This is a splendid piece. Well done, Mr. Fahrenheidt.
After reading "Reinforcing the Fort," I was struck by the possibility of the work (whether book, class, wargame, or Substack series) that asked readers (students, players) to work through the events leading up to secession crisis from a prospective perspective.
Lincoln was not a radical, you asshole. Regardless, he wouldn't even have been President if the South was led by basically intelligent men instead of by idiots, because if they weren't so stupid as to split their vote four ways then they would have gotten a Democrat elected. As it stood, they agreed to the rules of the election beforehand and secession over losing the election was simply treason, which they would never have tolerated if they had won but the Northern states had tried it.
If they'd waited for the North to actually try something, then they would have waited until 1864 because the North was never going to and then they would have elected a new President more to their liking. That's what civilized people do when they lose an election: they learn from their mistakes (really obvious glaring mistakes in their 1860 campaign) and try again next time. They didn't do this because they were idiots who wanted to spill white men's blood all over our country in order to keep black men in slavery longer. They also ruined federalism by unavoidably associating the concept of states rights with slavery forever.
And yet, Lincoln wasn't even going to compel the South to give up slavery until it became expedient as a war measure, because he really was a true moderate if ever there was one in history. As long as they gave up their determination to spread slavery into the Western territories and were content to let it gradually end by keeping it contained, any other issues they had with Lincoln were minor.
I have a lot more respect for the generations of Southerners before the civil war generation. These degenerates wanted to extend slavery to last forever because the cotton gin was making them rich. I don't blame the previous generations who, after the first one, were stuck with the system they had and couldn't change it, but once you go extending a system you know is wrong (and they all did know it was wrong) then that makes you morally responsible.
I'm simply agreeing with Lincoln here that bringing slavery into the Western territories was an attempt to expand slavery, not only in geographical area but also into the future.
The Victor is always superior. Not more moral, not more justified, not more righteous, but winning is winning. Losers can be morally right, they can be and often are better people, but they are not superior. If they were superior they would have won.
As a northerner, I am very willing to admit that the north winning the Civil War was not for the best. But I see the Civil War in the same way as World War I: the war shouldn't have happened, both sides had good and bad, both factions were composed of sinners and flawed saints, and everyone shares the blame while flattering themselves that they are blameless and the other guy is in the wrong.
The South lost in 1865, the North fell later. Actual ethnic Yankees like my family are in the same boat as Dixie: ruled by foreigners who hate us.
Why is slavery evil? I grew up Mexico and Peru, and while Native Americans and Mestizos are not as dumb or incapable as blacks, they still have no business running their own countries. Blacks literally starved to death after they were "liberated" by their Yankee white saviors. Say what you will about the horrible "slavers", but those people never attacked their own race to enforce egalitarian ideals. I don't think you have ever gone a to third world country and seen 70 IQ people begging for a minimum wage job to feed themselves. If the Dollar hegemony disappeared tomorrow, I am very sure there would be modern day slavery again. Non-white in colonies need whites to survive, or they will revert to their pre-colonization standard of living and demographics, not to mention child mortality rate. I can understand saying slavery is practical or impractical, but it is not immoral or evil, your are blinding by your jewish egalitarian brainwashing. Whites who attack other whites to play white saviors for minorities deserve to be invaded and ethnically replaced by Mexicans and Africans.
First of all, there still is modern day slavery now. It's illegal in most of the world, but it still exists and the news calls it "human trafficking." The achievement of the American Civil War generation wasn't to end slavery -- since that still hasn't been accomplished and likely never will be as long sin persists in the world -- but merely to criminalize slavery in the U.S.
Second, I am not saying that everyone is precisely equal in intelligence or athletic ability. Merely that everyone is equal in being a child of God whom Jesus died on the cross to save. So to a certain extent, a limited egalitarianism does have a Jewish origin since it came from Jesus.
However, that doesn't mean it makes sense to run with egalitarianism to the ridiculous extreme. We have too much extreme egalitarianism in our society: it's true. But I am not trapped into my only two options being total egalitarianism versus zero egalitarianism. People can be equal in some respects and unequal in others.
Northern Cities will be ethnically replaced by Blacks and Mexicans because the Quakers and Yankees will defend democracy and equality to their dying breath, and some of the Christian Nationalists will fail at their mission for the same reason. Western Christian Civilization died in 1945, there is nothing to save, reform or rebuild. Lets build a new future without Boomer white savior complex, nigger-worshipping and philosemitism.
Except abortion is actually immoral. Besides, slavery was legal in the Union for the entirety of the war, so it makes no sense to bring it up as a point of contrast.
Except slavery actually is immoral. It arose and was tolerated in Biblical times only as a carefully limited compromise even though it fundamentally offends against the cardinal virtue of justice -- particularly when Americans weren't following the rules which limited Biblical slavery at all in any way, shape or form.
In this particular case, it also offended against prudence because of the stupidity on the Southern side that directly caused this completely avoidable war.
Slavery being legal in parts of Union territory during the war just shows how a compromise could have been reached if the Southerners weren't stupid warmongering hotheads. They didn't have to fight over this. They could have simply stayed home. And started working on the 1864 Presidential election campaign.
You forgot Fort Pickens near Pensacola. The Union held that for the whole war.
My apologies for the oversight
All good.
This is a splendid piece. Well done, Mr. Fahrenheidt.
After reading "Reinforcing the Fort," I was struck by the possibility of the work (whether book, class, wargame, or Substack series) that asked readers (students, players) to work through the events leading up to secession crisis from a prospective perspective.
http://casemethodusmc.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-prospective-perspective.html
Much of the leg work for such a project was done by the people who assembled the "Records of the Rebellion" more than a century ago.
High praise from a fellow Scharnhorst appreciator
Lincoln was not a radical, you asshole. Regardless, he wouldn't even have been President if the South was led by basically intelligent men instead of by idiots, because if they weren't so stupid as to split their vote four ways then they would have gotten a Democrat elected. As it stood, they agreed to the rules of the election beforehand and secession over losing the election was simply treason, which they would never have tolerated if they had won but the Northern states had tried it.
If they'd waited for the North to actually try something, then they would have waited until 1864 because the North was never going to and then they would have elected a new President more to their liking. That's what civilized people do when they lose an election: they learn from their mistakes (really obvious glaring mistakes in their 1860 campaign) and try again next time. They didn't do this because they were idiots who wanted to spill white men's blood all over our country in order to keep black men in slavery longer. They also ruined federalism by unavoidably associating the concept of states rights with slavery forever.
And yet, Lincoln wasn't even going to compel the South to give up slavery until it became expedient as a war measure, because he really was a true moderate if ever there was one in history. As long as they gave up their determination to spread slavery into the Western territories and were content to let it gradually end by keeping it contained, any other issues they had with Lincoln were minor.
It appears Dixie's superiority has led to some controversy...
I have a lot more respect for the generations of Southerners before the civil war generation. These degenerates wanted to extend slavery to last forever because the cotton gin was making them rich. I don't blame the previous generations who, after the first one, were stuck with the system they had and couldn't change it, but once you go extending a system you know is wrong (and they all did know it was wrong) then that makes you morally responsible.
I'm simply agreeing with Lincoln here that bringing slavery into the Western territories was an attempt to expand slavery, not only in geographical area but also into the future.
If Dixie is superior, why did they lose?
The Victor is always superior. Not more moral, not more justified, not more righteous, but winning is winning. Losers can be morally right, they can be and often are better people, but they are not superior. If they were superior they would have won.
As a northerner, I am very willing to admit that the north winning the Civil War was not for the best. But I see the Civil War in the same way as World War I: the war shouldn't have happened, both sides had good and bad, both factions were composed of sinners and flawed saints, and everyone shares the blame while flattering themselves that they are blameless and the other guy is in the wrong.
The South lost in 1865, the North fell later. Actual ethnic Yankees like my family are in the same boat as Dixie: ruled by foreigners who hate us.
Equating the fate of carpetbaggers to that of southerners is practically criminal.
Why is slavery evil? I grew up Mexico and Peru, and while Native Americans and Mestizos are not as dumb or incapable as blacks, they still have no business running their own countries. Blacks literally starved to death after they were "liberated" by their Yankee white saviors. Say what you will about the horrible "slavers", but those people never attacked their own race to enforce egalitarian ideals. I don't think you have ever gone a to third world country and seen 70 IQ people begging for a minimum wage job to feed themselves. If the Dollar hegemony disappeared tomorrow, I am very sure there would be modern day slavery again. Non-white in colonies need whites to survive, or they will revert to their pre-colonization standard of living and demographics, not to mention child mortality rate. I can understand saying slavery is practical or impractical, but it is not immoral or evil, your are blinding by your jewish egalitarian brainwashing. Whites who attack other whites to play white saviors for minorities deserve to be invaded and ethnically replaced by Mexicans and Africans.
First of all, there still is modern day slavery now. It's illegal in most of the world, but it still exists and the news calls it "human trafficking." The achievement of the American Civil War generation wasn't to end slavery -- since that still hasn't been accomplished and likely never will be as long sin persists in the world -- but merely to criminalize slavery in the U.S.
Second, I am not saying that everyone is precisely equal in intelligence or athletic ability. Merely that everyone is equal in being a child of God whom Jesus died on the cross to save. So to a certain extent, a limited egalitarianism does have a Jewish origin since it came from Jesus.
However, that doesn't mean it makes sense to run with egalitarianism to the ridiculous extreme. We have too much extreme egalitarianism in our society: it's true. But I am not trapped into my only two options being total egalitarianism versus zero egalitarianism. People can be equal in some respects and unequal in others.
I definitely have to agree here. Chattel slavery wasn't the only problem: debt-slavery also pervaded the entire society.
Northern Cities will be ethnically replaced by Blacks and Mexicans because the Quakers and Yankees will defend democracy and equality to their dying breath, and some of the Christian Nationalists will fail at their mission for the same reason. Western Christian Civilization died in 1945, there is nothing to save, reform or rebuild. Lets build a new future without Boomer white savior complex, nigger-worshipping and philosemitism.
This is precisely the kind of weapons-grade stupidity that compelled me to block you on YouTube. Every single sentence of what you wrote is wrong.
That's not an argument. What the Democrats proposed in the 1850s wasn't federalism: it was moral relativism.
Their take on slavery was, "If you don't like abortion, don't get one."
Except abortion is actually immoral. Besides, slavery was legal in the Union for the entirety of the war, so it makes no sense to bring it up as a point of contrast.
Except slavery actually is immoral. It arose and was tolerated in Biblical times only as a carefully limited compromise even though it fundamentally offends against the cardinal virtue of justice -- particularly when Americans weren't following the rules which limited Biblical slavery at all in any way, shape or form.
In this particular case, it also offended against prudence because of the stupidity on the Southern side that directly caused this completely avoidable war.
Slavery being legal in parts of Union territory during the war just shows how a compromise could have been reached if the Southerners weren't stupid warmongering hotheads. They didn't have to fight over this. They could have simply stayed home. And started working on the 1864 Presidential election campaign.
No.
Can you explain why abortion is immoral?
TLD