For example: 'The Origin of the Late War' by George Lunt was the FIRST book written on the civil war in 1866. It is also the BEST book written about the civil war, because there wasn't enough time for revisionism to be inserted by agendas that came later, after the War Generation had passed. What happened in the 20th century was that propaganda science (public relations) was invented, and it changed everything. Academics couldn't write or publish without living in fear of political agendas. The introduction of radio, TV, then the internet made the ability of propaganda to punish ideas that step "out of line" even more totalitarian and immediate. Everyone here should read books from before the 20th century, to see how they used to care about writing for posterity, not for the NYT Best Seller list.
Those people were much less evolved back then. They just used simple words for simple concepts. They were primitive racists and they wouldn't understand political science today.
Gabriel Flores
Which side were the racists on: the side fighting to end slavery, or the side fighting to preserve it?
Evan Diaz
get gassed user
Gabriel Jenkins
while i agree, this is where i also struggle. I have about 80-90 books all printed from about 1830-1920.
And while most of them are classics, the few i have on history are suprisingly light on detail. most are very high level overview of events that attempt of show the sentiment of the moment in time.
Thank you for this book OP, I’ll see if i can find a hard copy.
Cooper Anderson
>most are very high level overview of events I think modern books fallaciously try to peddle the microcosmic as somehow having bearing on the macrocosmic. They're all trying to inflate whatever tiny sub-sub-topic or minutiae from a doctoral thesis into some kind of profound insight. Like the lead content of rifle shot might have been enough to affect the steady aim of Southern Troops compared to their northern counterparts who had a higher nickel trace in their shot. Bullshit like that, like such minor things """might""" have profound bearing. Everything is treated like a butterfly creating a stampede, its desperate "look at me buy my book and fake controversy" nonsense. Just like how "everyone from history was SECRETLY GAY says new book". Bullshit.
I enjoy that authors from past centuries are worried about characterizing the macro view.
Brandon Gomez
So basically Union, in order to defeat South took the marxist victims oppression of black slavery to justify their win?
Kayden Moore
Yes, he's saying that the "ending slavery" rationale was inflated after the war, not before or during. It was a minor issue that led to the "states rights" debate, which is what led to escalating talk of war, then the war broke out.
David Jenkins
they literally tried to avoid the war and secession by protecting slavery with a constitutional amendment called the Corwin Amendment, which had unprecedented support, even by Lincoln.
Had the South acquiesced and not rebelled, we could very possible have legal slavery in the United States in 2018.
Andrew Edwards
Umm... I highly doubt that slavery would have lasted. It was already on the decline just from economic pressures, and it wouldn't have provided an advantage in the competition between North and SOuth to colonize the Western territories -- UNLESS it freed the Southern states white working class population to move West and settle, while slaves stayed behind to supplement their loss. People in the North feared this. There was a real "cold war" between the north and south over the matter of settling the West.
Jacob Myers
It would have granted it protection form the feds and left it up to the states, and had the war been prevented the feds would have been kept in place as well. I wouldnt doubt that a few states would still practice it.
Logan Hill
It seems fair. Imagine two very distant empire having exact military power came in contact and started fighting. One Empire have couple of unrelated slaves who are dissatisfied with the oppression. It is very like other empire would use it as a bait. Not so smart of Confederate to use it first. Did Union too have slaves or it was only South?
Jose Thompson
Who knows what the primates were thinking. You're so much smarter than your half ape grandfather, who was literally a cave man. Don't worry about what they were thinking. There is no way they could ever understand race like we do now.
Colton Ramirez
except for the few who worked on the trains on the underground railroad, all of them.
Camden Myers
*not use
Kayden Jackson
Everything prior to 1950s was better. Including 20th century histories.
Jose Thomas
I get the logic of your argument, and I dont disagree that its possible, I'm just saying it was an unsustainable industry. The British had already started blocking the trans-atlantic slave trade as a means to embargo their rebel colonies in the US and to deprive the Spanish empire. Slavery still exists in much of Africa, the ME, and parts of Asia. As long as it provides an economic advantage you can expect to see it somewhere.
Union was outlawing it on a state by state basis, but it wasn't ended everywhere until the 13th amendment to the Constitution. I think some northern states like Delaware still had slavery being "legal" until 1865
Haha, it was a trick question. Both sides were racist. Got you faggot. Pic related
My answer was "who cares" so you didn't get anything.
Ryder Hughes
All books that were written before the 18th century are better than anything we have now
Luke Robinson
I'm sold!
I have the huge 3 volume Shelby Foote history I got as a gift that I'm too lazy to get around
Last year I read (about 80pc, as much was repetitious in a lecture-speaking format) _The Races Of Men: A Philosophical Enquiry Into The Influence Of Race Over The Destinies Of Nations_ by Robert Knox.
He basically says the populations of all nations will return to the state of their original native inhabitants due to the physiological traits each race had leading them to prosper or fail based on climate. He uses Brazil and South Africa as examples and the stuff sounds not dissimilar from things you read here on Jow Forums today. Learning about the intellectual environment and 'memes' of the mid-1800s is a delight in itself, and I'm no particular scholar or historian, just a curious person.
Thanks for this link OP I think I will probably read this before I ever bother trying to tackle the Foote trilogy
I know this is bait, but it pains me that some people actually think like this. The thinkers before the 20th centurt were far greater than those we have today.
Evan Wilson
ok let us know how the leeches work out next time you get sick.
Noah Scott
You only think that because you read at 3rd grade level.
The older you go, the more in line with reality things seem to be. You begin to realize that a screen lies over all of modern consciousness, hiding the truth of everything from everyone.
As if they won't laugh at the dumb shit we do today, given the benefits of hindsight. Objectively speaking, modern authors are far less honest or objective today than they were in the past. Read some of the shit these old dead guys wrote. They are quite humble and honest, open about their biases and stay on the side of facts and meta analysis, rather than providing an editorial analysis like modern authors do. Whether they failed to see the truth at times is beside the point. Just because doctors used leeches, doesn't mean they weren't better writers, or more honest writers.
