The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Current Events Latest news, current events, and headlines from around the world


Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By David
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 20th, 2016, 10:04 PM   #1
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

History repeats itself.

The 1860 presidential election was a chaotic time. The Republican Party had 7 candidates at their convention and after 3 rounds of voting (and buying votes with promises of government contracts and cabinet positions) Lincoln was chosen. A man so weak he didn't qualify to appear on any southern ballot. The Democratic Party was in even worse shape, nominating Douglas who suffered Lincoln's same political weakness in the South. This prompted the Democrats to nominate a 2nd candidate, Breckinridge, to run in the South. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Union Party chose to fill the vacuum left by the Republicans who ran their own Southern candidate, Bell.

This deeply partisan election was made even more chaotic by the geographic limitations of all 4 candidates resulting in 2 presidential elections ensuring that no matter who won, 1/2 the country would deem them illegitimate. This prompted Southern states to mobilize their militias both to deal with civil unrest caused by the election (with Kansas waging civil war) and in preparation for war with the North in as there was no escaping that 1 side would reject whoever became president. When Douglas toured the Southern states in an attempt to mend fences, his political irrelevance was made clear as angry mobs set upon him at every stop declaring him a traitor. When Lincoln 'won' the election with only 40% of the EC vote and none from the south, South Carolina declared independence and was quickly joined by most of the Southern states. Less than 2 months after being inaugurated, civil war broke out (with Kansas, Virginia and Alabama fighting their own civil wars concurrently).

I bring this up because the 2016 presidential race mirrors the 1860 race. The Republican Party is in even worse shape than it was in 1860. The field once had 17 people and while most have dropped out, there is little hope of avoiding a convention. A convention vote would put these names back in play with several additional names being offered who didn't even run in the Primary. Both factions in the Party have made clear that the Party, like the Democrats in 1860, will have 2 candidates. If Trump wins, the Republican leadership will unite behind another, if he loses he'll run anyway (and incite his followers to violence). The Democratic Party is in no better shape. The Party leadership has pledged to run Blumberg if Sanders wins. Sanders for his part has pledged to back the nominee if he loses but this is of little consolation. Most of his followers have taken up the warning, "Bernie or bust'" meaning that even if he endorses Hillary, the party will still split with his supporters either staying home or writing him in (with a small but vocal minority warning they'd vote for Trump in protest). His pledge was made early, with 5 candidates and polling in single digits so it doesn't take much imagination to see him running no matter the outcome at the convention (which he's pledged to go to no matter the delegate count). Even if he were to endorse Hillary in disregard for political reality, that would still leave it a deeply partisan 3 way race.

Already politically motivated violence has broken out across the Republic and militias have already (however pathetically) challenged government authority in open battle. With sporadic violence, small but organized rebel militias, a candidate of means threatening a militant response to an unfavorable convention outcome, fascist and socialist revolutionary sentiment becoming mainstream politics and a Federal Government so illegitimate as to be outpolled by lice, the Republic again finds itself rushing headlong to it's self-destruction. Many have attempted to warn of the impending doom (most notably Trump and Cruz) but blinded and deafened by their passions, I fear the American people are oblivious to the threat they so gladly promote.

I see no way of avoiding this with the political divisions what they are, we can only limiting the scope of the violence to come. Mass rioting is preferable to civil war, I think most would agree with me.
Thanks from tecoyah
David is offline  
Old March 21st, 2016, 03:31 AM   #2
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,456

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
The 1860 presidential election was a chaotic time. The Republican Party had 7 candidates at their convention and after 3 rounds of voting (and buying votes with promises of government contracts and cabinet positions) Lincoln was chosen. A man so weak he didn't qualify to appear on any southern ballot. The Democratic Party was in even worse shape, nominating Douglas who suffered Lincoln's same political weakness in the South. This prompted the Democrats to nominate a 2nd candidate, Breckinridge, to run in the South. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Union Party chose to fill the vacuum left by the Republicans who ran their own Southern candidate, Bell.

This deeply partisan election was made even more chaotic by the geographic limitations of all 4 candidates resulting in 2 presidential elections ensuring that no matter who won, 1/2 the country would deem them illegitimate. This prompted Southern states to mobilize their militias both to deal with civil unrest caused by the election (with Kansas waging civil war) and in preparation for war with the North in as there was no escaping that 1 side would reject whoever became president. When Douglas toured the Southern states in an attempt to mend fences, his political irrelevance was made clear as angry mobs set upon him at every stop declaring him a traitor. When Lincoln 'won' the election with only 40% of the EC vote and none from the south, South Carolina declared independence and was quickly joined by most of the Southern states. Less than 2 months after being inaugurated, civil war broke out (with Kansas, Virginia and Alabama fighting their own civil wars concurrently).

I bring this up because the 2016 presidential race mirrors the 1860 race. The Republican Party is in even worse shape than it was in 1860. The field once had 17 people and while most have dropped out, there is little hope of avoiding a convention. A convention vote would put these names back in play with several additional names being offered who didn't even run in the Primary. Both factions in the Party have made clear that the Party, like the Democrats in 1860, will have 2 candidates. If Trump wins, the Republican leadership will unite behind another, if he loses he'll run anyway (and incite his followers to violence). The Democratic Party is in no better shape. The Party leadership has pledged to run Blumberg if Sanders wins. Sanders for his part has pledged to back the nominee if he loses but this is of little consolation. Most of his followers have taken up the warning, "Bernie or bust'" meaning that even if he endorses Hillary, the party will still split with his supporters either staying home or writing him in (with a small but vocal minority warning they'd vote for Trump in protest). His pledge was made early, with 5 candidates and polling in single digits so it doesn't take much imagination to see him running no matter the outcome at the convention (which he's pledged to go to no matter the delegate count). Even if he were to endorse Hillary in disregard for political reality, that would still leave it a deeply partisan 3 way race.

Already politically motivated violence has broken out across the Republic and militias have already (however pathetically) challenged government authority in open battle. With sporadic violence, small but organized rebel militias, a candidate of means threatening a militant response to an unfavorable convention outcome, fascist and socialist revolutionary sentiment becoming mainstream politics and a Federal Government so illegitimate as to be outpolled by lice, the Republic again finds itself rushing headlong to it's self-destruction. Many have attempted to warn of the impending doom (most notably Trump and Cruz) but blinded and deafened by their passions, I fear the American people are oblivious to the threat they so gladly promote.

I see no way of avoiding this with the political divisions what they are, we can only limiting the scope of the violence to come. Mass rioting is preferable to civil war, I think most would agree with me.
Very thought provoking and rather scary...One can only hope the worst does not come pass. I myself see much accuracy in this and fear the possibilities.
tecoyah is offline  
Old March 21st, 2016, 05:21 AM   #3
Governor
 
arcturus88's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: NC
Posts: 1,449

I've been warning of a civil war...

http://politicalfray.com/government-politics/5025-red-vs-blue-civil-war.html
arcturus88 is offline  
Old March 21st, 2016, 05:42 AM   #4
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by arcturus88 View Post
Indeed and now my point has been proven. The Republic can deal with a 2 way fight, it's how the system is designed to work. This, as I warned, isn't a 2 way fight and if civil war breaks out, the candidacies of Sanders and Trump will be remembered by historians as the open moves and the start of modern, revolutionary politics (as a mainstream movement) in America.
David is offline  
Old March 21st, 2016, 01:24 PM   #5
Governor
 
arcturus88's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: NC
Posts: 1,449

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Indeed and now my point has been proven...
things are very fluid right now, nothing has really been "proven" in this regard. I still see the culture dividing along

progressive (atheist) / traditional (Christian) lines.

Sure, skirmishes in between , but at the core the main 1 vs. 1 is still where the war lies. I think the potential for "war" comes when the divide is too great to be bridged and I think we are there. The extreme positions (Trump and Bernie) did better than anyone ever thought , because when the divide opens up, people flock to the relative safety to extremities.
arcturus88 is offline  
Old March 21st, 2016, 02:11 PM   #6
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by arcturus88 View Post
things are very fluid right now, nothing has really been "proven" in this regard. I still see the culture dividing along

progressive (atheist) / traditional (Christian) lines.

Sure, skirmishes in between , but at the core the main 1 vs. 1 is still where the war lies. I think the potential for "war" comes when the divide is too great to be bridged and I think we are there. The extreme positions (Trump and Bernie) did better than anyone ever thought , because when the divide opens up, people flock to the relative safety to extremities.
Perhaps. I don't think it really matters, death and destruction await if either of us is right. You being right just leaves us with clearer battle lines.

You know, as little as 2 years ago talking about a looming civil war would have just been crazy talk, now you have presidential candidates warning of war (with 1 threating to START said war) with the media starting to report the Trump riots as prelude to revolution. I'd still say 90% of the population is still totally clueless to what's actually happening but the doomsaying is no longer limited the fringe and blood has already been spilled. If things don't stabilize, history will remember this Primary as our Bloody Kansas.

What do you think of the Unity Ticket? Clinton naming Kasich or Cruz as her running mate instead of the Repubs ignoring the convention and running a 2nd nominee to challenge Trump? This would be the best chance we have of avoiding escalation yet I don't see how it would work. Choosing a conservative still leaves the theocrats out in the cold and vice versa to say nothing of the fascists and socialists. Likewise, Clinton naming Sanders would unite the Dems yet still leave the Repubs divided and giving us a 3 way fight with Trump and Sanders supporters being militant. The situation, at least to me, is too chaotic for there to be any hope of negotiating a unity government. Indeed such an effort to establish a government ahead of the election would likely speed up the political collapse that's unfolding as the political base of both parties would see it as a subversion of democracy.

I truly believe we're ****ed once we get past the Primary unless the Repubs full heartedly unite behind Trump and Clinton names Sanders her running mate. That would give us a partisan but peaceful election (and a totally dysfunctional government no matter the result). I give that scenario less than a snowball's chance in Tartarus.
David is offline  
Old September 1st, 2017, 04:19 AM   #7
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

The government eating itself and major cities home to bloody fascist vs communist street battles. Gods I hate being right.
David is offline  
Old September 1st, 2017, 04:51 PM   #8
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 945

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
You are slugnutty! In 1860, the WAR caused the election turmoil; NOT the other way around!
Even after all this time, I am astonished that your historical knowledge is so infinitesimal and so totally wrong!
.
numan is offline  
Old September 2nd, 2017, 02:24 PM   #9
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by numan View Post
Even after all this time, I am astonished that your historical knowledge is so infinitesimal and so totally wrong!
.
It's almost as if he doesn't know trying to avoid the war was how a 3rd party candidate managed to get elected with a split vote. I mean, he couldn't possibly that the Whigs imploded and the Dems nominated 2 different people for no reason.
David is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Tags
history , repeats



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
history of politicalfray arcturus88 New Users 19 July 21st, 2017 01:01 PM
This Day In History Comet History 4 February 12th, 2012 11:06 PM
Is History Fake? WanderingStar History 48 May 24th, 2010 11:38 AM
History in colleges prasanth5 History 0 May 16th, 2010 10:19 PM
CAn you name a few history sites on the web? prasanth5 History 0 May 16th, 2010 09:55 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.