambiguously support democracy in the Middle East – period. We are the original revolutionary republic. We should act like one.

  2. Bartbuster says:

    I’m pretty sure an angry mob is not a democracy. It may claim that it intends to be a democracy, but that often changes when it gains control. We should step aside and let the Egyptians determine how this goes.

    We should also start printing “Made in China” on the tear gas cannisters that we sell to our favorite despots.

  3. Mr. Universe says:

    @Bart,

    A rare occasion where we agree.

    Providing, of course, that we agree on the same concept of Democracy the meaning of which you have often twisted to fit your purposes in the past; ie ‘the will of the people like me’.

  4. Bartbuster says:

    We have ZERO credibility when it comes to supporting democracy in the Middle East.

  5. NotImpressed says:

    It seems to me we have as much right to fiddle in the internal affairs of other countries as we want to allow them to fiddle in ours. If America suddenly fell apart into internal strife and chaos as Egypt seems to be, surely we would not want Iran or Jordan or even France to tell us what kind of new government we should form.

  6. Mainer says:

    Let us not forget that the French did play an important role in our Revolution. I’m not sure they tried to dictate the eventual direction but they sure as shooting were involved.

    We can be assistive, as in if we were even a small part of the effort to get Mubarak to understand it was time to go or the military to not over react then we may have done what we could. We have to remember when we did this there was not a Muslim brotherhood wanting to subvert the whole thing (ok there were the Loyalists but after Guilford Court house that even settled down some). We at best have a limited role to play but should play it where and as circumstances allow. What we can not do is be seen as actively supporting any one group or people like the Brotherhood will play that to the max.

  7. NotImpressed says:

    Mainer said, “Let us not forget that the French did play an important role in our Revolution.”

    You are right, of course. And the French have been our allies for linger than we have been a nation. My point remains that the people who are calling for us to play a more active role in the Egyptian evolution would probably resent any foreign government playing an active roll in any similar unrest in modern America.

    It is true that partisans in any civil strife often seek allies in other nations. I’d have to see evidence that great segments of Egyptian people were calling for American non-neutrality. Maybe a majority is so calling. If so, I admit to being uninformed.

  8. Bartbuster says:

    The French helped the revolution, but had no role in determining our government. Mostly they were just interested in diverting British military resources.

  9. drfunguy says:

    Our record in the Middle East is of only supporting those democratic outcomes of which we approve (see Hamas in Gaza); and support dictators when it furthers our interests (see Shaw, Iran; Saudi Arabia).
    If we are to “unambiguously support democracy” in the region we will need to reconcile that with our past hypocrisies. Not that I am objecting, but it not as simple as portrayed above. If we support democracy then we have to recognize Hamas as legitimate rulers of Gaza. I don’t see that happening given the influence of pro-Israel types on US foreign policy.

  10. Monotreme says:

    NI says:

    And the French have been our allies for linger [sic] than we have been a nation.

    Don’t forget that they supported the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.

    I would point everyone to Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution, as apt today as when it was written.

  11. Yiddish says:

    Uh… why would it spread to Israel? Israel is a democracy… you are aware of that right?

  12. Mr. Universe says:

    How would it affect Israel? I didn’t mean to suggest that the same thing could happen in Israel.

  13. Monotreme says:

    Mr. U,

    I think Yiddish is referring to this comment:

    Will_it continue throughout the rest of the region, in particular, in Israel?

    Maybe you need to clarify what the meaning of “it” is, Mr. President.

  14. Mule Rider says:

    “Don’t forget that they supported the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.”

    Yeah, because they saw the unnecessary aggression and brutality of the Union against Southern states. The French know the bad guy when they see it.

  15. Bartbuster says:

    Yeah, because they saw the unnecessary aggression and brutality of the Union against Southern states. The French know the bad guy when they see it.

    Yes, those poor misunderstood southerners. All they wanted was to keep their slaves. How brutal of the North to make them let their slaves go free.

  16. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Come on MR. We all (I hope) know that Beauregard caused the first shots to be fired. Stood in the spots, both where they were fired FROM and where they landed.

  17. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bartbuster says:
    February 2, 2011 at 11:00
    Yes, those poor misunderstood southerners. All they wanted was to keep their slaves.

    Only the 3-5%, upper crust, patrician class. The rest, as do soldiers everywhere, fought because their country called.

  18. Bart DePalma says:

    Mule:

    The Euros did not give a damn about the Confederacy beyond their desire for cotton and the hope of breaking up a rapidly rising rival nation. Even then, Britain and France had no desire to take on the Union on sea or on land.

  19. Bartbuster says:

    Only the 3-5%, upper crust, patrician class. The rest, as do soldiers everywhere, fought because their country called.

    No, they fought for their state, they fought against their country. And the fact they didn’t own slaves does not change that they were fighting so that others could keep their slaves.

  20. shortchain says:

    While the Civil War rages on, I’d just like to point out that, with 2 million “security” forces in Egypt, population 80 million, the people who are going to determine the future of the country are the military. The Egyptian military also has close ties to the American military and are reliable friends. As a matter of ordinary common sense, we’ll have to back their play, whatever that play happens to be.

    While we might like “democracy” to blossom in Egypt, what we are far more likely to see is an election in which, no matter who the candidates are, the military will remain in effective control.

    It could hardly turn out otherwise, given the size of the Egyptian military relative to its population.

  21. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bb, you show a profound lack of knowledge of the history of the United States AND the culture of the majority of the, primarily Scots-Irish, people of the Appalachian and Piedmont South.

    How many soldiers do you think have fought in Iran the past 8 years who disagreed with that war?

    How many soldiers do you think fought in Vietnam who disagreed with that war?

    How many German soldiers do you think fought in WWII who agreed with the Holocaust?

    There are many honest followers of the belief of Capt. Stephen Decatur.

    I encourage you to visit http://www.historynet.com/who-was-the-common-soldier-of-americas-civil-war.htm which gives an honest appraisal.

    I encourage you to visit http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html, including their mission statement.

    When you impose YOUR ideas and beliefs on other people, either historically, or as Bush/Cheney did, on other cultures in current times, you can make serious mistakes.

  22. Mule Rider says:

    Thanks for your very wise comments, Max.

    I’ve been steadily gaining respect for you lately and this was another move in that direction, for what it’s worth.

  23. shiloh says:

    So, the American Civil War is being argued in this thread also lol.

    And Bartles, re: supporting Democracy ie the Rep party ie Dutch/Bush41/cheney/bush/rummy/condi etc. supporting, repeating supporting Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Mubareck, Communist China etc.

    Indeed, given the unsavory history of Rep inept foreign policy/national security Bartles may want to bug out out of this discussion … or not. 😀

    >

    btw, is it possible even after one is dead to still be cutting and running from Beirut, Lebanon … just wonderin’

    Sorry Bart, Dutch is still dead!

  24. Bartbuster says:

    bb, you show a profound lack of knowledge of the history of the United States AND the culture of the majority of the, primarily Scots-Irish, people of the Appalachian and Piedmont South.

    How many soldiers do you think have fought in Iran the past 8 years who disagreed with that war?

    How many soldiers do you think fought in Vietnam who disagreed with that war?

    How many German soldiers do you think fought in WWII who agreed with the Holocaust?

    Max, whether or not the soldiers doing the fighting agree with the cause is completely and totally irrelevant. Even if every soldier in the Confederacy was opposed to slavery, it does not change the fact that they were still fighting to protect the institution of slavery. In fact. many of the soldiers in the North were probably racists who didn’t give a crap about freeing slaves. They were still fighting to end slavery, even if they were convinced that they were fighting for something else.

    Face it, the war was fought over slavery. One side wanted it to continue and expand into the West, and the other side wanted to end it. If you need to convince yourself that your distant relatives were against slavery, that’s fine, but if they did any fighting, they were fighting for slavery.

  25. dcpetterson says:

    The Civil War issue, and the discussion about what it was “fought for” leads to some interesting philosophic questions about the nature of political movements (or religious movements, for that matter).

    Do we define the ideas of a movement — do we understand its “intent” — based on the beliefs of its founders? or on its most vocal current members (whatever “current” means at the time)? Or on what the majority of the people who claim to belong to that movement claim to believe?

    Do we determine its philosophy on the writings of its most profound thinkers (define: “profound”) or on its most common and pedestrian ideas? Do we judge it by its ideals, or its effects, its stated goals or its actual consequences, its carefully-crafted “mission statements” or the ways those statements are commonly understood and put into practice?

    There’s no final answer to these questions, I think, and any given person is going to view the desirability of any given movement — political, cultural, religious — based on these different ways of looking at it (and probably other ways as well). I suspect this is a great part of why people who discuss these topics so often seem to talk past each other — we each look at different parts of the problem. The sad thing is, in the end, we share so much, and have so many of the same goals —

    So, let us not be blind to our differences — but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.
    John Fitzgerald Kennedy

  26. shiloh says:

    Max, whether or not the soldiers doing the fighting agree with the cause is completely and totally irrelevant.

    True, if they disagree they can be a civil disobedient/conscientious objector for religious reasons, whatever and suffer the consequences just like my post yesterday re: paying your taxes. Same w/disobeying a direct order which may violate the Geneva Convention or Army/Navy regulations etc.

    By not protesting, soldiers are in essence agreeing or are too stupid to know any better.

    Be true to your own conscience, eh as America right or wrong will get you killed needlessly!

    Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. ~ Bruce Springsteen

    Indeed, education is the key as mindless lemmings will follow an idiot to their death ie Bart’s yahoo teabaggers.

    >

    Responsibility, in the final analysis, lies at the top ~ the buck stops here!

    Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way! ~ Thomas Paine

    >

    Am I still on topic 😉 carry on

  27. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bb,
    you are conflating two issues (patriotism and slavery), which, while you are correct as to outcome, were separate in the minds of those who fought. See also my comments on the other thread.

    Y’all understand, do you not, that had not the South acted so stupidly and seceded, that slavery as an institution probably would have lasted well beyond 1865?

    Were the typical German soldiers guilty of personal support of Hitler’s Final Solution?

    We must agree to disagree.

    All of which has nothing to do with current event in the Middle East. We all can save this for another thread. Write a guest post on the subject if you want to start the ball rolling.

  28. Bart DePalma says:

    Shiloh:

    The only Dems who can join Lincoln, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43’s record of freeing millions of people is Wilson and FDR. The Dems left Wilson and FDR’s vision of foreign policy during Vietnam.

  29. Bartbuster says:

    were separate in the minds of those who fought

    As I stated before, what they convinced themselves they were fighting for is irrelevant. The bottom line is that they were fighting to continue the institution of slavery.

    Y’all understand, do you not, that had not the South acted so stupidly and seceded, that slavery as an institution probably would have lasted well beyond 1865?</i?

    I assume you left out a "not"? In any case, that still doesn't matter. What matters is that the South wasn't willing to end slavery in 1860. Had the South ended slavery in 1860, the war would have never happened.

    Were the typical German soldiers guilty of personal support of Hitler’s Final Solution?

    Again, that does not matter. They were still fighting to protect it.

  30. Bartbuster says:

    The only Dems who can join Lincoln, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43′s record of freeing millions of people is Wilson and FDR. The Dems left Wilson and FDR’s vision of foreign policy during Vietnam.

    I’ll give you Lincoln. The rest is just wingnut fantasy.

  31. BB,

    Even if every soldier in the Confederacy was opposed to slavery, it does not change the fact that they were still fighting to protect the institution of slavery.

    They were fighting for hundreds of different reasons. To ascribe their participation in the war to supporting the institution of slavery is equivalent to ascribing all voters of Obama to supporting mandatory health insurance. Perhaps some did, but many others voted for him because they hated Bush, or they wanted a black President, or they were afraid that McCain wouldn’t last much longer and didn’t want Palin in the White House, or they thought a Democrat would be better for the economy, or any of hundreds of other reasons.

  32. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bb,

    You are voicing opinion and speculating.
    Again, do some research and write a guest column. We’ll take up the debate.

    Thanks

  33. Bartbuster says:

    They were fighting for hundreds of different reasons.

    I’m not talking about their individual reasons for fighting, I’m talking about the reason the war started. The war started because the South refused to give up slavery, so that’s the cause that everyone in the South is ultimately fighting for. Many probably convinced themselves that they were fighting for something else, but they were really fighting to continue the institution of slavery.

    By the way, it is exactly like voting for Obama even if you don’t support his healthcare plan. You may not support the plan, but you certainly helped to make it happen.

  34. but you certainly helped to make it happen.

    That statement is a far cry from saying that it’s “what you’re doing it for,” which implies that it was your intended goal. Perhaps many of these soldiers were fighting in spite of slavery, rather than for slavery, but chose to do so because, on balance, considering all of the implications of which they were aware, they considered the Confederacy to be the side to fight for.

    Do you have any evidence to dispute the previous sentence?

  35. Bartbuster says:

    You are voicing opinion and speculating.

    About what? Seriously, how many people believe the Civil War still happens if the South gives up slavery in 1860? 5? 10? I really don’t think I need to write an article to convince those 5-10 people that I’m right about this, especially since they probably don’t read this blog.

  36. Bartbuster says:

    That statement is a far cry from saying that it’s “what you’re doing it for,”

    I never said “that’s what you’re doing it for”, I said “that’s what they were fighting for”. It’s a subtle difference, but it is different.

    If you voted for Obama, you voted for his healthcare plan. If you didn’t agree with his healthcare plan, but still voted for him, you still voted for his healthcare plan. If you fought for the South, you fought for slavery. No difference.

  37. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Everybody here,

    please note that I have attempted several times to disengage from bartbuster, over two threads. shiloh and have already done so. I have offered to engage bb if he will research and write a guest column on the subject of the primary issue of the War between the States as opposed to simply voicing his opinion, off-topic, on these current threads.

    And y’all DO KNOW I enjoy a good argument and will support my positions with citation. But I won’t continue on that subject over two other topical threads.

    bb, I have nothing else to say on these threads on the matter.

    Have a nice day.

  38. Bartbuster says:

    Just out of curiosity, is there anyone here who thinks that the Civil War still happens in 1861 if the South agreed to end slavery in 1860?

  39. In any case, the new civil war going on in Cairo looks to be very interesting. (Easy to say when I’m safely on the other side of the planet; I doubt I’d call it merely “interesting” if I were there.) Up to this point, I didn’t think Mubarak had enough popular support to cause this sort of battle in the streets.

    But if Mubarak goes, the most likely candidate for a replacement government is the Muslim Brotherhood…not because the Egyptians are religious fundamentalists, but because the Brotherhood is the only real organization in Egypt with enough popular support (as an Anti-Mubarak organization) and enough structure to quickly step in to fill the void. That could end badly for the Egyptian public.

    I had a boss once who told me that no matter how bad a person is that you want to fire, somehow you end up with no better than a 50/50 chance of hiring someone better to take that person’s place. Granted, he was quite the cynic. Anyway, so it might seem here…Mubarak goes, and the replacement regime is as bad or worse.

    Popular elections (not necessarily democracy; there are many related forms of government) are a noble goal for any government, but hardly the only, nor even necessarily the most important, element.

  40. Mule Rider says:

    “Just out of curiosity, is there anyone here who thinks that the Civil War still happens in 1861 if the South agreed to end slavery in 1860?”

    It’s not a slam dunk either way….maybe it happens, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it’s simply postponed a few years. There was plenty of animosity between the two sides on other issues, and it exists today without slaverry with people using secession, revolutionary, and/or civil war language. You keep trying to elevate slavery as the focal point – though I’m not doubting it was a major factor – but the bitter divide in this country over other issues along geographic lines says otherwise.

  41. dcpetterson says:

    One interesting side-note is that Al Jazeera has become the primary channel for news reporting out of Egypt. It would be useful if they were more widely recognized in the West for the important news source they are.

  42. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    I’ve had al Jazeera on my iPod touch for going on a year now for the view from that side

  43. Mainer says:

    Michael it will be messy that is becoming more apparent. Government workers and security/police trying to pass themselves off as nongovernment Mubrak supports that then resort to violence is not a good move nor a good sign. But it also does not appear to have been done by the military.

    I would echo an earlier comment that how everthis plays out that the military is going to have a very large hand in the process as they are the major stabilizing force in the country.

    I am wondering just how the students and other young people that have driven this will take to a group such as the Muslim Brotherhood that will only take them backward and further repress them if only in different ways when it appears that this is driven by a desire for jobs, a future and openness for their society. Isn’t that going to be a hard sell for the Brotherhood?

  44. Bart DePalma says:

    BB: “Just out of curiosity, is there anyone here who thinks that the Civil War still happens in 1861 if the South agreed to end slavery in 1860?”

    Interesting question. The other major contention between the regions was the North using its popular majority to enact tariffs which harmed the South. However, the previous Nullification Crisis ended in political compromise, not war. Thus, I would speculate that if slavery was removed from the table in 1860, the South would not have attempted secession in 1861.

  45. dcpetterson says:

    Serious violence happening right now in Egypt. Looks like pro-Mubarak forces and militias.

  46. shiloh says:

    Let the record show it’s very wise of Bartle’s to deflect w/his dubious freeing millions red herring and not talk about Dutch/Bush41/cheney/rummy’s homies

    Saddam Hussein

    Noriega

    Mubarek, etc.

    and yes Virginia, Dutch/Bush41 supported Osama bin Laden while fighting w/the Afghan resistance when they were at war w/the Russians.

    hmm, whatever happened to bin Laden ?!?

    again, Republican foreign policy/national security ~ playin’ both sides of the fence and getting shit on by both!

    take care, blessings

  47. Mainer,
    From what I can gather (and it’s hard from this distance), the academic protesters want something more like real freedom. But they’re in the minority in the country, and the Muslim Brotherhood has a great deal of support from the less-educated Egyptians. The Brotherhood isn’t trying to sell to the academics.

    There’s an analogy I could draw to politics in the US, but I think it’s rather obvious.

  48. Mainer says:

    Mule not to get side tracked again but years ago I had a wonderful history professor out of Ole Miss who along with several other touring professors including an Aggie through and through addressed this very issue during a series of summer history seminars. In their view point the Civil War was inevitable with slavery or with out slavery. Slavery was obviously a hot button topic and the abolitionists of the day used it well in bumper sticker fashion. Obviously it was at some level a factor but the disparity between the North and the South in terms of industrial relations and M O N E Y drove the cart over the cliff. It may have been sold on the basis of slavery but it was really this whole damned states rights battle fought yet again by people that never really wanted to be a part of the Union (kind of like now) and a patrician oligarchy that were not going to give up their life style for what was best for a complete union.

    The vast majority of poor whites that went to their deaths from the South were not fighting about slavery they had been whipped into a frenzy about states rights and those damned thieving Northerners being the reason they were poor. Once the shooting and dying started it was like all other wars. Men joined so as not to be left behind. They fought to the death not for grand principals but for the men around them and so as not to embarrase the folks back home or their respective states of which many were so very proud. If one reads many of the books and diaries of the period from the men in the fighting there is little if any mention of slavery certainly not from many of the lads from Maine. Chamberlain was very eloquent and his letters from the day are fascinating reading but even though he came out of the Abolitionist hot bed of Bowdoin college it was more about his men and his state then more grand ideas. Now he did believe that a nation could not survive if every one got to pick and choose how they would interact with the government but again there was much more about his men and his state and his family. Here is an oddity for you what two states actually lost population from the 1860 census to the 1870 census either directly or indirectly as a result of the Civil War? Also I find it amazing that the two leaders who fought each other to a decisive end at Little Round Top would both survive the war and go on to be the govenor of their respective states. Joshua Chamberlain for Maine and William C. Oates of Alabama. Two of the toughst combat commanders of the war an natural leaders. We could use more like them today.

  49. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gawd DAMN, Mainer, you tickle that keyboard better’n a twenty dollah pi-anner player!

    Are you shore you a yankee?

    Or have you been looking at my notes?

  50. Monotreme says:

    Regarding the Civil War, which is not the topic of this thread: what Mainer said.

    Regarding Egypt, which is the topic of this thread, I fear that this is following the pattern set forth by Brinton in his 1938 book (referenced above). There is a large, well-educated should-be-middle-class that has not been given opportunities for advancement. Their demographics are upside-down, with a large group of educated youth who are oftentimes unemployed. The Mubarak regime for years now has tried to direct the anger of the people outward, towards Egypt’s “enemies”. When the people realize that the enemy is not outside of Egypt, revolution ensues.

    Whoever takes over will do a housecleaning and reign of terror, as surely as the Jacobins in France or the Stalinists in Russia terrorized and executed the ruling class. At the end of the “revolution”, the oligarchy is dead, the upper middle classes become the new oligarchy, the lower middle classes and poor are still poor.

    Like Leon Trotsky, expect to find Mohammed ElBaradei and the other politically savvy moderates mysteriously dead sometime in the next few years.

    Sorry to be so cynical, but this is how the world works.

  51. shiloh says:

    States rights = Right so secede from the Union for those of you keeping score at home.

    Re: Mainer’s southern professor(s) trying to revise history w/would of, could of, should of ie if slavery didn’t exist. Bottom line slavery did exist and was the central issue of the day. Again, the South trying to whitewash, no pun intended 😉 history.

    Shocking! as irrelevant hypotheticals can be fun, eh.

    Re: Mono, one obvious item you’re leaving out of the equation is 24/7 media ie Jacobins in France or the Stalinists in Russia did not have the internet age/cable news to keep citizens informed and folk back then were left totally in the dark w/no vehicle to help the peons/serfs organize against the feudal war lords, so to speak.

    The present information age is quite different from days gone by …

    Would the American Revolution have occurred w/out the Boston Tea Party/Boston Massacre Would JFK have escalated the Vietnam War had he lived.

    Cause and effect!

    If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    Did I mention one man’s what ifs are another man’s revisionist deflections.

    >

    Again, I yield back the balance of my time ~ but, but, but reserve the right to set the record straight once again should more (((southern))) professors opine their revisionist, hypothetical Civil War history.

    take care

  52. Monotreme says:

    Shiloh,

    Yes, I know that the nature of media has changed. But please offer a counter-example where a revolution was not followed by a Reign of Terror.

    The only example I’m aware of is the American Revolution, but one could argue that the Reign of Terror was simply deferred to 1840-1860, which sorta brings us full circle, doesn’t it?

  53. shiloh says:

    The Berlin Wall fell rather peacefully, as again, the whole world was watching!

    but, but, but that was Europeans and not Middle East folk. It depends, as you say, how educated/motivated said country’s population er peons/surfs is. One of the ironies is looking at America, where the supposed best democratic republic has (5%) of the people controlling a majority of the wealth … much like Egypt, eh.

    Is it time for another American Revolution comrades! 😉 Bart can be our leader lol

    Needless to say, another cheney/bush Iraq War ain’t happening again anytime soon 😛 I digress.

    Kinda like America, a country w/a 300/400 year history of racial oppression electing an African/American president as it had never happened before ie a historical first.

    Time will tell, but again, nothing will be swept under the carpet as the whole world is watching! No one can hide from Google Earth …

    It comes down to doing the right thing as Mubarak’s day are numbered and what happens next is either controlled chaos or just chaos. (((If))) Egypt has peaceful elections later this year, Obama will look like a genius compared to cheney/bush’s unprovoked, illegal, unconstitutional attack on Iraq, eh.

    ok, that’s a hypothetical 😉

    Again, am I still on topic …

  54. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shiloh,

    you are very disjointed in your reply to Mainer, almost to the point of incoherence. So far it is YOU who have voiced only opinion.

    On the basis of the Compact Theory:

    Fact: In 1804 New England seriously considered secession over the Louisiana Purchase
    Fact: In 1808 New England AGAIN considered secession due to Jefferson’s Embargo
    Fact: In 1814 New England AGAIN most seriously considered secession over “Mr. Madison’s War of 1812”
    Fact: In the 1830’s to 1850’s New England abolitionists pushed for secession over <b?slavery
    (source: http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2007/05/30/donald-livingston-new-england-secession-tradition-part-1)
    Fact: In 1832 South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification over tariffs. Pres. Jackson authorized troops, SC backed down with a repeal in March 1833

    With the Ordinance of Secession of 1860, <FIVE times in the 70 years of the United States, an average of LESS THAN every 15 years, did nullification and secession be considered by both North and South. FIVE times it was for different reasons!

    What would have happened, since you and bartbuster want to play hypotheticals, if Lincoln had run on a platform of compensating every slaveowner, at fair market value of every slave? Don’t think economics play a major role at the time? Better go back and read some of the arguments from back then.

    1) “I declare that—
    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
    2) “the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
    I now reiterate these sentiments,”
    3) On the Corwin Amendment: “Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” (Don’t know the Corwin Amendment? Then you DON’T know your American History. Look it up!
    (Points 1,2 & 3 from Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address)

    a) “A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

    b) “We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.”
    c) “If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were– separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.”
    d) “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
    Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
    ( Points a, b, c & d are from CC Memmingers’ Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union) If some of those highlighted words sound familiar today, it’s because the lesson on the CAUSE of the War has not been learned.

    I have already pointed out the merits and failings of the Emancipation Proclamation.

    Fact after fact after fact leads serious students of the antebellum period to the conclusion that, while slavery was a major symptom leading to the War between the States, the Compact Theory was the disease that brought forth the twin ills of nullification and secession and THAT THEORY HAD TO BE SUBORNED.

    THAT is what the War was fought over, THAT is why 600000 Americans died, THAT is the concept that was forever erased as a valid concept in the relationship between the States.

    The end of slavery was a result ex post facto.

    And I haven’t even gone into the economic ills facing the Southern patrician oligarchy due to slavery, not that of the poor whites.

    I await your proofs of rebuttal.

  55. shiloh says:

    Max

    seriously considered

    considered

    most seriously considered

    pushed for secession

    and these irrelevant red herrings have to do w/the real reasons the South actually tried to secede from the Union how ?!?

    Please reread my post and look up the definitions of facts and opinions in the dictionary. It might also behoove you to look up the definition of hypothetical …

    Thanx for playin’ as my correcting you earlier today re: previous 538 Civil War threads must have really struck a nerve, eh.

    but, but, but Max you are totally entitled to your erroneous opinions, your irrelevant previous secession listings notwithstanding.

    Again, much misinformation is frequently taught in American schools today as you sound like a disgruntled, yahoo, rebel still fighting the Civil War.

    Get back to me when you can totally eliminate southern slavery from America’s history books.

    take care

  56. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shiloh,

    regretfully after that post, I have greatly lost respect for you. Your ad hominems, your settings of preconceived premises and lack of any factual rejoinder are the tactics of Bart. Perhaps you feel his tactics to be worthwhile. It does not become you.

    Your similar attack on Mainer demonstrated that you did not read and comprehend his point. You railed about his Southern professors, but you failed to grasp that Joshua Chamberlain was from Maine and a professor and a future governor of that state and what Mainer had to say about Chamberlain’s writings.

    Shame on you.

    I await the proofs of your rebuttals. If you do not wish to so engage, just leave the subject as thus far today you are only embarrassing yourself.

  57. Bartbuster says:

    I await your proofs of rebuttal.

    Max, “almost” isn’t war. If the last 200+ years have proved anything, it’s that slavery was the only thing worth going to war for. QED.

  58. Mainer says:

    Shiloh, with the name you pick for being on here we get that you are Civil War wound….cool we get it. Was slavery a major factor in the Civil War? Of course it was, and one that has read any history knows and understands that. Was it the only or driving one or had slavery not been a factor would the civil war have still occured? The professors of whom I go back to considered slavery to have been abhorent and unsubstainable. But that was not the direction I took. They firmly beleived that even had slavery been taken off the table that other factors would have driven us to the same situation. And yes in this case Bart is right………ok 3 more fngers of Canadian but yes he was right. The moneyed class in the South was chaffing at the Tarrif rules that would have prevented them from starting to industrialize the South. The North was at the time owned by the richmill owners and they did not want to see a dillution of their power to the plantation owner money power……….don’t you get it follow the freaking money. Slaves meant the rich southerners were rich off slavery. Hells bells the rich in the North were getting rich off near slave immigrant labor and child labor. Once a freakin again more or less poor people like me fought a war to see which sides rich people would get to keep calling the shots. What is so freaking hard to understand about this. We are doing it all freaking over again. This nation does not function if only a few have the fucking money so the answer is to givethem more of it or all of it? You think Egypt is a mess just wait. And Bart thinks his side has all of the guns……W R O N G and wait until he finds out that his side has screwed over way too many of his side that do have guns and they figure out they have been lied too, screwed into economic oblivion and cast aside for the new monied oligarchy???????? Hello. You do realize who makes up our present “All volunteer military” right? They are not of the wall street rich? You think Egypt is a mess. Stand by. I will most likely be gone but my sons and grandsons will not be and some will not like to meet them. Guys…..Girls why are we at present trying to create the same damned situation here that is driving Egypt into the dirt today? I just dont fucking get it? Sorry for the profanity. Mule, let me know what program helps with this, Really no snark intended. Think about this I have answered Mule tonight to most of your amusemnet, I have agreed with Bart as the tarrifs were a major factor, hell if I was you I would check my homeowners policy for asteroid coverage.

  59. shiloh says:

    So Max, your entire argument is based on Joshua Chamberlain being from Maine ie one northern professor’s opinion re: The Civil War.

    btw, I said to get back to me when you could totally eliminate southern slavery from America’s history books.

    And I’ll try to muddle thru w/out your respect ~ debating who uses more ad hominems notwithstanding.

    >

    And I would posit your total obsession/hounding of both Bart and grog is quite embarrassing, whereas I’m just amused by both.

    grog ???

    grog ???

    grog ???

    take care

  60. dcpetterson says:

    Max and Mainer —

    How’d one or both of you like to write a guest article about the Civil War, its causes and Constitutional implications, and the relationship to the faux-complaints of the modern Tea Party?

  61. Bartbuster says:

    They firmly beleived that even had slavery been taken off the table that other factors would have driven us to the same situation.

    Like what? What other factors would have pushed us into war? As Bart pointed out, there weren’t any. And if there is anyone who is looking for reasons to start a war, it’s Baghdad.

  62. Monotreme says:

    This thread is supposed to be about Egyptian politics.

  63. Mainer says:

    Actually Bart did. As always follow the money. BB I fear it is much more nuanced than you would like. Sorry. Dc is there any way the moderators could put……hold your breaths all for I am. Bart and I and Max into contact…….I can set up a conference call and I am willing to bet we could hammer this out. Ok call me a manic optimist but that is where I am at. I don’t think on this Bart and I are that far apart, Max is a good history person and a pretty good generalist. Hells bells I’m willing to give it a shot. What say yea Bart and Max? Would that not put a knot in the queens knickers if the three of us produced any thing short of world war three. Lads we have to try and make a go of this.

  64. shiloh says:

    This thread is supposed to be about Egyptian politics.

    hmm, who first mentioned the Civil War …

    Don’t forget that they supported the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.

    btw Mainer, I see we both agree America’s income inequality will soon become a major problem if we’re not already there. Eventually the serfs will rise up against the feudal warlords! Again, like Egypt as I mentioned previously in this thread.

  65. Monotreme says:

    Shiloh,

    What did you think about Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution?

  66. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Mainer, DC, I’m in.

    Gosh, dc, I thought the above post and the ones from back in April (I believe, was a Saturday) on the old 538, covered a lot of my point of the tie between the 10ther’s of antebellum US and 21st century and why the emphasis of the Civil War being over slavery instead of the Compact Theory being the “wiggle room” today’s 10ther’s need to exist. If someone better than I at gaining the old 538 archives can dig those up?

    Mr U has my email. We can set up a chat and phone numbers.

    Required reading list:
    The three I just cited: Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln’s 1st Inaug, Declaration of the Immediate Causes. I strongly suggest James Webb’s Born Fighting, the chapters between the Revolution and the Civil War. (The Jacksonian Period and his fight with Biddle is very pertinent to today in re: the financial institutions.) As a good start. Several studies of the Southern oligarchy. The economics of antebellum period.

    I’m at home the rest of the week. Too damn cold in South Texas for golf OR sailing! We ain’t used to the 20’s and low single digit wind chills.

    A couple doses of 90 proof antifreeze and I can deal with Bart.

  67. Monotreme says:

    This is a curated Twitter feed of events in Egypt, live:

    http://twitter.com/#!/AntDeRosa/egypt

  68. shiloh says:

    According to Brinton’s findings America could be headed for total destruction, let alone Egypt.

    These revolutionists have hitherto been acting as an organized and nearly unanimous group, but with the attainment of power it is clear that they are not united. The group which dominates these first stages we call the moderates …. power passes by violent … methods from Right to Left

    Again, it’s amazing America has survived as long as it has, especially now when both political parties totally despise each other. The Dem’s bogus financial reforms notwithstanding.

    So let’s recap, shall we:

    Reps win a historic wave election in the house and in the lame duck session America’s elite rich get their tax decreases extended and the serfs do not complain. We have met the enemy and he is us!

    Brinton’s book was called “classic, “famous” and a “watershed in the study of revolution ~ If I read it, I would probably call it depressing!

    Did I mention America survives despite itself.

    >

    Just like the information age has changed everything, we are now in the era of terrorists and nuclear weapons and not sure how this would change Brinton’s revolution scenario equation ie total nuclear annihilation!

    Global Thermal Nuclear War ~ How ’bout a nice game of chess?

    Part of America’s foreign policy problem: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    carry on

  69. Number Seven says:

    Do you want to play a game?

    There seem to be a lot of gamesters here. Anyone interested in playing Civil War battles by email?

    I am talking about the Battleground series. The games can probably be downloaded for free now, but they were an excellent boardgame series.

    Let me know. If so, I will let Mr. U. give you my e-mail addy.

  70. Mainer says:

    Shiloh we shall be spending much more time on the situation in the Middleast of that I have no doubt. What we have here is a major opportunity for very different view points to try and collborate on some thing for every one to get a chance to reflect on. This is 538refugees we started out as a different sort of place so lets prove we are. What could be more different than to have Bart and Max and the ole Mainer try to collaborate on a piece? What say yea Bart you blamed ole pettiefogger you in or are you out. Hells bells we could be making blogging history here. In all honesty I actually think the three of us can hammer out the before but I think the links to the present could be a mite contencious. I could be wrong. The point is can a Texan and a Maineiac ever learn to understand Coloradan? (if that is even a word). I have a conference call set up that would not cost any one any thing. The mods know who we are and can hook us up. What the hell Bart lad want to give this a shot? I will be on the road until late Friday but this weekend is open for set ups…….I will be watching the tube on Sunday afternoon. Keep this going as I can access most stuff via Blackberry while on the road.

  71. shiloh says:

    So, next time I want a post edited, just ask ~ If there is a next time and an administrator is in a good mood …

    btw, all of my other posts are perfect 😛 in every way!

  72. Bart DePalma says:

    Mainer says: Bart and I and Max into contact…….I can set up a conference call and I am willing to bet we could hammer this out. Ok call me a manic optimist but that is where I am at. I don’t think on this Bart and I are that far apart, Max is a good history person and a pretty good generalist. Hells bells I’m willing to give it a shot. What say yea Bart and Max? Would that not put a knot in the queens knickers if the three of us produced any thing short of world war three. Lads we have to try and make a go of this.

    Good heavens, are we refighting the Civil War? Mainer, what in particular do you want to chat about? I haven’t really done causes of the civil war since my HS AP history exam.

  73. Bart DePalma says:

    Number Seven says: Do you want to play a game? There seem to be a lot of gamesters here. Anyone interested in playing Civil War battles by email? I am talking about the Battleground series. The games can probably be downloaded for free now, but they were an excellent boardgame series. Let me know. If so, I will let Mr. U. give you my e-mail addy.

    Fellow wargamers? Cool! I haven’t played a board wargame in over a decade when I played months long Squad Leader Stalingrad marathons with a fellow infantry officer in Germany. What Civil War battles are covered?

  74. Mainer says:

    Shiloh I think I just scored a copy of Brinton’s work you have referenced but I will not have a chance to pick it up before I get off the road late Friday. I have read very truncated exerpts off the net but I suspect that does not do it justice. Let me at least get it and do a little reading before we get into a discussion on it.

    #7 I would be willing to take a look at doing such. I wish I knew that my way back in the woods ISP will support it but willing to take a look. I do dearly enjoy the subject and the time period.

    And yes it appears that the situation in Egypt is not progressing smoothly. It is so very sad that some one such as Hosni Mubrak could hold together a place like Egypt for so long and so some very progressive things such as the treaty with Isreal and then be so so blind to the time to call it a game and exit stage left in a controlled and orderly manner. With each passing day I fear that more and more could be lessening the chance for this to turn out well. Sad so very very sad.

  75. shiloh says:

    For the record my dad was a Civil War expert and I’m not. Although I’m well versed in the basic why’s and wherefore’s.

    but, but, but I do have a pic of me and my sister standing on a cannon at Gettysburg or was it Antietam, Fredericksburg, Bull Run, Harpers Ferry, Cold Harbor, Wilderness … all of the above.

    As an aside 😉 I’ve never been to Shiloh er Pittsburg Landing.

    >

    Mainer, “I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

  76. Number Seven says:

    The series I mention were created by TalonSoft. I have to get some sleep right now, but lets talk more.

  77. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    It is very sad. And a large part of tonights fighting is going on around the Antiquities Museum.

    Some years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Jihan Sadat not long after the assassination. Wonderful woman. I believe she spends most of her time in the States and Great Britain now.

  78. Mainer says:

    Bart I think the proposition is that you and I and Max take a look at the causes of our Civil War and then see if we can apply them to our present. I’m willing to give it a shot, Max is in You sound open. We will just need to set up a communication protocol and realistic time lines to produce some thing worth consideration. It could well be that we agree on historic basis and wish to have two view points on what it means at present which would also be cool. I will have limited time from nap nap time in a few minutes until late Friday but depending on internet service in the hotel I will be at and if I am still functional we might be able to bounce some of this around. Other than that it will have to be this weekend.

  79. Bart DePalma says:

    Mainer:

    I’m game. Shoot me an email at my firm addy depalmalaw@aol.com when you are ready to go.

  80. Mainer says:

    Shiloh quite understood.

    Bart I will do so but it may be this weekend before I have the opportunity. Glad you are in. This could be not only good for the site but very educational. Max…..game on lad we shall now make of it what we do.

  81. drfunguy says:

    The only history lesson needed.
    http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2011/02/01/this_modern_world
    Sorry to be off topic, you can resurect it on another thread if you like Mr. U.

  82. Number Seven says:

    First, we need to agree on the games and the versions to be played.

    Again I sugest the Battleground Series. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/319/details/John.Tiller's.Battleground.Civil.War

    Remember, next kill, you must have witnesses, lol

    ‘The Blue Max’….

    I’ll fly with De Palma…..

  83. Number Seven says:

    De Palma, there’s something of the cobra in you….

  84. Mr. Universe says:

    Lemme get this straight; I post an article where the world is going to hell in Egypt and you want me to sponsor some kind of civil war reenactment?

    I don’t think so.

    Dudes; for real?

  85. Bart DePalma says:

    #7:

    I have a Mac and Battleground is limited to the PC. Sorry.

  86. Bartbuster says:

    BB I fear it is much more nuanced than you would like.

    Since no one has come up with a compelling reason for civil war in 1861 other than slavery, I fear it’s not nearly as nuanced as you like to think.

  87. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    BB,

    It is only non-compelling to you and shiloh here. Most likely because y’all have already closed your mind to any other possible line of reasoning.

    Look at the other comments:
    Mainer
    Bart
    Monotreme
    Michael
    Mule Rider . . .

    That’s a PRETTY DAMN WIDE political spectrum and, to my knowledge, only one other native Southerner than myself. We do NOT agree on much, but we do agree that simplistic or “obvious” or “historically accepted” answers may not always be right.

    I’ve produced quotes and showed some of my work. You, in spite of being asked several times, have only produced your opinion with no formal evidence at to how you arrived at that opinion.

    We shall see how the collaboration between Bart, Mainer and myself goes. While we will be attempting to produce a column that will back my stated position, I assure you that the “peer review” here will attempt to take it apart, you included. Well and good.

    But do it with proofs and citations and NOT snarky opinion.

  88. Bartbuster says:

    I’ve produced quotes and showed some of my work.

    Max, you posted quotes showing why individual participants went to war. You’re conflating the individual reasons soldiers went to war with the Cause they were actually fighting for. The Cause they were fighting for was slavery. The individual reasons they were fighting don’t Fing matter to anyone but the individual soldiers.

    And since no one has come up with a CAUSE worth starting a civil war over, then things are not nearly as nuanced as you would like to believe.

    You, in spite of being asked several times, have only produced your opinion with no formal evidence at to how you arrived at that opinion.

    That simply is not true. The reasons for going to war over slavery are an obvious, and very powerful, combination of racism and economics.

  89. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    BB, don’t you know by now that as SOON as one uses the term “obvious” in an argument, they have already most likely LOST. And:

    Max, you posted quotes showing why individual participants went to war.” demonstrates that you DIDN’T even READ the quotes as NONE of them were from the foot soldiers! How sad.

    There were THREE sources for those quotes, TWO from Lincoln:
    His 1st Inaugural Address showing his continued support for slavery as an institution. He also addressed the issue of possible war as applying only when the seceding States began armed rebellion;
    The Emancipation Proclamation showing that, as a Presidential Order, it ONLY encompassed the States and areas still in armed revolt, NOT in border states or the rest of the South under Union control;
    And Memminger’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes . . . showing his legal rationale for secession being the Compact Theory.

    Take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes and quit singing “la, la, la, la . . .” so you may see the facts as presented.

    Otherwise, you are just HANDING today’s tenthers more ammunition by NOT dealing with the fact that the Compact Theory was the principle reason of, and settled by, the War Between the States.

    My last word to you on the subject until the guest column: READ!

  90. Bartbuster says:

    B, don’t you know by now that as SOON as one uses the term “obvious” in an argument, they have already most likely LOST

    No, I actually don’t know that. Because when something is as obvious as the combination of economics and racism in slavery, I think you’re pretty much guaranteed to have a winning argument.

    There were THREE sources for those quotes

    So Fing what? Most of the people involved, even Lincoln, may not have wanted to believe that they were fighting for, or against, slavery. Many northerners were just as racist as the southerners.

    Take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes and quit singing “la, la, la, la . . .” so you may see the facts as presented.

    Right back at ya!

    If you want proof that the war was about slavery, it’s pretty obvious. Look at the Constitution. Within 5 years of the end of the war there were 3 amendments to the Constitution. Every one of them was related to slavery and the rights of freed slaves. If the war was about anything other than slavery, whatever those issues were would have been reflected in amendments to the Constitution.

    Sorry, but you are just wrong, and the Constitution seals the argument.

  91. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Mainer, I sent Bart my email and phone number and a couple of questions. I’ve asked him to bounce it to you once he hears from you. Then we can take this offline for the nonce.

  92. Mule Rider says:

    “Lemme get this straight; I post an article where the world is going to hell in Egypt and you want me to sponsor some kind of civil war reenactment?”

    ::snicker::

    You never know what’s going to happen when you turn the kids loose in the sandbox.

  93. Monotreme says:

    Anyone care to comment on the situation in Egypt?

  94. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Sorry, guys, but I can’t resist just once more on the firing line. I PROMISE it to be the last until the Bart-Mainer-Max column (assuming the three of US don’t kill each other!)

    BB,

    Do you know what the Corwin Amendment was?
    Do you know it was passed by BOTH Houses of Congress?
    Do you know it was ratified by several states prior to the outbreak of hostilities?
    Do you know that both President Buchanan AND President-Elect Lincoln supported it?
    Do you think that had it been fully ratified and became part of the Constitution, the Civil War would have been fought eventually?
    Do you care?

  95. Bartbuster says:

    Do you care?

    No, I don’t. It wasn’t ratified, so it does not matter.

    On the other hand, the amendments ending slavery and giving rights to freed slaves WERE ratified.

    Quick Quiz:

    Which is more relevant, amendments which are ratified, or those that are NOT ratified?

    BTW, don’t bother saying it’s your last post. No one cares. If you want to post on the subject, post.

  96. Bartbuster says:

    By the way, there was no reason the Corwin Amendment could not have been passed after the war. Well, other than the fact that after the war everyone (except the South, evidently) realized why the war was really fought.

  97. Bartbuster says:

    Upon further review, I really should have cared about the Corwin Amendment. It actually helps my case that the war was really about slavery. The people who introduced the Corwin Amendment certainly thought that slavery was the driving factor in the coming war.

  98. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bb barted: “Do you care?
    No, I don’t.

    Which tells us volumes about your potential for rational, critical analysis. Sadder still.

  99. Bartbuster says:

    Which tells us volumes about your potential for rational, critical analysis. Sadder still.

    Not really. You need to read my entire post. It also helps if you read my follow-up posts. Corwin actually helps me.

  100. shiloh says:

    So let’s recap shall we:

    As Max says …

    Max
    Mainer
    Bart
    Monotreme
    Michael
    Mule Rider . . .

    are still arguing settled American history from (150) years ago in a thread about Egypt. Is it any wonder they have a hard time figuring out what’s going re: today’s current events …

    ‘nuf said!

  101. Bartbuster says:

    In Bart’s defense (I just threw up in my mouth), he acknowledged that slavery was the driving force for the war.

  102. shiloh says:

    Let the record show in his “eternal quest” for fairness, Bartbuster is defending Bart re: the settled history of the American Civil War.

    I stand corrected as Max’s list was obviously inaccurate …

  103. Mule Rider says:

    “In Bart’s defense (I just threw up in my mouth), he acknowledged that slavery was the driving force for the war.”

    And let me go on the record to say that neither Bart DePalma nor you knows shit from Shinola, whether it’s about the Civil War or most anything else. You both represent a fringe element of this country that is damn near completely delusional and has only a tenuous grasp on reality. You’re as far left and misguided as he is far right and misguided.

    Which leads me to ask: why do y’all insist on bothering the rest of us here? Go have your own little private feud and leave us the hell alone.

  104. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shiloh,

    Bart’s exact quote was a speculation on BB’s hypothetical of occurrences in two consecutive years: If the South agreed to the ending of slavery in 1860 would the War have occurred in 1861?
    So let’s play another:
    If the Congress of 1864 had increased Tariffs that would effectively cost the South collectively the market value of all slaves that existed had been freed in 1860, would there have been a Civil War in 1865? (Assume that slaveholders had been compensated fair market value in 1860)

  105. Number Seven says:

    Imagine the blood bath in Egypt if their citizens were as armed as ours are.

  106. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shiloh,

    Do you not understand that the Corwin Amendment, passed by Congress and already ratified by several states, and endorsed by both Buchanan and Lincoln, codified slavery as an institution into the Constitution permanently?

    Do you not understand that had the Southern States had the opportunity to ratify that as the 13th Amendment and thus it WOULD have taken slavery “off the table”?

    Then why did the Southern oligarchy, with that as an option, chose to go to war anyway?

    Actually, this actual, not hypothetical, question is open to all.

  107. Mule Rider says:

    “Imagine the blood bath in Egypt if their citizens were as armed as ours are.”

    I’m imagining an armed citizenry not allowing such an incompetent/despotic government from hanging around for so long, so maybe they would have been in better shape much sooner than now and it wouldn’t have come to this.

    If Great Britain had been able to enforce gun control laws on the Colonialists, it’s unlikely they would have mounted a successful armed rebellion and we would have never won our independenc….and all the while the tyrannical and oppressive rule of King George (and others) would have continued to fester.

  108. Bartbuster says:

    Then why did the Southern oligarchy, with that as an option, chose to go to war anyway?

    That’s easy. Corwin didn’t take slavery “off the table”, it just delayed it. The oligarchy knew that eventually there would be enough non-slave states to pass an amendment ending slavery. Their only hope of keeping their slaves in the long term was to secede. They were almost certainly aware that each year it became less and less likely that they could win a war with the non-slave states, so they took their chances when they thought they might still have a chance of winning.

  109. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    BB, do you have to practice to be so ignorant? Honestly, you’ve not even READ the damned thing, now have you? (Rhetorical, by your comment you have already answered.)

    No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State

    Did not my words “codified slavery as an institution into the Constitution permanently” give you a clue?

    Do you know that the CSA Constitution had no such provision in it? That if SC had decided one day to abolish slavery in 1863, the CSA Constitution did not prevent that?

    Please, “READ”!

  110. Bartbuster says:

    If the Congress of 1864 had increased Tariffs that would effectively cost the South collectively the market value of all slaves that existed had been freed in 1860, would there have been a Civil War in 1865? (Assume that slaveholders had been compensated fair market value in 1860)

    The South surrendered in 1865. It wasn’t really in any position to start another war.

  111. Bartbuster says:

    Did not my words “codified slavery as an institution into the Constitution permanently” give you a clue?

    Yes, it means that you don’t understand that the Constitution can be always amended. If not by a vote, then by force (1861-1865). The South obviously understood that, which is why they went to war.

  112. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

    bartbuster, you just stated my point: “Yes, it means that you don’t understand that the Constitution can be always amended. If not by a vote, then by force (1861-1865). The South obviously understood that, which is why they went to war.“(emphasis mine, Max)

    So the South went to war to change the Constitution. Ie. To uphold the concept of the Compact Theory. Not slavery.

    Thank you for your stunning insight.

  113. shiloh says:

    Max ~ So let’s play another:

    Your continual deflections notwithstanding, let’s not since this thread is er was about Egypt!

    Eagerly looking forward to your revisionist piece re: the American Civil War.

    take care, blessings

  114. Bartbuster says:

    Max, you do understand that if you can pass an amendment that says “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution…”, you can also pass one which says “this repeals the amendment which says `No amendment shall be made to the Constitution…'”.

  115. Bartbuster says:

    So the South went to war to change the Constitution. Ie. To uphold the concept of the Compact Theory. Not slavery.

    No, sparky, they went to war because they knew that the Corwin Amendment was meaningless. The only way they could keep their slaves in the long term was to secede, no matter what amendments were put in the Constitution in 1860..

  116. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bb, not what you said. Your words are there in black and white. And not a word that the cause was slavery, but ‘amending the Constitution by force’ to paraphrase you.

    Bartbuster says:
    February 3, 2011 at 12:25

    Did not my words “codified slavery as an institution into the Constitution permanently” give you a clue?

    Yes, it means that you don’t understand that the Constitution can be always amended. If not by a vote, then by force (1861-1865). The South obviously understood that, which is why they went to war.

    Too funny.

  117. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Study, reflection, analysis, consistency. Not really your strong points are they, bb?

    Go back to haranguing Bart. At least you can do that reasonably well.

    Chatter with yourself for a while. I’ll be away a bit.

  118. Bartbuster says:

    bb, not what you said. Your words are there in black and white. And not a word that the cause was slavery, but ‘amending the Constitution by force’ to paraphrase you.

    There is something seriously wrong with you. I was obviously talking about amending the Constitution to to end slavery.

  119. Bartbuster says:

    Study, reflection, analysis, consistency. Not really your strong points are they, bb?

    It actually hasn’t required much of any of those things to win this argument. Especially when you’re helping me (see Corwin Amendment).

    Seriously, if you want to argue that the war wasn’t about slavery, you shouldn’t bring up an amendment that is all about slavery.

  120. shiloh says:

    Seriously, if you want to argue that the war wasn’t about slavery, you shouldn’t bring up an amendment that is all about slavery.

    Too funny! ~ Study, reflection, analysis, consistency notwithstanding lol

  121. mclever says:

    Soooo, pro-Mubarak protesters are targeting journalists, in particular from ABC, CNN, CBS, among others. Journalists are being arrested by Mubarak’s police force and harassed/attacked by mobs. Wow.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110203/ts_yblog_thecutline/journalists-get-attacked-arrested-in-egypt

    Any thoughts?

  122. mclever says:

    Reporters from Al Jazeera and other international news agencies have also been harassed or arrested by the police or military. A Greek reporter was stabbed with a screwdriver, and protesters have assaulted several news photographers or cameramen.

    This is really ugly, folks.

    I mean, who attacks Anderson Cooper? Seriously?

  123. Number Seven says:

    “I’m imagining an armed citizenry not allowing such an incompetent/despotic government from hanging around for so long, so maybe they would have been in better shape much sooner than now and it wouldn’t have come to this.

    If Great Britain had been able to enforce gun control laws on the Colonialists, it’s unlikely they would have mounted a successful armed rebellion and we would have never won our independenc….and all the while the tyrannical and oppressive rule of King George (and others) would have continued to fester.”

    MR, those are valid points and maybe I am just a pessimist when it comes to human nature. I think there would be a lot more killing going on between the pro and anti-Mubarak factions with little else changed. He doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to leave.

    As to the value of guns in revolts, few were armed in Tunisia and it was over practically before the ink dried on the morning edition. Bloodless, gunless revolutions have happened in many countries.

    We may not have declared our independence in 1776 but we would have gained it sometime, eventually, and quite possibly without our own Civil War. We don’t have perfect hindsight like the guy in the recent South Park episode and it is very hard to judge where things would be had we gone down the other fork in the road.

  124. n says:

    Never a good sign when journalists are being targetted. Think Tiannemen Square 😦

  125. mclever says:

    I agree that targeting journalists is never a positive sign. Could you imagine if they were *shooting* the journalists?

    As far as I can tell, guns in the hands of the citizenry just mean the revolt is bloodier. Removing guns from the populace (evidently) doesn’t prevent revolt. They just use rocks instead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s