If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.
We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.
We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.
Good old Dixie, they were plucky losers in an unfair fight.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
Except it wasn't really.
It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.
It was taking back control from our unelected ruler(s).
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
Except it wasn't really.
It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.
It was taking back control from our unelected ruler(s).
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
And they will respond that it was all about States' rights.
I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.
We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.
We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.
I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'
In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.
Get a load of this, even for Trump this is bonkers.
“For far too long, we have relied on taxing our Great People using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
“Through soft and pathetically weak Trade agreements, the American Economy has delivered growth and prosperity to the World, while taxing ourselves,” Trump wrote.
“It is time for that to change. I am today announcing that I will create the EXTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect our Tariffs, Duties, and all Revenue that come from Foreign sources,” he wrote.
“We will begin charging those that make money off of us with Trade, and they will start paying, FINALLY, their fair share.”
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
Except it wasn't really.
It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.
Well, at The Putney Debates, the Grandees of the army (Cromwell and chums) had a discussion with the Leveller elements. Who wanted crazy stuff like universal voting (men only).
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
19th century rose coloured spectacles?
I think Cromwell is a fascinating individual and rather simplistic takes on him miss much of the interesting bits and the positives, but it being a social, political, and religious quagmire in the mid 17th century is precisely why I enjoy it so much.
I can recommend again the biography of John Cooke, The Tyrannicide Brief though. A lawyer attempting to put a king on trial (whatever one thinks of the fairness - others had it worse - the procedural steps are very interesting).
Will Tulip stand down as MP? Seems doubtful. The “scandal” is too hard to understand, isn’t it?
Easy to understand, hard to care unless you feel very strongly about Bangladeshi politics. But Tulip might resign, or not stand for reelection, because this will put the kybosh on any future advancement.
I thought that as well but SKS says the door remains open. A weird thing to say in the circumstances. Her appointment as the anti-corruption Minister when she she has so much unexplained wealth from dubious sources was positively eccentric.
It does feel strange even if everything is above board and she is squeaky clean, to appoint the relative of an authoritarian leader to that particular position. Might well be harsh on her, but there have to be positions it would be slightly less embarrassing to be in when the accusations emerged.
You can't help suspecting that his own relationship with Lord Alli has somewhat distorted his judgment here.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.
I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.
We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.
We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.
I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'
In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
Except it wasn't really.
It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.
I had a lecturer note all the traditional explanations of the conflict along with individual purported takes that 'proved' X was not the true cause of the war, and sarcastically suggest that must mean it never happened at all as all the explanations had been debunked.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
In this case not. History got rewritten, for the best part of a century, to romanticise the traitors and racist losers.
The reason I labelled this nonsense MAGA DEI, is that they're wanting to rename military bases after notorious military incompetents - solely because they were Confederates.
Which I suppose is appropriate for Hesketh, who is obviously not qualified for the role.
I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.
We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.
We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.
I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'
In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.
Including this crime against humanity…
Depicting a war criminal…
.
Looks more fitting, in image quality, to be on a bonfire than a statue.
I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.
We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.
We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.
I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'
In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.
Where I would attempt to draw the line is between genuine war memorials, and memorials built to glorify a cause which should not be glorified, and/or to intimidate.
Of course, what memorials people wish to put up on private land should entirely a matter for them.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.
The idea of wanting to avoid another major military conflict, so coming up with a compromise 30 years later where we would pretend the crown had power when it no longer did.
(Yes I know it did for some time 1689, but the direction was there)
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.
People don’t just own slaves for economic reasons. Slaves have to give their owners sex on demand.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
Except it wasn't really.
It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.
Well, at The Putney Debates, the Grandees of the army (Cromwell and chums) had a discussion with the Leveller elements. Who wanted crazy stuff like universal voting (men only).
Cromwell regarded that as way too much.
You'd probably find some people today still siding with the idea only those with a permanent fixed interest in the kingdom getting to participate.
I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.
We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.
We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.
I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'
In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.
Meh, but I expect that isn't always the case and it's a Wokey/DEI take.
It's been used to justify every single one coming down which I don't agree with and, were I an American, would piss me off.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
In this case not. History got rewritten, for the best part of a century, to romanticise the traitors and racist losers.
The reason I labelled this nonsense MAGA DEI, is that they're wanting to rename military bases after notorious military incompetents - solely because they were Confederates.
Which I suppose is appropriate for Hesketh, who is obviously not qualified for the role.
Nah. DEI and Wokey take.
Lee was a great general and a pivotal figure in US history, who the Federals tried to recruit to lead their army.
He should absolutely have a statue.
Monroe, Franklin and Washington were far more iffy than Lee, who was essentially an honourable man loyal to his State - even if I didn't agree with his views.
Will Tulip stand down as MP? Seems doubtful. The “scandal” is too hard to understand, isn’t it?
Easy to understand, hard to care unless you feel very strongly about Bangladeshi politics. But Tulip might resign, or not stand for reelection, because this will put the kybosh on any future advancement.
I thought that as well but SKS says the door remains open. A weird thing to say in the circumstances. Her appointment as the anti-corruption Minister when she she has so much unexplained wealth from dubious sources was positively eccentric.
Tulip's appointment was perfectly legal and Starmer is a lawyer who does not understand politics.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.
It was already looking ropey.
My guess is until the 1880s or 1890s when the advent of modern economics made the decision for them.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
I'd agree it was a battle of ideas, and I think through a somewhat roundabout way it led to what we have now and certainly some of what they argued about underpinned or led to some democratic ideals, but I couldn't separate out the religious element of much of the conflict as, for many of those involved, being more significant at the time. So a fight for democracy as a description goes a bit far for me. A necessary fight for democracy to emerge perhaps.
Will Tulip stand down as MP? Seems doubtful. The “scandal” is too hard to understand, isn’t it?
Easy to understand, hard to care unless you feel very strongly about Bangladeshi politics. But Tulip might resign, or not stand for reelection, because this will put the kybosh on any future advancement.
I thought that as well but SKS says the door remains open. A weird thing to say in the circumstances. Her appointment as the anti-corruption Minister when she she has so much unexplained wealth from dubious sources was positively eccentric.
It does feel strange even if everything is above board and she is squeaky clean, to appoint the relative of an authoritarian leader to that particular position. Might well be harsh on her, but there have to be positions it would be slightly less embarrassing to be in when the accusations emerged.
You can't help suspecting that his own relationship with Lord Alli has somewhat distorted his judgment here.
It's great to have good friends. Clarence Thomas would agree.
This won't be popular - Putin is thinking about doing a Cypress, and converting Russians' cash holdings of over $13,000 held at banks into bank shares. https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1879157806928134637
One way of preventing a bank run, but the wealthy will not be happy.
Can I ask the PB Brains Trust a question on glasses prescriptions? I've never needed one, been told in the past that I could have a prescription but it wouldn't do much and could never tell the difference between the example lenses and looking without them.
Went today for a routine check up as its 2 years from last one and was told that my prescription has changed. The optician recommended getting glasses this time, but said it wasn't required for driving etc, and again I could not tell any significant difference with the lenses and without.
The numbers I got were: Right eye Sphere +0.25, Cyl 1.00, Axis 165
Left eye Sphere -0.5, Cyl 0.25, Axis 45
Going back next week to put on test frames as I didn't want to buy any frames and lenses when I couldn't tell any difference anyway through the machine, but I wondered whether there's anything to these numbers or not? The optician said the right eye would benefit more than the left one, despite the fact its only a quarter away from zero so guessing its the cylinder/axis number she's looking at and I have no idea how serious or not those numbers are? Any thoughts?
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
And actually I wonder about Reeves
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.
So was it her employer who pressed charges? The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?
Haigh’s friends say she now regrets the guilty plea
I'll bet she does.
A lot of people come to regret accepting a police caution in return for no further action because they do not realise it comes with an implicit admission of guilt which can come back to haunt them. What Haigh's thought processes were, who's to say?
I think a lot of people would think they would hold firm in such a situation where they are innocent - or it is not as clear cut as a police investigation might think - but when push comes to shove and you're sat opposite a copper telling you it can go to trial with X potential punishment, or you can move on with your life, a lot of people would cave.
Heck, in some other situations some people might plead guilty just to avoid spending any time in jail ahead of trial .
I have a nasty suspicion if I found myself in a police state/conquered nation situation I'd be a collaborator the instant I was put under any pressure.
A friend of mine was faced with the choice between finding a new job and facing a bribery charge with potential jail time. At the time it's a no-brainer but there is no return to the old industry.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Yes, fair. The aftermath showed how hard it was to find an alternative though.
What it basically told is that people wanted a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one.
This won't be popular - Putin is thinking about doing a Cypress, and converting Russians' cash holdings of over $13,000 held at banks into bank shares. https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1879157806928134637
One way of preventing a bank run, but the wealthy will not be happy.
Presumably most of the wealthy have long since evacuated their wealth.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
Your ignorance of US history is notable. If your questions were sincere rather than rhetorical, I might occasionally answer them.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
Saw you a-marchin' with Robert E. Lee You held your head a-high, tryin' to win the victory You fought for your folks but you didn't die in vain Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name
The only folk relitigating the civil war are those arguing that it wasn't a traitorous rebellion, in defence of slavery.
Do you think we should tear down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because he was a racist who wanted to preserve the empire and keep Britain white?
Can I ask the PB Brains Trust a question on glasses prescriptions? I've never needed one, been told in the past that I could have a prescription but it wouldn't do much and could never tell the difference between the example lenses and looking without them.
Went today for a routine check up as its 2 years from last one and was told that my prescription has changed. The optician recommended getting glasses this time, but said it wasn't required for driving etc, and again I could not tell any significant difference with the lenses and without.
The numbers I got were: Right eye Sphere +0.25, Cyl 1.00, Axis 165
Left eye Sphere -0.5, Cyl 0.25, Axis 45
Going back next week to put on test frames as I didn't want to buy any frames and lenses when I couldn't tell any difference anyway through the machine, but I wondered whether there's anything to these numbers or not? The optician said the right eye would benefit more than the left one, despite the fact its only a quarter away from zero so guessing its the cylinder/axis number she's looking at and I have no idea how serious or not those numbers are? Any thoughts?
If you do get glasses, get an extra pair to keep in the car with the polarised anti-glare coating. My pal reckons they are a game changer for driving at night with the glare from LED lights.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
In this case not. History got rewritten, for the best part of a century, to romanticise the traitors and racist losers.
The reason I labelled this nonsense MAGA DEI, is that they're wanting to rename military bases after notorious military incompetents - solely because they were Confederates.
Which I suppose is appropriate for Hesketh, who is obviously not qualified for the role.
Nah. DEI and Wokey take.
Lee was a great general and a pivotal figure in US history, who the Federals tried to recruit to lead their army.
He should absolutely have a statue.
Monroe, Franklin and Washington were far more iffy than Lee, who was essentially an honourable man loyal to his State - even if I didn't agree with his views.
I'm talking about the Defence Secretary nominee promising to rename bases after Bragg and Benning.
Lee is a rather more controversial figure than your rose tinted thumbnail portrait (which seems heavily influenced by the century of hagiographic propaganda) - but in any event he's very much the exception among the collection of degenerates venerated by the Lost Cause.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
Your ignorance of US history is notable. If your questions were sincere rather than rhetorical, I might occasionally answer them.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
Saw you a-marchin' with Robert E. Lee You held your head a-high, tryin' to win the victory You fought for your folks but you didn't die in vain Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name
The only folk relitigating the civil war are those arguing that it wasn't a traitorous rebellion, in defence of slavery.
Do you think we should tear down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because he was a racist who wanted to preserve the empire and keep Britain white?
The Police across the country are a fucking joke when it comes to this.
So many of my friends and colleagues have had their phones nabbed and they’ve gone to the police to say find my iPhone says this phone is at this property and the police say we’re not investigating this and here’s a crime reference number for you to claim on your insurance.
The police are a joke which is why people are taking the law into their own hands. I get burgaled I have people to contact. I get my stuff back and the criminals get beaten....not even that expensive
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)
A useful revisionist take is How the South Won the Civil War by Heather Cox Richardson.
Rather vague, does blessing mean it requires formal US agreement? Or could be a limbo situation where UK and Mauritius treat is agreed and the USA doesn't say yes or no, and it lingers on for decades?
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
And actually I wonder about Reeves
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.
So was it her employer who pressed charges? The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.
The trouble is the growing inconsistency in public life. Tell off-colour jokes behind the scenes on Masterchef, bye bye career. Actually kick a woman in the head, become an honourable member.
You're sounding like a front line soldier in Elon's twitter army.
Does Elon watch Masterchef?
Seriously, I reckon this might be a slow burner. Not Masterchef but the wider question around six figure compensation for having a drunk boss lunge at you at the staff Christmas party, and sod all for the victims of the scandals we cannot discuss (see also subpostmasters, blood and so on).
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
'Strachan claimed that Studio Lambert, the London-based firm behind the show, had 81% of its production team for The Traitors based in London – which he said was not “in the spirit” of Ofcom’s regional production guidelines.
Ofcom sets criteria for production companies which are supposed to encourage firms to make more programmes, spend more money and employ greater numbers of staff outside of London.
Strachan, who said that he is a champion of the BBC but stressed the need for better representation, said that just 4% of The Traitor’s “above the line roles” were filled by staff based in Scotland.'
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
Divine right is for chumps. Divine providence on the other hand...
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
Your ignorance of US history is notable. If your questions were sincere rather than rhetorical, I might occasionally answer them.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
Saw you a-marchin' with Robert E. Lee You held your head a-high, tryin' to win the victory You fought for your folks but you didn't die in vain Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name
The only folk relitigating the civil war are those arguing that it wasn't a traitorous rebellion, in defence of slavery.
Do you think we should tear down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because he was a racist who wanted to preserve the empire and keep Britain white?
Do you think Oliver Cromwell was a traitor?
He's certainly up there with Michael Heseltine.
Is Williamglenn 2025 a traitor to Williamglenn 2016?
Or is PB's very own Mr Volte Face really just pretending to be a swiveleyed Brexiteer for lols? None of us will ever know.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
No, but I'm talking about the whole century. Thr gunpowder plot was an attempt to replace a Protestant nascent constitutional monarchy with Catholic absolutism. Absolutism is important since the plotters' motives wouldn't have been met if a Catholic constutional monarch were replaced by a Protestant one. You're right about the civil war, but Charles I clearly has Catholic sympathies and was also not averse to a bit of absolutism. Charles II was probably a Catholic but a sort of constitutional one - albeit reprisals against the previous regime were pretty brutal. James II was a Catholic with intention to be an absolutist one - hence the events of 1688.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
Divine right is for chumps. Divine providence on the other hand...
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)
That’s a LOT of history. Chernow’s recent Grant biography isn’t a bad place to start.
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
And actually I wonder about Reeves
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.
So was it her employer who pressed charges? The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
No, but I'm talking about the whole century. Thr gunpowder plot was an attempt to replace a Protestant nascent constitutional monarchy with Catholic absolutism. Absolutism is important since the plotters' motives wouldn't have been met if a Catholic constutional monarch were replaced by a Protestant one. You're right about the civil war, but Charles I clearly has Catholic sympathies and was also not averse to a bit of absolutism. Charles II was probably a Catholic but a sort of constitutional one - albeit reprisals against the previous regime were pretty brutal. James II was a Catholic with intention to be an absolutist one - hence the events of 1688.
You could extend it to 1746 and the final defeat of the Stuarts and the absolutist royalists at Culloden, in fact.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.
So we are.
One of us on PB has been known to express his upset at the thought of RC influence in Scotland arising from the fact that the Church of Scotland is no longer Established.
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
And actually I wonder about Reeves
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.
So was it her employer who pressed charges? The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.
I think it is a safeguarding issue.
If you were a female constituent or female member of staff at the Commons would you feel safe around him?
There's a reason why we allow people to find out if their partner has a record for domestic abuse.
Should he be allowed to work ever again?
The response would probably be should he get to be an MP, which maybe not, but there's a lots of other crimes people would feel the same way about, and so do you just prevent anyone with any offence standing as MP? As a mayor? As a councillor?
Restrictions on Police and Crime Commissioners are, oddly, far more severe than seeking to become an MP.
Ironically you can't be a councillor in the UK if convicted and given a prison sentence of 3 months or more for 5 years (even if suspended) yet you can still be elected as an MP as long as you are not in prison when elected. This time next week the President of the USA, arguably the most powerful man in the world, will be a convicted felon of course too
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
Middle of the road? Cromwell hated hereditary kings and was succeeded by his son.
Middle of the road? Cromwell was a Calvinist. Calvinists believe there are two sorts of human being under the unchanging decree of God, the elect and the non elect. They have a marked tendency to assume they are among the elect, and that people they don't like are not. It's a heresy which could be described as being as opposite to the spirit of Jesus as it is possible to get.
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
And actually I wonder about Reeves
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.
So was it her employer who pressed charges? The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.
So we are.
One of us on PB has been known to express his upset at the thought of RC influence in Scotland arising from the fact that the Church of Scotland is no longer Established.
As someone who is not religious I find that bizarre. Mind you in parts of the north east there is a reasonable Roman Catholic influence.
My post was merely a Jim McDonald from Corrie reference. So it was.
That would resolve one of several mysteries about the deal with Mauritius if so. Why is Starmer so anxious to get a deal over the line before the a Trump presidency starts? UK governments always do what the US tells them on Diego Garcia.
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
And actually I wonder about Reeves
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.
So was it her employer who pressed charges? The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.
I think it is a safeguarding issue.
If you were a female constituent or female member of staff at the Commons would you feel safe around him?
There's a reason why we allow people to find out if their partner has a record for domestic abuse.
Should he be allowed to work ever again?
The response would probably be should he get to be an MP, which maybe not, but there's a lots of other crimes people would feel the same way about, and so do you just prevent anyone with any offence standing as MP? As a mayor? As a councillor?
Restrictions on Police and Crime Commissioners are, oddly, far more severe than seeking to become an MP.
Ironically you can't be a councillor in the UK if convicted and given a prison sentence of 3 months or more for 5 years (even if suspended) yet you can still be elected as an MP as long as you are not in prison when elected. This time next week the President of the USA, arguably the most powerful man in the world, will be a convicted felon of course too
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.
Yeah, I don't buy that.
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)
That’s a LOT of history. Chernow’s recent Grant biography isn’t a bad place to start.
West from Appomattox (Heather Cox Richardson) is a good book on the fifty years after the Civil War. Broad sweep, with an interesting unifying theme.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
Middle of the road? Cromwell hated hereditary kings and was succeeded by his son.
Middle of the road? Cromwell was a Calvinist. Calvinists believe there are two sorts of human being under the unchanging decree of God, the elect and the non elect. They have a marked tendency to assume they are among the elect, and that people they don't like are not. It's a heresy which could be described as being as opposite to the spirit of Jesus as it is possible to get.
Seems pretty middle of the road compared to some of the groups. He was not some modern style tolerant person, but there were people even more intolerant.
And it's not like he started out opposed to hereditary kings, even when offered the crown himself he thought about it, before deciding it was not god's will (conveniently due to the political situation or sincerely - or both).
There was quite a bit of movement in views across the period. Must have been weird being a NMA soldier who ended up in a regiment restoring the royals.
Per my earlier post re the Bell twins coincidence, has Rentoul missed the story or am I overthinking it?
Desperate take from Rentoul.
He must have been watching a different performance from the Customer Complaints Manager and non-chess champion than I was. I thought she was shit even by the standard that I would expect of her.
Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
That would resolve one of several mysteries about the deal with Mauritius if so. Why is Starmer so anxious to get a deal over the line before the a Trump presidency starts? UK governments always do what the US tells them on Diego Garcia.
Apparently a minister said earlier there was no haste involved. Certainly there's been years of talks, but it seems an outright lie to suggest there has not been an intensification with no obvious reason other than the Trump one.
Can I ask the PB Brains Trust a question on glasses prescriptions? I've never needed one, been told in the past that I could have a prescription but it wouldn't do much and could never tell the difference between the example lenses and looking without them.
Went today for a routine check up as its 2 years from last one and was told that my prescription has changed. The optician recommended getting glasses this time, but said it wasn't required for driving etc, and again I could not tell any significant difference with the lenses and without.
The numbers I got were: Right eye Sphere +0.25, Cyl 1.00, Axis 165
Left eye Sphere -0.5, Cyl 0.25, Axis 45
Going back next week to put on test frames as I didn't want to buy any frames and lenses when I couldn't tell any difference anyway through the machine, but I wondered whether there's anything to these numbers or not? The optician said the right eye would benefit more than the left one, despite the fact its only a quarter away from zero so guessing its the cylinder/axis number she's looking at and I have no idea how serious or not those numbers are? Any thoughts?
As it so happened my late best friend was an optician and I had excellent sight
He said wait until you are 50 and you will be along to see me
Actually I was about 52, and sure enough I went to have my eyes tested by him and he confirmed I needed glasses to read and that was my first bifocals
Subsequently I had my eyes tested regularly as I aged, and some years ago I had cataracts diagnosed and my glasses have been updated evey two years and I do need tinted glasses to drive
At this point I advised the DVLA, and just 2 months ago I needed new glasses but my cataracts are OK and I do not need surgery
As I have to renew my license every 3 years I do make sure my eyes pass the test for driving, and if I needed an operation for my cataracts I would have to go privately, as my wife has stopped driving and Wales NHS has an 18 month waiting list
I would just say how precious eyesight is, and as you age it does change but opticians know the best choices of glasses and eye health is very important
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
No, but I'm talking about the whole century. Thr gunpowder plot was an attempt to replace a Protestant nascent constitutional monarchy with Catholic absolutism. Absolutism is important since the plotters' motives wouldn't have been met if a Catholic constutional monarch were replaced by a Protestant one. You're right about the civil war, but Charles I clearly has Catholic sympathies and was also not averse to a bit of absolutism. Charles II was probably a Catholic but a sort of constitutional one - albeit reprisals against the previous regime were pretty brutal. James II was a Catholic with intention to be an absolutist one - hence the events of 1688.
The gunpowder plot was a desperate throw of the dice.
Even if it had succeeded what would have happened is extreme repression and persecution of Catholics, not their fantasies of a restoration to Rome.
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
And actually I wonder about Reeves
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.
So was it her employer who pressed charges? The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.
I think it is a safeguarding issue.
If you were a female constituent or female member of staff at the Commons would you feel safe around him?
There's a reason why we allow people to find out if their partner has a record for domestic abuse.
Should he be allowed to work ever again?
The response would probably be should he get to be an MP, which maybe not, but there's a lots of other crimes people would feel the same way about, and so do you just prevent anyone with any offence standing as MP? As a mayor? As a councillor?
Restrictions on Police and Crime Commissioners are, oddly, far more severe than seeking to become an MP.
Ironically you can't be a councillor in the UK if convicted and given a prison sentence of 3 months or more for 5 years (even if suspended) yet you can still be elected as an MP as long as you are not in prison when elected. This time next week the President of the USA, arguably the most powerful man in the world, will be a convicted felon of course too
I was not aware of this detail on the councillor convictions disqualification
A person who is in the process of making an appeal or application in relation to the conviction is not disqualified at any time before the end of the day on which the appeal or application is disposed of, abandoned or fails by reason of non-prosecution
Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
You couldn't get rid of the ruler of the day without an execution - if you believe in Divine Right and the hereditary principle the only way you can deliver regime change is through death.
Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
Has anything gone right or well for Labour since the GE?
The Tories elected Kemi Badenoch.
And would Jenrick have been better? It seems to be assumed he would have dealt with the Reform threat better, though given he's been a bit of a chameleon (necessarily so) in his time as an MP I'm not sure why so much confidence of that.
That would resolve one of several mysteries about the deal with Mauritius if so. Why is Starmer so anxious to get a deal over the line before the a Trump presidency starts? UK governments always do what the US tells them on Diego Garcia.
This feels like either they've got cold feet and want to use Trump's veto as an excuse to say to Mauritius "sorry, don't blame us" - or they've had signals that Trump will allow it.
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?
Your ignorance of US history is notable. If your questions were sincere rather than rhetorical, I might occasionally answer them.
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
Saw you a-marchin' with Robert E. Lee You held your head a-high, tryin' to win the victory You fought for your folks but you didn't die in vain Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name
The only folk relitigating the civil war are those arguing that it wasn't a traitorous rebellion, in defence of slavery.
Do you think we should tear down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because he was a racist who wanted to preserve the empire and keep Britain white?
Do you think Oliver Cromwell was a traitor?
He's certainly up there with Michael Heseltine.
Is Williamglenn 2025 a traitor to Williamglenn 2016?
Or is PB's very own Mr Volte Face really just pretending to be a swiveleyed Brexiteer for lols? None of us will ever know.
How do we know it's not consistent?
William believe in strong federal unions, be they US, EU or Anglosphere.
The Police across the country are a fucking joke when it comes to this.
So many of my friends and colleagues have had their phones nabbed and they’ve gone to the police to say find my iPhone says this phone is at this property and the police say we’re not investigating this and here’s a crime reference number for you to claim on your insurance.
The police are a joke which is why people are taking the law into their own hands. I get burgaled I have people to contact. I get my stuff back and the criminals get beaten....not even that expensive
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
I read Tulip's wiki entry when the allegations first came out, and she really is an insider.
"As a child, she met Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton and Mother Teresa, and her family was invited to the White House"
"Her maternal grandfather is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding leader and first President of Bangladesh.[12] Her mother's elder sister, Sheikh Hasina, was Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 2009 until ousted in 2024."
"She has worked for Amnesty International, the Greater London Authority, at Philip Gould Associates, the political consultancy firm run by New Labour strategist Philip Gould, Save the Children, and Brunswick Group, where she worked on corporate social responsibility initiatives for major British manufacturers, as well as for MPs Oona King, Sadiq Khan and Harry Cohen. "
That may go to explain why there was not enough inquiry into her background.
Surprised she was slumming it making a go as an MP and junior minister with those family connections.
Can I ask the PB Brains Trust a question on glasses prescriptions? I've never needed one, been told in the past that I could have a prescription but it wouldn't do much and could never tell the difference between the example lenses and looking without them.
Went today for a routine check up as its 2 years from last one and was told that my prescription has changed. The optician recommended getting glasses this time, but said it wasn't required for driving etc, and again I could not tell any significant difference with the lenses and without.
The numbers I got were: Right eye Sphere +0.25, Cyl 1.00, Axis 165
Left eye Sphere -0.5, Cyl 0.25, Axis 45
Going back next week to put on test frames as I didn't want to buy any frames and lenses when I couldn't tell any difference anyway through the machine, but I wondered whether there's anything to these numbers or not? The optician said the right eye would benefit more than the left one, despite the fact its only a quarter away from zero so guessing its the cylinder/axis number she's looking at and I have no idea how serious or not those numbers are? Any thoughts?
hardly anything and certainly nowhere re driving. Glasses will help balance given one eye is slightly better than the other.
Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.
Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
You couldn't get rid of the ruler of the day without an execution - if you believe in Divine Right and the hereditary principle the only way you can deliver regime change is through death.
I'm not sure it's much of a sincere belief in the former if you kill them to them to ignore the latter (or come up with convenient reasons why it does not apply)
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters
Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
You couldn't get rid of the ruler of the day without an execution - if you believe in Divine Right and the hereditary principle the only way you can deliver regime change is through death.
I'm not sure it's much of a sincere belief in the former if you kill them to them to ignore the latter (or come up with convenient reasons why it does not apply)
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters
The Police across the country are a fucking joke when it comes to this.
So many of my friends and colleagues have had their phones nabbed and they’ve gone to the police to say find my iPhone says this phone is at this property and the police say we’re not investigating this and here’s a crime reference number for you to claim on your insurance.
The police are a joke which is why people are taking the law into their own hands. I get burgaled I have people to contact. I get my stuff back and the criminals get beaten....not even that expensive
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Who are you?
Ross Kemp?
You don't need to be ross kemp to know criminals hell a lot of people here know mp's personally
The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.
Democracy.
A generous interpretation.
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then. Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population. Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters
Nice Corbyn reference, but your ending makes the very point you refute, in that there were indeed more extreme people for the time.
My recollection is the parliamentarians as a whole were not super popular though.
Edit: Then again, you thought the purge of the Long Parliament was inconsequential on the issue of whether there was 'parliamentary approval' for execution of the king, so I'll take the thoughts with a grain of salt, or wait for Starmer to purge all non-Labour MPs and see it argued 'parliament' approved things.
Comments
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1879234135484760422?s=61
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
2) in the Confederate Constitution, states were barred from *ending* slavery and forced to enforce the Slave Codes. Not very States Rights…
In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.
Cromwell regarded that as way too much.
I think Cromwell is a fascinating individual and rather simplistic takes on him miss much of the interesting bits and the positives, but it being a social, political, and religious quagmire in the mid 17th century is precisely why I enjoy it so much.
I can recommend again the biography of John Cooke, The Tyrannicide Brief though. A lawyer attempting to put a king on trial (whatever one thinks of the fairness - others had it worse - the procedural steps are very interesting).
Depicting a war criminal…
.
History got rewritten, for the best part of a century, to romanticise the traitors and racist losers.
The reason I labelled this nonsense MAGA DEI, is that they're wanting to rename military bases after notorious military incompetents - solely because they were Confederates.
Which I suppose is appropriate for Hesketh, who is obviously not qualified for the role.
Of course, what memorials people wish to put up on private land should entirely a matter for them.
(Yes I know it did for some time 1689, but the direction was there)
It's been used to justify every single one coming down which I don't agree with and, were I an American, would piss me off.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Lee was a great general and a pivotal figure in US history, who the Federals tried to recruit to lead their army.
He should absolutely have a statue.
Monroe, Franklin and Washington were far more iffy than Lee, who was essentially an honourable man loyal to his State - even if I didn't agree with his views.
My guess is until the 1880s or 1890s when the advent of modern economics made the decision for them.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1879157806928134637
One way of preventing a bank run, but the wealthy will not be happy.
Went today for a routine check up as its 2 years from last one and was told that my prescription has changed. The optician recommended getting glasses this time, but said it wasn't required for driving etc, and again I could not tell any significant difference with the lenses and without.
The numbers I got were:
Right eye Sphere +0.25, Cyl 1.00, Axis 165
Left eye Sphere -0.5, Cyl 0.25, Axis 45
Going back next week to put on test frames as I didn't want to buy any frames and lenses when I couldn't tell any difference anyway through the machine, but I wondered whether there's anything to these numbers or not? The optician said the right eye would benefit more than the left one, despite the fact its only a quarter away from zero so guessing its the cylinder/axis number she's looking at and I have no idea how serious or not those numbers are? Any thoughts?
What it basically told is that people wanted a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one.
Confidence has faded in UK that agreement will be secured before US inauguration, even if Mauritius sign off deal at special cabinet meeting tomo
https://www.ft.com/content/2a9ed94d-e163-404c-9ac3-c772961b6477?accessToken=zwAAAZRmSU9xkc8qntlN4WNATNOaw8dylhtkdw.MEUCIQDIDROcey7uA5e_K36Ovq3f4gaMQUuemI15deayoFszTQIgY00uekgVdqNTLIhQwbPDDSF_ewrQORoLLyq4QYW2Fog&segmentId=e95a9ae7-622c-6235-5f87-51e412b47e97&shareType=enterprise&shareId=abd0dd52-ebcd-46f6-9c35-68a86c480418
Lee is a rather more controversial figure than your rose tinted thumbnail portrait (which seems heavily influenced by the century of hagiographic propaganda) - but in any event he's very much the exception among the collection of degenerates venerated by the Lost Cause.
The Police across the country are a fucking joke when it comes to this.
So many of my friends and colleagues have had their phones nabbed and they’ve gone to the police to say find my iPhone says this phone is at this property and the police say we’re not investigating this and here’s a crime reference number for you to claim on your insurance.
The police are a joke which is why people are taking the law into their own hands. I get burgaled I have people to contact. I get my stuff back and the criminals get beaten....not even that expensive
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Seriously, I reckon this might be a slow burner. Not Masterchef but the wider question around six figure compensation for having a drunk boss lunge at you at the staff Christmas party, and sod all for the victims of the scandals we cannot discuss (see also subpostmasters, blood and so on).
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24846295.scottish-filmmaker-launches-attack-bbcs-traitors/
'Strachan claimed that Studio Lambert, the London-based firm behind the show, had 81% of its production team for The Traitors based in London – which he said was not “in the spirit” of Ofcom’s regional production guidelines.
Ofcom sets criteria for production companies which are supposed to encourage firms to make more programmes, spend more money and employ greater numbers of staff outside of London.
Strachan, who said that he is a champion of the BBC but stressed the need for better representation, said that just 4% of The Traitor’s “above the line roles” were filled by staff based in Scotland.'
Or is PB's very own Mr Volte Face really just pretending to be a swiveleyed Brexiteer for lols? None of us will ever know.
You're right about the civil war, but Charles I clearly has Catholic sympathies and was also not averse to a bit of absolutism.
Charles II was probably a Catholic but a sort of constitutional one - albeit reprisals against the previous regime were pretty brutal. James II was a Catholic with intention to be an absolutist one - hence the events of 1688.
*hungry*
Chernow’s recent Grant biography isn’t a bad place to start.
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Middle of the road? Cromwell was a Calvinist. Calvinists believe there are two sorts of human being under the unchanging decree of God, the elect and the non elect. They have a marked tendency to assume they are among the elect, and that people they don't like are not. It's a heresy which could be described as being as opposite to the spirit of Jesus as it is possible to get.
My post was merely a Jim McDonald from Corrie reference. So it was.
Broad sweep, with an interesting unifying theme.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
And it's not like he started out opposed to hereditary kings, even when offered the crown himself he thought about it, before deciding it was not god's will (conveniently due to the political situation or sincerely - or both).
There was quite a bit of movement in views across the period. Must have been weird being a NMA soldier who ended up in a regiment restoring the royals.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
Every state of the old Confederacy except Virginia voted for Trump last year but Harris won most of the Union states in the Civil War
He said wait until you are 50 and you will be along to see me
Actually I was about 52, and sure enough I went to have my eyes tested by him and he confirmed I needed glasses to read and that was my first bifocals
Subsequently I had my eyes tested regularly as I aged, and some years ago I had cataracts diagnosed and my glasses have been updated evey two years and I do need tinted glasses to drive
At this point I advised the DVLA, and just 2 months ago I needed new glasses but my cataracts are OK and I do not need surgery
As I have to renew my license every 3 years I do make sure my eyes pass the test for driving, and if I needed an operation for my cataracts I would have to go privately, as my wife has stopped driving and Wales NHS has an 18 month waiting list
I would just say how precious eyesight is, and as you age it does change but opticians know the best choices of glasses and eye health is very important
Hope this helps
Even if it had succeeded what would have happened is extreme repression and persecution of Catholics, not their fantasies of a restoration to Rome.
A person who is in the process of making an appeal or application in relation to the conviction is not disqualified at any time before the end of the day on which the appeal or application is disposed of, abandoned or fails by reason of non-prosecution
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-government-elections-england/what-you-need-know-you-stand-a-candidate/qualifications-and-disqualifications-standing-election/disqualifications
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
William believe in strong federal unions, be they US, EU or Anglosphere.
So many of my friends and colleagues have had their phones nabbed and they’ve gone to the police to say find my iPhone says this phone is at this property and the police say we’re not investigating this and here’s a crime reference number for you to claim on your insurance.
The police are a joke which is why people are taking the law into their own hands. I get burgaled I have people to contact. I get my stuff back and the criminals get beaten....not even that expensive
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Who are you?
Ross Kemp?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001265
I would expect a narrow Labour hold if there is a by election
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Who are you?
Ross Kemp?
You don't need to be ross kemp to know criminals hell a lot of people here know mp's personally
My recollection is the parliamentarians as a whole were not super popular though.
Edit: Then again, you thought the purge of the Long Parliament was inconsequential on the issue of whether there was 'parliamentary approval' for execution of the king, so I'll take the thoughts with a grain of salt, or wait for Starmer to purge all non-Labour MPs and see it argued 'parliament' approved things.