Quotulatiousness

July 5, 2021

General George H. Thomas (1816-1870)

Filed under: History, Military, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

One of the references for the latest Atun-Shei Films “Checkmate Lincolnites!” video was an older article in the Smithsonian Magazine outlining the career of one of the best — yet least known — Union generals in the American Civil War:

George Henry Thomas (July 31, 1816 – March 28, 1870), the “Rock of Chickamauga”, was a career U.S. Army officer and a Union general during the American Civil War, one of the principal commanders in the Western Theatre.
Image from the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division via Wikimedia Commons.

… for Thomas, every battlefield success seemed to stir controversy or the jealousy of ambitious rivals. Unlike other noted generals, he had no home-state politicians to lobby on his behalf in Washington. Ulysses S. Grant, for example, was championed by Illinois congressman Elihu Washburne, and Sherman by his brother, Ohio senator John Sherman. For Thomas, every step upward depended solely on his performance in the field.

In one of the war’s first skirmishes, he led a brigade in the Shenandoah Valley that bested Confederates under Stonewall Jackson. When the dashing Rebel J.E.B. Stuart heard that Thomas was commanding Union cavalry, he wrote to his wife that “I would like to hang him as a traitor to his native state.” Even after that, there was lingering doubt among some Unionists, including Lincoln. Unlike Grant, Sherman, George McClellan and some other ranking Union officers who had broken their military service with years as civilians, Thomas had been a soldier since the day he entered West Point. Yet when his name came up for promotion, the president, restrained by Northern radicals and surrounded in the Federal bureaucracy by Southerners, said, “let the Virginian wait.” But Sherman among others vouched for Thomas, and soon the Virginian was elevated to brigadier general and ordered to organize troops away from Virginia, beyond the Appalachians.

[…]

As Thomas rose, he proved to his men that his addiction to detail and his insistence on preparation saved lives and won battles. His generalship behind the front, before the battle, was generations ahead of his peers. He organized a professional headquarters that made other generals’ staff work seem haphazard. His mess and hospital services, his maps and his scouting network were all models of efficiency; he was never surprised as Grant had been at Shiloh. He anticipated modern warfare with his emphasis on logistics, rapidly repairing his railroad supply lines and teaching his soldiers that a battle could turn on the broken linchpin of a cannon. He demanded by-the-book discipline, but taught it by example. He made no ringing pronouncements to the press. His troops came to understand his fatherly concern for their welfare, and when they met the enemy they had faith in his orders.

In late summer, Rosecrans moved against the Rebel stronghold of Chattanooga, a crucial gateway between the eastern and western theaters of war. Confederate general Bragg pulled out of the town onto the dominating nearby mountains, waiting for Maj. Gen. James Longstreet to bring reinforcements from Virginia. When they came, Bragg threw everything into an assault on Union lines along Chickamauga Creek, just inside Georgia. Thomas’ corps was dug in on the Union left. On the second day of furious fighting, a misunderstood order opened a wide gap on his right. Longstreet’s Rebels crashed through; with the always aggressive John Bell Hood’s division leading, they bent the Union line into a horseshoe.

Rosecrans, certain the battle was lost, retreated into Chattanooga with five other generals and thousands of blue-uniformed soldiers. But Thomas inspired his men to stand fast, and only their determined resistance saved his army from destruction. They held all that afternoon against repeated Confederate assaults, withdrawing into Chattanooga after nightfall. It was the greatest of all battles in the West, and since that day, Thomas has been known to history as the Rock of Chickamauga.

[…]

On December 15, Thomas, unaware that Grant intended to fire him, roared out of his works against Hood. In two days his troops crushed the Rebel army. His infantry, including two brigades of U.S. Colored Troops, smashed into Hood’s troops while the Union cavalry, dismounted with its fast-firing Spencers, curled around and behind the Rebel left. Almost a century later, historian Bruce Catton summed up the battle in two words: “Everything worked.”

Thomas “comes down in history…as the great defensive fighter, the man who could never be driven away but who was not much on the offensive. That may be a correct appraisal,” wrote Catton, an admirer and biographer of Grant. “Yet it may also be worth making note that just twice in all the war was a major Confederate army driven away from a prepared position in complete rout — at Chattanooga and at Nashville. Each time the blow that finally routed it was launched by Thomas.”

Nashville was the only engagement in which one army virtually annihilated another. Thomas B. Buell, a student of Civil War generalship, wrote that in Tennessee, Thomas performed the war’s “unsurpassed masterpiece of theater command and control….So modern in concept, so sweeping in scope, it would become a model for strategic maneuver in 20th-century warfare.” After it, there was no more large-scale fighting west of the Blue Ridge.

June 19, 2021

The context for Confederate general Patrick Cleburne’s proposal to arm slaves to fight the Union

Filed under: History, Military, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

On YouTube, Andy of Atun-Shei Films responds to a social media post that presented Cleburne’s proposal without context, which appears to show Cleburne as an anti-slavery advocate:

Confederate army Major General Patrick Cleburne.
Painting by M.D. Guillaume (1816-1892) via Wikimedia Commons.

I recently came across a pro-Confederate Facebook post featuring this quote from Confederate major general Patrick Cleburne, written on January 2, 1864:

    It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.

Now, I’m not going to share the post itself, as that would inevitably lead to doxxing and bullying. However, this is a teachable moment, a classic example of the beloved Lost Causer past-time of divorcing quotes from their important contexts.

You need to keep a couple things in mind when considering a historical quote. Who is the speaker? Who are they talking to? Do they have an objective in mind? What events surrounding this person, if any, have inspired them to say this particular thing at this particular time?

Quotes by themselves are useless in historical education and can often be misleading. I see y’all making this mistake with the Cornerstone Speech [Wiki] all the time – it’s not the mic drop you think it is. You can’t just shove it in someone’s face and call it a day. If you really want to change minds, you need to present it in its proper context and alongside other evidence. Only then can you craft a complete and compelling argument.

Now as it happens, Alexander Stephens was totally sincere when he called late 18th century notions of racial equality “wrong,” and he spoke for the overwhelming majority of Confederate true believers in the Spring of 1861 when he said that “our new government is founded on exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the [black man] is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” But without context, how would I know that? When making an argument, the onus of proof is on you.

This particular pro-Confederate post presented the Cleburne quote by itself in meme format without any context whatsoever, so allow me to provide one. At first glance, it seems like Cleburne is espousing anti-authoritarian values. It seems like he is declaring, clearly and definitively, that the Southern states did not secede to preserve slavery, but rather to uphold their regional self-determination.

This quote is from a letter Cleburne wrote to Joseph E. Johnston, his commanding officer in the Army of Tennessee, proposing that the Confederate government emancipate and arm the South’s enslaved men to bolster the thinning ranks of the army. As you may remember from Checkmate Lincolnites, this proposal was met with shock and horror from the Confederate leadership, who quickly rejected it.

But Cleburne saw further than them. He believed – correctly – that unless something drastic was done, the Confederacy was doomed to destruction. As he writes in the proposal, “Instead of standing defiantly on the borders of our territory or harassing those of the enemy, we are hemmed in to-day into less than two-thirds of it, and still the enemy menacingly confronts us at every point with superior forces.”

“If this state continues much longer we must be subjugated,” he continues, arguing that achieving victory would require immense sacrifice, including “the loss of all we now hold most sacred — slaves and all other personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood.”

June 16, 2021

“One nation, indivisible”?

Filed under: History, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

As a child in England and then in Canada, I was used to the relatively low-key acknowledgements of the Crown and the nation which may be why I was quite befuddled watching American TV portrayal of the in-your-face patriotic displays of the United States, especially the Pledge of Allegiance required of schoolchildren. It seemed oddly statist and even collectivist (although I didn’t know those terms at the time) for a country that constantly seemed to be patting itself on the back as the “home of the free”. I later learned that the Pledge hadn’t even been invented until nearly a century after the nation had been established (and the current version was devised and popularized by a noted utopian socialist, then adopted by Congress in 1942). Tom Mullen explores how the Pledge came about and considers the idea that it is time to drop it:

“American Flag” by JeepersMedia is licensed under CC BY 2.0

An Atlanta, Georgia, charter school announced last week its intention to discontinue the practice of having students stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during its schoolwide morning meetings at the beginning of each school day, opting to allow students to recite the pledge in their classrooms instead. Predictably, conservatives were immediately triggered by this “anti-American” decision, prompting the school to reverse its decision shortly after.

The uproar over periodic resistance to reciting the pledge typically originates with Constitution-waving, Tea Party conservatives. Ironically, the pledge itself is not only un-American but antithetical to the most important principle underpinning the Constitution as originally ratified.

[…]

Then, there’s “indivisible”. One would think a federation born by its constituent states seceding from the nation to which they formerly belonged would make the point obvious enough. But the Declaration makes it explicit:

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It would be impossible to exercise that right — that duty, as the Declaration later calls it — if the republic were indivisible. The strictest constructionists of the time didn’t consider the nation indivisible. Thomas Jefferson didn’t threaten to send troops to New England when some of its states considered seceding upon his election. Quite the opposite. And in an 1804 letter to Joseph Priestly, he deemed a potential split in the union between “Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies” not only possible but “not very important to the happiness of either part.”

The people advocating “one nation, indivisible” in those days were big government Federalists like Hamilton, whose proposals to remake the United States into precisely that were flatly rejected in 1787.

Proponents of absolute, national rule like to quip this question was “settled” by the American Civil War. That’s like saying Polish independence was “settled” by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939.

In fact, it is precisely the trend towards “one nation” that has caused American politics to become so rancorous, to the point of boiling over into violence, over the course of the last several decades. This continent is inhabited by a multitude of very different cultures, which can coexist peacefully if left to govern themselves. But as the “federal” government increasingly seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all legal framework over people who never agreed to give it that power, the resistance is going to get more and more strident. If there is any chance to achieve peace among America’s warring factions, a return to a more truly federal system is likely the only way.

Getting rid of the un-American pledge to the imaginary nation would be a good, symbolic start.

May 27, 2021

History Summarized: Ancient China

Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published 28 Dec 2018

Check out our website at www.OverlySarcasticProductions.com

And after that we’ll defeat the Huns! Join Blue on a trek through the early centuries of Chinese History, from legendary foundations to the Shang and Zhou dynasties, past the Warring States Period, and into the Han dynasty — if you get to the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, you’ve gone too far.

Further reading: China: A History by John Keay

Kings and Generals’ fantastic videos on this subject:
Bactrians: https://youtu.be/IQATsepKoLE​
War of the Heavenly Horses: https://youtu.be/g6Rphg_lwwM​

PATREON: www.patreon.com/OSP

MERCH LINKS:
Shirts – https://overlysarcasticproducts.threa…​
All the other stuff – http://www.cafepress.com/OverlySarcas…​

Find us on Twitter @OSPYouTube!

May 17, 2021

An older BBC dramatization on the slave trade that seems to have gone down the memory hole

Filed under: Africa, Britain, History, Media, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

At Samizdata, Niall Kilmartin wondered why the BBC hadn’t gotten around to showing a 1970s historical series through the year-and-more of the pandemic lockdowns. He doesn’t mention the name of the series, and an unusually unhelpful BBC site search didn’t turn up a name but IMDB suggests it was 1975 and the series was called The Fight Against Slavery:

Fifty years ago, the BBC screened a dramatised documentary series about the fight to abolish the slave trade. Even a year of the virus limiting new series, at a time of great BBC eagerness to talk about racism, has not made them screen it again.

– I see one reason why they have not: the series displayed sleazy white slave traders and abusive white slave owners prominently, but it also showed white people eager to end the slave trade and (much worse) black people eager to continue it. It included the king of Dahomey’s threat: “if you do not allow me to sell you my slaves, their fate will be a great deal worse” (a very brief scene of the Dahomey murder spectacle lent meaning to his remark). After abolition was voted, it showed a white slave trader assuring the Dahomans, as a drug dealer might his suppliers, “It is one thing for parliament to pass a law …”, hinting at the Royal Navy’s long and hard campaign to enforce it.

– Only recently did I spot another reason why they would not want to show it again – the scene in which a corrupt old white slave trader warns his young colleague that “it’s more than your life’s worth” to doubt the ability of their slave-selling hosts to count very accurately the quantity of trade goods being handed over in exchange, and to assess their quality knowledgeably. The traders well knew that Africans counted two plus two as four, just as they did. Any trader who imagined that black ability to add diverged enough from white to enable an attempt to short-change them had learned otherwise long before the 1780s.

– The southern Confederacy thought the same. Until its death throes, it forbade enlisting a southern black as a Confederate soldier because, as one Confederate senator put it, “If blacks can make good soldiers then our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” (Perhaps also because even southern white Democrats realised that southern black desire to fight against blacks being freed was likely to be a very minority taste.) But there was one exception. Every regiment had its regimental band, which played to set the pace at the start and end of marches, used trumpets to signal commands in battle – and fought when other duties did not supervene. From its start to its end, Confederate law said any black could enlist as bandsman, with the same pay and perquisites as a white – a very rare example of formal legal equality. (Playing music requires the ability to count time. For the woke, “dismantling the legacy of the Confederacy” apparently includes dismantling its realisation – shared by the Victorian composer Dvorak – that blacks often excelled in music so much as to overcome prejudice against black ability. Today, it’s “racist” to value instrumental skill.)

“Politically correct” has meant “actually wrong” ever since the first commissar explained to the first party comrade that it was neither socialist nor prudent to notice a factual error in the party line. “Structurally racist” is PC’s modern companion. No longer are the woke content merely to imply (“mathematics is racist”, “punctuality is racist”, “politeness is racist”) that blacks can’t count, can’t tell the time and can only behave crudely. They’re starting to say it in words of fewer syllables.

If I’d scrolled down to the comments, I’d have discovered that Natalie Solent had also dug up the name of the series:

Natalie Solent (Essex)
May 10, 2021 at 4:30 pm
Outstanding post, Niall. Was the BBC series you mentioned “The Fight Against Slavery“, written and narrated by Evan Jones? I have not seen it – given that I was ten or eleven in 1975 my parents probably thought I was too young too see it.

However someone called “InternetPilgrim” has put up three videos of the series on YouTube. There is a link to Part I here, Part II here and Part III here, so I will try to remedy that lack soon.

May 16, 2021

Bayonets

Filed under: Europe, History, Military, USA, Weapons — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Lindybeige
Published 26 Feb 2011

A weapon can be very effective even if it never actually kills anyone.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Lindybeige​

Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.

▼ Follow me…

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Lindybeige​ I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.

website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk

May 13, 2021

Were There Really BLACK CONFEDERATES???!!!

Filed under: History, Humour, Military, USA — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Atun-Shei Films
Published 24 Dec 2020

Checkmate, Lincolnites! Debunking the Lost Cause myth that tens of thousands of black men served as soldiers in the Confederate army during the American Civil War.

Support Atun-Shei Films on Patreon ► https://www.patreon.com/atunsheifilms

Leave a Tip via Paypal ► https://www.paypal.me/atunsheifilms

Buy Merch ► teespring.com/stores/atun-shei-films

#CheckmateLincolnites #CivilWar #AmericanHistory

Original Music by Dillon DeRosa ► http://dillonderosa.com/
Reddit ► https://www.reddit.com/r/atunsheifilms
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/atun_shei

~REFERENCES~

[1] “Black Confederate Movement ‘Demented'” (2014). AmericanForum https://youtu.be/fYFIWlGJhjM

[2] Sam Smith. “Black Confederates: Myth and Legend.” American Battlefield Trust https://www.battlefields.org/learn/ar…

[3] “25th USCT: The Sable Sons of Uncle Abe.” National Park Service https://www.nps.gov/articles/25-usct.htm

[4] Justin A. Nystrom. New Orleans After the Civil War (2010). Johns Hopkins Press, Page 20-27

[5] Kevin M. Levin. Searching for Black Confederates (2019). University of North Carolina Press, Page 45

[6] James Parton. General Butler in New Orleans (1864). Mason & Hamlin, Page 516-517

[7] Levin, Page 12-15

[8] Levin, Page 34-35

[9] Myra Chandler Sampson & Kevin M. Levin. “The Loyalty of ‘Heroic Black Confederate’ Silas Chandler” (2012). HistoryNet https://www.historynet.com/loyalty-si…

[10] Levin, Page 82-83

[11] James G. Hollandsworth, Jr. “Looking for Bob: Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War” (2007). The Journal of Mississippi History, Vol. LXVIX, Page 304-306

[12] Lewis H. Steiner. An Account of the Operations of the U.S. Sanitary Commission During the Campaign in Maryland, September 1862 (1862). Anson D. F. Randolph, Page 19-20

[13] Levin, Page 32-33

[14] Charles Augustus Stevens. Berdan’s United States Sharpshooters in the Army of the Potomac (1892). Price-McGill Company, Page 54-55

[15] Levin, Page 44

[16] Andy Hall. “Frederick Douglass and the ‘N*gro Regiment’ at First Manassas” (2011). Dead Confederates Blog https://deadconfederates.com/2011/07/…

[17] Jaime Amanda Martinez. “Black Confederates” (2018). Encyclopedia Virginia https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/…

[18] Levin, Page 58-61

[19] Levin, Page 39

[20] Levin, Page 46

April 26, 2021

Was GENERAL SHERMAN a WAR CRIMINAL?!?!?!?!

Atun-Shei Films
Published 11 Aug 2020

Checkmate, Lincolnites! Debunking the Lost Cause myths surrounding William Tecumseh Sherman during the American Civil War, including the Atlanta Campaign, the March to the Sea, and the burning of Columbia — and tackling the “slavery would have gone away on its own” thing while we’re at it. Surprisingly, Johnny Reb gets in one or two really solid points.

[Updated 8 Feb 2023: Vlogging Through History’s reaction video to Atun-Shei’s interpretation is here – https://youtu.be/CTVr4YgB5VI]
(more…)

April 13, 2021

Was it REALLY the WAR of NORTHERN AGGRESSION?!?!?!

Filed under: History, Humour, Military, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Atun-Shei Films
Published 28 Apr 2020

Checkmate, Lincolnites! Debunking the Lost Cause myths that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, that nobody in the North cared about slavery or abolitionism, and that the warmongering Union invaded the South without provocation or just cause during the Civil War. Featuring some special guest appearances from your favorite kooky historical characters!

[Update, 8 Feb, 2023: Here’s a Vlogging Through History reaction video that amplifies several of the points Atun-Shei makes – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTQzXG15QsU]
(more…)

April 12, 2021

“War Communism” in the Soviet Union, 1917-1921

Filed under: Economics, History, Russia, WW1 — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

J.W. Rich outlines the economic and humanitarian disaster of Soviet “War Communism” that eventually forced Lenin to bring back some limited elements of capitalism to save the country:

In 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in Moscow after the deposition of the democratic provisional government which had replaced the Tsar. However, the Bolsheviks’ hold on power was far from secure. There was little affection anywhere for the Tsar, but there was no agreement on what form of government should replace the monarchy. Bolshevism had been on the rise for years, but ideas of democracy and liberalism were gaining popularity as well. Shortly after the 1917 revolution, the Russian Civil War broke out between the Reds, the Bolsheviks, and the Whites, a coalition of anti-Bolsheviks that were generally democratic.

Through the course of the civil war, the Bolsheviks gained more power and control over increasingly large amounts of Russia. With this control, they began to implement their Marxist economic ideas into reality. On January 28, 1918, it was decreed that all factories should be directed by state-appointed managers. In effect, this amounted to a near-complete nationalization of industry. In one fell swoop, the vast majority of the production of Russia’s consumer goods was now under the purview and direction of the state.

On May 9, 1918, a grain monopoly was announced over grain production in the country. All grain harvested across the country was now the property of the state. This was extended even further when a general food levy was announced in January 1919. Any and all food was now the property of the state. In addition, local farm authorities were no longer allowed to set the levy based on harvest estimates. In essence, the state would take however much it wanted from the peasants without any concern if they had enough food to feed themselves and their families.

It was at this point that large-scale forced rationing was introduced. Money was made worthless overnight as ration cards were mandated to the entire population. No longer could you buy whatever you wished with the money you had. The goods allocated for you were predetermined on your ration card.

By late 1920, going into 1921, the Russian Civil War was all but over. The Whites had been soundly defeated by the Reds, giving the Bolsheviks control of nearly the entirety of the country. However, despite the victory in the Civil War, the economy at home was beginning to fall apart. Industrial production was at 20% of pre-war levels by 1920. As a result of this lagging production, there were few goods in the cities available. This resulted in a flight from the cities to the countryside. From 1918 to 1920, eight million people emigrated from the cities to the villages, where there was better hope of finding food or some goods. In Moscow and Petrograd, the population declined by 58.2%

The agricultural situation was not much better. Sheldon Richman records that from 1909-1913, gross agricultural output averaged 69 million tons. By 1921, it was just 31 million. From 1909-1913, sown area was over 224 million acres. In 1921, only 158 million acres were sown. This lack of food resulted in a mass loss of population. From 1917 to 1922, the entire population declined by 16 million, not counting immigration and deaths from the civil war.

War Communism was now fully implemented and the Marxist aspirations of Lenin and the Bolsheviks were now fulfilled. For the people that had to live under War Communism, however, the conditions had become intolerable. In February 1921, labor strikes began to emerge all over Russia. With the end of the civil war and living standards continuing to fall, resistance to the Bolsheviks began to spread throughout the country. Moscow was the first city to strike, with other large cities, such as Petrograd, following. The protestors demanded an end to War Communism and a restoration of private enterprise and civil liberties, such as the freedom of speech and assembly.

The protests escalated when the Kronstadt Naval Base mutinied against the government. Once a bastion of Bolshevik support and fervor, the sailors joined with the laborers in demanding reform and change. A force led by Trotsky was dispatched to deal with the mutiny, but Lenin knew that change was needed. The writing was on the wall for War Communism.

April 4, 2021

QotD: Revolution and civil war

Filed under: Europe, History, Military, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

I was a crew chief on Blackhawks, in an air assault company. Our job was to fly the infantry troops around and put them where they needed to be. A lot of the time, we would fly through the hills north of [Camp] Bondsteel. When we went that way, we usually flew over a mass grave. One morning, Serb gunmen showed up in a little Albanian village in the hills. They drove everyone out of their homes, forced them to dig their own graves, and then murdered them. Men, women and children. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, grandparents.

There was a little memorial with flowers.

Whenever someone starts talking about maybe voting is useless and perhaps other means are necessary to take back our country, I think of Kosovo. That EXACT rhetoric was part and parcel with the disintegration of the Balkans. The rhetoric I see people casually bandying about, we need to confront them everywhere and they deserve no peace, this is the rhetoric and the justification the Serbs used on their way to killing a quarter of a million people in the Balkans. Their former neighbors; often literally.

It’s worth considering whether all those who killed people in Kosovo started with killing in mind, or were they merely trying to right the wrongs that the other side had perpetrated against them? Civilization is a millimeters thin veneer on top an ocean of violence a billion years of evolution deep. If you think it’s acceptable to use violence for political gain, or if you fantasize for revolution, you’re a monster.

Revolution is not what you think it is. Revolution is civil war. Civil war is driving your neighbors from their homes and forcing them to dig their own graves. It is leaving your grandmother behind because she cannot move fast enough to escape the gunmen; and they won’t stop. Yes, there are monsters in places of power, but you are not absolved of your obligations to humanity because of it. That others have foresworn theirs is no excuse. You fetishize misery you cannot fathom. You are in good company, we are all monsters in civilized clothes; do not be insulted or ashamed.

Endeavor to be more.

Again.

Please.

John Chmelir (@JohnChmelir), Twitter (part of a 20-tweet thread), 2018-10-20.

March 28, 2021

TARIFFS and TAXES: The REAL Cause of the CIVIL WAR?!

Filed under: History, Humour, Military, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Atun-Shei Films
Published 16 Jan 2020

Checkmate, Lincolnites! Debunking the Lost Cause myth that the American Civil War was fought over taxes and protectionist tariffs. Was the South subjected to disproportionate taxation? Did the Morrill Tariff cause secession? Watch and find out, you no-account, yellow-bellied sesech!

Support Atun-Shei Films on Patreon ► https://www.patreon.com/atunsheifilms

Leave a Tip via Paypal ► https://www.paypal.me/atunsheifilms (All donations made here will go toward the production of The Sudbury Devil, our historical feature film)

Buy Merch ► teespring.com/stores/atun-shei-films

#CheckmateLincolnites #CivilWar #AmericanHistory

Reddit ► https://www.reddit.com/r/atunsheifilms
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/atun_shei

March 20, 2021

History RE-Summarized: The Age of Augustus

Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published 19 Mar 2021

Many Romans had conquered the Republic, but nobody could keep it, until Augustus. In the half century after the assassination of Caesar, his adoptive son would fundamentally transform the Roman state: expanding it, reforming it, and bringing it under the control of one man. The Age of Augustus found Rome a Republic and left it an Empire.

This video is a Remastered, Definitive Edition of three previous videos from this channel — History Summarized: “Augustus Versus The Assassins”, “Augustus Versus Antony”, and “How Augustus Made An Empire”. This video combines them all into one narrative, fully upgrading all of the visuals and audio. If you want more Histories to be Re-Summarized, please comment and let me know!

SOURCES & Further Reading: The Age of Augustus by Werner Eck, Augustus and the Creation of the Roman Empire by Ronald Mellor, Cleopatra: A Life by Stacy Schiff, Virgil’s Aeneid, Polybius’ Histories, Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita, Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, SPQR by Mary Beard, Rome: A History in Seven Sackings by Matt Kneale, (and also my degree in Classical Studies).

SECTION TIME-CODES:
0:00​​ 1 — Octavian V. the Assassins
07:40​​ 2 — Octavian V. Antony
17:36​​ 3 — Augustus as Emperor

Our content is intended for teenage audiences and up.

PATREON: https://www.Patreon.com/OSP​

PODCAST: https://overlysarcasticpodcast.transi…​

DISCORD: https://discord.gg/osp​

MERCH LINKS: http://rdbl.co/osp​

OUR WEBSITE: https://www.OverlySarcasticProductions.com
Find us on Twitter https://www.Twitter.com/OSPYouTube​
Find us on Reddit https://www.Reddit.com/r/OSP/

March 13, 2021

Confederate Soldiers DIDN’T Fight for SLAVERY!! (Or Did They?)

Filed under: History, Humour, Military, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Atun-Shei Films
Published 20 Sep 2019

Checkmate, Lincolnites! Debunking the Lost Cause myth that Johnny Reb, the common Confederate soldier, didn’t fight to preserve the institution of slavery.

Support Atun-Shei Films on Patreon ► https://www.patreon.com/atunsheifilms

Leave a Tip via Paypal ► https://www.paypal.me/atunsheifilms (All donations made here will go toward the production of The Sudbury Devil, our historical feature film)

Buy Merch ► teespring.com/stores/atun-shei-films

#CheckmateLincolnites #CivilWar #AmericanHistory

Reddit ► https://www.reddit.com/r/atunsheifilms
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/atun_shei

March 11, 2021

Boris as a latter-day Prince Rupert of the Rhine?

Filed under: Britain, History, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

In The Critic, Graham Stewart portrays the British Prime Minister and Sir Keir Starmer, leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition in the House of Commons as English Civil War combatants:

King Charles I and Prince Rupert before the Battle of Naseby 14th June 1645 during the English Civil War.
19th century artist unknown, from Wikimedia Commons.

Prime Minister’s Questions distils into a single gladiatorial contest what thousands of enthusiasts in a charitable organisation called the Sealed Knot perform across the country most summers – namely the re-enactment of battles of the English Civil War.

Unsmiling, relentless, serious to the point of bringing despair to his foot-soldiers as much as his opponents, Sir Keir Starmer is a Roundhead general for our times. Nobody believes better than he that virtue and providence are his shield. This faith sustains him whilst the fickle and ungodly court of popular opinion fails to rally to his command. He believes that holding firm, doggedly probing the enemy with the long pike and short-sword will eventually prevail, no matter how long the march to victory may prove.

Facing him, the generous girth of the nation’s leading Cavalier occupies his command-post. His long, uncut hair resembling a thatch on a half-timbered cottage, Boris Johnson lands at the despatch box as if he has just fallen from his place of concealment in an oak tree, bleary and under-prepared, but confident in assertion. It might be said of him, as Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton once said of the parliamentary style of a previous Tory prime minister, Lord Derby, that Johnson is “irregularly great, frank, haughty, bold – the Rupert of debate.”

Today was one of those occasions when the prime minister did indeed resemble the dashing Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Unfortunately, it was the moment during the decisive civil war battle of Naseby when the great Cavalier commander charged his horsemen through the parliamentary lines with such momentum that they kept going and ended up spending the rest of the day plundering a distant baggage train rather than returning to determine the result of the battle.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress