5 ms·

I sometimes wonder if today’s political divisions are substantially deeper than in the past. Infighting seems to go back to the founding fathers. So is today

I sometimes wonder if today’s political divisions are substantially deeper than in the past. Infighting seems to go back to the founding fathers. So is today the end of democracy? Or standard operating practice?

vikramkr 6y ago
We had a civil war. I would be very interested to see an analysis try and argue that we are more divided now than when we had a civil war over whether states had the right to decide whether or not black people count as people.
- briandear 6y ago
  > we had a civil war over whether states had the right to decide whether or not black people count as people. That actually wasn’t why the civil war was started. It wasn’t until later in the war that emancipation was a goal. Slavery was legal in DC for the first year of the Civil War.
  - skybrian 6y ago
    This is more complicated. Southern states seceded over slavery. They put it in writing when they seceded and it was in the Confederate constitution. Although Lincoln attempted to get them not to secede with conciliatory gestures, they assumed the worst of the candidate of the Republican party, because it was the anti-slavery party. Although the stated goal of Lincoln and the US government at the beginning of the war was to preserve the union, the underlying north-south conflict that turned into a war was about slavery. You might argue, though, that it wasn't originally about ending slavery in states where it was established, because few people had a goal of doing that before the war. (Abolitionists did, but not as a practical, near-term goal.) The most serious political fights were about whether to expand slavery to more places, and here the South wouldn't take no for an answer - they not only wanted to preserve it, they wanted to expand it. And that was still about slavery. Yes, it was all really weird and horrible.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Didn't some states explicitly state in their declarations of secession that it was about their right to keep slaves? And with secession being the cause of the civil war, it was about slavery from day one.
    - vikramkr 6y ago
      The very first state to secede made it pretty clear what it was all about. "The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_C...
  - jeremysalwen 6y ago
    Did you read the speech? Lincoln's entire inaugural speech is about the conflict over slavery and how it could lead to secession. He says explicitly: >One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. How much more in denial could you be?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > That actually wasn’t why the civil war was started. That's misleading. The war was about slavery, period. Secession was the end result of a long train of conflict over slavery going back to the founding of the republic. A quick google pulled up this pretty well curated list (it's literally high school history material, surely you learned this stuff in school?) of "compromises" over the issues that were attempts at holding the republic together: https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1286 https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1286 Well, obviously it failed. In 1861 the slave states collectively decided to take their toys and go home. Now, at this point, it's true that, for political reasons, Union rhetoric was about "preserving the union" and not "emancipating slaves". They didn't immediately announce that now that the compromise had failed that's where they were going. And that's frankly a little shameful. But no one thinks this war was about anything other than the practice of slavery.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
Given that we are not caning each other on the floor of the Senate[0], I think we are not as bad as we were in the past. In the past, we literally had a hot Civil War with American armies marching against American cities and laying siege to them and destroying them. Our rhetoric might be inflamed, which may be more noticeable due to social media, but I don't think we are at that point yet. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 6y ago
Read up on the election of 1800. When "brothers" fight and the father figure isn't around anymore, it gets ugly.

vikramkr 6y ago

We had a civil war. I would be very interested to see an analysis try and argue that we are more divided now than when we had a civil war over whether states had the right to decide whether or not black people count as people.

briandear 6y ago
> we had a civil war over whether states had the right to decide whether or not black people count as people. That actually wasn’t why the civil war was started. It wasn’t until later in the war that emancipation was a goal. Slavery was legal in DC for the first year of the Civil War.
- skybrian 6y ago
  This is more complicated. Southern states seceded over slavery. They put it in writing when they seceded and it was in the Confederate constitution. Although Lincoln attempted to get them not to secede with conciliatory gestures, they assumed the worst of the candidate of the Republican party, because it was the anti-slavery party. Although the stated goal of Lincoln and the US government at the beginning of the war was to preserve the union, the underlying north-south conflict that turned into a war was about slavery. You might argue, though, that it wasn't originally about ending slavery in states where it was established, because few people had a goal of doing that before the war. (Abolitionists did, but not as a practical, near-term goal.) The most serious political fights were about whether to expand slavery to more places, and here the South wouldn't take no for an answer - they not only wanted to preserve it, they wanted to expand it. And that was still about slavery. Yes, it was all really weird and horrible.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Didn't some states explicitly state in their declarations of secession that it was about their right to keep slaves? And with secession being the cause of the civil war, it was about slavery from day one.
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    The very first state to secede made it pretty clear what it was all about. "The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_C...
- jeremysalwen 6y ago
  Did you read the speech? Lincoln's entire inaugural speech is about the conflict over slavery and how it could lead to secession. He says explicitly: >One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. How much more in denial could you be?
- newacct583 6y ago
  > That actually wasn’t why the civil war was started. That's misleading. The war was about slavery, period. Secession was the end result of a long train of conflict over slavery going back to the founding of the republic. A quick google pulled up this pretty well curated list (it's literally high school history material, surely you learned this stuff in school?) of "compromises" over the issues that were attempts at holding the republic together: https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1286 https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1286 Well, obviously it failed. In 1861 the slave states collectively decided to take their toys and go home. Now, at this point, it's true that, for political reasons, Union rhetoric was about "preserving the union" and not "emancipating slaves". They didn't immediately announce that now that the compromise had failed that's where they were going. And that's frankly a little shameful. But no one thinks this war was about anything other than the practice of slavery.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

Given that we are not caning each other on the floor of the Senate[0], I think we are not as bad as we were in the past. In the past, we literally had a hot Civil War with American armies marching against American cities and laying siege to them and destroying them. Our rhetoric might be inflamed, which may be more noticeable due to social media, but I don't think we are at that point yet. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 6y ago

Read up on the election of 1800. When "brothers" fight and the father figure isn't around anymore, it gets ugly.