Teacher. History/historiography/book poster. Germanophile. Conservative. Kleinburger.
2 subscribers
Before the French Revolution, "liberal" connoted high-mindedness, nobility, and charitable Christian virtue. This “liberal” quality, Rosenblatt writes, “signified the high-minded, magnanimous and patriotic ideals of a ruling class”. The Revolution transformed these associations. The word became at that point politicized, tied to ideas of popular sovereignty, civil equality, and constitutional rule. Thinkers like Benjamin Constant began to identify themselves explicitly as "liberals", though Constant himself used the term strategically, evoking aristocratic and Christian connotations to legitimate a constitutional politics aimed against both Jacobinism and legitimism/monarchy. Being "liberal,” in Constant’s terms, meant defending the Revolution’s civil achievements while rejecting both the ancien régime and the Terror/democratic excess.
Sonenscher initially makes this clear through his examination of the link between capitalism and public finance by focusing on the relationship between war, state debt, and political transformation. He emphasizes that in the 18th and early 19th centuries, the expansion of state borrowing to fund wars increasingly concentrated power in the hands of creditors, reinforcing the idea that capitalism denoted a political system controlled by the holders of public debt (a major part of this debate in the late 18th century was centered on Belgium/Netherlands in particular).
Tocqueville interpreted the rise of both Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon III as the emergence of a post-revolutionary and post-democratic type of dictatorship. Bonapartism did not merely signal a return to monarchy, but revealed a new political form: “the despotism of a single person raising himself upon a democratic base” which generated “the most unlimited despotism, the one best supported by the appearance of originating in right (droit) and sacred interest”. This form of government cloaked itself in the language of popular sovereignty, using plebiscites and the rhetoric of national unity, while bypassing representative institutions and abolishing liberty. This pattern, Tocqueville feared, created “an equal tyranny for all,” particularly in democratic societies that lacked internal constraints and civic virtues.
Spener was convinced that the stubbornness of the Jews was driven by Christian imperfection and the unwillingness of Christians to live up to the teachings or standards of Christ. Hence, the conversion of the Jews was not only related to a movement of history or even an “end of history” or ”end of days” but was related to spiritual and temporal, political and social reform. Spener writes:
Of course, evangelical Christianity - especially in the 19th century - had extremely egalitarian social/political implications. But what White is pointing to here is more of its culture and rituals, how that seeped into the practices of the type of people who engaged in lynching 
For those interested in this subject, but too young to remember this or not familiar with recent American history, while there is certainly continuity between current day Con Inc/GOP and the "new right" insurgencies of the 60's/70's,
Out of all these, the suffrage stuff, dueling, and the marriage/divorce stuff were the only ones.that made Thor way into SC law (pretty sure). The other stuff - as Poole notes quoting Francis Butler Simkins - was "tabled for later".
Im not aware of any other studies that cover this topic. If anyone is aware of anything that covers this specific issue or how it fits into the history of marriage, "patriarchy", and laws/state intrusion relating to these issues, I would love a recommendation.
Inherently fascinating subject matter. I have had my eye on this book for probably five years now, but have never puled the proverbial trigger and actually opened it. 
I think Nolte's opinion on Hitler and the German National Socialists did change since that essay was written in mid to late 60's. However there was also a lot of it that carried over into "The European Civil War".
Wasn't familiar with many of the writers cited in that excerpt, specifically Massis, Serrano, Claudel, and Ramos (was familiar with Brasillach and Rochelle). If anybody has an e-copy of that Massis book, or knows where i can find it, Id appreciate your time/help. 
These charts, statistical breakdowns, and excerpts come from MacLean's "Behind the Mask of Chivalry", by far the best social history produced on the "second KKK". MacLean has published at least one other book that I thought was awful ("Democracy in Chains") 
I haven't read the second one, but had to read the Dudziak book for school and it was quite enlightening and answered alot of unanswered questions I had about the nature of the American empire). The authors theses are basically the same, the global context of the Cold War
It was printed in "National Interest" magazine, a foreign policy publication that, I think, took more of a "realist" slant, even though it also had a number of early "neocons" associated with it. I beleive Buchanan and Kirkpatrick were on the more non-interventionist side
One of my hyper-specific areas of focus within modern history is being able to identify the moment, especially in 17th/18th century, where ideas about race manifest and what are the circumstances for this manifestation? A justification? Natural? Materially/economically motivated? 
but have read about it in passing in larger histories related to the subject. Othen wrote a book called "Franco's International Brigades", which is in my top three fav histories of Spanish CW. I remember reading that there were a number of American conservatives/anti-communists
and its jarring how, even 20 to 30 years ago, you could be way to the right of any mainstream position now and still be allowed to work at "AEI". Bork comes off to me, at times, to almost be a rightist critic of the American project itself, socially, culturally, and politically.