I read this after Thomas777 mentioned in on an episode of Caribbean Rhythms (or maybe it was on Mindphaser). I loved it so much I bought several copies to give out to people. The central thesis of the book, that the Civil War really was the War of Northern Aggression, is probably the best understanding of the origins of the conflict. It's much more plausible when you consider the hatred that goodwhites (Yankees) still have for badwhites (Southerners/Trump voters) and their often lurid and violent rhetoric that they employ to this day (in peace time!), especially during the height of the COVID/vaxx moral panic.
It's a shame that this book is not more widely read, since its sober and nuanced analysis of slavery could, if widely adopted, really help to de-escalate racial conflict in America. Instead we get pornographic bile like the abominable Ten Years a Slave (which you should do an episode on for your PAID subscribers), that exists only to engender hate.
Lastly, free subscribers should seek Canadian healthcare immediately.
Coincidentally I just watched Gone With the Wind. During the party scene all of the southern gentlemen think they can lick the north in two weeks. It is an amazing movie in many ways.
north and south (1985) actually does a really good job covering the civil war era and just how distinct the southern way of life was and how mild most slave owners actually were.
the first season was amazing, second was solid, and third was awful.
maybe we’ll get a paid exclusive review of that series?
“I don’t think the south stood a chance militarily”
I would have to disagree with this one. In terms of raw military power --and the lack thereof on the Yankee side at the time-- The south could have won at bulls run if they had more of a blitz doctrine and rushed for the capital
Yeah it seems that the only way to win a war when you lack an advantage in industrial capacity is to decapitate the enemy early on. Germany made the same mistake during Barbarossa
People underestimate how easily the South could've won not because of Bull Run but because the CSA had very different win conditions to achieve their war goals than the North did. For the North to win they had to conquer / rule the South, for the CSA to win it just had to defend itself and not get conquered, it did not have to invade the North, conquer its cities etc
Conditioning works. After listening to the Biden AI voice filter for hours on end speaking nothing but truth and joking around, I have to say that I might be “Ridin with Biden” in Nov.
Part of the reason it's so easy to bait the Right right now is due to the normiecon view of the Left as "snowflakes" that could "never make it in the real world" and other tropes that telegraph weak.
This is a mistake because this acceleration cycle you've detailed in this episode is all to the benefit of freaks who can continue to handle the escalations because they have no limits.
Many on our side still think the Left and libs are "dumb" when they do stuff like this but this is exactly what they want: chaos and an excuse to kill you.
If they're doing something, they know what they're doing and they benefit from it; they're not weak idiots, political power is literally the only thing they can focus on.
Thank you for making this episode free for dysgenic scum such as myself.
To the book’s point about how enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act radicalized opinion in the North, perhaps the central lesson from Harry Jaffa’s “A Crisis of the House Divided” is that it was the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that effectively prevented any peaceful solution.
Previous to it, slavery had been for practical purposes a states’ rights issue: the North, while not happy with slavery, could be mollified that at least it wouldn’t exist in the North or in to-be settled Northern territories. However, the decision held that no state had the legal right to exclude slavery. After that, no compromise was possible - the Union would be all one thing or all the other.
Dred Scott is not taught that way now because it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with more recent activist judge rulings. It’s an interesting example of how removing issues from the democratic process yields social breakdown.
You talk about the South being wealthier than the North. Was there a significant gap between the Southern yeoman farmers and their Northern counterparts? My impression has been Southerners outside the aristocracy were largely on board with the ACS outside a few hard core states like South Carolina. A majority would have supported the end of slavery if it meant physical removal of the freed slaves. Is this incorrect?
Well I’m way more pro-union than you so don’t beat me with a cane or anything, but I would say there’s a good amount of oversimplification here. For one thing, Lincoln was not a New Englander and not even an abolitionist but shared the analysis of the “slave power” that you describe here. Lincoln was really a border state westerner concerned with the growth of the entire country and the prosperity of free labor and he saw slavery and the Southern effort to expand slavery as a direct threat to that. When you read Lincoln he doesn’t seem like a fanatic.
I do have to say that from parts of your description here the book seems to come uncomfortably close to some kind of slavery apologia…when you enslave other human beings violence can be expected to result, in fact violence is inherent to the process.
I read this after Thomas777 mentioned in on an episode of Caribbean Rhythms (or maybe it was on Mindphaser). I loved it so much I bought several copies to give out to people. The central thesis of the book, that the Civil War really was the War of Northern Aggression, is probably the best understanding of the origins of the conflict. It's much more plausible when you consider the hatred that goodwhites (Yankees) still have for badwhites (Southerners/Trump voters) and their often lurid and violent rhetoric that they employ to this day (in peace time!), especially during the height of the COVID/vaxx moral panic.
It's a shame that this book is not more widely read, since its sober and nuanced analysis of slavery could, if widely adopted, really help to de-escalate racial conflict in America. Instead we get pornographic bile like the abominable Ten Years a Slave (which you should do an episode on for your PAID subscribers), that exists only to engender hate.
Lastly, free subscribers should seek Canadian healthcare immediately.
Coincidentally I just watched Gone With the Wind. During the party scene all of the southern gentlemen think they can lick the north in two weeks. It is an amazing movie in many ways.
north and south (1985) actually does a really good job covering the civil war era and just how distinct the southern way of life was and how mild most slave owners actually were.
the first season was amazing, second was solid, and third was awful.
maybe we’ll get a paid exclusive review of that series?
I really enjoyed this. Learned more about the American revolution in this podcast than I did in 12 years of school. I hope he does more like this.
“I don’t think the south stood a chance militarily”
I would have to disagree with this one. In terms of raw military power --and the lack thereof on the Yankee side at the time-- The south could have won at bulls run if they had more of a blitz doctrine and rushed for the capital
Yeah it seems that the only way to win a war when you lack an advantage in industrial capacity is to decapitate the enemy early on. Germany made the same mistake during Barbarossa
People underestimate how easily the South could've won not because of Bull Run but because the CSA had very different win conditions to achieve their war goals than the North did. For the North to win they had to conquer / rule the South, for the CSA to win it just had to defend itself and not get conquered, it did not have to invade the North, conquer its cities etc
At the bar w my AirPods angrily shaking my head at John brown lol. Can’t emphasize enough how good this book is!
Really enjoyed this and it’s fascinating how the slights on both sides just fed their respective fears until it reached a point of no return
Conditioning works. After listening to the Biden AI voice filter for hours on end speaking nothing but truth and joking around, I have to say that I might be “Ridin with Biden” in Nov.
Part of the reason it's so easy to bait the Right right now is due to the normiecon view of the Left as "snowflakes" that could "never make it in the real world" and other tropes that telegraph weak.
This is a mistake because this acceleration cycle you've detailed in this episode is all to the benefit of freaks who can continue to handle the escalations because they have no limits.
Many on our side still think the Left and libs are "dumb" when they do stuff like this but this is exactly what they want: chaos and an excuse to kill you.
If they're doing something, they know what they're doing and they benefit from it; they're not weak idiots, political power is literally the only thing they can focus on.
Thank you for making this episode free for dysgenic scum such as myself.
I think I might try yoga. I struggle with unclenching my jaw sometimes, it's hard to relax when things are as heated as they are now.
To the book’s point about how enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act radicalized opinion in the North, perhaps the central lesson from Harry Jaffa’s “A Crisis of the House Divided” is that it was the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that effectively prevented any peaceful solution.
Previous to it, slavery had been for practical purposes a states’ rights issue: the North, while not happy with slavery, could be mollified that at least it wouldn’t exist in the North or in to-be settled Northern territories. However, the decision held that no state had the legal right to exclude slavery. After that, no compromise was possible - the Union would be all one thing or all the other.
Dred Scott is not taught that way now because it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with more recent activist judge rulings. It’s an interesting example of how removing issues from the democratic process yields social breakdown.
You talk about the South being wealthier than the North. Was there a significant gap between the Southern yeoman farmers and their Northern counterparts? My impression has been Southerners outside the aristocracy were largely on board with the ACS outside a few hard core states like South Carolina. A majority would have supported the end of slavery if it meant physical removal of the freed slaves. Is this incorrect?
My understanding is this is a still debated and unsettled topic. As unhelpful as that answer is.
Well I’m way more pro-union than you so don’t beat me with a cane or anything, but I would say there’s a good amount of oversimplification here. For one thing, Lincoln was not a New Englander and not even an abolitionist but shared the analysis of the “slave power” that you describe here. Lincoln was really a border state westerner concerned with the growth of the entire country and the prosperity of free labor and he saw slavery and the Southern effort to expand slavery as a direct threat to that. When you read Lincoln he doesn’t seem like a fanatic.
I do have to say that from parts of your description here the book seems to come uncomfortably close to some kind of slavery apologia…when you enslave other human beings violence can be expected to result, in fact violence is inherent to the process.
Surprised you didn't drop a "yikes" in your comment.