Tuesday, June 28, 2022

ANS -- If they want another Civil War

This is from Brad Hicks, posted on Facebook.  It says that if they start a second Civil War, the result will be the same, but worse.  What do you think?
--Kim


Going into 1860, the anti-freedom states had two and only two advantages. One, they had the Senate. And two, if that failed, they had the loyalty of almost literally the entire US Army. So when Congress's attempt to shut down the Underground Railroad, the Fugitive Slave Act, turned out to be impossible to enforce, they thought the same thing that Vladimir Putin just thought about Ukraine: we have the infantry numbers on our side, it'll be a short march to seize the capitol, this whole war will be over in a week.
And got damn near to the capitol in a matter of days. And then had to fall back because they were WAY out past their supply lines, they hadn't won yet, and they couldn't sustain the push. But the "we have the whole Army" guess wasn't wrong, it looked really dire for the free states at first.
But there was never any chance that the anti-freedom states were going to win for four reasons:
RELATIVE POVERTY. After 40 years of rising industrialization and urbanization, the free states could simply afford a much longer war than the anti-urban, anti-industrial anti-freedom states. The whole economy of the anti-freedom states was based on a low-margin extraction economy.
DIPLOMATIC ISOLATION. African hereditary chattel slavery had been outlawed, at least on paper, literally everywhere else in the world by 1860. British conservatives covertly funded and equipped the anti-freedom states for as long as they thought they could do so safely, but that didn't last. For one thing, it became politically unsafe for them, at home, to be seen to be siding with the anti-freedom US states. But the even bigger reason was that they weren't willing to send people or ships to die to do so, and ...
THEY *ONLY* HAD THE ARMY. Except for a few coast-guard units, the entire US Navy stayed loyal to the pro-freedom government. The blockade of Charleston, combined with their fiscal poverty, guaranteed that the anti-freedom states couldn't keep their troops fed, let alone armed, for a long war. And ...
EMPTY LAND DOESN'T FIGHT FOR ITSELF. Sure, by long-standing political compromise they had half of the states, and over half of the land. And by long-standing necessity, they had the highest percentage of their (free) population in arms. But their (free) population was a tiny fraction of the population of the free states. Once the free states started mobilizing its own army, they didn't even have infantry numbers on their side. And they couldn't even mobilize all the infantry they had, they had to reserve lots of their troops to hold the plantations or face a huge fifth-column behind their lines.
So when your anti-freedom co-workers or family members tell them that the South Will Rise Again, and this time they'll win?
ASK THEM WHAT'S CHANGED.
Sure, they have the Senate, just like last time, so they can push through these new Bounty Hunter Bills that replicate the old Fugitive Slave Act, but how is that going to work any better than it did the last time? And if they try to secede and close their borders again, despite rural states' still-low populations and still-high poverty, with no navy to speak of and no air force to speak of and only *maybe* Russia and Hungary and Poland for allies, how is this going to end up any better than last time?
Because last time a million people died, disproportionately people from the anti-freedom states. And dozens of towns and at least two large cities were burned, all in anti-freedom states. And it was their rebellion and war and loss that resulted in the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, so the outcome was that they had even less of what they wanted than they had when the shooting started.
See if that inspires any doubt in them. See if, all of a sudden, some of them lose enthusiasm for starting the conflict just yet.
6You and 5 others
6 Comments
3 Shares
Wow
Wow
Comment
Share

ANS -- more Brad Hicks on the abortion situation

Here's another Facebook post by Brad Hicks, with an interesting comment after. Bad word warning.
--Kim


What happened here?
Alright, let's start the traditional Democratic-Party circular firing squad here, this is as good a place as any.
What happened here is that once the court weighed in in Roe, pretty fucking nearly the entire Democratic Party and pretty fucking nearly all other liberals were eager and happy to stop talking about it at all, because it made them feel icky.
So for fifty fucking years now, the only people talking about abortion at all, in public, were the liars. The people who knew the truth, and especially the people who LIVED the truth, were made to feel embarrassed for speaking up, or just ignored if they did.
What just happened is what ALWAYS happens if you surrender the public debate to only one side. You lose 100% of the fights that you don't show up for. And for 50 years, we just stopped showing up.
Abortion is a routine outpatient medical procedure that will be needed by at least 1 in 4 women at least once in their lives. It has a lower complication rate than most forms of dental care. Neither science, nor any of the scriptures of any of the major world religions, describes a fetus, let alone a fertilized egg, as a person nor an abortion as murder.
This lying Supreme Court decision says that abortion was illegal in every state until the mid 20th century? Bull. It was, in fact, legal in every state prior to the 1830s. Abortion absolutely WAS legal, widely available, and uncontroversial when the framers wrote the Constitution.
But who was out there telling people this? Fuck-all near nobody, that's who. Who was out there lying to them? Millions of people.
THAT'S what just happened.
16You and 15 others
2 Comments
2 Shares

  • Charles Haines
    Actually Brad, I think what happened was a matter of messaging. But yes, pro-choicers muddled the messaging because they felt icky about it. I always cringed to hear anti-choicers call pro-choicers baby killers (or some variant) while pro-choicers never answered or disputed it.
    You can't go on with a public discussion while you leave that attack unchallenged. Pro-choicers simply tried to change the subject to women's rights. Yes, women's rights are important, but once you accept the label of "baby killer" unrefuted your status is less than zero. They couldn't take for granted that the audiences would see the charge as bogus. And by attaching women's rights to it, they just bring them into disrepute. I honestly wondered if pro-choicers actually thought they did murder babies.
    For fifty years, I watched pro-choicers lose doing that. I tried to tell them what they should say, but my message never caught on. I'm surprised abortion rights didn't fall long before this. Here's the answer to that: a fetus isn't a baby, isn't a person.
    Here's my own article about it:
    Pro-Choicers Have Been Losing for Almost Fifty Years & I'm Tired of It
    MEDIUM.COM
    Pro-Choicers Have Been Losing for Almost Fifty Years & I'm Tired of It
    Pro-Choicers Have Been Losing for Almost Fifty Years & I'm Tired of It
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 2d