OK, fine...looks like I drew the short straw today, so here's why DDS is wrong. Again. As Always. *Puts on Historian Hat* THREAD INCOMING

https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1049279796205834240

1. Some background: the 3/5 Compromise is in Art. 1, sec. 2 of the Constitution, in the section on how representation would be apportioned among the states in the new House of Representatives, the seats in which wld be alloted by population.

For a historian, when present-day news events touch on something you've researched, the reaction is usually "Hey! Cool! I know some stuff about this!" followed immediately by "Holy crap, I can't believe this is still a thing. AAAARRRGGG." Anyhoo....impeachment.

(Thread incomng) 1. Lots of people, based on this week's shitshow, have asked "can a Supreme Court Justice be impeached?" And the answer is YES; the Constitution says any officer of the federal government who commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be impeached (indicted) & tried by the Senate

doin a ponder "why do you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?"

So, if you didn't know, I'm a recovering alcoholic. When I was still actively drinking, I went to the bar during the day *all the time* but had to hide it from my wife and co-workers. This is when smoking was still allowed in bars, so covering it up was...difficult (1/9) So what I would do is keep a spare shirt in my office and change into it when I went back to work. You know, because my pants certainly didn't smell like smoke...just my shirt (alcoholic logic). Or, if I went home, I'd throw my clothes in the wash and change into new ones. (2/9)

plz to practice good self care today. Yoshi haz a concern. Take a nap if you must

There's a pizza up on the counter; don't know how visible it is, but Yoshi's drool has reached the floor. The vigil continues

Every time I teach my History of Capitalism course I realize all over again just how much Adam Smith has been misrepresented and misunderstood, mostly by cherry-picked quotes from ppl who've only skimmed Wealth of Nations and have no clue that Theory of Moral Sentiments exists. I mean, I'm not a Smith fanboy by any means, but no one ever quotes the parts from WoN where he basically says that we shouldn't trust the emerging bourgeoisie's motives: they "have generally an interest to decieve and even to oppress the public," he warned.

*irritated historian voice* ACTUALLY....
It's a myth that the Gettysburg Address wasn't seen as brilliant until much later. Immediate reactions to the speech (which was given right after the dedication's main event, a speech by Edward Everett) varied mostly along party lines (1/)

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1037888507929350144

2/ Lincoln's critics portrayed the speech as too short, enigmatic, perhaps a bit tacky. In the 19th c, public oratory was a spectator sport, and people like Edward Everett and his 2+ hour speeches were the gold standard. Against this backdrop, Lincoln's address was unconventional

Historian Answer Time. I've gotten these questions a bunch, so here's a #twitterstorian explainer (a brief thread)
1. No, I can't think of a precendent for the NYT anon op-ed. Only thing close is maybe Kissinger conducting foreign policy while Nixon was in a gin-induced blackout. Historian Answer Time. I've gotten these questions a bunch, so here's a #twitterstorian explainer (a brief thread)
2. Not invoking the 25th amendment to avoid a constitutional crisis is in itself a constitutional crisis, yes.

Boy I'm surprised the National Association of Geographers didn't invite a flat-earther to give the keynote. Are they afraid of controversial ideas? Don't they know debating bad ideas is the best remedy? Boy I'm surprised the American Chemical Society didn't invite the alchemist to demonstrate how to transmogrify lead into gold. Are they afraid of controversial ideas? Don't they know debating bad ideas is the best remedy?

Steve Deace got his start here in Des Moines as a local sports talk guy. He tried really hard to be Jim Rome, but failed even harder. He was spectacularly awful. Shortly after he lost (yet another) time slot, he began his hard Right turn, and the grift has been on ever since.

https://twitter.com/NewYorker/status/1030827934985142273

Related point: when 2 conservative white blowhards say the current sports media landscape is "politicized," what they really mean is "it's hard out here for racists and tinfoil-hat wearing wingnuts." Like this show won't be "politicized?" Bitches, please.

Hi there-Civil War historian here. So, uh...this is really, really far from "The Truth." Got a minute? /1

https://twitter.com/senatormcdaniel/status/1029916257490018304

2/ Lee certainly did not believe slavery was wrong. In an 1856 letter to his wife, he said "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race."

(Thread) So this editorial is extremely problematic, and an attempt to clothe a fringe Radical Right theory with legitimacy. Don't believe the hype
Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright wapo.st/2mrJZEz?tid=ss… 2/ The author is a former Tr*mp staffer who teaches at Hillsdale College You might remember him as the guy who called the 2016 election "the Flight 93 election." You know: "charge the cockpit or die." I wonder why he's invested in getting rid of birthright citizenship. 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Hi "RIck," historian here. Quick primer of things that existed in 1860 if you were white: free housing (or land grants), free primary education, both of which acted as agents of social mobility and welfare. /1

https://twitter.com/rhol88/status/1015619085823086592

2/And, yes, @rhol88 (or "RIck") lots of people worked hard *and* died, because there were no workplace protections, workmen's comp, maximum hours/day or overtime. Unions didn't exist (to any large degree) in 1860 either. But slavery did. It largely built the modern economy.

A significant number of our students are literally under attack. And free-speech warriors who've made this out to be merely "contrarian ideas" or "unpopular viewpoints" share the blame. It's not some abstract philosophical exercise. It's real-world hate w/ real world consequences

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @ProPublica view original on Twitter

People's humanity, their basic human rights, their right to exist--these are not up for debate. People who tell you that we need to "listen to all ideas, no matter how loathsome" are people who never have to worry about the consequences of those ideas.

So I find it very telling that it's always Right-Wingers conjuring up this specter of commie profs indoctrinating the poor children. (1/x) As @AaronRHanlon has pointed out in a thread, the research shows that profs *do not* do this, and that students enter college today more liberal than any of their predecessors. So why does this trope persist so tenaciously on the Right? Because it reminds them of, well...them /2