Originally Posted by Steerpike

Just happened to catch the movie "All the Way" last night on HBO; All the Way (TV Movie 2016) - IMDb . It was a great insight into the details of the early 60s and the passage of the Civil Rights bill, the Dixiercrats, LBJ in general, and finally his re-election against Goldwater in 64. Awesome acting by Brian Cranston. Note - for some reason, my Comcast station incorrectly describes this as a Frank Sinatra movie.


Highly recommended for historical context, especially for us Brits who weren't 'brung up here'.


ETA: speaking of Goldwater ... From Barry Goldwater to Pete Wilson to Donald Trump: Is GOP on verge of losing Latinos for a generation? - LA Times

Originally Posted by sir_eccles

A thought popped into my head. Not sure if it belongs in this thread, the Orlando thread or a Brexit thread.

Enoch Powell's "Rivers of blood" speech, is it prescient or still wrong?

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

The American government is of, for and by the people, as opposed to the tyranny imposed by the Crown that was an outside force that taxed them but denied them representation.

One could revolt at the ballot box. Taking up arms against the state was not an acceptable option.

George Washington had retired from public life until Shay's Rebellion prompted him to participate in the Constitutional Convention, and he was pleased when the rebellion was put down. His comment while it was in progress:

"the accounts which are published of the commotions…exhibit a melancholy proof of what our trans-Atlantic foe has predicted; and of another thing perhaps, which is still more to be regretted, and is yet more unaccountable, that mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own Government. I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any Country."

Rebellion was acceptable when it was against the "trans-Atlantic foe." Against the US or one of its state governments, not so much.

Originally Posted by robin1234

Of course, the colonial peoples had representative assemblies in the various colonies, New York, Virginia etc.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

Just like Britain then.

Originally Posted by robin1234

Well exactly, in Britain in 1800 the franchise was very restricted, and was in fact different in each constituency (some more inclusive than others.) But essentially limited to property owning men. By 1900, all adult males had the vote, and the vote for women followed in the early twentieth century. Essentially, the franchise followed an approximately similar expansion in the U.S.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

The biggest difference between America and England was and is, that there is an Aristocracy in England, that no working class or even middle class person can ever aspire to, an ancient relic that exists to this day. All be it in a reduced form, but never the lass still exists, and unbelievable celebrated by the mass of the population.

Originally Posted by dakota44

The U.S. has the same thing in the form of the 1% who own half the wealth.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

It's not really the same thing though. To be Upper Class in the UK one does not have to be in the 1%. It's hereditary passed down through many generations.
Making a fortune does not put one in the aristocracy. A lottery winner might have more money than the 8th Earl of Whatsit.

Originally Posted by dakota44

I see the point..but in truth all of the massive weath in the U.S. is handed down through family...like the Waltons. All the rich from the early 1900's created a family class of hereditary wealth. Think Ford, Dupont, Rockefeller and many others. They were and are the U.S version of aristoceacy.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

I doubt British aristocracy would recognize the Waltons the equivalent to the Dukes of Westminster.