Book 35 for 2025: “How The South Won The Civil War”, Heather Cox Richardson, Part One


Rather than summarize or evaluate, I am going to provide some quotes from the book. I will say that if you want to understand the current state of affairs in the United States of America, this book provides excellent insights based on history.

From the Introduction:

“America began with a great paradox: the same men who came up with the radical idea of constructing a nation on the principle of equality also owned slaves, thought Indians were savages, and considered women inferior…it was a key figure of the new democratic republic…the ringing phrase ‘all men are created equal’ did not actually include everyone. In 1776, it seemed self-evident to leaders that not every person living in the British colonies were capable or worthy of self determination. In their mind, women, slaves, Indians, and paupers depended on the guidance of men like themselves…So long as these lesser people played no role in the body politic, everyone within it would be equal. The principle of equality depended on inequality. That central paradox–that freedom depended on racial, gender, and class inequality–shaped American history as the cultural, religious, and social patterns of the new nation grew around it.”

From The Triumph of Equality:

“The accomplishment of white male equality under the law was extraordinary…They argued that their new system made their new nation different from the Old World, which was split between a corrupt aristocracy and the lazy poor.”

“On March 4, 1858, prominent South Carolina slaveholder James Henry Hammond gave a speech in the Senate–to which he had been elected the year before despite the fact that he admitted two years earlier he had sexually assaulted his four young nieces…The greatest strength of the South was not its economy…but rather ‘the harmony of her political and social institutions.’ Every society had ‘a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life’…the people who make up the ‘mudsill of society supporting that other class that leads progress, civilization, and refinement.’ The men in the latter group are wealthy and well connected…In the South whites had made an ‘inferior race into mudsills, dull but loyal people who are content to have their labor directed by their betters.”

“Now a national figure, Lincoln articulated a democratic vision for America, one that refuted the mudsill version of Senator Hammond…he explained that Hammond’s theory divided the world into permanent castes: capitalists driving the economy and workers stuck at the bottom.”

The West:

The last stand of the Alamo became the foundational event for western American history, offering a vision of self-sacrifice and heroism. It prompted the formation of the Republic of Texas, and inspired Texans under Sam Houston to defeat Santa Anna’s troops…In the retelling of what happened at the Alamo, what got lost was the reality that the defenders were rebelling against the Mexican government in Mexican territory, and that they were fighting to defend the right to enslave people. The myth also ignored the fact that many of the defenders were Mexican opponents of Santa Ana, and that some of the defenders–including Davy Crockett–surrendered.”

Cowboy Reconstruction:

After Lincoln’s death, Johnson wanted no part of Lincoln’s and the “Union’s democratic vision. To rebuild the South, Johnson turned not to the Army, or to the ex-slaves who had supported the Union, but to former Confederates. He offered pardons to all but 1500 Confederate leaders…states codified the racial violence that swept across the South in the summer of 1865. As employers cheated workers out of wages, gangs beat and raped African Americans into submissive behavior, and whites attacked their black neighbors, southern state legislatures created the Black Codes.”

The West and The South Join Forces:

“The resurgence of the South’s ideology came from the nation’s new bloc: the western states. Easterners had made the mistake of thinking the westerners would join their coalition, only to discover that due to their peculiar history and extractive economy , westerners had more in common with white antebellum southerners than with easterners. By the 1890s a few wealthy men dominated western society. Poor white men had little opportunity. people of color and women even less, and leaders worked to keep it that way. Still, as in the East before the Civil War, the myth of the individualist convinced Americans that the west was the land of opportunity…Theodore Roosevelt’s war record took the western ideal and put it on the national stage. By the end of the century, Americans embraced the cowboy image and vowed to spread it across the globe, putting into law that some people are better than others. Once again freedom was hierarchical.

“In the early part of the twentieth century, southern towns began to erect statues of Confederates, making them into western style heroes and individualists. The rewriting of the past created momentum for women’s suffrage…Rebecca Latimer Felton was a reformer who wanted educational and prison reform as well as women’s suffrage. She was also in favor of lynching her black neighbors who wanted equal rights…The Ku Klux Klan reformed and rebounded in the 1920s…Meanwhile in the West, immigrants and Indians were falling victim to a legal system that established castes. In Texas, officials were hardening a racial system that classified migrants across the Mexican border by race. In Arizona, a state law singled out ‘treason against the state’ as punishable by death aimed at Apache and Navahos who might fight the legal system ensnaring them. In Oklahoma…corrupt legislators arranged affairs to steal valuable land from Indians.

Book 30 for 2025: “Equality”, Thomas Piketty and Michael Sandel


Piketty is Professor of Economics at the Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales and Paris School of Economics. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. This small book (119 pages) is the discussion between the two on the value of equality. In this discussion they debate what citizens and governments should do to narrow the economic gaps that separate people. This includes looking at the dangers of political instability and environmental issues. Rather than summarize their discussions, I am going to quote various parts:

“Mainstream politicians…have faith in the market because of a belief that markets deliver rising prosperity and yield Wall Street campaign contributions. A deeper reason…is that markets seem to offer a way of sparing us as democratic citizens from engaging in messy , contentious, and controversial debates about how to value goods and how to value the various contributions that people make to the economy and to the common good.”

“We live in pluralist societies. We disagree about the nature of the good life. We disagree about how to value goods.”

Because of the above, it is just easier to use the market and avoid the discourse as to what is worth more, the work of a teacher or a laborer or a hedge fund manager.

“Those on the left and those on the right may may well disagree about what counts as the dignity of work and how to promote it…many working people and many without university degrees feel that elites look down on them, don’t value the work they do…individual upward mobility is not an adequate answer to inequality.”

They discuss credentialing and note that the government spends billions more on higher education than technical education. They note that this form of credentialism is something that many see as an acceptable form of prejudice. A survey was done of prejudices in both Europe and the US:

“The group most disfavored by the respondents were the poorly educated.”

They discuss corporate tax rates and world wide efforts to have a world tax on multinational corporations:

“So, really, it’s a game between tax administrations in Washington, Paris, and Berlin to split some of the tax revenues that are now in tax havens among them, leaving aside the countries in the South.” –referring to the Southern Hemisphere where most of the poorest countries in the world exist. “Don’t companies have a patriotic duty to pay taxes and contribute to the common good in the country that makes their success possible?”

They view the success of far right groups and the election of Trump as more due to job losses in manufacturing than due to the inflow of migrants. They note an anti-immigrant view in places where there are even few immigrants and see it as related to the destruction of jobs:

“It’s not about immigration, but it’s about feeling looked down upon. It’s about recognition. It’s about dignity. Throughout this conversation, we’ve discussed three aspects of equality. One is economy, about the distribution of income and wealth. A second is political, about voice and power and participation. Then there is a third category, about ‘dignity,’ ‘status,’ ‘respect,’ ‘recognition,’ ‘honor,’ and ‘esteem.’ My hunch is that the third is the most powerful politically and maybe also morally. Any hope we have of reducing inequality in the first two dimensions, economically and politically, will depend on creating conditions for greater equality of recognition, honor, dignity,. and respect.”

Book 11 for 2025: “The Serviceberry”, Robin Wall Kimmerer


A tiny book by the author of “Braiding Sweetgrass” envisions a totally different economy than the kind we have now. She uses a plant, the serviceberry, as a symbol for what she calls the “gift” economy. Instead of everything being focused on maximizing profit, it focuses on sharing and exchange and the idea that natural resources are gifts from Earth, from nature, rather than commodities to be exploited for profit.

She notes that capitalist economies hinge on the concept of scarcity and personal accumulation of wealth often at the expense of others. Gift economies, which occur in many indigenous cultures, focus on the mutual benefit of all which encourages gratitude and trust. Later in the book, she discusses how gift economies can be implemented and flourish alongside the current capitalist economy.

There must be considerable appeal for her concepts because this book has been on the non-fiction best seller list for weeks.

The Unelected and Unaccountable Men Who Decide Our Fate by Laura Shannon


Most people in the USA where I live have no clue what is occurring in Greece or realize it will one way or another affect us all. Nowhere in the world today are economies isolated from each other. Another example of how our current world is ruled almost, if not, totally my money.

Laura Shannon's avatarFeminism and Religion

Bas relief of Atropos, shears in hand, cutting the thread of life Bas relief of Atropos, shears in hand, cutting the thread of life

In Greek myth, the Fates, the Moirai, are three sisters – Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos –  who spin, measure and cut the thread of life for every person born. Their rule is law; even the gods, so the legend has it, have no power to bargain with the one who cuts the thread and ends the life. Her name, Atropos, means ‘she who cannot be turned’.

In Greece today, others are making the life-or-death decisions. It is not the three sisters of ancient folklore, but a bunch of men in suits now wielding the power to uplift or cast down an entire nation and its millions of citizens. I would like to shine a little light on just two of these groups of (mainly) men who have had the most impact on the recent decisions to bring Greece to the brink of bankruptcy…

View original post 938 more words