I pointed out that the Southern Gentlemen tended to be descended from the Royalist Party, while the Unionist Chaplains often descended from the Parliamentary party.
And then I realised I had said something a lot more insightful than I immediately realised: because those two basic divisions still exist:
The Republicans, for all they argue for "limited government" actually mean "limited parliamentary interference in the divine rights of hereditary castes--something that was stark during the Civil Rights era.
The Democrats continue to see government as something done for the people, not to the people, perhaps one of the most important aspects of English Civil War politics, and regard the government as a tool to protect people from the depradations of Divine Right thinking.
Profile
treaseproject- treaseproject
Comments
'When we argue for "small government", we actually mean "limited interference in the exercise of power by the robber-baron billionaire who paid for my air-time"... '
The difference between that, and the Republican aristocracy, is that Libertarians oppose all government interference in the actions of the new barony, whether that government be democratic, divine, aristocratic or Monarchic. Aristocrats are all for government that is of and for their own caste, and very much in favour of extensive interference in the exercise of power - or any hint of self-determination - in all other castes.
As an aside: it surprised me to be shown that I have mostly viewed the Civil War in religious terms, rather than reading a rigorous political analysis. I should rectify this.
In the North, autonomy is to be maximized; in the South, autonomy is zero-sum, to be hoarded.