Sunday 4 June 2023


“Never be haughty to the humble or humble to the haughty.”
Jefferson Davis

True. A pleasant change from quotations from Franklin or Lincoln. Davis was a very much better man than either of them, because unlike theirs his army fought in self-defence. Unlike them too he was acting within the law.

"A woman should dress to attract attention. To attract the most attention, a woman should either be nude or wearing something as expensive as getting her nude is going to be."
P.J. O'Rourke

'Don't Play Marbles With Father's Glass Eye He Needs It To Look For Work.'
'Get Off The Table, Mabel. That Sixpence Is For The Waiter.'
Titles of old music hall songs


  1. If you are referring to Benjamin Franklin, he never that I know of commanded troops. He did help a great deal with Braddock's logistics, and he did help to organizing frontier defense in what was called Pontiac's Rebellion.

    Davis's armies defended the right of property in persons.

    1. By Franklin's army I meant the rebel army on whose side he was. The issue in the civil war was did the states have the right to secede.

  2. The North did not go to war to get rid of slavery. Slavery was a matter for each state.

  3. Rick Rubin, cofounder of Def Jam records, said recently that WWE is real and it’s mainstream political news that’s fake. This will sound nonsensical, or ‘a sign of the terrible lack of confidence in our precious institutions’, if you’re a political Insider or trust political Insiders and the New York Times. If you realise just how much political news really is invented (with lower production values than WWE) and how much of supposedly ‘real’ political action is fake responses to fake news, it makes sense.

    [UPDATE 4/6. An example of how mainstream news is fake. The day after I published this on 3 June, the BBC published this piece on immigration after interviewing numerous Home Secretaries. How many mentions of ‘ECHR’, ‘Human Rights Act’, or ‘judicial review’? Zero. After millions of words written, endless TV coverage over years, the BBC tries to get some historical context and totally ignores central issues and reports lots of dopey quotes from MPs. Fake analysis, fake politics, fake government.]

  4. It is hard to say how "slavery was a matter for each state" was consistent with the pre-war position of the South. The Dred Scott decision established the right of slave-owners to take their slaves into free states and retain their property in them there. The South was very big on extending slavery into the territories.

    The right of secession had been at least tacitly denied by the Jeffersonians as soon as they were in power. If there was a right of secession, who would have cared if the upper crust of Kentucky was intriguing with Spain? What point would there have been in bringing Burr to trial over an apparent secessionist attempt?

    1. It is hard to see how the Articles of Association or Constitution took away the sovereignty of the states but nor is it very important. Scotland certainly has no right to secede but if the Scottish Parliament voted to secede, backed by almost all Scots, would it be right for England to launch a bloody war lasting years costing 700 000 lives, to force them to remain? How did the Confederacy differ from Washington and his gang?

    2. Was it right for the UK to suppress over many years the attempts of Ireland to separate? No, there was not then a parliament to vote.

      I would also remark that during the late 1830s, the British government put down, with strong measures, a couple of rebellions in Canad.

    3. True and well argued. I am on British side on those things but British government was the legitimate authority whereas I think the USA was exceeding it's legal rights, was 'ultra vires'. As well as that, the UK had not formed in living memory by revolutionary colonies seeking independence in exactly the way the Southern states did.