deeseekyou at comcast.net
Wed Nov 1 16:45:39 MST 2006
On Nov 1, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Mark Lause wrote:
> There's a lot mistaken here.
> [snip a good critique of my simplistic analogy]
Heh. You know, I was actually thinking of inserting a disclaimer saying
that I knew what I was writing was a gross over-simplification, and
that all historical analogies are inherently devised with broad brush
strokes. But I shrugged my shoulders and hit send anyway.
What I was referring to specifically was that the anti-slavery wing of
the Whigs denied Fillmore the nomination for a second term even though
he was a Whig and the incumbent. And they did this specifically because
of Fillmore's support of the Compromise of 1850. This ruined the party.
In the short term, the party was basically destroyed, Democrats won the
next 2 elections, and the first of these was the
then-worst-president-ever Franklin Pierce. So in the short term, things
It was political suicide by the algebra of electioneering, both then
and now. But it led directly to the creation of the Republican Party
and the abolition of slavery in a few short years.
> This response, btw, hardly does the subject justice, and doesn't even
> consider the role of those abolitionists who remained uninterested in
> electoral process...like John Brown.
You mean elections and the question of who sits in the White House
aren't the end-all-be-all of politics? You mean Brown didn't sweat and
fret when James Lawrence Orr (omg) became Speaker of the House? Or
maybe that's what drove him to launch the raid on Harper's Ferry? ;)
More information about the Marxism