Sunday, December 6, 2009

Go, Bill Whittle!

by Smitty

Get yourself your beverage of choice, sit back, and take in Bill Whittle. For a quarter hour, he will engage you in a finely delivered survey of lefty cretinism. The material will be 75% familiar to anyone, but he has some surprise quotes from the history of slack-jawed defeatism.

Do ensure you set the beverage down and have a clear airway for the final minute, as the climax is quite good.


  1. Is this the post where he brags about how Lincoln dealt with Clement Vallandigham? Arrested and deported him for expressing anti-war statements and criticizing Lincoln for the Civil War?

    The story says more about the evil of Lincoln than it does about the character of Vallandigham.

    Bill Whittle also, incredibly, states that if the North didn't fight the South over slavery in the 1860's it would have to fight a war with the South in the early 20th Century to end slavery. What an ASININE statement. The North didn't fight the South over slavery, PERIOD. It fought the South over secession and the loss of its giant tax base.

    As for slavery continuing into the 20th century, that is just too stupid to contemplate. Slavery ended peacefully in every other place in the world (Brazil being the last, who ended it in 1888). Slavery would have ended similarly in the South, particularly with the coming of mechanization and modern farming techniques.

    Bill Whittle is a great guy and I love his video presentations and essays, but I would have to give him a D on this one.

  2. That was pretty good! Like you said, no big surprises but solid commentary.

  3. Stogie - Well and plainly put

    It was a brilliant and historically-inept presentation.

  4. No Stogie, he was comparing The oratory skills of Vallandingham to Olbermann, in the context of their similar anti-war stances. He didn't discuss Lincoln's actions against him, as they were beside the point.

    He did speculate the point that if there was 2 countries here, we may have fought against them in WWI. It's possible, but it is certain that that couldn't happen if the union were preserved.

    And Slavery was not abolished throughout the world in 1888. It is still common in sub-saharan Africa. The last country to do so, Saudi Arabia abolished it in the mid 20th Century, but it was still common there as recently as the 1970's.

    Your point that the Civil War was not fought over slavery is true to a point. It was the issue of slavery that caused a states rights revolt (i.e. Burning Kansas). The moral dimension of abolishing slavery was only added by the Gettysburg Address, but at that point it became the primary reason, even more than preservation of the Union.