albaugh at agames.com (Mike Albaugh) writes:
> I'll give you that his refusal of offered "kingship" was
> an important event, but might it not have been something like
> Caesar's refusal of the Roman "crown", that is, pro-forma?
Hmm, I don't know my history very well...did Washington seek to
remain in office longer, shorter, or just as long as he was
electable to it?
> : and
> : his private morality, and that this government, in basically the same
> : form, a century later, struck the most definitive worldwide blow
> : against the widespread practice of slavery.
>> Which neatly ignores the point brought up in the book:
> "Lies my teacher told me", that England had mostly outlawed
> slavery and the threat of the extension of abolition to the
> North American colonies may have been a contributing factor
> in the revolution. That is, some of the "patriots" were fighting
> to keep their slaves.
*Some* of them. Others were apparently trying very hard to ignore
that issue, and at least privately discussing the importance of
someday truly dealy with it, from what I've read.
But, "England" had not outlawed slavery in the same sense the USA
did one hundred years later, in precisely the sense I meant. That
a handful of English rulers outlawed it, and the *subjects* went
along with that, was nice, but exactly what might have kept things
from changing had, for example, England retained the colonies and
been forced, by the same sorts of economic and immigration pressures
the US experienced anyway, to undertaking the Building of a Nation
to preserve its wealth and status back home? Is it really fair to
say there was no enslavement of, e.g., Indians during the 19th
Century (and perhaps into the 20th)? (Perhaps; I'm just asking.
I think maybe they were no more "enslaved" than the "hired help"
that built the US railroad system around that time.)
I'm saying there's a difference between doing something via
legislative fiat, and doing something via the blood of the
citizens who participate in the decision. I doubt you can find
more than 3 out of 100 20-year-olds today who have anywhere
near the investment in US freedoms the way probably 80 out of 100
20-year-olds did in, say, 1948 (and probably they feel the same
way today).
> : But, if a personal-power-based government outlaws slavery in the
> : one instance, it can reinstate it in the next...
>> Rule of law is "A good thing", but don't shine too bright
> a light on Lincoln's behavior during the "War Between the States"/
> "American Civil War" Even the name begs the question, and the
> victors get to write the history books :-) What Lincoln and company
> did to the Bill of Rights, Louis Freeh only _dreams_ of :-)
War is hell. And don't get me started on our "War on Drugs" or our
war on parents who actually are trying to raise their children "right".
> : Whoever that King of England was who gave up the Battle of Hastings
> : circa 1066 (though maybe the guy who started the invasion should
> : really get the credit)
>> Harald Hardrada (sp?) and William "The Bastard" aka
> "The Conqueror" aka "Of Normandy". I don't fault Harald for "giving up"
> what with him being dead of an arrow through the eye and all :-)
I must have my facts a bit off, at the very least. I'm thinking
of some story I read about a key battle (which I *think* was
Hastings) being given up, after it'd gone on a long while, just
when things were turning England's way, due to some sense that
"God" was somehow saying "give up". Is that anything approaching
history, or am I misremembering (or remembering someone's fanciful
account)?
> I am not well-enough schooled in history to speculate whether
> "someone else" would have done much the same thing. At the time one
> needed a marginally plausible claim (having to do with a trick played
> on Edward the Confessor) as well as an army and chutzpah to go conquering
> one's neighbor. Nobody else comes immediately to mind with exactly
> the qualifications... :-)
I also recall the weather, and Vikings, having played fairly important
roles during that...perhaps the necessary confluence would not have
occurred at some other time. (How truly chaotic our history can be. :)
> : Charles Babbage (sp?)
>> Had little effect in his lifetime.
I agree.
(Speaking of Vikings, I suppose I could nominate Tom Landry. :)
--
"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley at gnu.org
