Just yesterday I saw that there was a republican in the Indiana state senate who was posturing against the redistricting efforts, saying some garbage about how "we need to stand for our principles at all times, even when its inconvenient" or something like that.
If your principles lead to your enemies gaining power over you, they are not good principles! You will be forced to Anton-pill yourself until you realize this.
Anyways, can you do a piece on how we should vote for Democrats in the Midterms because Trump betrayed his supporters by failing to confirm my theories about Jeffrey Epstein, the sole basis on which he was elected? Honestly at this point I believe we’d be better off under Kamala, I deeply regret my vote.
My only recourse is that I can redeem my vote by supporting BASED Gavin Newsom in 2028, who will covertly support my esoteric variant of far right white identity politics
I read this trilogy in the spring and summer of 2020, at first because I was forced to stay at home with nothing else to do, but in the end as a tribute to the history being torn and burned down all around our country. Rereading this passage got me welling up with tears. I distrust anyone who reads these books and is still capable of mouthing some petty homily about who was “right” and who was “wrong” (either side). The tragedy of the war, the conflict between two “rights,” or “right versus rights,” has never been more movingly captured than by Foote in this veritable literary monument.
What strikes me is how then as now “constitutional conservatives” are, despite their self-righteousness, actually quite ignorant of their own tradition. A process for temporarily repealing “habeas corpus” amidst a state of emergency such as an invasion or insurrection had long been an exception to that right, for obvious reasons. (Read Taney’s opinion in Ex Parte Merryman.) Ironically, whereas Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without following that process, habeas corpus was suspended in the Confederacy by that very process, as an act of the legislature exempting the executive from peacetime judicial procedures in a time of war, and yet the constitutional conservatives still claimed to be “in chains.” Jefferson, a champion of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties, followed the same process in suppressing Burr’s conspiracy. Was he a traitor to the Constitution and a tyrant? It’s so tiresome.
The point that in periods of emergency exceptions must be made is a good one, but let’s not carry the comparison of the Stephenses to modern “conservative constitutionalists” too far. For one, the latter are significantly more unintelligent than the former. Few modern conservatives could even read a book like “A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States” with any comprehension, much less write one. For another, the Stephenses were actually principled, for better or for worse. Heretofore, modern conservatives had no such principles, and are almost all adopting these positions and affecting these poses with ulterior motives, either as a reaction against Trump’s personality or as a defense of some unconstitutional policy (illegal immigration).
Brilliantly said. I’ll never forget how this guy in my men’s group whom I generally admire kept railed against Trump as he was a constitutional conservative ended up telling us he voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. Just incredible. The things the Left are doing to us is like we are in a constant state of siege, and yet people on our supposed side cannot stop falling over themselves with new ways to fail.
Alec Stephens was and would've been a great civil leader in time of peace. He looks like a pompous fool here, but to give him his due, he was also a principled Southern unionist uncompromising on "states rights" and slavery per se, but skeptical about disunion as a means of recourse. Had his principles been heeded then, the South would've been spared much suffering, including the need to suspend habeas corpus.
Johnson is no Stephens, but still, I'd love it if the state of our union were such that we could afford the likes of a Gary Johnson. Politics could go back to wonky policy debates, "show biz for ugly people."
The machinations of Lincoln at the beginning of the conflict are rarely emphasized in our history classes. When a country enters a war footing though, many sacrifices must be made to maintain its existence. It would have made a major difference if Davis had finished the march on DC after the First Battle of Bull Run and then immediately instituted these wartime measures. As the previous US Sec of War, surely Davis knew that war is hell and that all efforts must be made to defeat the opponent to bring it to a close.
The Confederate Army couldn't have marched on DC after First Manassas. Frankly, in my opinion it was a fluke that the Union lost. Had McDowell not ordered Jim Ricketts' and Chuck Griffin's batteries down from their advantageous spots, the battle would have probably ended with a Confederate withdrawal. Either way, both armies were so green that a further advance after the battle by either side would have been unlikely if not impossible. The logistical corpus' of either side had yet to be kicked into gear to support such an assault.
Right, I'll defer to your expertise on the battle tactics/logistics. I'm sure you're correct. It does make a significant point in the discussion that a weaker side can make an incredible victory (by skill, luck, or foolishness of the stronger side) but not have the resources or ability to capitalize on it. Perhaps this is the enduring phenomenon: a weaker side tries to sneak attack a stronger foe, wins unexpectedly but cannot press their advantage due to structural or leadership failures. I just can't think of a moment where a weaker side manages to win a full war against another side through an early surprise, decapitating attack.
I'd say maybe the 6 Day War, but you could argue Israel's quality of soldiering and equipment may have made the playing field level. Either way, I would argue a decapitation strike to qualify as one would have to not only be a strategic victory rather than a tactical one but also so thoroughly harm the enemy that any advantage in numbers, equipment, or troop quality would be nullified. Maybe we would have seen one had the landing at Gostomel Airport succeeded.
The third Reich and the confederacy both offer an important military lesson, that if you are going to square off against an opponent with greater manpower and industrial capacity then your ONLY hope of success is a decapitation blow to start the conflict.
Especially in the Axis case as they had only 3% of the world’s oil reserves/production in the world’s most mechanized war ever. They decapitated their number one for in France. Had they captured the British forces at Dunkirk, I think they could have neutralized the western front long enough to break the USSR.
Although the logic is sound, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an outmanned, out resourced nation pulled off a decapitation move and won against a much more powerful nation. I can see that in the Russian Civil War to a degree, but I think it’s because the general Russian military was utterly broken by that point when the Bolsheviks stormed the capital and seized the Romanovs.
Capturing the British forces at Dunkirk would not be a good idea. It would give Britain a martyr and they would have to respond. Germany let the forces leave because Hitler wanted to make peace
I agree that the intention was that letting the British forces be rescued was meant to be interpreted as a peace offering. Yet this gesture was not. The Germans underestimated the desire for continued war from Churchill and the fact that the British generally now wished to regain their honor. So it was make them a martyr or let them go with the hopes of bringing a truce. Clearly, as time would tell, letting them go resulted in utter defeat of Germany. Perhaps it could somehow have been worse if they were captured, and the Germans made out to be super evil even earlier than they would be labeled later. Maybe America would have come in even earlier to aid in rescuing the captured British soldiers.
It happens over and over again, so clearly it is 'human nature' in some way, but the degree to which people will put principles before victory never ceases to amaze me; it somehow not occurring to them that principles or documents or ideologies exist from/for victory, and that if your principles require you to lose, they're bad principles! Dying on a moral high ground means you still lose and die, just with a pretty view.
Not often talked about enough in Civil War discourse is Andersonville, or more accurately its far-lesser known Northern counterpart in Elmira, NY. The Elmira Prison was often nicknamed "Hellmira", and had a mortality rate similar to that of Andersonville. However, the historical context makes Elmira even more egregious. The Confederacy could scarcely feed its Army and its Citizens, let alone POWs. If I remember right even the guards at Andersonville suffered from malnutrition. The Union wasn't blockaded, nor were its agricultural heartlands the site of major fighting when compared to the breadbaskets that were Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky. Disease and starvation were rampant out of what really can only be chalked up to incompetence or malice.
War is indeed hell, but it's a particular hell for those men who are captured and starved to death from malice, incompetence, and/or confusion. I'm reminded of a gripping history of the approximate 1 million German soldiers who died after WWII as they languished in Allied camps. The title is "Other Losses" by James Bacque (https://a.co/d/dpT3q3V). Apparently, most deaths were from starvation (intentionally kept at inadequate calorie and nutrition level) and exposure to the elements in miserable conditions that Eisenhower somehow approved of. It's not a revisionist tale or anything. I'm grateful we won the war under Eisenhower, but these episodes still are hard very hard to read about.
It appears there is always an excuse for inaction even in the face of dire circumstances. Some people just have to prove themselves right no matter the expense
Shelby Foote was a national treasure! You may inspire me to read all three books again 🤓. One of the reasons Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary is so good is it has lots of Foote talking throughout. I don’t think Burns did anything as good since that documentary.
He hasn't, his Vietnam one was a particular travesty in maligning and defaming the men who fought there. Made me so angry I couldn't even come close to finishing it.
I remember finding a series of letters between (I believe) a field officer and a state senator a while back where they described the conflict as one between a society that operates in a meritocracy in accordance with how Nature was set forth and one whose end goal was the essential destruction of humanity.
I wish I could find it again, because it may have genuinely been one of the first things to repair the damage to my moral framework which was done by American public education.
You can always count on the principled constitutional conservative to do the exact wrong thing.
Just yesterday I saw that there was a republican in the Indiana state senate who was posturing against the redistricting efforts, saying some garbage about how "we need to stand for our principles at all times, even when its inconvenient" or something like that.
If your principles lead to your enemies gaining power over you, they are not good principles! You will be forced to Anton-pill yourself until you realize this.
Huh, interesting bit from history.
Anyways, can you do a piece on how we should vote for Democrats in the Midterms because Trump betrayed his supporters by failing to confirm my theories about Jeffrey Epstein, the sole basis on which he was elected? Honestly at this point I believe we’d be better off under Kamala, I deeply regret my vote.
My only recourse is that I can redeem my vote by supporting BASED Gavin Newsom in 2028, who will covertly support my esoteric variant of far right white identity politics
BASED GAVIN! Did you see his epic clapbacks on Twitter? I don't have the fascist app obviously but I did see them on Reddit. SLAY
I'm with Bateman 2028! He's literally me!
I read this trilogy in the spring and summer of 2020, at first because I was forced to stay at home with nothing else to do, but in the end as a tribute to the history being torn and burned down all around our country. Rereading this passage got me welling up with tears. I distrust anyone who reads these books and is still capable of mouthing some petty homily about who was “right” and who was “wrong” (either side). The tragedy of the war, the conflict between two “rights,” or “right versus rights,” has never been more movingly captured than by Foote in this veritable literary monument.
What strikes me is how then as now “constitutional conservatives” are, despite their self-righteousness, actually quite ignorant of their own tradition. A process for temporarily repealing “habeas corpus” amidst a state of emergency such as an invasion or insurrection had long been an exception to that right, for obvious reasons. (Read Taney’s opinion in Ex Parte Merryman.) Ironically, whereas Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without following that process, habeas corpus was suspended in the Confederacy by that very process, as an act of the legislature exempting the executive from peacetime judicial procedures in a time of war, and yet the constitutional conservatives still claimed to be “in chains.” Jefferson, a champion of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties, followed the same process in suppressing Burr’s conspiracy. Was he a traitor to the Constitution and a tyrant? It’s so tiresome.
The point that in periods of emergency exceptions must be made is a good one, but let’s not carry the comparison of the Stephenses to modern “conservative constitutionalists” too far. For one, the latter are significantly more unintelligent than the former. Few modern conservatives could even read a book like “A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States” with any comprehension, much less write one. For another, the Stephenses were actually principled, for better or for worse. Heretofore, modern conservatives had no such principles, and are almost all adopting these positions and affecting these poses with ulterior motives, either as a reaction against Trump’s personality or as a defense of some unconstitutional policy (illegal immigration).
Brilliantly said. I’ll never forget how this guy in my men’s group whom I generally admire kept railed against Trump as he was a constitutional conservative ended up telling us he voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. Just incredible. The things the Left are doing to us is like we are in a constant state of siege, and yet people on our supposed side cannot stop falling over themselves with new ways to fail.
Alec Stephens was and would've been a great civil leader in time of peace. He looks like a pompous fool here, but to give him his due, he was also a principled Southern unionist uncompromising on "states rights" and slavery per se, but skeptical about disunion as a means of recourse. Had his principles been heeded then, the South would've been spared much suffering, including the need to suspend habeas corpus.
Johnson is no Stephens, but still, I'd love it if the state of our union were such that we could afford the likes of a Gary Johnson. Politics could go back to wonky policy debates, "show biz for ugly people."
The machinations of Lincoln at the beginning of the conflict are rarely emphasized in our history classes. When a country enters a war footing though, many sacrifices must be made to maintain its existence. It would have made a major difference if Davis had finished the march on DC after the First Battle of Bull Run and then immediately instituted these wartime measures. As the previous US Sec of War, surely Davis knew that war is hell and that all efforts must be made to defeat the opponent to bring it to a close.
The Confederate Army couldn't have marched on DC after First Manassas. Frankly, in my opinion it was a fluke that the Union lost. Had McDowell not ordered Jim Ricketts' and Chuck Griffin's batteries down from their advantageous spots, the battle would have probably ended with a Confederate withdrawal. Either way, both armies were so green that a further advance after the battle by either side would have been unlikely if not impossible. The logistical corpus' of either side had yet to be kicked into gear to support such an assault.
Right, I'll defer to your expertise on the battle tactics/logistics. I'm sure you're correct. It does make a significant point in the discussion that a weaker side can make an incredible victory (by skill, luck, or foolishness of the stronger side) but not have the resources or ability to capitalize on it. Perhaps this is the enduring phenomenon: a weaker side tries to sneak attack a stronger foe, wins unexpectedly but cannot press their advantage due to structural or leadership failures. I just can't think of a moment where a weaker side manages to win a full war against another side through an early surprise, decapitating attack.
I'd say maybe the 6 Day War, but you could argue Israel's quality of soldiering and equipment may have made the playing field level. Either way, I would argue a decapitation strike to qualify as one would have to not only be a strategic victory rather than a tactical one but also so thoroughly harm the enemy that any advantage in numbers, equipment, or troop quality would be nullified. Maybe we would have seen one had the landing at Gostomel Airport succeeded.
The South shall rise again…
I am “eepy #1”
The third Reich and the confederacy both offer an important military lesson, that if you are going to square off against an opponent with greater manpower and industrial capacity then your ONLY hope of success is a decapitation blow to start the conflict.
Perhaps the better lesson is to learn to bite off what you can chew before starting a fight to begin with.
Christ spoke of this
Especially in the Axis case as they had only 3% of the world’s oil reserves/production in the world’s most mechanized war ever. They decapitated their number one for in France. Had they captured the British forces at Dunkirk, I think they could have neutralized the western front long enough to break the USSR.
Although the logic is sound, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an outmanned, out resourced nation pulled off a decapitation move and won against a much more powerful nation. I can see that in the Russian Civil War to a degree, but I think it’s because the general Russian military was utterly broken by that point when the Bolsheviks stormed the capital and seized the Romanovs.
Capturing the British forces at Dunkirk would not be a good idea. It would give Britain a martyr and they would have to respond. Germany let the forces leave because Hitler wanted to make peace
I agree that the intention was that letting the British forces be rescued was meant to be interpreted as a peace offering. Yet this gesture was not. The Germans underestimated the desire for continued war from Churchill and the fact that the British generally now wished to regain their honor. So it was make them a martyr or let them go with the hopes of bringing a truce. Clearly, as time would tell, letting them go resulted in utter defeat of Germany. Perhaps it could somehow have been worse if they were captured, and the Germans made out to be super evil even earlier than they would be labeled later. Maybe America would have come in even earlier to aid in rescuing the captured British soldiers.
It happens over and over again, so clearly it is 'human nature' in some way, but the degree to which people will put principles before victory never ceases to amaze me; it somehow not occurring to them that principles or documents or ideologies exist from/for victory, and that if your principles require you to lose, they're bad principles! Dying on a moral high ground means you still lose and die, just with a pretty view.
Not often talked about enough in Civil War discourse is Andersonville, or more accurately its far-lesser known Northern counterpart in Elmira, NY. The Elmira Prison was often nicknamed "Hellmira", and had a mortality rate similar to that of Andersonville. However, the historical context makes Elmira even more egregious. The Confederacy could scarcely feed its Army and its Citizens, let alone POWs. If I remember right even the guards at Andersonville suffered from malnutrition. The Union wasn't blockaded, nor were its agricultural heartlands the site of major fighting when compared to the breadbaskets that were Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky. Disease and starvation were rampant out of what really can only be chalked up to incompetence or malice.
War is indeed hell, but it's a particular hell for those men who are captured and starved to death from malice, incompetence, and/or confusion. I'm reminded of a gripping history of the approximate 1 million German soldiers who died after WWII as they languished in Allied camps. The title is "Other Losses" by James Bacque (https://a.co/d/dpT3q3V). Apparently, most deaths were from starvation (intentionally kept at inadequate calorie and nutrition level) and exposure to the elements in miserable conditions that Eisenhower somehow approved of. It's not a revisionist tale or anything. I'm grateful we won the war under Eisenhower, but these episodes still are hard very hard to read about.
It appears there is always an excuse for inaction even in the face of dire circumstances. Some people just have to prove themselves right no matter the expense
Shelby Foote was a national treasure! You may inspire me to read all three books again 🤓. One of the reasons Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary is so good is it has lots of Foote talking throughout. I don’t think Burns did anything as good since that documentary.
He hasn't, his Vietnam one was a particular travesty in maligning and defaming the men who fought there. Made me so angry I couldn't even come close to finishing it.
I am currently 50 hours into the audiobook, only 100 more hours to go!
Thank you 'Grove.
I agree the entire American school ciriculm should be replaced with Civil War literature and history classes.
You would be justified in sending all free subscribers to pay their debts with hard labor.
"Politely asking" means he has the gun at his side instead of pointed at your head. Anyway pressing play so the nice substack bot reads it to me now
"BUY BOOK" (but politely this time)
Trump just made a compelling argument for The Nuclear Option in the Senate. I actually agree with him. Especially if Mamdani wins in NYC.
What do you think, MG?
I remember finding a series of letters between (I believe) a field officer and a state senator a while back where they described the conflict as one between a society that operates in a meritocracy in accordance with how Nature was set forth and one whose end goal was the essential destruction of humanity.
I wish I could find it again, because it may have genuinely been one of the first things to repair the damage to my moral framework which was done by American public education.