…the monster little heeding…
Pounces with his mouth of venom
At the head of Lemmikainen
But the hero quick recalling
Speaks the Master words of knowledge
Words that came from distant ages
Words his ancestors had taught himFrom the Kalevala, ancient Finnish epic
The great tragedy of American History is that the South had a point.
The essence of the point is that while every human being on the planet deserves compassion and consideration and we are all in some universal way, brothers and sisters derived of one eternal source, race counts. It’s pretty simple. What you are and who you come from affect the general direction of your economic, political, or social endeavors as well as proclivities towards certain types of behavior. And, of course, there are many factors contributing and detracting from the matrix of evolutionary success or failure – nature, nurture, luck, heredity, climate, trading routes, geographic terrain and even the zodiac, etc. ad infinitum. All of these considerations affect the area that one desires to live in, the way one is perceived by others, the unique advantage (or disadvantage) one gains from the forebears, the community one chooses to be a part of, and the company that one prefers to keep. It used to be that discussing race among a plethora of potential topics was well-received in decent company. “Of what blood are ye?” “Who are your people?” “What are they known for?” “Round here, we do things l’ak this (and it’s been l’ak that for as long as anyone can remember), but we’d love to trade points if you’ve got some good ones to share”…and so on. There was none of this hysterical sensitivity, an uneasy fear of giving or taking offense, and a thin-skinned obligatory reassurance that “we didn’t mean it like that” that we have all come to associate with modern parlance.
So, though I’ve framed it in a rather thorough manner, I will reiterate (because the subject tends to solicit such a knee-jerk meme from the deracinated modern regime): Race is not the only index of one’s personality or eternal value and the fundamental determinant of who one is in the larger scheme of things. God is no respecter of persons. But it is a factor that counts significantly in human affairs.
Mort Kunstler’s “Moonlight and Magnolias”
The White South, out of all the sections in the United States, very early on had to develop a variety of evolutionary group strategies to deal with the realities of interracial dynamics. Living together with massive numbers of Black people who had very alien traditions, forms, and mores (and who were 1–2 generations out of Africa) as well as fighting with Red men on the western frontier, was something they didn’t just hear about or read in a newspaper or in some romantic novella written by a woman who had never seen her subject. The situation was right before their eyes, day in day out. And they had to make do by organizing, fighting, and consciously maintaining a distinct position of authority. So, beyond accusations of White supremacy and class exploitation etc., did Southern Whites actually have any reason to act on their own behalf? Of course, they did. They themselves did not invent the institution of slavery or the considerable gulf between Third World and first world political forms. If we do not assume, by default (as the Northern press still likes to stress), that Southern society was totally motivated by hatred and a lust for controlling others unlike them, we can begin to perceive the White South’s actions over the course of American history rather as strategies for preserving the integrity and order of their communities against a maelstrom of potential chaotic developments (just take a look-see at inner city Atlanta, Montgomery, or DC and consider how prescient they were).
Oak Alley, a famous antebellum plantation in Louisiana
Southern Whites were forced to begin to consider their interests as being affected negatively by other competitive groups in a way that the Northeast never had to, until more recently. As a result, although they lost out on a number of key fronts as time went on, the White South did succeed in developing a sense of racial identity and consciousness that was based on a sincere grasp of the facts underlying their civilization (“though failing, hardly expiring”). And although every attempt is still made to denigrate the legacy of the South and the motivations of her people, the fact still remains that we, alone on the continent, consciously fought valiantly to defend our homes, families, and blood as a distinct and conscious derivative of Western civilization in the Western hemisphere. And thus, any contemporary movement in the United States that seeks to affirm some form of White racial consciousness or identity would do well to study the saga of Southern Whites.
Indeed, there is a vast multifaceted apologia that conveys a very different vision of the United States, in this direction. It is one in which racial considerations have an important place amongst many other factors that make up the diffuse panorama of a civilized society that derived its impetus from an older European legacy. And ironically, it is this submerged Southern version which is more authentically American (i.e. in line with the Founders’ hopes) than the prevailing forces that now hold the reins. So, we don’t need to have another Civil War. We just need to wake up the 200 million (or more???) American Gullivers and prod them into action by pointing them in the right direction.
The United States is like a huge bear with a fox on its back desperately trying to claw out its eyes. The fox may do a lot of damage, but chances are, if he doesn’t make it fast for the cave exit, in time, that bear will strike back with ruthless finality.
In 1867, two years after the end of the Civil War, Robert Lewis Dabney, chief of staff of Stonewall Jackson’s brigades and respected Presbyterian theologian, said the following in his Defence of Virginia:
After twenty-five years of discussion, we find that the staple of the logic of their writers is still the same set of miserable and shallow sophisms, which Southern divines and statesmen have threshed into dust, and driven away as the chaff before the whirlwind, so long ago, and so often, that any intelligent man among us is almost ashamed to allude to them as requiring an answer. When the polemic heat of this quarrel shall have passed away, and the dispassionate antiquary shall compare the literature of the two parties, he will be amazed to see that of the popular one so poor, beggarly, and false and that of the unpopular one so manly, philosophic, and powerful. …
Meantime, let the arrogant and successful wrongdoers flout our defence with Disdain. We will meet them with it again, when it will be heard, in the day of their calamity, in the pages of impartial history, and in the Day of Judgment. (pp. 14, 356)
And amazingly, now, after something like 170 years of discussion, the powers-that-be still haven’t gotten the point. We still see the farcical ramblings of “respectable” establishment historians like James McPherson and Eric Foner asserting the “positive liberty” arguments (clever masquerading terms for a Marxist redistribution of wealth and rights from Whites to Blacks and other Third-Worlders), tediously reminding us of the deluded fanatical promises of the corrupt Reconstruction regime, and embracing the modern subversion that our ancestors had buried when open debate was still allowed (without the fear of character assassination or job loss), so long ago: The Freedmen’s Bureau’s notorious exploitation of the Black vote immediately after the war and cruel foreclosure (not to mention the bold looting) on property owned by Southern Whites as an act of revenge is one of the saddest chapters in American history, not a carrot worth holding out to a salivating contemporary proletariat. And, of course, Lincoln himself confounds our latter day left-leaning Northern historians’ abstract air castle tower-of-cards construction with his well-documented (and somewhat embarrassing) affirmations of White supremacy. ‘All the King’s horses, and all the King’s men’… .
Postmodern students of American history would do well to reexamine the considerable work on the Reconstruction Period by the Dunning School (Columbia University) around the turn of the 20th century, chiefly that of Walter Lynwood Fleming. Here we get a truer picture of the utter destruction wreaked upon the post-bellum South by an arrogant and vengeful government that (despite its rabid animus) perhaps did not fully understand what it had unleashed.
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
The essence of the point back then (most sane people knew that race counted in some way, even a good many Yankees) was that, no matter what, the relationship between the sections and states in our republic was based on comity and compromise rather than force and conquest. If they couldn’t agree, well then, it was better for the upset parties to walk away.
Jefferson and Madison had authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions at the turn of the 19th century to affirm state sovereignty when they began to realize the dangerous ways that the federal government could intrude with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Adams administration. The Federal government simply could not lawfully prohibit the States from taking action in areas where they were not explicitly forbidden to go. This fundamental argument was based on the wording of the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
In other words, in the case of a tie, the residual energy of potential legal confusion fell in favor of the state bodies. Therefore, any federal action that interposed in the gray area between federal and state power was unconstitutional. Again, we have the authority of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on this point. At the time of the Civil War, the South often asserted that the North was the true seat of the Rebellion. Indeed it was William Lloyd Garrison who had publicly burned a copy of the Constitution, as the leader of the Radical Abolition Party.
John C. Calhoun
Eventually, as passions continue to recede from these issues, it will become evident that John C. Calhoun was the master American political genius of the 19th century, rather than Abraham Lincoln, the sad-eyed rail splitter of Illinois. If one were to pore through the 30 or so volumes of Calhoun’s papers, (magnificently preserved and edited by Clyde Wilson) it will also be apparent that he was supremely interested in discovering the best method for preserving the Union rather than destroying it. He was an American patriot of the highest order.
Calhoun had developed his political theories in a manner way beyond the acumen of his most of his contemporaries. Many of his peers complained that he delved into “metaphysical” areas that were not pertinent to contemporary issues and that he was just another one of those kooky right wingers who was better ignored, ridiculed, or destroyed. But to this day, Calhoun’s two treatises on American political theory tower above all subsequent treatments by future writers. And the fact is that he was in the pressure cooker of the racial turmoil that was beginning to rise to the surface. He was a far-seeing prophet who for good reason became known as the “cast-iron man.”
Golden Age of American statesmanship — 1830s–40s
According to Calhoun, a constitutional republic depended principally upon the preservation of two key elements: “suffrage and proper organism combined.” This twofold core was then sustained upon the underlying principle of compromise between the original sovereign elements. Outside of the constituted authority, there was no internal coercive action. This was the way in which American “freedom” was originally understood. As a qualified citizen, one could speak one’s mind without fear of reprisal from the ruling authority.
The “proper organism” component is where most people trip up in their understanding. Basically, “proper organism” referred to the complex mechanism and process of distributing power across several, often conflicting fronts, and subsequently winnowing out dissent or encouraging assent by emphasizing “concurrence” as the only way to prevent the government from a variety of potentially nefarious actions. This methodology inspired principled statesmanship rather than the vicious power-mongering and the corruption of character that we see in the political arena today.
The end result of mixing suffrage with proper organism was, ideally, the “concurrent majority,” as opposed to the “numerical majority.” It was this tendency to devolve to the power of numbers in “pure democracies” that Calhoun and the Founders sought to avoid, perhaps stemming from their Aristotelian and Burkean legal heritage. Though glimpses of the concurrent majority have appeared previously, notably in Rome, Poland, Britain, and certain ancient German principalities, it was Calhoun who first developed it philosophically.
We see the operation of the concurrent majority in such Anglo legacies as the jury system, where all jurors must concur in order to move forward. The conservative principle of the jury’s action is the desire to reach a plateau of common agreement. If they don’t choose to act concurrently (i.e., their deliberations are belabored by selfish or narrow concerns), a human life potentially teeters in the balance. They are inspired to agree rather than to disagree. This dynamic is also present in our bicameral legislative structures. One house is based on numerical force and the other on the fact that the states themselves represent distinct organs of fundamental equality (i.e., each state, no matter the size, only gets two seats in the Senate).
The distinct organs of a body politic need to be recognized as distinct, interacting components of a functioning organism rather than as mere quantitative factors. For example, just because the brain directs cognitive functioning, we could hardly survive without a heart. Therefore, there is no possible computation in which the heart deserves to be affected negatively by the brain’s “appetite.” The underlying motive for the healthy operation of the various organs is a benign recognition of the necessity for the welfare of the whole system.
Not only did “proper organism” refer to the separation of power between three branches as written or implicit in the Constitution, it also took into consideration the diverse interests that might compose the body politic — i.e., the states, the sections, the manufacturers, the agrarians, the merchants, the press, racial loyalties, civic organizations, and so on. These were various “organs” in a civilization.
During Calhoun’s day, the states were the primary level of the formally recognized “proper organism.” However, these other secondary groupings involved powerful interests that brought considerable pressure to bear from different directions. Part of the thrill of the American experiment, involved the potentiality for the evolution of the organism, depending on what interests evolved into significant determining factors. Calhoun argued that the original founding generation perhaps would have done better to recognize the sections themselves also as primary organs that needed to be addressed by the Constitution. One of his suggestions included naming a president from each section as the nation filled out through westward expansion. These sectional presidents, then, acting together or nullifying each other, might succeed in further preventing the abuse of power. Unfortunately, this constitutional evolutionary process was perverted after the war into a teleological program that worked in favor of the victorious section’s ideology, destroying the states as the shield between the individual and the federal government in the name of equality and human rights.
This signaled the birth of the future Leviathan state that continues to be the bane of conservatives and a disaster for White advocates. It was accomplished by unilaterally castrating the White South in the name of freeing the slaves by forcing the Southern political organs to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments with no say as to how these radical measures were going to be employed in their own communities. This is why in the 50s the Yellow Dogs harkened back to the documented unconstitutional process of passing these measures in an attempt to hamstring more federal incursions that had debilitating affects on white communities in the South.
With the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, however, a deal was struck (the Democrat Sam Tilden actually won the election due to the South’s renewed political vigor), and the Yankee soldiers were brought home. Washington realized that the South had a point. But the damage had already been done.
Ultimately, the Constitution represented an idea much more far-reaching than any single document. It was a nullification mechanism whereby the power of the government could be held in check. If properly inaugurated and maintained, it could theoretically perpetuate a union of high-minded citizens indefinitely. Calhoun’s concerns about the power of a majority can be seen in the following, from his A Disquisition on Government):
Question: To what avail could the strict construction of the minor party be against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one would have all the powers of the government to carry its construction into effect — and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction?
Answer: To no avail. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution, either by the undermining process of construction — where its meaning would admit of possible doubt — or by substituting in practice what is called party usage, in place of its provisions — or, finally when no other contrivance would subserve the purpose, by openly and boldly setting them aside. By the one or the other, the restrictions would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.
Part of the concern in freeing the slaves immediately involved maintaining delicate balances between the sections so that none could forever hold sway in the political arena. This is the real thinking behind the notorious 3/5s clause in the Constitution whereby black slaves counted as 3/5s of a person. It was a way to even up the power balance between North and South at a time when Northern populations were higher and more concentrated around urban areas whereas Southern agrarians were spread out more thinly across the land.
The radical destruction of the Institution, therefore, involved far-reaching consequences not apparent to the average layperson but easily recognizable by party bosses in the North who stood to capitalize through the destruction of an economic and political rival. Slavery probably would’ve died a natural death 1–2 generations later with the development of McCormick’s plow and other agricultural machines. The difference, of course, would have been that the Southerners themselves could’ve monitored any transition in such a way that would not have upset their entire way of life. They were, after all, civilized human beings, and it was their communities and the intimate domestic relationships therein that were at stake.
As we all know, politics is never humanitarian. It’s always concerned with the self-interests of the parties vying for control. Therefore, the real sense in which the South’s stand was morally superior to the North lay in its desire to go its own way; to live and let live. The North, on the contrary, desired to coerce the other section against its will, according to its own “enlightened” (‘naïve’ would possibly be a better term) theories. What made it even more insidious was that it was done under the auspices of a high-minded idealistic liberation of an oppressed people. Sound familiar?
Well, we all know what happened. War ended the debate and, although Calhoun’s logic was completely unanswered by Webster, Clay, and the entire subsequent generation, preserving the Union became the ultimate legal and moral principle, trumping sectional interests. Calhoun feared as much. His final words show his concern: “The South, the poor South, what will become of her?” This was ten years before the Civil War broke out.
And now the likes of McPherson and countless other hacks have the power of the Northern fist and the Jewish press behind them as they butcher away. Meanwhile, they are getting well paid for their patronage (and a few Pulitzers to boot) which will ensure that their energy will remain an annoying factor for some time to come.
It is not my intention to refight the Civil War. I just want to point out a certain depth and complexity to Southern political thought that rarely gets heard because accusations of “racism” usually silence all debate. If we can accept the Southern Point, though, and hold fast, then the horizons of our perceptions will be considerably widened.
The Southern Point is that race counts a legitimate consideration in the affairs of civilized human beings.
Sir Tristram is the pen name of a native Alabaman. His blog and artwork are posted at Electromagnetic Frontier.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
What was done to the south is just another of a long list of historical injustices that are pressure cooking beneath the house of cards of modern liberalism .
Brilliant text. Thanks.
cool. glad you liked it.
I’m not sure what the author is trying to get at?
This is the first part in a three part article. I hope you will stick with me long enough to see the thesis in its full context. When we are discussing white identity in the United States of America, the South is the key. If you are coming from outside of the US, this may be difficult initially to perceive and understand.
Basically, I am arguing that it is the White South’s historical experience that provides postmodern racial politics with a legitimate starting point in the United States. In every significant period of American history, we see the White South standing at odds with the modern subversion, both consciously and subconsciously. What I try to show is that on virtually every front, we have had effective defenders who whether they knew it or not (I personally think most of them did) were establishing a precedent and building the foundation for a significant future structure that is yet unrealized. The sometimes peculiar rhetoric of this multifaceted defense gives us the authentic claim for an American Tradition that is a worthy successor to its European forebears.
If one sincerely believe that all human-beings are children of the same parents, Adam and Eve – and not developed from Apes – then, yes, we are all borthers and sisters, irrespective of color, nationality, religion or race. However, it had never worked in the past nor will work in the future – because some sort of ‘racism’ always been a part of human nature.
Even the Creator (Allah) admits in Holy Qur’an that He “divided human-beings into different tribes, nations and genders, so they can recognize each other. However, no one is superior to other based on one’s race, gender, nationality or color. The Creator will judge each person by his/her good deeds in this life, which would be the basis of one’s superiority.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/the-gender-jihad/
And Allah allows each individual, family and group to act in their own self interest.
White nationalist are trying to awaken whites to act in their own group self interest.
To not allow a group to act in their self interest is an act of suppresion.
I do believe that the Arabs of north Sudan act in their group self interest, possibly well beyond what is legitimate.
Deciding what counts for reality on the basis of religious superstition, reduces one’s thinking to that of parasitic jews and negros.
It is obvious that the greatest determinant of behaviour is heredity, and that race is the chief determinant of heredity. It is also obvious that in the context of our society one race will inevitably be superior to another. There is a reason, Rehmat, why you have arrived here, rather than we settling in your homeland; it is because our race is superior to yours. Everything else is madness or wishful thinking.
Rehmat, what if one does NOT believe that we are all descended from Adam and Eve?
Rehmat:
Since you are an Arab and a Muslim, I have a question for you. What does the US need to do to end the Muslim hatred of us? I’ve always felt it was our ridiculous support of Israel that does it, but is it anything else? Our liberal culture?Clearly, you know we are united here by our anti zionist stance more than anything else – I don’t think our cultures lend themselves to peaceful coexistance in the same place – but I don’t see any of us wanting to take over the desert except for the oil. Your thoughts?
@Tom
“I’m not sure what the author is trying to get at?”
Well, I acknowledge that Sir Tristram’s article was a slow read for someone, like myself, with a farm-tractor brain. But I have to say that he has inspired me to check Professor Clyde Wilson’s online library for further elucidation from Calhoun’s philosophical writings.
One thing I took from this article was that there is very much more to the history of the War Between the States than I was ever taught in high school or college.
I have always suspected something disturbingly illegitimate about the use of massive violence to force one set of people into a political and economic association that they deemed detrimental to their interests, even to their survival, especially when their earnest petition for peaceful separation was rejected outright without even a formal audience.
Anyway, my take is that Tristram rightly refrains from recommending a particular course of action at this point, but instead encourages us to educate ourselves – to pursue the truth of this matter much more deeply – if we entertain any hope at all of taking the bravest, highest, and most effective action possible against those cunning adversaries who have manipulated us into self-emasculation.
My 2 bits.
“I have always suspected something disturbingly illegitimate about the use of massive violence to force one set of people into a political and economic association that they deemed detrimental to their interests, even to their survival, especially when their earnest petition for peaceful separation was rejected outright without even a formal audience.”
My earlier post was meant to be a reply to this post.
I just don’t understand why Whites didn’t revolt or the US Army didn’t disobey orders for forced integration in the 1960s.
@Andrew
Calhoun died in 1850, ten or so years before the start of the Civil War.
Clyde Wilson is probably a nice guy who hangs around Lew Rockwell.com.
Wilson had a big Calhoun book some years ago—I nearly bought it. ;)
Have you ever read Avery Craven’s “Coming of the Civil War” or Cooper’s “Jefferson Davis American”?
Craven saw the Civil War as a convergence of many trends including those in education, industry & manufacturing, commerce, and society, not limited to traditional politics or race politics.
Cooper portrays Jefferson Davis as the national political leader that he was, not as a sectional or regional politician, but, as an American political leader.
“Calhoun died in 1850, ten or so years before the start of the Civil War.”
Your point being…???
That verifies his prescience. The Civil War did not just hatch in 1861. Calhoun’s voluminous thought is an unavoidable prerequisite for anyone wanting to truly understand the forces that exploded 10 years after his death. And if you can’t understand it, it is not for us to lament the shortcoming. It is difficult but such is the nature of advanced political theory.
And Calhoun was at the top of his game. Neither the United States nor Europe has produced his equal since, in the political arena.
And I personally know Clyde Wilson. He is a first rate gentleman and a scholar. I wouldn’t really say that he is a “nice guy” in the deprecating sense that I think you mean this. Please correct me if I’m wrong about your intention there. You should’ve bought his book. You missed out. It’s a good intro to the philosophic essentials of his theories which Clyde spent years synthesizing from the rather large corpus of Calhoun’s letters, speeches, and treatises.
I have not read these other texts that you mention but, then again, there are something like 50,000 or more intelligent publications on this period in American history.
Yes, obviously the War was a confluence of many different factors. No one is denying that.
And yes, Davis saw himself as a true American patriot in the Jeffersonian tradition who was driven by circumstance to speak out as a regional leader.
Remember that the Constitutional process does not inherently involve any piece of paper. It is an all-permeating idea; the negative force that holds the positive force of the general government in check. In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people. So, ultimately, it is the people of the body politic, whether they speak through the State organs or through newspaper editorials or countless other media (ie art and literature) who have the burden of restraining the Beast.
@ Sir Tris
I was in the Low Country of South Carolina a few years back, and I was struck by the large numbers of Mexicans/Mestizos/Indinos running around. Many of them looked to be of the really primitive variety from Central America.
The African Congressman from the area Clyburn, needs I was told, 40% of the White vote to get elected, and that maybe shrinking from what I saw.
The political reality in South Carolina is Lindsay Graham, pro-immigration & Pro-Israel.
I don’t think that Calhoun had much effect on anything then, and no effect on anything today.
Calhoun and Graham do have somethng in common—both are Irish blowhards.
Tom,
Let’s not forget that it was Ernst Hollings from South Carolina who had the guts to call out the Israel Lobby, alone on the Senate floor, and that the South as a section remains consistently resistant to liberal demagoguery (ie “Obamania”) despite the corrupting influences that have succeeded in swamping a beautiful “land of milk and honey.”
The racial demographics of the South today have virtually drowned out the possibility of a resistance based on numbers. But we have a tradition of resistance that is embedded in our historical political rhetoric, art, literature, and music. The sword awaits a group who knows how to pull it from the stone.
Calhoun lamented the future racial demographic prospect of the Southeast in many of his prophetic speeches. He believed that if radical elements from the North continued unchecked that whites in the South would be driven completely out of the region to avoid the blender that radical abolition promised.
Attacking us now while we are sinking in this miasma that has taken generations to fully realize, does nothing positive for reinforcing historic allies in the current fight. I believe this is another example of rabid in-fighting that must cease. We must seek common lines of unity, not that which divides.
There is a way to criticize that leaves open positive reinforcement.
Calling John Calhoun an Irish “blowhard” conveys a very puerile understanding of American history. I would encourage you to rethink this perspective.
Seems to me if there’s a worthwhile message here it’s the futility of erudite, academic thinking. Attackers are not going to be swayed by intellectual arguments no matter how brilliant. It didn’t stop Yankee aggression then and it won’t stop jew aggression now.
It strikes me it would probably be more useful to study the history of jew expulsions and learn how they were accomplished. Surely there must be a treasure house of historical knowledge about that out there.
Federal troops to enforce integration? Bewildering.
A Southern Texan, President Dwight D. Eisenhower forced school integration. Arkansas Governor Orval Eugene Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to encircle Central High School to keep 9 negro students from entering the school, President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock, Arkansas to force the 9 negroes into the high school.
There are handwritten notes by President Eisenhower on his decision to send FEDERAL troops to Little Rock on September 1957. Corrupt southern Texan politicians like Eisenhower set the precedent when they ordered the use of the Federal Army to force blacks into White schools.
White Southerners really did fight ZOG and its plans of racial integration. They did all they could — fight, protest, riot, intimidate — short of waging another civil war.
I hate to say it, but I strongly believe that the events leading up to 1964 were the White Man’s LAST REAL CHANCE. If Jews could force Southerners to their knees in the 1950s – 60s, then today and tomorrow’s Americans will be a walk in the park.
In 1925 or so, Hitler, sitting in jail, said a war was coming, and if the Nazi’s lost, that would be the end of the white race. That prediction seems more likely every day.
“Federal troops to enforce integration? Bewildering.”
You have to look at it in the context of the so-called “Cold War.”
“…this constitutional evolutionary process was perverted after the war into a teleological program that worked in favor of the victorious section’s ideology, destroying the states as the shield between the individual and the federal government in the name of equality and human rights…”
It was, more likely, the whole point of the war. It’s amazing, maybe, that –even now– people cannot see the Northern Army’s takeover against a backdrop of the leftist politics of 1850, and how concurrent this was with the influx of “immigrants” (just like today), who were brought in to fight, and the publication of the communist manifesto (at the same time), and the connections of Lincoln (no “sad-eyed” saint) with Big Bucks, and his lawyering for railroad money.
The Union Army was nearly 50% foreign, but no one mentions this. And if they do –lol!– it will be in some temporally myopic way: eg– the wiki entry on the “union army” actually says it was “diverse.” This is supposed to be a selling point (as today, in the author’s eyes, “diversity” is good, and therefore the union army was good). Which just goes to show that people cannot think and are not taught to put things in historical context.
Still, it’s true— the war was largely fought by fresh-off-the-boat foreigners. The Southern Army, by contrast, had been usually in the country many generations (there’s, in reality, a huge overlap –almost categorical–in Southern Confederate soldiers and those whose families fought in the American revolution. Virginia (capital of confederacy) which included West Virginia at that time, was much more rugged than today, a previous fronteir, with people who’d made generational homes, mostly English and Ulster Scots from the plantation experience, whose religion and names are still reflected in that area, even today.
West Virginia, I’ve heard did not really split off. The “Wheeling Convention” that decided to call it a state occurred in the Northern Panhandle of the state. If you look at a map, you’ll see a long sliver that –at one point–is only five miles across, between Ohio and PA. This was not an area that really had anything to do with many Western Virginias or Virginians. Nobody pieces this history together with why WV-ians are so hammered in media.
It is imperative that more questions never be asked about that war, obviously. And even the literature mentioned is Northern. The real history is in the oral tradition of the genuine Southern people, and in the letters and texts they have saved and never shared with their conquerers, as well as their way of life, that differs in character from the “u.s.” of today.
Even now, people do not analyze this war— thinking about how it occurred at the same time of Marx, how exiled “48-ers” from failed communist attempts abroad came to the U.S. and fought for the north, and the connection of Lincoln with his cronies. The Irish were a strong force in the union, and in part, no doubt, felt they were getting back at the Ulster Scots, who made up such a huge part of both the American Revolutionary Army (half) and also the Confederacy. (Others protested their conscription, into the north army, and burned buildings, rioted and so on).
Anyway, it was a coup for centralization. The people who actually lived in the north at the time were not even committed enough to pull together their own domestic army.
And the pillaging of reconstruction was years of battery, that in many ways, never ended (b/c then people might question the propaganda of the war).
@ Anne
Not only was a large part of the Union Army made up of recent immigrants, those recent immigrants were mostly Roman Catholics from the German states, and, Ireland as opposed to the German & Scotch-Irish Protestants who had pioneered and founded the country.
The low class German and Irish immigrants were attracted to the Union Army because they got a a substantial bounty on joining up.
It’s all very well to talk of his philosophical principles however John C. Calhoun’s ideas were sometimes part of the problem.
The South had a lot of trouble mobilizing their population, in Appalachia government agents who pursued draft dodgers too closely risked being shot.
Oh— was trying to say the North army was “diverse” b/c it was not even American, lol. But the wiki enterer cannot even see how absurd this is. If a government imports an army, then it it even a “northern” war? People were incentivized to move into the u.s. rapidly, just like now. The
I would remind you that the Irish weren’t too please to be fighting the Southerners either. Draft Riots.
@ Athanasius
“The Gangs of New York” covered the subject pretty well.
@ Anne
You have a really good grip on historical reality.
…they had a different understanding of the country than the people who had already lived here at that time. Being in the country three generations or more for a Southerner then was not unusual, but a near majority of the people they fought were from abroad, literally.
I think you’re sending a mixed message and it’s a bit milquetoast. Starting off with a universalist message, sort of like an apology before the statement, is the wrong way to go.
We need people to write and speak for us who have seen hardship and strife, not sheltered intellectuals. We need people with a broader perspective and a strong will to lead us in the right direction unapologetically.
I disagree. Southerners have been addressing these issues for over 150 years. Blunt and crude race affirmations don’t work and are real turn offs for the mainstream American populace. There are subconscious memes that we would do well to pre-empt. For a long time we were on the defensive because it was our domestic institutions that were being targeted. But those institutions are all gone and we’ve had a good fifty years to examine the fruit of the Northern liberal universalist message. We are in a position to take the offensive. Now, they have the burden of proof and their abstractions will fall flat as white Americans deal with the realities of anarchy and chaos in their inner cities and look for guides and leads in the experience of American history that will help them find their way back to reality. This is where the legacy of the South will come in handy.
There is a certain diplomatic edge and finesse that white advocates must develop if they want to 1) attract those who are still under the hypnosis of the modern subversion and 2) avoid the tediously repetitive accusations from our enemies. Like the proverbial tar baby, these arguments bog us down and cause us to waste time. We’ve already answered these arguments 10,000 times. So, I’m just trying to frame it initially so that I can get to the meat of the subject, awakening the mythic “light body” of our people, as well as holding the ear of our more skeptical brethren.
The thinking here is also half sarcastic/ironic, not apologetic. It absorbs the brunt of the universalist tidal wave and then at the end affirms that, still, race counts. We must live in a world with many different types of people. So, it is good to have a message that posits a correct universal approach without compromising the integrity of the white position that race counts.
Stick with me for parts 2 and 3 before you write me off.
Namby-pamby positions on race have their place; I won’t deny that. But all too much of the talk is like the Republicans always trying, with total failure, to reach the blacks and white mixers, and in the process alienating people like myself who believe in giving no quarter. Hitler lost the war, but give the devil his due: he was extremely successful at taking Germany back from the jews and he scorned mealy-mouth. He made it very clear there was no middle position.
Nyeth phil white – The Northern Sudanese have failed to protect the interests of the entire historically Sudanese people – as result of Jewish thugs behind the so-called ‘Save Darfur’, which sent half of its funds ($50 million) to build new settlements for Europe’s unwated Jews on land stolen from native Muslim and christian Palestinians.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/save-darfur-funds-israeli-settlements/
According to the quote by Otto Von Bismark, it was the European jew bankers who agitated for the war so they wouldn’t have to compete with one America, strong, rich and independent. They stirred up the controversy about slavery.
jews brought the Moors into Spain so bringing in immigrants to be used to defeat the White man is nothing new to them.
Race matters and the people of the South are considered racist because we are open about this.
Its so funny because Southern White people have always lived with blacks. Howard Dean had to go away to college before he even saw a black person. Unbelievable.
Whenever I see news or entertainment talking about how things are in the South I always wonder what part of the South they’re talking about because most of the time I’ve never seen the things they accuse us of.
Al Sharpton made a statement about state’s rights and the Federal government and he said that he supported the federal government because the state denied people’s freedom. These other races choose never to think about White freedoms.
They always whine about racism and that they have a long way to go blah blah blah but they never think about what they are doing to us. The descendents of slaves are much better off today and should be on their knees thanking us instead of making more demands, while the descendents of the slave holders are the ones suffering.
jews whine about anti semitism but we never get to talk about why people hate them. Its not about what we do to them. Its about what they are doing to us.
Eventually, as passions continue to recede from these issues, it will become evident that John C. Calhoun was the master American political genius of the 19th century, rather than Abraham Lincoln,
Oh really! If the South had got their way how many blacks would there be the US now. 100million ? 200 million ?
Lincoln wanted to send them back.
Lincoln had a naive inkling about the size and difficulty of such a task and put such an endeavor forever out of the reach of realization by making war upon the South, utilizing the ‘Great Emancipation’ rhetoric, and completely wrecking the stable structure of the republic’s conservative anchor. He was soon moved aside and the real face of radical abolition brought its insane policies to bear during the horrific Reconstruction period.
The Southerners fought against the slave trade early on because they were increasingly concerned about population ratios. Advocates from Virginia, as early as the Constitutional Convention, were seeking ways to stem the flow of blacks into the South. It was actually the Massachusetts contingent that succeeded in stalling the end of the active above ground import slave trade in the US until 1808 because it was their boats that were principally making the African excursions and her merchantmen who were profiting the most. The research has already been done.
Southerners thought the idea of repatriation of Africans back to Africa was a ridiculous proposition, at least in the short term. It would’ve required a legitimate labor substitute (ie agricultural machines ) to even begin to contemplate. It was more important to have a doctrine that took into account racial differences so that each could be assigned its proper place in the scheme of civilization. With or without slaves, with or without forced integration, the freedom to associate and to speak freely still gives us the wherewithal to carve a considerable spot.
Someday:
I wish Lincoln had succeeded in sending the negroes back to their glorious continent, but I doubt that America would have had 200 million blacks. The reason is that no country in the world has ever had the pleasure of 200 million black folks and survived it. Nigeria with its massive wealth from oil and minerals struggles to stay afloat with 150 million people – and you can probably guess who actually has the technical expertise to extract the oil. (hint – they are imported from elsewhere)
Fascinating, but I’m wondering was that the South collectively or just certain extremely far sighted Southerners ? (can we have references, and links if possible please).
Cheap labor holds back advances in productivity (or even reverses it, eg cement is now being mixed by hand in NYC by Mexicans). The lack of technical infrastructure in the South (one of the reasons it could not have won the war) was a result of the presence of masses of blacks. Expelling then would have unleashed a wave of innovation. That would have been extreme difficulties cannot be denied however Lincoln may have fully comprehended that and yet thought the difficulties of sending the blacks back worth it anyway, because he genuinely understood things better than anybody else – before or since. And maybe he did; blacks were being bred ( and impregnated) by the wealthy slave holding class at a very high rate – the south would have looked like Brazil in a few more generations. Poor whites did not benefit from slavery. In fact black slaves who raped poor white women and girls could count on their masters (rich beyond the dreams of avarice ) to defend them. Slaveholders (not wanting to take a loss) often claimed that these poor girls were prostitutes or the daughters of prostitutes and averred that their blacks were incapable of behaving in that way.
But what were their real motives ? Virgina was where the breeding of slaves for desirable characteristics was most advanced, their Negroes were known to make the best slaves and If importation of slaves into the US was stopped Virginia would be the chief beneficiary.
Scooter, no one really knows but some say the population of Nigeria has already hit 200 million.
“Cheap labor holds back advances in productivity (or even reverses it, eg cement is now being mixed by hand in NYC by Mexicans). ”
– Indeed; it was the cheap labor in the form of black slaves that not only made the Southern plantation owners rich but also served to thwart competition from “small potatoes” White farmers who could not successfully compete with the plantation farming system.
Someday,
Dabney’s “Defence of Virginia” is a great place to start. There is an embedded reference link in the article. He went to some trouble to document the early history of the slave trade in the US and Britain generations before the War, demonstrating the hidden lines of influence. Studying the works of M.E. Bradford concerning the lives of the Framers would also help give you a more realistic view of those times.
I think you would do well to rethink some of your perspectives, especially concerning the impregnation of slaves by the slave-holding class. This is largely a superstitious myth furnished compliments of Shylock, Brother Jonathan, and Harper Lee and was never a rampant issue and unless you can provide some real links verifying such, I’m going to have to retire that one as a another vestige of a Northern pipe dream.
‘Defence of Virginia’ makes too much of the legalist argument; slavery may once have been seen as legitimate but even by the time of the Framers it had become a major issue of contention. ‘Defence of Virginia argues that the Abolitionist moral case would not have had much impact if the North was making huge profits out of slavery. True enough in all likelihood, but that does not invalidate the Abolitionist moral case.
DoV makes a good case that the importation of slaves was done by Northern ships. Nonetheless the breeding of slaves was a Southern industry. Slaves were advertised as “Virginia Negroes”. (And in the early days of slavery in Virginia white women were used as breeding stock with African slaves for the profit of slave owners). The racial perspective came from the little people, not the slave lords.
DoV is a good book for a number of different reasons. I was pointing to it for the documentation on the early slave trade. I don’t want to get back into the arguments over justifying slavery. It’s not my problem anymore.
The indictment of the southern slave holding class for rampant impregnation of slaves is, again, based on fanciful magnifications of what may have been a coarse fringe issue. It certainly wasn’t the norm. And I don’t see where these assertions get us today.
Sir Tristram,
I am not writing you off, and in fact I like both the content and the style of your writing.
I love when suddenly I am plundged in a new context, new culture. My experience of the South is all the Clichés I have been feed with. You are making me crave for Calhoun’s writings.
Please put a bibliography at the end of your part three and/or a “suggested readings” list. I knew nothing of Calhoun before reading your text. I love new and intelligent ideas, and am especially interested in the concept of concurrent majority.
Thank you,
Denys
Like many southern whites I can easily get sentimental about the Lost South; growing up the War Between The States seemed more real to me than the war I was born in. But having come to an age and condition where I have little use for Romanticism, I have to say the South was as much wrong as right.
Clearly it was wrong to bring in the slaves to begin with and the resulting miscegenation was very wrong. The free trade the south wanted, rather than building up it’s own industry, was of course, disastrous when war came. And it was wrong in putting so much power in the hands of a select few.
All things considered I think there’s little to be gained in in worshiping a cause long lost which was mostly wrong to begin with.
What we have the most serious lack of currently is a leader forceful enough to rally the people behind him; in times of crisis, which this certainly is, people want a guide who they can believe has the answers they themselves do not. David Duke’s failure was that too many people did not feel he was strong enough to put their faith in him. When your life is on the line, you want someone you can believe KNOWS what to do. And that is what we lack.
Thank you, Denys. We’ve tried to annotate and adequately link up the article. The second and third parts will contain more references that will hopefully further whet your appetite. If you want extra suggestions for a reading list, we can start a correspondence.
Thanks Sir. Good piece. Folks in Europe need to learn that there is another side of America – light miles away from the decadent East and West Coast. Tom
Thanks, Tom. Your work has been inspirational to me. Hopefully, we can continue to forge lines of support between Europe and the American heartland based on a stalwart common Tradition.
The blacks would be the easiest group to send back to where they came from. Rather than worrying about how to get rid of them we need to consider how we are going to rid ourselves of the jew. Not to mention Muslims.
I imagine using drones. I can envision every synagogue and masque in the nation being blown sky high. Opps sorry, I’m not allowed to say that. But a few little drones and the Rothschilds’ mansions in Europe, come on. Don’t say you haven’t thought about it.
Oprah had as her guest one day this past week, a woman who had escaped from prison. She told this White woman that is was very unusual for someone White like her to end up with a long prison sentence simply for possessing a few drugs. She lectured her as only someone as brilliant as Oprah can. “didn’t you end up in jail because of your choices, because of your actions”.
Two seconds later she said that all of these non-whites end up in prison because they are not White like her. It was an Oprah moment. Only blacks can behave like the Queen of Sheba with all the wisdom of Solomon and be as dumb as Oprah.
The fact is you can’t “give” anyone freedom. Freedom must be earned with force and violence and then you have to stay strong to keep your freedom.
For instance, if the leaders of China freed Hong Kong to be independent and then later on another group came to power in China and they said no, we don’t want Hong Kong to be independent and then they once again took away that freedom and Hong Kong would once again be a part of China. Which shows you have to fight and win freedom.
No non-White in America has won their freedom. They have only the freedom the White man says they have and Whites defend their freedoms. So we have only to figure out how to get rid of the jew and the rest are just a matter of logistics.
“I am arguing that it is the White South’s historical experience that provides postmodern racial politics with a legitimate starting point”
The Southern (and South African) experience should tell us that White people ultimately need reasons to make exceptions to universal rules. It may take a long time but eventually the desire will outweigh the resistance.
Why were Southerners and South Africans able to make that exception?
Experience.
What is experience?
Empirical evidence aka unconscious science.
The eventual long-term solution, if we survive, is a scientific understanding of race as an expression of biology which clearly shows diversity kills. By all means go off and save Africans in Africa if you want to but don’t bring them here.
yes, in this sense, Southerners and Afrikaners are poor exceptional “brosephs” who have had to bite hard on forced dispossession due to outside pressures, all the while knowing that the truth is that race does count.
I once knew an Afrikaner filmmaker who was intrigued by the similarities in the two cultures. She had come to the US to get away from the nightmare that South Africa has become and we talked at some length. In high school she had gotten caught up in the wave of freeing Mandela and empowering the blacks but had matured to realize that things had not worked out so well. She was afterwards disgusted with Mandela and said that, in reality, he was a crass demagogue.
The point that we really connected on was that things are different when you actually live in a culture where there are large interracial group dynamics. People from the outside don’t tend to understand this.
So, yes, as you were saying, it is real experience that gives one this fundamental perspective.
Maybe the real thing we must fight against is abstraction.
Here is an article that suggests Lincoln was closer to a nationalist position than Robert E. Lee. Lee wanted to free the slaves and arm them.
A MORAL ACCOUNTING OF THE UNION AND THE CONFEDERACY.
“Maybe the real thing we must fight against is abstraction.”
And if we can’t, if it’s too entwined in our nature – or too many of our natures – then the abstract must be solidified into science.
(And a lot of it already is e.g Putnam. It’s just the small question of overturning the present tyranny and replacing it’s genocidal idealogy with a survivalist one.)
Hello Pax Europa,
No one has answered your question and I think it’s an important point to make. As a young man in the 1970s I looked back at the events I saw happen in the South in the 50s and 60s and wondered why Whites put up such a feeble resistance to forced integration. I concluded that they had been won over by a century of propaganda about what constitutes patriotism. Their initial reaction was rebellion but they had absorbed the sort of faux patriotism that their ancestors had fought against. You see this today where Southerners have become the biggest faux patriots in the land. For Southerners it’s their evolution as a conquered people. Don’t ask me what inspired Northerners to fight the Civil War. Their having become accustomed to the mentality of a wage-slavery society, perhaps? I suppose it was another form of being conquered.
By the way, Eisenhower was born in Texas but his father was Pennsylvania German, his mother Virgina German, and the family only lived in Texas for two years. He grew up in Kansas, where the family considered home. IOW he wasn’t a Southerner.
Which isn’t to say that there haven’t been trashy Southerners. Lyndon Johnson springs to mind.
The “notorious” three-fifths compromise did not mean blacks were considered three-fifths of a person. The Southern delegates wanted to count them fully, the New England delegates not at all. If the Northern section had its way, whould that mean they believed blacks didn’t exist? Rubbish. The compromise meant the total slave population would be counted and three-fifths of that number would be used towards representation and taxation. The Common Law considered them fully human. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Look, you’re splitting hairs here on semantics and missing the forest for the trees. The only point I was trying to establish is that the discussion about a Negro’s representative value being gaged at a 3/5 fraction (whether its in regard to the inherited stereotype version of 3/5 of a person or a percentage taken after all persons are counted) involved a parlay between North and South trying to establish a balance of power between the sections at a time when comity ruled (rather than egocentric sectionalism) and not a perverse comment on his “sub”-humanity. So, again, radically rearranging or destroying these early balance points without putting in place legitimate substitutes had the immediate effect of destroying the political power of the South and ensuring Northern hegemony and its domination of the Federal mechanism.
As for Lincolns’ plan of manumission followed by repatriation, it was not a “pipe dream”. It would take a tyrant to carry it out rather than a democracy, and Lincoln fit the bill. As a victorious president he was the only one with the prestige and power to do it, had he lived. My great-great grandfather was killed in the war by Lincolns troops, and a great-great uncle, Robert Lee, murdered by Kansas Jayhawkers and Missouri Red-Legs. Yet if Lincoln had carried out his plan I would join his cult and say the war, however illegal, was just. It was Jeffersons’ plan, after all.
I agree with you. Lincoln would probably be regarded much more favorably if he had deported or at least tried to deport the slaves. The question, I suppose, is what did he really believe-all of his emancipation rhetoric or the deportation plan that some have ascribed to him?
Yeah. And who was going to pay for this? And who was going to go and round them up? An army that had just killed off the entire structure that had kept the black population in line? On the coattails of a rhetoric that had fully embraced notions that promoted the egalitarian amalgamation doctrines of tooty-fruity utopians from all-white communities weakened by city rot? Huh? Is it Lincoln’s progeny who are going to fix the Mexican invasion problem for us?
I think not.
What you fail to understand is that in preserving a Union by destroying the constituent components of the Union, you don’t preserve the Union. You simply transform the government from one based on Compromise into one based on Force. This is why we still talk about the significance of the Civil War on the Constitution today. It’s because the idea of the “consent of the governed” still counts with all of us.
Calhoun argued that it wasn’t a government of one, the few, or the many that mattered but whether or not it was constitutional or absolute. We could develop a constitutional monarchy that could be much more efficient than the sad state of affairs that we see today. But it won’t be Lincoln’s model that we use.
If miscegeanation between slave holders and black women is a myth, how do you explain that something like 36% of American blacks have white genes? You don’t want to get into it, which is an odd thing to say when you’re writing a piece about the era. As for the Abolition Movement, it was immoral and typical Yankee Puritan hypocrisy. Just a coincidence that there was no New England Abolitionist Movement when New England was packing slaves into their ships like sardines and making a huge profit from it? The Abolitionists were bank-rolled by the same people who made that fortune.
Uh, well, because lots of white people in general chose to go that route. There’s nothing that I’m trying to avoid here. It’s just I hear about this myth a lot. I don’t like it because it is not founded on any substantial understanding of reality. It’s also readily used to nullify important patriot voices like Thomas Jefferson.
I think you’re largely right about the hypocrisy of the Abolition movement.
4,000,000 people would have been a lot to deport…
Justin: Lincoln discussed his plan of repatriation with Gen. Butler about 4 days before his assassination. His first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation included colonization. I think he would have in his third or fourth term.
Comity destroyed itself. The Kansas- Nebraska act, the fatal blow, was only possible because Northern and Southern politicians agreed to it. The miscegenation issue is important. It was the main source of hostility for the planter class from the states of the North West. Should we really praise a system that enriched a small elite that left the majority of whites in a state of penury? Remember the term “redneck” was coined by them. To create a homogenous nation, the destruction of planter culture, the death of the republic, the tyranny of a despot, the slaughter of 620,000 men, all a fair price to pay to lift the curse. The logistics were in place and the rest could be created. It only needed a ruthless tyrant to open the purse strings . Lincoln was the man.
I’m sorry to continue the argument scramble but I enjoy it and it is a healthy debate. I feel it is important to emphasize the following points because I feel that your perspective is grounded in a general prejudice that I often see ranging from Northerners on the right all the way to the left.
This is the reason the western lands debate destroyed comity (from the “firebell in the night” letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes in April of 1820):
“I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a firebell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way.
The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a state. This certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the Constitution has taken from them and given to the general government.
Could Congress, for example, say that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state?
I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.”
Also, this elite dichotomy between the planter class and the majority of whites is also a straw man and I’m generally surprised that people from any kind of conceivable philosophic right would dare employ it. It usually hits from the Marxist Left. If you took a cross section of state legislatures in Southern states at the time of the War, you would see a predominance from the yeoman class. The planters certainly exerted a powerful influence but they were flanked by a large class of small landowners who in many ways saw themselves as aspiring “country gentlemen,” even if they only had 1-2 acres to boast of. There wasn’t any real class warfare in the sense that you suggest. The enormous country lawyer output of 20th century small Southern town culture is a testament to this innate unity.
So, your rhetoric is a little confusing. “A ruthless tyrant to open the purse strings” is not exactly my idea of a political leader worth emulating. I may have you wrong here but are you really saying that these awful prices were actually directed toward the goal of an “homogenous nation?” I’m sorry but this is delusive thought, though I respect you for defending your position(and you certainly are entitled to it). We can clearly trace the lines of our current problems over “diversity” and its Leviathan guard dog to the naive, foolish, and utterly criminal actions of the Lincoln administration and the radical regime that followed in its wake. It is the not the only cause and may seem a remote one from today’s perspective. But hindsight indeed has given us nothing if not a fuller indictment.
I think there was an ensuing period of comity between North and South in the last quarter of the 19th century through perhaps WW 1. But after that we see a resumption of the same sorts of exploitative incursions mixing and confusing racial issues with sectional economic competitiveness.
Despite Jefferson’s alarm it wasn’t the Missiori Compromise that lead to the war. Monroe believed it had ended the slave question, which it did until the Kansas-Nebraska Act undermined it. The slave economy had already reached its geographic apex. Delusional Southern politicians gave up the trans-continental railroad for a chimera. Expansion of slavery into the territories was a non-issue. All that blood for an abstact “principle”.
As for the “Plain White Southern Folk”, I cite not Marx but Hinton Rowan Helper. African slavery was clearly hurting them just as Mexican wage slavery is today. Fear of a class war{ unfounded, as it turned out] by the planter minority was very real . Tribe trumphs class every time to the consternation of Marxists. The yeoman class, my g-g grandfather was one, was also a small minority. ” Aspiring Genleman” that is aspiring to be large plantation owners. As such their function was to provide an Amen Pew for the planters. No matter what goals the factions supporting Lincoln were after, that of Lincoln was to remove the African from the U.S. Only a tyrant could club the factions into conformity. I would rather live in a homogenous dictatorship than a mongrel republic. As Sen. Bilbo stated, a republic can be resurrected, a corrupted blood-line never can be.
Well, sorry, but it didn’t even come close to happening like that which leads me to question the wisdom of asserting that that was ever the “master plan,” even had I not studied it. I never gave much credence to Helper. His writings were often viewed as more sensational than accurate and objective. The South as a whole rejected him as a Southerner who had betrayed his region. And there was never a significant wedge driven between these two classes in the South until the blacks were shoved into the mix by the action of the post war amendments which also created very hostile feelings between the races. Then the rich people could get away with their money but it was the poor whites who were left competing economically with a class that had hitherto been bonded and was used to accepting low work rates(just like now trying to compete as an electrician with a Mexican who’s used to getting @2/hr in his own country).
Helper’s influence was mischievous and utopian and he was useful in the end to Northerners who sought destruction rather than positive solutions to a dilemma for which both sections were responsible. He contributed to an hysterical representation of the Southern planters. I would encourage you to underscore your endorsement of his theories with Frank Owsley’s “Plain Folk of the Old South” as well as the general perspective that emerges from Walter Lynwood Fleming’s exhaustive treatment.
Lincoln became the head of the Black Republican party which was spearheaded by the radical elements behind Garrison, Sumner and Stevens. It wasn’t just a part of the coalition. No matter what Lincoln thought he was doing his actions have facilitated the multicultural apostasy. The men back of him were more interested in the egalitarian components of abolition and in emphasizing the scurrilous nature of the slaveholders in the South (thereby justifying the gross and unnecessary shedding of blood), rather than in finding reasonable and high-minded modes of effecting expatriation. As far as I can see, the other parts were more boldly interested in just destroying their Southern rival. I mean, they couldn’t afford to let the South control the mouth of the Mississippi nor get away with a tariff that was over 30% less than that of the incumbent administration.
And Jefferson had been correct that identifying political issues with geographical lines would result in the death of the Union. Kansas-Nebraska was just a continuation of an unfortunate precedent that began with the Missouri Compromise.
“All that blood for an abstract principle” -Which principle would that be? Seems like the “preservation of the union” or “freeing the slaves” was a lot more abstract than “Hey, there’s a Yankee in my backyard! He’s come to burn my house and kill my family. Let’s stop him!”
Today Helper would be viewed as a white separatist or nationalist. His animosity for the planters is the same we have for the internationalist corporate elite. They were more concerned with profits than the welfare of their race and tried to mask their actions with altruistic platitudes. His charges, backed with statistics, was never answered with reason only outraged posturing { sound familiar? }. Helper’s book was used as a useful club by Northern Senators who could care less about working class Southern whites or slaves for that matter. None of this bears on the veracity of his charges. For a rational examination of Helper’s book, see Time on the Cross by Engerman & Fogel.
No, I don’t think so. He was a marginal character who was ultimately useful for the resentment that his writing created in the Northern population toward the Southern planters. His angry rhetoric simply beat the war drum for the opposing team. Pollard quotes him early on as one of the leading causes of resentment towards the South in the northern press. While interesting for the perspective that he provided, the statistics that he marshaled were not groundbreaking revelations. Everyone knew that a small percentage of the Southern planters were superrich. What the South represented, though, was much larger than what Helper’s critique could contain. It was a multifaceted racially conscious civilization that was based on older European traditional structures.
And it is not the same situation. Southern planter does not equal international corporate globalist. There is a general resentment toward all “elites” today but this identification is a gross misconception. The Southerners were a part of an agrarian feudalism that involved deeply intertwined loyalties and allegiances that were always connected to the land that they lived on. There was a complex “pietas” that emerged from a traditional culture that maintained a legitimate hierarchy. Were there corrupt and selfish planters? Of course. But the larger picture is more important, not radical fringe cases. And many millions of white people in the South gave their wholehearted allegiance to the Davises, the Lees, and the Toombs et al. And they weren’t jetsetting around on a Wall Street allowance investing in foreign sweat shops to fatten corporate profits at the expense of the middle American working class.
Helper was criticizing the South on a Northern model of economic growth and industrial expansion. This is not the type of yardstick that should’ve been applied to the southern economy. His critique was utopian in that it based concepts of “progress” on certain newer Northern models. But you don’t grow money on a farm, you grow corn, as Andrew Lytle used to emphasize. Pitting the planters (who were making lots of money) against the small farmers and landowners of the South who weren’t that interested in money at all, discounts the stable and disinterested function of an Agrarian culture that derived its sustenance directly from the ground and not from the store culture of the rat race. This is what was destroyed in the War, above and beyond everything else.
Having said that, I appreciate your perspective. I can tell that you’ve thought about these things a lot. I always enjoy debating American history with anyone.
The Missiori Compromise was a compromise wasn’t it? The last act of the great compromisers Calhoun, Webster and Clay? Most believed as Monroe did that it had ended the slave controversy, which it did for over three decades. Slavery had reached its geographical limits. Southern politicians too thick to realize this gave up the transcontinental railroad in exchange for the repeal of the Missiori Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This instantly brought back the slavery issue, created the Republican Party and all the inflamatory debates about the constitutionality of “popular sovereignty”. There were 17 slaves in Kansas-Nebraska when the war broke out. All that blood for an abstract principle
The Missouri Compromise initiated an unfortunate precedent, as Jefferson understood, of aligning territorial lines with political issues. It was not the last act of the great compromisers. In fact, it arguably was the catalyst that called them into action for the ensuing 30 years after its passage. The transcontinental railroad and the Kansas-Nebraska Act resuscitated sectional conflict over the Western lands that was not, at root, an argument over an abstract principle. It was a quarrel over maintaining a balance of power between the regions. The Southerners were not that interested in a race to the pacific except in the sense that the Northern drive could result in a colonization process that could effectively reduce the South to a permanent minority that would be at the mercy of Northern policy indefinitely. When they realized that they were going to lose that game and that very disturbing radical elements were gaining the helm in the North, they withdrew to secure their interests. Considering what happened and what continues to happen in regard to race issues, I don’t think it is ridiculous to say that they thoughtlessly threw it all away. They were acting in self-defense.
Lincoln was not an egalitarian nor a Radical Republican. His ideaology was that of the Free Soilers, leave slavery alone were it existed but don’t bring your Africans and mullato spawn around here. Most of the Radicals were not egalitarians either as they demonstrated after the war with their black codes. As Pollard stated, there was only a few thousand of persons of ” disordered conscience”. By destroying the old republic one could argue Lincoln paved the way for the Federal bayonets of the 1960s, yet the same Levithan could have been used to repatriate the slaves. From the corpus of Lincoln’s writings, public & private statements, this is what he intended to do, and with 900,000 armed men at his back, who could have stopped him? Manumision & Repatriation would have made all the bloodshed and tyranny worth it, wouldn’t you agree? I’m proud of my Confederate forefathers who fought and died in that war, only the removal of The African Shadow would have justified their deaths. The image of the Southern planter drinking his mint julep, viewing his slaves and progeny working the fields from the shade of his porch, sparks no rommantic feelings or racial pride in my heart, only bitter regret.
Regardless of these points, Lincoln and his company of Black Republicans have become the poster children for the egalitarian beast with which we are currently contending. They may not have realized how their rhetoric could be recycled over time but that just means that they didn’t think deeply enough to first principles.
With the Southern planter class destroyed, any peaceful resolution of repatriating the slave population was hopelessly lost. No 900,000 man army was going to be pushed to drive the African from these shores. That would’ve gone completely against the spirit of the post war amendments and the stated aims of the Reconstruction.
This is reality: The Northern army empowered the blacks at the expense of removing the Southern whites from positions of influence.
And think about this. Why would a government that had refused the Red man citizenship for at least a generation (despite his rather intelligent petitions) all of a sudden be willing to elevate a population that had never once shown organizational ability above the Confederates, who were the only unhypocritical racially conscious whites on the continent? The answer is revenge, my friend. Brothers can be more awful to one another than distant aliens.
No one gets to drink mint juleps these days, at least with a clean conscience.
Not only Lincoln but Jefferson as well, and they can do this only by resorting to Orwellian big lies. Anyone who visits Jefferson’s Memorial will note he said ” it is certain these people are to be free”. Yet where is the next line ” nor is it less certain that once free they can not live in the same government” ? Lincoln gets the same treatment. How far apart Lincoln was from the Black Republicans is demonsrated by what they did to Johnson. Lincoln’s plan of Reconstruction included repatriation, the generals would have done whatever he directed them to do. Tyranical measures were needed against opposition in the North and South, the planters wouldn’t give up their cotton pickers without coersion, would they? Egalitarians can distort anything. Now we have Southern Nationalists like the Kennedy brothers jumping on the racial nihilist bandwagon ” Look here, we Southrons were blessed with inter-racial sex and African culture while you Yankees were a bunch of racist swine”. I once attended a SCV meeting where the speaker’s theme was” Southern culture is African culture”. If we try to romanticize the Southern antebellum planters it will blow up in our faces. The only unhypocritical racially conscious whites were those that belonged to the African Colonization Society. Anything less than repatriation and we would still be in the predicament we’re in now. Booth destroyed our last best chance, no matter what egalitarian fiction writers would have you believe.
Again, I understand your perspective. I think the difference that we have in opinion is about the best method of realizing a dynamic white racial consciousness in our country today and what historic legacies are of value in showing the way. My point is essentially that the historic experience of the South conveys the important reality that race counts. Her truest defenders never denied it and fought honestly for our preeminence. After all, whites designed this country. Southerners who refuse to accept this today or try to anesthetize race out of the equation are dishonest scalawags trying to curry favor with the establishment, in my opinion.
The problematic situation that Lincoln inadvertently created was that by destroying the limitations that the Constitution imposed (he simply did not have the legal authority to make war upon the States) he paved the way for others of a more malevolent nature who were able to pervert the mechanism against whites and the founding generation in the name of equality and human rights. This is what Calhoun understood. Constitutional government is often slow and seemingly cumbersome but it also prevents radical elements from having their misguided way. But it failed because the states were not allowed to practice and set the precedent of nullification in the ideal way that Calhoun had instructed on the basis of Jefferson’s theory of interposition. And now we see the fruits all around us. We do not control our government and every day it seems that we are further from securing our place as a distinctive people. It wasn’t Booth’s fault that things are as they are. Lincoln did not have to aggressively make war and get @700,000 Northerners and Southerners killed. Tyranny is bad from any perspective and initiates a horrible precedent.
The obnoxious atheist Richard Dawkins made the point ” Philosophy and the subjects known as humanities are still taught almost as if Darwin had never lived.” I would add Mendel as well. Whenever two or more races are present in the same territory, they will either cross-breed or separate and reform boundaries. Calhoun’s political theories can not change this fact . Nor will any doctrine that assigns us to our proper place, it will only delay the inevitible. Say the seven states had been allowed to go, they and the slave holding Union states would still have the same problem today, perhaps even mutiplied since these planters wanted to expand into Mexico and Cuba and reopen the slave trade. Is that something racially conscious whites would advocate?
Well, you know, we will always have to live around other types of people in this world, at least for the foreseeable future. A philosophy that at least takes into account the reality of race is much better than one that asserts wrongly that race is not a legitimate category, which is what our establishment continues to endorse. We can speculate forever about what would’ve happened had the South achieved its independence. One thing is certain. The South knew that race counted.
And that’s really the main point that I am trying to make.
Jefferson had it right, ” we have the wolf by the ears, we can neither hold him nor safely let him go “. The problem with Calhoun and other antebellum slavery defenders was they thought they could hold on to his ears forever. Even Pollard, usually the epitome of reason, begins to rhapsodize about the fine civilization Africans provided. Lincoln, on the other hand, sounds just like Jefferson the race realist. His goal, as he stated time and again, was a homogenous white nation. That of Calhoun, the more Africans the better.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I continue to be an admirer of Abraham Lincoln. You have to look after his presidency for the causes of the disaster that has befallen America.
Lincoln’s argument about the impact of slave labor on the price of free White labor is as valid today as when he made it. Then it was Negro labor, now it’s Hispanic labor, again without legal rights which is why it’s so cheap for employers, and again with devastating demographic externalities.
What Lincoln did was identify the problem with the worst long term implications for his (White) nation, that was Negro slavery and its extension into new territories, and identify the aspect of that problem that was most relevant to and least popular with the greatest number of voters, and win the Presidency with intent not to let that problem get any worse.
There is a gulf between Abraham Lincoln on the one hand and Bill Clinton gloating about Whites going into a minority or George W. Bush and John McCain colluding with Edward Kennedy to open the legal floodgates for a Mexican demographic takeover.
I love it. This party just goes on and on.
It is wrong to identify Lincoln with Jefferson. They are not in the same category at all. In fact, it was Lincoln himself who first abused Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence rhetoric and reframed it in the context of his Emancipation Proclamation, emphasizing the equality of all men, thereby attempting to turn the blacks loose in the South or at least get them rioting which would divide the South even more between the fighting front and their domestic tranquility. And he did this so that after the war he could then turn around and save the day with his big army of mercenaries who weren’t that enthusiastic or passionate about the war to begin with???
Yeah, right. The North itself has always manifested a confused position about race because it was largely a problem that they had only heard about. All the problems that we have today with the egalitarian regime stem from this incoherent understanding and ill-informed top-down easy fix solution mentality. Lincoln himself made the war into a crusade to free the slaves. There is nothing in his wartime rhetoric about expulsion. The cause became “freedom.” Your position is of a fringe stripe.
Lincoln is guilty of the same types of recycled egalitarian representations that he himself became a victim of. Your boy is just not up to the task.
At the very least, the man was a naive simpleton who was a stubborn fighter and who had fortunate access to immense resources and wealth to finance a ridiculously costly war. At the worst he was disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, fully cognizant of the game he was playing, careless about future consequences, and deadset on winning the war at any cost, even if it be the sacrifice of the principles upon which the country had been founded. Which indeed, it was.
Jefferson stood for a republic of self-reliant farmers who held the general government in check through state interposition. He knew that any civilization that was going to last had to have the great majority of the people attached to the land and working it for their own sustenance. The great body of people in the South and West were small landowners and farmers. Slavery existed. Yes. And Southerners had looked seriously at the possibility of repatriation, realized how ridiculous it would be in the short term, and thus maintained the order in their civilization with a philosophy that incorporated racial differences and emphasized the predominance of privileged citizenship. The local intelligence understood the intricacies of the problem much better than those thousands of miles away. It was outside agitation that destroyed the region not internal corruption, just like in South Africa. Slaves entering the region had been drastically reduced over time. And this trend would only have improved the South’s chances at meeting the modern world on its terms as an independent commonwealth.
If you go into third world countries today, you will still see hierarchic structures at work between the natives and the europeans that have money. Nothing has changed. We just have different names for it. We live in a massive hypocrisy.
Lincoln made war upon the agrarian conservative anchor of the republic at the behest of aggressive Northern manufacturing and mercantile interests and his own naive understanding of the racial problem. The destruction of our commonwealth is on their heads and those of us who know the Truth, will continue to emphasize the indictment. Things simply will not improve otherwise. Right always has the duty to protest the Fact if it is based on a lie.
You are speculating abstractions into Lincoln’s imaginary third and fourth term that he supposedly relayed to an overweight slob of a soldier who was known as a pariah to the South? After all that blood shed and the white ruling class knocked out, you assume that the North was going to inhale the massive expense of rounding @ 4,000,000 of these people up, who didn’t want to go anyhow, plopping them down somewhere in Africa with what??? to get started with, then trying to rebuild the Southern economy with no adequate labor substitute in the immediate short term.
Again, I think not.
In regard to the race problem Jefferson & Lincoln were identical, manumission followed by repatriation. Unlike Calhoun and other slave promoters, Jefferson knew that the African Shadow was a mortal threat, and if we did not find a way to get rid of it the nation was doomed. Lincoln knew it as well. ” Nothing in his wartime rhetoric about expulsion” The Emancipation Proclamation contains ” the effort to colonize Africans will continue”. And we have his words to the first black delegates that the presence of Africans was a bane on the white man and they should urge their fellows to leave. The modern acolytes of the Lincoln Cult would have us believe that between 1862 to 65 he suddenly morphed from a white separatist to a racial nihilist and therefore Butler had to be lying, not from any evidence but simply because they wish it so. What Beast Butler reported was in line with everything Lincoln had been saying for years.
Southerners that considered repatriation ridiculous, meaning it was ridiculous to think they would give up their profits or “fine civilization” based on living with blacks. The blending of the races was proceeding without any outside agitation, it was only a matter of time before the American slaveholder mirrored his South American analogue. No artificial construct will prevent this, only slow it down a bit. Arthur Kemp, March of the Titans author, covers this basic fact in his book The Lie of Apartheid. The logistics of repatriation were possible, as Lincoln said, ” Where there is a will, there is a way.” All those ships with nothing to do anymore.
No. The process of bringing Africans to the North American continent had been going on for several hundred years. Sudden changes in moral conscience could not reverse the mechanism over night. Aside from the all-consuming nefarious profit motive you attribute to the planters’ intransigence, they did have legitimate self interests to think about, families to defend and a certain civilized order that was obviously threatened by radical dissolution. They were indeed human beings, not monsters. Many of them were highly respectable leaders as well as able and brave soldiers who fought hard for no money and even less glory. And they had to swallow the hard pill of absolute anarchy and chaos after the war was over.
They had looked hard at the prospect of repatriation in the generation after Jefferson, in some ways, on the basis of his advice, and had found that it simply was not realistic. They knew that their world was not the best possible one but they did not see a sane and civil solution at that time. So, they continued to hold the Wolf.
From the other direction, you are assuming the inherent selfless humanitarianism and bottomless pockets of whatever group was going to undertake this massive project. I find that a lot harder to believe in. It was going to take a lot more than just a will. And all those “empty” boats already had new projects to fill Ebenezer’s coffers. Such is the way of capitalism. Never a spare moment, never a spare dollar.
No amount of “potential” or “theoretical” colonization that never ended up coming off anyway was worth the deaths of 700,000 whites and the destruction of the proper functioning of the federal mechanism to this very day. That minimal gesture that you quoted from the Emancipation Proclamation was completely overpowered by Lincoln’s conscious embrace of the mantle of the “Great Emancipator,” and was probably a shill tossed to that corner of his constituency. Lincoln aimed high and he took on a mythic archetype, just not the one you suggest. If he was as you say, then his rhetoric was dishonest and confusing, especially to the blacks. You can’t “give” freedom to anyone.
The truth is that Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth. The reason that historians like McPherson and Foner are able to idolize him in the way that they do is because he adopted the very same rhetoric that you yourself eschew.
While he and Jefferson may have had a similar sentiments in regard to the idea of a future release and return of the Africans to their native continent, their envisioned ways of realizing such a prospect were radically different. And this difference makes all of the difference.
I personally think that it is healthy in some measure to live around different types of people or at least to explore the world and really see for oneself. It’s the only way that one understands how race really does exist. There are no books or learned academics that can substitute what any man with common sense can see in a world of different types interacting. The problems that we have had in the West from this issue largely come from the abstractions of white populations who have no contact with the rest of the world.
What is more important than anything is our philosophy.
” Emancipation had constituted no part of the policy of the President at the time of his inauguration, and when finally decreed he connected he connected with it, as an essential and indispensable part of his policy, a plan of deportation of the colored population… from a conviction that the white and black races could not abide together on terms of social and political equality, he thought they could not peaceably occupy the same territory.” Sec. of the Navy Gideon Welles ” Lincoln wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy.” Congressman George W. Julian ” Lincoln would have made still more heroic efforts at colonization had he completed his second term.” Henry C. Whitney, Lincoln’s old friend from Illinois. It is McPherson and Foner that deny what Lincoln was, a white separatist. They do the same to Jefferson, ignoring the corpus of their statements for a few overblown democratic homages. The fact is, tyrants get things done while democracies talk endlessly. Repatriation needed someone with an iron will to carry it out, like Jackson’s removal of the Indians. If a cabal of evil little spiders like Thaddeus Stevens could get the military to carry out unconstitutional measures for over ten years, what makes you think they wouln’t obey Lincoln, who after the war was a demigod in their minds? Lincoln as military tyrant had power that Jefferson the republican did not. The former slaves and immigrant labor could have been used to build the infrastructure used for the transportation, as well as more ships to be built to hasten the project. Great big government contracts for the Gilded Age. It was possible, and would have made all the deaths{my family included} worth it.
Well, buddy, it still never came off. Air castles, I say, created to comfort the conscience of a massive war criminal who had no idea about the size of the fire he had started. They hadn’t even begun to logistically realize such a hopeless proposition. And now, instead of being in a position of authority, we are all desperately scrambling simply for the right to express ourselves. The destruction of the federal mechanism that was consequent of Lincoln’s War has put our cause so far down on the totem pole that it is true, as McPherson disgustingly gloats at the end of his infamous tirade, that “the bottom rung is on top.” What a horrific nightmare. That such a tome could possibly be worthy of a pulitzer prize and that such an individual stares down at all of us comfortably from his Princeton office.
You can gather whatever quotes or book references that you can find about woulda shoulda coulda, but it doesn’t change the fact that we have lost our preeminent position in the country that we founded and that your boy was a primary accessory to the crime.
Look how he’s being used right this very moment by Time Magazine:
http://grahamkislingbury.mvourtown.com/2011/04/14/the-true-cause-of-the-civil-war/
They’ve even composited a tear onto his face. I wonder if he is crying because of the way he allowed himself to be used or because of his complicity in the destruction of the republic. He did say that he knew, in the end, that history would not spare him. He’s certainly not shedding a tear for the reasons those hacks suggest. If Lincoln were alive today, I think he would resign and join the CSA immediately, along with all of the best of the Yankee generals.
As for me, on second thought, I think I will have a mint julep, or two, on my imaginary big porch. I’ll be toasting R.E. Lee till Kingdom Come. You’re welcome to join me. I might even forgive you for breaking ranks. Ha Ha.
May he be alive at the end of the world!
” Air castles, I say, to comfort the conscience of a massive war criminal” Not true. Lincoln was the chairman of the Illinois chapter of the American Colonization Society long before the war. My quotes are from primary sources who, unlike McPherson and company, knew Lincoln and were there. Speech on Dred Scott 1857 ” I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation” Bravo Mr. Lincoln! Absolutely true, in accord with the laws of nature. ” Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidently. The enterprise is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way, and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right and at the same time favorable to our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The chidren of Israel went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.” Put that in your pipe and smoke it, McPherson. How more plain can a man be? What racial loyalist wouldn’t stand by such a man? Because I’m a Southerner, I must reject Lincoln and embrace the likes of Confederate Vice President Stephens, who wanted to bring in more Africans and when the war was lost advocated amalgamation of the races? I think not. Lincoln was the one man who had the power in 1865 to sweep away all the party impediments, North & South, to enact repatriation. There is no reason to doubt he would have done exactly that, had he lived. The way to fight McPherson is to expose his lies, not parrot him in denial. Nor should we take Lincoln to the woodshed for his “racism” as Southern Nationals do. We antebellum Southerners were raised on mammies teats, you see.
I would join you on the porch, only I will drink Anglo-Saxon mead instead of the julep. My grandma was a Stratford Lee, her uncle is the Bob Lee you may have heard mentioned in The Outlaw Josey Wales, a cousin of the general. Yet we must admit, he seemed to lose his mind at Gettysburg and cost us the war.
The Time cover is indeed disgusting, Lincoln as Christ. It should be of Lincoln at the end of the war, his face lined and craged with the weight of 620,000 dead Americans, trying to dump his actions at the feet of God. Note the historian admits to slaves in the North, nothing new to Southerners, but says nothing about the New England slave trade. We knew this was coming with the 150 year mark. 600,000 slaves brought to the English colonies, 620,000 dead white men. It will never be enough for them. Deo Vindice
In 1860 there were three main positions on race 1] Jefferson- Lincoln : white separatism. The presence of Africans are a mortal threat, free them and remove them post haste. 2] Calhoun-Davis: white supremacy. Africans are essential to our way of life, the more the better. Expand the institution. 3] Grimke-Garrison: racial nihilism. The other two are not only impossible they are immoral. Free the African and blend the races. Positions 2&3 spuriously try to place Lincoln in category 3. Only position 1 would have prevented position 3 from being realized. Only a modified position 1, removal of whites from blacks, will save our gene pool. Position 2 would destroy us just as surely as position 3. A Confederate victory would have meant more blacks, more miscegenation in the long run. White supremacy survived another 100 years after the war, without expanding, doomed to ultimate failure. Separation,then and now, is the only way to survive.