Dixie
I continue to be impressed by this delightful book … here Woodward unwittingly destroys the preposterous Lincoln myth that there was an “American Revolution” that was launched by an “American people” which somehow created the states through the Declaration of Independence.
I hate to continue to post excerpts, but hopefully some OD readers will be intrigued enough to buy a copy of this book and read it for themselves. It is one of the most interesting books on the subject of American nationalism that has been released in many years.
A book written by a Northern historian that tells the truth about American history … is such a thing unprecedented? So far, so good.
The event we call the American Revolution wasn’t really revolutionary, at least while it was underway. The military struggle of 1775-1782 wasn’t fought by an “American people” seeking to create a united, continent-spanning republic where all men were created equal and guaranteed freedom of speech, religion, and the press. On the contrary, it was a profoundly conservative action fought by a loose military alliance of nations, each of which was most concerned with preserving or reasserting control of its respective culture, character, and power structure. The rebelling nations certainly didn’t wish to be bonded together into a single republic. They were joined in a temporary partnership against a common threat: the British establishment’s ham-fisted attempt to assimilate them into a homogeneous empire centrally controlled from London. Some nations – the Midlands, New Netherland, and New France – didn’t rebel at all. Those that did weren’t fighting a revolution; they were fighting separate wars of colonial liberation.
As we’ve already seen, the four nations that did rebel – Yankeedom, Tidewater, Greater Appalachia, and the Deep South – had little in common and strongly distrusted one another. So how did they overcome their differences to fight a war together? The answer is with great difficulty. In fact, they sometimes weren’t even fighting on the same side, as Appalachia was engaged in a struggle of liberation not against Britain but against Midlands, Tidewater, and the Deep South. To complicate matters, the elites of the Deep South were ambivalent about the revolt, with many of them changing sides in the course of it. (Georgia even rejoined the empire during the conflict.) The main reason the Deep Southerners joined the “revolution” at all was because they feared they would otherwise lose control of their slaves. The nations on the whole cooperated with one another only because they saw no other way to overcome an existential threat to their respective cultures. They allied themselves with the enemies of their enemy but had little intention of merging with one another.
I couldn’t resist skipping ahead to the War Between the States …
Seen through the lens of the continent’s ethnoregional nations, the parties’ motivations, allegiances, and behaviors become clearer. The Civil War was ultimately a conflict between two coalitions. On one side was the Deep South and its satellite, Tidewater; on the other, Yankeedom. The other nations wanted to remain neutral, and considered breaking off to form their own confederations, freed from slave lords and Yankees alike. Had cooler heads prevailed, the United States would likely have split into four confederations in 1861, with dramatic consequences for world history. But hostilities could not be avoided, and the unstable Union would be held together by foce of arms. …
But by mid-century this demographic and diplomatic struggle was becoming a violent conflict between the continent’s two emerging superpowers: Yankeedom and the Deep South, far and away the wealthiest and most nationally self-aware of the four contestants. Neither could abide living in an empire on the other’s terms.
For fifty years the Deep South had been winning the race. The cotton and sugar booms had encouraged the rapid westward expansion of slave culture and made the region fabulously rich. It had eclipsed Tidewater as the dominant force in the South and enlisted the support of Appalachian presidents and politicians in a white supremacy campaign that had cleared the South and Southwest of Indian nations and Mexican officials. Their southern coalition had dominated the federal government since the War of 1812, pushing the empire-averse Yankees and pacifist Midlanders aside to engage in a series of expansionistic wars. With U.S. troops in control of Mexico City in 1848, Deep Southerners could imagine completing their proposed Golden Circle, adding enough slave states to ensure their permanent control over federal policy and hemispheric affairs. Victory, it seemed, was at hand.
Then things began to come apart. While the plantation slave state was winning few hearts and minds in the wider world, the Yankee and Midland Midwest was filling with foreign immigrants who correctly saw fewer opportunities for themselves in the Deep South and Tidewater; many had already suffered under aristocratic feudal systems at home and were determined to stay far away from their North American equivalents. In 1850 the free states had eight foreign-born inhabitants for every one living in a slave state. With each passing year, Yankeedom, the Midlands, and New Netherland held a greater proportion of the nation’s population and therefore a greater number of seats in the House of Representatives. Yankee influence over the Left Coast compounded the problem, ensuring Oregon, California, and Washington would join the United States as free states even as federal authorities declined to seize new territories in the Caribbean. By 1860 the leaders of the Deep South and Tidewater realized the rest of the nations had the political strength to control federal institutions and policy without them. The Deep Southern way of life was in jeopardy. To save it, they would have to leave the Union.
You need to read Eric Burns, “Infamous Scribblers”, and Jeffrey L. Pasley’s, “The Tyranny of Printers”. Be sure and read Burns!
The rise of Hamilton’s concentrations of capital/corporations vs. Jefferson’s independent farmer/buinessman is a theme going back to the start of the Republic.
A brilliant analysis by Woodward, and the economic, sectional, ethnic, and political points of tangency to the situation today are many and evident. I’ll just sum up the latter. If RINO Romney gets the 2012 Repub Prez nomination, and at the moment it looks like he will, the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs: split wide open. This means that B.H. Obama can win in the EC with around 40% of the popular vote. And all this in an economic situation of accelerating if not complete economic collapse. First Tuesday in November, 2012. Then: 60 days to Fort Sumter.
It looks like the quakers are taking to the streets of NYC to protest fellow leftists and Obama contributors. My hope is that the ranting anti-whites of color show up and really liven this up.
But this being an astro turf event I doubt it.
CF: What’s really funny is that somehow Hermain Cain is now the alternative to Romney and probably has some chance of winning the nomination. I know that I share with many other OD readers, absolute joy in seeing an election for our highest office come down to a choice between two black men. It brings a whole new meaning to the term “Black Run America”.
“I know that I share with many other OD readers, absolute joy in seeing an election for our highest office come down to a choice between two black men. It brings a whole new meaning to the term “Black Run America”.
This may turn out to be *awesome.*
For all those “colorblind” respectable conservatives and “not-a-racist” Tea Partiers who all said they’d vote for a black man if he just wasn’t a liberal, Herman Cain as prez,
when he shows himself just as corrupt, just as incompetent and just as anti-White and tribal as BO,
would deflate THAT fantasy for those people once and for all.
Us Awake Pro-Whites saw already, with numbnuts-I-forget-his-name black RNC guy that was forced out, and with Colin Powell, that blacks NEVER vote against their black homeys. They are nothing BUT racist.
But the Tea Partiers are still doggedly holding onto their raggedy theory that it’s not-about-race-its-just-about-your- politics. But with the inevitable betrayal by H. Cain, him as prez as followup to Zero would build on the growing White cohesion that BO has laid the foundation for. The final disillusionment of the Tea Partiers with ALL blacks that Cain’s election will assure will FINALLY bring them round to straight-up, unapologetic, in-your-face, White Nationalism.
I have read somewhere’s that some people back then saw the WBTS as a political struggle between Virginia and Ohio. In antebellum America, we had seven Presidents from Virginia, and only one after the war, Woodrow Wilson, the President of Princeton University. In contrast, there were seven postwar Presidents from Ohio, most of whom served in the Union Army. An iffy conclusion in my opinion, but there was clearly a change in the balance of power.
Barb – I agree. Another BHO term would be a disaster. They will be as murderous as the NKVD. But Cain? The Uncle Tom AA Incompetent?
Hoo! Fabulous. The GOP – the Stupid Party – are too….stupid….to kow what to do. A Cain Presdicency will be a benign clusterf^ck, vs. an all out Lazar Kaganavich Holomodor scenario, of BHO II.
Glen BEK is really promoting Uncle Tom. And his JDIF blog trolls are all weepig and wailing over the “Anti-Semitic” videos, of the Wallsky St “protestors”.
@ Jackson, others. Herman Cain will not be POTUS. But I am looking for him or another TP’r to split the Republican husk once RINO Romney gets the nomination…actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney picked Cain as VP in an effort to prevent this schism. Won’t work; after 40 years of betrayal – Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, Dole, Bush ’43, McCain – Conservatives aren’t going for another RINO. And again, in a 3-way election, Zero might well leak thru in the EC with little more than 40% of the vote. Then: 60 days to Fort Sumter. Only this time, please, no white sheets and pointy hats.
i am going to buy this book, once i get myself some money. ah the life of a foundryman, many a thanks to new england jews and shareholders. and if you surf the periphery of detroits balck tumor you will find a plentyful headcount of race realists (to be)
Conchobar,
As I said in the last post, the North has come to its senses before – it is several different places, and Yankeeland and New York City are only the dominant element.
In the War Between the States, the Copperheads in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio were almost violently opposed to the Lincoln administration. In New York City, the Irish famously rioted over being sent to the front lines.
The last thing the Irish in New York City wanted was to be sent to the front lines to be shot by Southerners in Virginia for trying to liberate the negro. The Reconstruction collapsed when the Northern coalition broke apart.
In the 1910s and the 1920s, the Klan swept over parts of the North like Indiana and Colorado. By that time, blacks and Jews were moving en masse to the North, and there was a backlash against them.
So, while Reconstruction is part of American history, the demise of Reconstruction and the rise of the Second Klan is part of the same history.
I wouldn’t doubt that Amerika has elected it’s last white president with Bush the Lesser. The reason is that Repubs and Tea Partiers truly believe that whites have no legitimacy. They pander to to .5% of minorities and distance themselves from their base. It saddens me deeply to think what these imbecils are doing to their white Posterity. Maybe we should just pass a low now and get it out of the way: “The Presidi
ent of the US will always be a minority, and all gatherings that are predominantly white are illegal, aside from St. Paddy’s Day. “
I’m going to buy this book and add it to my readng list
these books might be of some use
a leap in the dark makes the case for how tough it was to make the USA
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195159241/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1
this book makes the case that the war of northern aggression was about money. I think.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0847697223/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1
I haven’t read it yet but bought it after reading this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0847697223/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1
Conchobar – I wear Hugo Boss. As a matter of principle.
Anyone see Ken Burn’s “Prohibition” that just came out on PBS? It is full of veiled denouncement of the Tea Party. He is a huge pinko and it is very clear that he hates non immigrant white America and tries to hint to the viewer that the Prohibitionists and the 20s KKK revival are just the same as the Tea Party.
Dress up the white sheets and pointy hats akin to Mel Gibson’s Scottish Clan gear?