I guarantee this movie is better than One Battle After Another, the most over hyped film of the decade.
Speaking of history books have you read of Herbert Hoover's Freedom Betrayed? It's the best book focusing on the highest level of WW2 leadership. Hoover's only goal is the truth and tearing down the propaganda version of the war
I know Errol "in like" Flynn has a notorious reputation (probably revised to contemporary standards - I don't care) but he is one of my favorite actors, having as much fun as possible without winking at the camera.
Flynn’s depiction of “Robin Hood” (1938) captured my childhood. His devil may care and boldness are great for male archetypes. While others were black pilling, he was pranking his enemies, humiliating the wicked king, and swooping in to steal his girl.
This depiction of John Brown could have been a mugshot from the Portland ICE riots. Totally unhinged and feral.
I think it’s a serious misunderstanding of American history to believe that the civil war was avoidable. Lincoln was *not* an abolitionist and tried to compromise with the South. As he said in the Second Inaugural all he wanted to do was prevent the territorial expansion of slavery, on the assumption that if it was confined to the old south it would gradually die out. The South immediately seceded.
There’s a good book called the F Street Mess that traces out the contemporary politics of the South’s attempt to get a permanent hammerlock on the Federal government and impose the legal structure of slavery on the entire country. It was the white Free Labor concern about this, and not the abolitionist movement, that led most immediately to the civil war
Also, since I know our host is fond of historical lost books, a very valuable pre Civil War book to read for someone who wants to understand the origins of the Civil War is Hinton Helper's 1857 "The Impending Crisis" (https://archive.org/details/DKC0147/mode/2up). This book, along with Uncle Tom's Cabin, was one of the major pre-Civil War abolitionist publications that helped mobilize public opinion against the South (it was a best seller in the North and banned in the South under penalty of death, several people were hanged for owning it). Besides being an abolitionist, Helper was a Southerner, a racist, and a white supremacist (and by white supremacist I mean he lived until 1909 and as far as I know never wavered in his belief that all black people should be removed from the United States, financed to resettle in Africa or Latin America, and replaced by white immigrants).
The whole book is an incandescently angry screed against what he called the "Oligarchy" of slave-owners (more typically called "the slave power" in politics of the time) for basically completely wrecking the South -- destroying the economy, prosperity, development, and moral character of the region. It's fallen into some obscurity today because of Helper's politics ("Once for all, within a reasonably short period, let us make the slaveholders do something like justice to their negroes by giving each and every one of them his freedom, and sixty dollars in current money ; then let us charter all the ocean steamers, packets and clipper ships that can be had on liberal terms, and keep them constantly plying between the ports of America and Africa, until all slaves shall enjoy freedom in the land of their fathers") and also because a lot of it is a rather dry compendium of statistics (it's actually very impressive what he does statistically all by hand, hundreds of years before computers). Those statistics make a devastating case about the underdevelopment of the South in every way.
It's not an easy book to read straight through but it really takes you inside the free soil ideology and mentality and demonstrates how slavery was seen not as a fundamentally racial issue but an issue about opposing systems of ownership of human beings by an oligarchic minority vs. social and economic liberty for all. E.g. Helper accuses proponents of slavery of being "negro- worshipping" oligarchs who "support the worthless black slave and his tyrannical master at the expense of the free white laborer" -- this is the mentality that needs to be understood.
I'm very much looking forward to your podcast on Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative."
One thing that might be worth bringing up is the "narrative" aspect of his 3 volume set. Foote was, first and foremost, a novelist. And, he brought a novelist's voice to telling the history of the conflict - very different from most historians who take a more analytical approach to writing history.
It might be worthwhile in thinking about your upcoming podcast to supplement Foote with James McPherson's 1988 book "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era." It's now 40 years old, and a synthesis of the previous generation's scholarship on the conflict, but McPherson's history has stood the test of time. Compare and contrast the two approaches to telling the history of the Civil War between Foote and McPherson.
I also am particularly fond of McPherson's "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief" and his "Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief." The two pair well together, and given your interest in Jeff Davis, this would make for an excellent podcast as you continue down your Civil War era.
Back when I used to teach U.S. history at the undergraduate level, I assigned a paper asking students to address the central question: "Was the Civil War inevitable?"
Here's a copy/paste of the relevant part of the assignment:
"Among professional historians there is a consensus that the institution of slavery – whether directly or indirectly – was the root cause of the American Civil War (1861-1865). What is not as well understood are the problems of inevitability and contingency.
Many historians view the Civil War as a conflict between two competing socio-economic systems that was bound to happen, whereas others view the Civil War as a conflict that began when politicians refused to compromise. While both sides agree that slavery was the precipitating factor, they disagree as to whether or not the war between North and South was inevitable.
For historians the concept of inevitability is important because it makes clear the timing of certain events. In other words, when were certain events bound to happen? Was the war between North and South inevitable from the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution when some states abolished slavery and others continued its use? Or, was war inevitable at a much later date? If the war was inevitable, when was it inevitable?
Likewise, contingency is important because it allows historians to examine why certain events played out the ways in which they did. At the heart of contingency is the question: what if? Take a specific event and imagine an alternative. Would history have played out the same way? If so, why? If not, why not? What if Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans had been willing to compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery into the western territories: would the war still have happened?
For this paper you will need to read the primary sources in Jonathan Earle’s John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry, James Henry Hammond’s “Cotton is King” speech, William Henry Seward’s “Irrepressible Conflict” speech, and the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. After reading these primary sources write a 7-8 page paper that addresses the following question of historical inevitability and contingency:
“Did Americans in the years leading up to the Civil War believe that conflict between the Northern states and the Southern states was inevitable? If so, why did they believe this? If not, why did they not believe that war was in the near-future?”
Your paper must have a clearly defined thesis and use specific examples from all the primary sources to support its claims. See the syllabus for the grading rubric."
Hopefully this framing will be of use as you think about the podcast - particularly as it relates to the idea that "bad things happen when people believe that bad things will happen." We must put on our psychic armor to prevent this!
P.S. If you haven't yet gotten a copy of Earle's "John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry: A Brief History with Documents" it's available fairly cheap on Amazon. Worth picking up, especially for the documents.
In a lot of ways, John Brown was really the first free subscriber
I guarantee this movie is better than One Battle After Another, the most over hyped film of the decade.
Speaking of history books have you read of Herbert Hoover's Freedom Betrayed? It's the best book focusing on the highest level of WW2 leadership. Hoover's only goal is the truth and tearing down the propaganda version of the war
Thanks MG.
I know Errol "in like" Flynn has a notorious reputation (probably revised to contemporary standards - I don't care) but he is one of my favorite actors, having as much fun as possible without winking at the camera.
He took an impromptu sailing voyage with his buddies and made a short documentary about it, Cruise of the Zaca.
Flynn’s depiction of “Robin Hood” (1938) captured my childhood. His devil may care and boldness are great for male archetypes. While others were black pilling, he was pranking his enemies, humiliating the wicked king, and swooping in to steal his girl.
This depiction of John Brown could have been a mugshot from the Portland ICE riots. Totally unhinged and feral.
I think it’s a serious misunderstanding of American history to believe that the civil war was avoidable. Lincoln was *not* an abolitionist and tried to compromise with the South. As he said in the Second Inaugural all he wanted to do was prevent the territorial expansion of slavery, on the assumption that if it was confined to the old south it would gradually die out. The South immediately seceded.
There’s a good book called the F Street Mess that traces out the contemporary politics of the South’s attempt to get a permanent hammerlock on the Federal government and impose the legal structure of slavery on the entire country. It was the white Free Labor concern about this, and not the abolitionist movement, that led most immediately to the civil war
Also, since I know our host is fond of historical lost books, a very valuable pre Civil War book to read for someone who wants to understand the origins of the Civil War is Hinton Helper's 1857 "The Impending Crisis" (https://archive.org/details/DKC0147/mode/2up). This book, along with Uncle Tom's Cabin, was one of the major pre-Civil War abolitionist publications that helped mobilize public opinion against the South (it was a best seller in the North and banned in the South under penalty of death, several people were hanged for owning it). Besides being an abolitionist, Helper was a Southerner, a racist, and a white supremacist (and by white supremacist I mean he lived until 1909 and as far as I know never wavered in his belief that all black people should be removed from the United States, financed to resettle in Africa or Latin America, and replaced by white immigrants).
The whole book is an incandescently angry screed against what he called the "Oligarchy" of slave-owners (more typically called "the slave power" in politics of the time) for basically completely wrecking the South -- destroying the economy, prosperity, development, and moral character of the region. It's fallen into some obscurity today because of Helper's politics ("Once for all, within a reasonably short period, let us make the slaveholders do something like justice to their negroes by giving each and every one of them his freedom, and sixty dollars in current money ; then let us charter all the ocean steamers, packets and clipper ships that can be had on liberal terms, and keep them constantly plying between the ports of America and Africa, until all slaves shall enjoy freedom in the land of their fathers") and also because a lot of it is a rather dry compendium of statistics (it's actually very impressive what he does statistically all by hand, hundreds of years before computers). Those statistics make a devastating case about the underdevelopment of the South in every way.
It's not an easy book to read straight through but it really takes you inside the free soil ideology and mentality and demonstrates how slavery was seen not as a fundamentally racial issue but an issue about opposing systems of ownership of human beings by an oligarchic minority vs. social and economic liberty for all. E.g. Helper accuses proponents of slavery of being "negro- worshipping" oligarchs who "support the worthless black slave and his tyrannical master at the expense of the free white laborer" -- this is the mentality that needs to be understood.
I'm very much looking forward to your podcast on Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative."
One thing that might be worth bringing up is the "narrative" aspect of his 3 volume set. Foote was, first and foremost, a novelist. And, he brought a novelist's voice to telling the history of the conflict - very different from most historians who take a more analytical approach to writing history.
It might be worthwhile in thinking about your upcoming podcast to supplement Foote with James McPherson's 1988 book "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era." It's now 40 years old, and a synthesis of the previous generation's scholarship on the conflict, but McPherson's history has stood the test of time. Compare and contrast the two approaches to telling the history of the Civil War between Foote and McPherson.
I also am particularly fond of McPherson's "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief" and his "Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief." The two pair well together, and given your interest in Jeff Davis, this would make for an excellent podcast as you continue down your Civil War era.
Back when I used to teach U.S. history at the undergraduate level, I assigned a paper asking students to address the central question: "Was the Civil War inevitable?"
Here's a copy/paste of the relevant part of the assignment:
"Among professional historians there is a consensus that the institution of slavery – whether directly or indirectly – was the root cause of the American Civil War (1861-1865). What is not as well understood are the problems of inevitability and contingency.
Many historians view the Civil War as a conflict between two competing socio-economic systems that was bound to happen, whereas others view the Civil War as a conflict that began when politicians refused to compromise. While both sides agree that slavery was the precipitating factor, they disagree as to whether or not the war between North and South was inevitable.
For historians the concept of inevitability is important because it makes clear the timing of certain events. In other words, when were certain events bound to happen? Was the war between North and South inevitable from the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution when some states abolished slavery and others continued its use? Or, was war inevitable at a much later date? If the war was inevitable, when was it inevitable?
Likewise, contingency is important because it allows historians to examine why certain events played out the ways in which they did. At the heart of contingency is the question: what if? Take a specific event and imagine an alternative. Would history have played out the same way? If so, why? If not, why not? What if Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans had been willing to compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery into the western territories: would the war still have happened?
For this paper you will need to read the primary sources in Jonathan Earle’s John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry, James Henry Hammond’s “Cotton is King” speech, William Henry Seward’s “Irrepressible Conflict” speech, and the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. After reading these primary sources write a 7-8 page paper that addresses the following question of historical inevitability and contingency:
“Did Americans in the years leading up to the Civil War believe that conflict between the Northern states and the Southern states was inevitable? If so, why did they believe this? If not, why did they not believe that war was in the near-future?”
Your paper must have a clearly defined thesis and use specific examples from all the primary sources to support its claims. See the syllabus for the grading rubric."
Hopefully this framing will be of use as you think about the podcast - particularly as it relates to the idea that "bad things happen when people believe that bad things will happen." We must put on our psychic armor to prevent this!
P.S. If you haven't yet gotten a copy of Earle's "John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry: A Brief History with Documents" it's available fairly cheap on Amazon. Worth picking up, especially for the documents.