What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

National Review ^ | April 7 2018 | Daniel Gerelnter

[iowamark]

A friend recently posed this question: “If you had to recommend one book for a first-time visitor to the U.S. to read, to understand our country, what would it be and why?”...

If the goal is an education, we could recommend Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager’s Growth of the American Republic, a two-volume history that used to be required reading...

Huckleberry Finn may be the greatest American novel... But there is no single novel, no matter how great, that can do the job alone.

Consider instead the great American essayists who invented a new style of writing in the 1920s and founded The New Yorker. E. B. White’s One Man’s Meat is the finest such essay collection... Joseph Mitchell’s Up in the Old Hotel is nearly as great...

Teddy Roosevelt’s short book The Strenuous Life, which opens with his 1899 speech by that name, is an explanation of America’s view of itself — a view that greatly shaped the 20th century. It was the peculiar marriage of power and prosperity together with a sense of moral urgency. Roosevelt demands an active life, a life of struggling for personal and national virtue. He commends a triad of strength in body, intellect, and character — of which character is the most important. America must meet its moral obligations vigorously, he tells us: “It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”...

The origin of that moral urgency was America’s most important spiritual crisis. It is best expressed in a single speech, rich in Biblical imagery and contemporary prophecy: Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, which is the greatest of all American writing. It is a tone-poem or photograph of the American soul. A complete understanding, in just 697 words.

[DiogenesLamp]

The problem with this idea is that the Southrons had already threatened to leave the Union should Fremont be elected in 1856.

I think it was pretty well established that they weren't terribly happy about being in the Union by this point. Not only were they being taxed far in excess of everyone else, but the Government kept spending the money to prop up Northern Industries. Also they were constantly getting harangued by their "moral superiors" in the North who regarded them as "Deplorables" that were "clinging to their guns and their religion."

In other words, the same way modern Liberals from the same parts of the country treat people today.

Nope, it was the paranoia of the abolitionist movement that struck fear into the heart of Johnny Reb.

Well that's the propaganda that keeps getting repeated even though the actual facts on the ground do not support it. As I have noted numerous times, it wasn't possible to expand slavery, and it wasn't possible to eliminate it either. With both things demonstrably false, how do people keep claiming this was behind anything?

They just lie. And then they repeat the lie, over and over.

[DiogenesLamp]

Certified Lost Cause Propagandist.

Did it ever occur to you that you might be a little nuts if you make up your own jargon, and then expect other people to understand what you are talking about when you repeat your own made up jargon?

The propaganda is what we've been hearing all these years, and a cursory examination of the claims demonstrate them to be not reasonable. The truth appears to be:

1. Slavery couldn't expand.
2. Slavery couldn't be abolished.

Just these two points puts a stake through the heart of most of the propaganda on the subject, at least for any rational man.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You point out west Texas, Arizona and California, and if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would know it was impossible to grow cotton in any of those places in the 1860s because it required modern electric pumps and irrigation systems to even make it possible."

Some cotton was grown in all those states before the sophisticated modern equipment now used.

DiogenesLamp: "Effectively, Slavery could not expand to the territories, so the whole issue was phoney baloney astro-turf crap, and curiously enough, the party which was most responsible for spreading this nonsense was the "Free Soil Party", and coincidentally it was head quartered in New York."

There were slaves in every southwestern territory & state, even though some state officials denied it.
For example: "New Mexico Territory never reported any slaves on the census, yet sued the government for compensation for 600 slaves that were freed when congress outlawed slavery in the territory.[233]".

DiogenesLamp on Confederate plans to expand their slavery outside the US: "So we have been constantly told, though the facts of modern cotton growing would indicate either those people in the 1860s who grew cotton for a living were either too stupid to know they couldn't grow cotton there, or this is just made up propaganda bullsh*t spread by people with other reasons for gaining those states representation in Congress."

Once again: cotton was grown in some areas of all those states without the latest in modern irrigation machinery.
More important, cotton was not the only successful slave-product, there were many others, sugar for example.

Here again is one vision of what the successful Confederate States Empire might look like:

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "How did specie purchases end up in New York when the bulk of specie was coming from California and Nevada?"

For every SS Central America which sank, many others made it to their destinations.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Irrelevant for reasons I provided in a previous posting.
The trade was eventually going to Europe, regardless of where it was produced in the South."

But you provided no cogent reasons, only babbled incoherently, refusing to confess what's important here.

[DiogenesLamp]

Here again is one vision of what the successful Confederate States Empire might look like:

That would be accurate if you added this to it.

But I'm glad you posted that. It supports my claim that the Confederate states would have become a major powerhouse if they had been left alone, and it was because the New York/WashingtonDC alliance saw this threat as well as others that they decided to invade the South.

You know what's funny about you? You post evidence that supports my point even when you don't realize you are doing so. I cannot wait to see how you now try to backtrack and claim that they would have never gotten so powerful.

It was fear that they would which caused the attack against them.

[DiogenesLamp]

For every SS Central America which sank, many others made it to their destinations.

When I asked you how all the gold and silver ended up in New York, I wasn't referring to the method of transportation.

But yes, do once again ignore the point about money ending up under the control of New York and Washington DC.

[DiogenesLamp]

But you provided no cogent reasons

I provided no reasons why a section of the Country that produces between 73-85% of all exports to Europe would monopolize trade with Europe?

Are you stupid?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on "Southern products" produced in Union states: ""Could" is irrelevant.
"Is" was what was relevant on the cusp of this financial crises for the North."

The facts show that your "is" did happen in 1861.
Then the real truth was told -- excepting cotton, nearly everything previously classified as "Southern products" was produced in and exported from Union states & regions.

DiogenesLamp on % of Union exports: "27%, and that's being generous."

And that's a Big Lie as was proved in 1861.
Then "Northern", "Western", "specie" and non-cotton "Southern" products totaled about $200 million (see here), about half of 1860's $400 million total (see page 605 here)

DiogenesLamp on "As a consequence of protectionist pricing.
With European trade directly to the South, much of those exports would have suffered as well.
Northern Newspapers of the time say so themselves."

Sure, I "get" you wish us to believe loss of Confederate states would be catastrophic to the Union economy, got it.
And doubtless some were hurt.
I'm merely reporting factually the damage turned out not as great as some expected.

Oh, you say, that's because of the blockade.
No, the blockade was ineffective in 1861, though the Confederate embargo on cotton exports was important.
The fact is that Union states & regions continued and greatly increased their exports, so their economy quickly adjusted.

So, hurt? Sure, but destroyed? No, far from it.

DiogenesLamp on "slavery, slavery, slavery": "Forget? No!
The problem then is the same problem we face now! F***ing New York controls the "News", controls much of entertainment, and constantly promotes nationally policies which help keep the Federal spending party going."

I'd call that some kind of PTSD flash-back, where a discussion on Civil War economics suddenly has DiogenesLamp diving for foxhole cover at the sound of a normal vehicle backfiring "New York".
{sigh}

DiogenesLamp "Back in 1995, when Republicans had finally taken over control of congress, I noticed every talking head on the "News" Programs were ridiculing the idea of balancing the Federal budget by reducing spending. Every F***ing bastard one of them were mocking the idea that the budget could or should be balanced, and this always bothered me."

Sure, in 1995 many of us still thought of CNN as a "fair & balanced" news source because we'd never heard one that truly was.
Of course by 1995 I was a pretty regular Limbaugh listener, so was not totally bamboozled by "mainstream" media.

DiogenesLamp "Why? Why would any sane citizen of the USA be against balancing the budget?
What sort of lunatic would think this ridiculous spending party could just continue unabated?
Then it dawned on me.
Those people who profit from excessive government spending would be against balancing the budget, especially by reducing borrowing and spending.
So then the realization started to form that these media people were merely agents of the people who profit from government excess spending."

Sure, NPR comes to mind, but you should not have been surprised.
And even then we did hear the occasional conservative voice even in "mainstream" media.
It's just that you had to endure a lot of nonsense to get there.

DiogenesLamp "But you want it to be about "slavery" instead of about power, influence and money, because you think the Civil War was about some moral question.
It's not. "

Nonsense, because in 1860 "slavery, slavery, slavery" was the major question facing our Constitutional republic.
And the fact that you today just can't believe it, since you have no personal experience of it -- that fact demonstrates how great was freedom's victory and how amazing our leaders at the time.

So today you wish to reduce, belittle and deny freedom's great 1860s victory and reduce the whole thing to nothing more than "money, money, money" because of why?
Because of some kind of PTSD which has you diving for foxhole cover every time the word "New York" is spoken??

Really, it's just ludicrous and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“When I asked you how all the gold and silver ended up in New York, I wasn’t referring to the method of transportation.

But yes, do once again ignore the point about money ending up under the control of New York and Washington DC. ”

Do you suppose maybe the fact that the California constitution prohibited the formation of banks until 1862 had anything to do with that?

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you suppose maybe the fact that the California constitution prohibited the formation of banks until 1862 had anything to do with that?

Are you suggesting they sent gold and silver several thousand miles across land (and much much further around the cape) to New York just for safekeeping?

No, I don't think that was the primary reason why specie ended up in New York to pay for part of the European trade.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Ever hear of Wells Fargo?

[DiogenesLamp]

Ever hear of Wells Fargo?

Are you trying to steer the conversation back to a means of transportation or something?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Its pretty funny he’s still replying to me....days after I left the thread since I didn’t see any value in simply contradicting each other for the 17th time."

I see FLT-bird has the same disease which often grips DiogenesLamp -- having posted endless nonsense in very long pieces, you suddenly don't want to be bothered with acknowledging my slow & careful responses.

Typical.

FLT-bird: "He’s still replying to posts he’s already replied to a week or more ago."

No, no duplicate responses, though sometimes your very lengthy posts resulted in a need to break up my response into more than one shorter post.
So if it seems like I've posted the same response multiple times, it's only because you first posted the same nonsense multiple times.

FLT-bird: "The case stands.
Those at the time on all sides openly said it was in essence, a fiscal quarrel as Charles Dickens described it.
It was all about money and empire - like most wars throughout history."

Sure, nobody disputes that some people claimed it was not about "slavery, slavery, slavery" but rather about "money, money, money", of course they did, including some Brits who hated Northerners, like your Charles Dickens.

But that's not what secessionists said in late 1860 and early 1861.
See my post #649 for a review of the "Reasons for secession" documents.

Nor did Lincoln ever say "money, money, money".
Lincoln gave three reasons for military actions:

1. In April 1861, 75,000 troops to return unlawfully seized Federal properties.
   
2. In July 1861, 400,000 more troops to restore the Union.
   
3. By January 1863 to emancipate slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good. Saved me the time of having to look up a message from you towards which to send this.

"Basically the”press” has given up its informing role. It’s real self is now the petulant toy of short rich men. The woman who chaired this organization is a servant of Bloomberg, the gun hating dwarf who owns Bloomberg news( On air his slaves have been ordered to refer to him only as “The Founder”). He is worth 50 billion. He dispises DT because The best he could do with his own 70 million spent was become mayor. The WaPo, which is the home town paper for this turd festival, is owned by the Emperor himself. It is the number one hater of DT, by design. Servants must please their masters or become vapor. The media now is just a faction of these rich guys doing what they want. Only the wall and a cigarette will ever alter this reality."

https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/05/white-house-correspondents-wanted-this.html?showComment=1525192072811#c1661854993923926800

[BroJoeK]

SoCal Pubbie on who said "slavery" was the reason: "Except for the Confederates, like the ones who wrote the secession documents, who clearly said it was about slavery."

DiogenesLamp: "Because 4 states obviously have the authority to put words in the mouths of the other 7."

See my post #649 for a review of the various reasons for secession documents.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on what caused secession: "The real issue.
The money from European trade that would be lost if the South began direct trade with Europe.
It is the reason the North had to stop them.
If they did not, there was about to be a major power shift to the South."

And yet that was not the main reason for secession expressed by anyone in late 1860 & early 1861.
Yes, both Rhett and Stephens mentioned trade, briefly, but not in your sense here and certainly not to imply trade was the "real reason" for secession as opposed to slavery.

Some Northerners did worry about trade, mostly Democrats and their first thought was to join the new Confederacy.
They are the ones Robert Toombs referred to in advising Jefferson Davis against military assault on Fort Sumter:

""Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[15]"

Republicans were more concerned about the basics -- Constitution, Federal properties, Confederate declaration of war on the United States, etc.
Consequences of changes to trade patterns were less immediate in Republican minds.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on his fake Lincoln quote: "My God, you are just a propaganda tool.
The man told you exactly where he got that quote, and *I* showed you that Jack London cited it in his book in 190-Freaking-8, and you are going to come back with the quote is fake? "

Of course it's fake, doesn't sound like Lincoln, but rather like something DiogenesLamp might invent for Lincoln to say.
The source is a decades later collaboration between an old alcoholic associate of Lincoln and a younger publicist eager for a more "modern" Lincoln to sell.
So it's useless.

DiogenesLamp "Yes, Pennsylvanian Jack London was just so stupid that he got pulled in by a fake quote over a 100 years ago, and which other Lincoln references have verified. "

Anyone can get suckered by a fraud, especially if the fraud says exactly what you soooo wish to hear.
And thanks for reminding me of Jack London, one of my favorite authors when I was a boy.
But London never lived in Pennsylvania, nor did his mother.
London's maternal grandfather worked on the Pennsylvania Canal, a part of which goes past my house.

Jack London was born in San Francisco and so far as I can learn never moved east of California.
He was a great adventurer, war correspondent & writer, but also a socialist, animal activist & racist by today's standards.
He made a lot of money but died at age 40 addicted to alcohol & morphine, which killed him.

So Jack London the socialist liked the fake quote from Lincoln sounding just like London himself, not surprising.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Are you trying to steer the conversation back to a means of transportation or something?”

No, I’m simply pointing out that it’s pretty common knowledge how the gold rush worked. People came west to seek their fortune, and if they didn’t go bust they sent money (or gold) east. The USS Central America has already been mentioned, and anybody who’s ever seen an old western movie has seen the Wells Fargo stage carrying a strongbox full of gold with a shotgun rider up top.

Our own LS wrote about it years ago:

“The early gold dealers had provided drafts or exchange for gold, giving the prospectors a liquid and divisible medium for a less liquid and less divisible metal, or for notes from other regions that were less well known, and, therefore, less reliable. Dealers purchased gold at $8 to $16 an ounce and sold it on the East Coast for $18 an ounce. This operation allowed merchants and miners to pay local dealers in gold, and get drafts that could be more cheaply and easily transported to pay suppliers or family. Gold dealers then shipped gold in large shipments for sale on the East Coast.”

https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=economics_articles

New York wound up with gold because buyers there paid for it. There were lots foreign companies investing in mining operations in California, Nevada, Colorado and Montana. Plenty of money generated in Western mines flowed across the Atlantic. This constant portraying of New York investors as Southron hating boogiemen seems very Bernie Sanders to me.

[x]

What possible reason would Idaho or Montana have to join up with the Confederacy? Economically and culturally, they would have greater ties with Washington state and Oregon, or with the Plains and Great Lakes states than with the more humid far away cotton and tobacco growing states. And if they really hated Blacks as much as you say, wasn't that one more reason not to throw in with the slaveowner's empire?

The 2004 electoral map that you keep posting and reposting robotically is a product of a "cultural war" that didn't get started until the 1960s or 1970s and didn't take its present form until the 1990s. What happened was urban coastal states became affluent, secular, "progressive," and post-industrial in way that they weren't before, and this created a divide between them and the inland industrial or agricultural states which were more religious and more conservative.

Anytime up to about 50 years ago that divide didn't exist. When most people in Washington state were wheat farmers, fruit growers or fishermen, and most Oregonians were ranchers, woodcutters or farmers, and most Vermonters worked on dairy farms or granite quarries, there wasn't any great economic or cultural divide separating them from people who live in Idaho or Montana or Wisconsin. So they wouldn't feel any great attraction to South Carolina or Alabama or Mississippi.

What else happened 50 or 60 years ago? The end of segregation. The closing of the economic and cultural gaps that separated the South from other parts of the country. And in the last 20 years or so the Democrats stopped nominating Southerners for national office. That's what made your 2004 map. It's not an expression of some eternal hatred that people in the Mountain and Plains states have for the coasts (or vice versa) or some deep affinity that they have with the Southern states (or vice versa). It's a product of political changes that happened in recent times.

And if the South did become independent and did become the economic power house that you've always claimed it would be, why would Westerners want to submit to Southern rule? I think they'd sooner throw in with Canada or create their own country in the West or Northwest, rather than knuckle under to the Confederacy. Think about it, you live and breathe resentment every day. Why wouldn't people living two or three thousand miles away truly resent Charleston or New Orleans if it became the new economic capital of the continent?

But of course, rational argument won't convince you of anything. If David Hogg and Dylan Roof could somehow have a child, that would be you.