Gary
10/5/2012 2:43:00 PM
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:43:02 +0200, Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>On 5/10/12 13:28, in article fvgt68d5mp3prvk6o8469f9r8aad5b1p84@4ax.com,
>"Gary" <nos@none.com> wrote:
>
>> You refer to the peasants who idolize "my lord and my lady" ? Fact
>> is -- many Americans are still peasants at heart.
>
>
>In human society those are the top of the social chain get a lot
>of respect from the lower downs.
I have recently become interested in that subject. It fascinates me
how a few thugs were able to set themselves up as kings and lords over
the masses of people. I'm reading English history in hopes of
finding some logical reason our ancestors accepted that situation
1,500 years ago.
>In fact the history of how
>Americans were eventually universally franchised is a long one.
>At the beginning of the Republic only land owners voted. So
>a large portion of the white male population did not vote and even
>a few women, widows holding landed voted in some states (who could
>vote was established in each state, there was no Federal law on voting).
I only discovered recently that South Carolina (the state that gave us
the Civil War) did not let it's peasants vote for president from
1820 through 1860. I find it amusing that my SC ancestors never
complained. Or mentioned it :-)
>The problem was there was plenty of land and to the West and so
>the land holding limitation was dropped.
>
>Still however, social status does grant some extra status. Social
>mobility allowed some of the lower downs to move up. With the new rich
>there was a problem being accepted by the old rich, that still exists.
>But the children of the new rich ironically became the old rich, they
>had higher status than then the new (if you read the history of Vanderbilt
>you will see this).
I have. Even as a teenager, I found old Cornelius to be one of the
most interesting Americans. Too bad his idiot descendants could
inherit so much power without doing anything.
>Romney has an element of the old rich about him. He was supposed to have
>made his fortune on his own and inherited nothing. I doubt that story and
>nothing is clear. Several of our Presidents were members of the old rich
>(both Roosevelts) and they got automatic respect for that. But in politics
>they had to play it different.
El Castor told us in a post -- that Romney inherited six million
dollars. But gave it all to the church. I have only one thought
about that. Anybody who'd donate his entire inheritance to a church
is ... a damn fool. Or ... a liar and a hypocrite.