In 1991 the USSR, beset with problems of debt, glasnost/perestroika, failure of national leadership, democratization, and out-of-control military spending, broke apart into 16 separate countries—some autonomous, others partially so. Notably, for the most part, this process occurred peacefully, that is, without the central ruling elite unleashing the might of its army against those regions, and without the terror/suicide bombing of the institutions of the then Soviet Union that we see today as a pretextual political statement in other parts of the world.
It was a significant transition made even more so by the fact that the citizens of the 16 regions achieved separation of their geographic areas, then formed governments, when they had never before participated in a fully operational democratic process at the national level. In other words, the citizens avoided what could have been, in an earlier time in history, a casus belli, by participating in an unprecedented civic event.
It was also unusual that the central state did not resort to force of arms to compel the 16 regions to remain within the united government. Why it did not do so is, as they say, “complicated.” But the simple overarching reason is that the citizens of the USSR who also composed the entire geography of the country’s 16 regions spoke clearly that they did not want to live and work together as part of, and be governed by, the same political entity.
They, the citizens, desired to be part and parcel of an area where they exercised their right of governance as they defined it to control their own land mass according to their own geopolitical expectations, be those based on culture, religion, race, ethnicity, language, or a combination of any of these.1 In order to utilize “might” to maintain a functioning central authority, the USSR would have found it necessary to make war against a sizeable population living within the boundaries of the entire country.
When comparing the dissolution of the USSR with that of the United States one hundred and fifty-seven years ago, one must ask why the North and the South could not have split apart, gone their separate ways, and become two distinct governing regions of one contiguous geographic mass? It would have been mutually beneficial—the South providing cotton and tobacco to the North, and the North maintaining its manufacturing infrastructure to weave cloth from the South’s cotton and to sell farming implements and other goods to the South.
The trading of slaves ended in North America in 1808, and the South would have transitioned its slave-based farming system in a few years (it was already on the decline) due to, among other reasons, political pressure from foreign trading partners. The threat of the imposition of a trade embargo by Great Britain, which had banned slavery in 1833, would have been very effective in this regard. In this deliberate and cautious manner, over 600,000 of the North and South’s best Western European-derived genetic stock of Whites would not have been leached into the mud of places like Appomattox and Gettysburg.
Moreover, this cautious approach would have obviated the devastation of the South’s infrastructure, circumvented the humiliation of Reconstruction and the resulting animus of the Southern people against the North (which continues to this day), and the starvation of countless numbers of Southern women and children and former slaves. The list of grievances is nearly endless to the modern-day Southerner who cannot find a history book to read not cleansed of historical truth by NEA “educators,” and who is subjected virtually every week to Leftist moralizing by the sight of Confederate statues being toppled or defaced.
But all of this debate is better left to Marxist academicians and revanchist Rebel flag bearers who like to spend their time measuring the volume of water that has flowed over the dam. It happened, and it is history.
Let us, however, as White Nationalists, Alt-Righters, or Dissident-Righters living and working in all parts of this land, not delude ourselves as to the primary cause of the American Civil War. The reason is instructive. It is important to our present cause that we understand the genesis of that war because it happened for one reason only.
This means that the current popular mantra voiced by some guilt-ridden Southerners that secession and the ensuing fratricide of the war, was all about the political notion of “States’ Rights” is a fiction. While it is true that the Declaration of Independence and the writings of Thomas Jefferson lend credibility to the idea that the bands of unity could be dissolved when the government becomes destructive to certain self-evident truths, like the “equality of all men,” it is not true that the seceding states obliged its people to the North’s version of “shock and awe” due to a romanticized ideal.
Countries do not wage war over an “ideal” unless the ideal is yoked to religion, culture, language, ethnicity, and a shared ground and a common history of its people. Wars were fought and are being maintained in the modern era for these same reasons. Such was the case of the North versus the South; such will always be the case.
It is true that Abraham Lincoln made florid speeches about “equality” and “freedom for all people” ad nauseam in the immediate walk-up to the war and afterward, but the published view of his low opinion of Blacks is too well known to be papered over by even the most ardent revisionist historian or of Hollywood motion pictures. Lincoln made several efforts to have Blacks peaceably emigrate to South America, Haiti, and to Caribbean colonies, and helped to finance the founding of the Liberian project on the African coast.2 He even tried to convince Congress to fund “compensated emancipation” in which slave owners would be paid for their slaves in return for their oath of loyalty to the U.S. This proposal also called for the colonization of the freed slaves in South America.
But it was Lincoln’s ardent desire and plan to keep two dissident parts of the U.S. yoked together. Lincoln was under attack by politicians and editorialist of all stripes, and in the heart of the war, he responded to New York Tribune editor Horace Greely’s criticism of his lack of direction by saying:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Black slaves, however, not only wanted to be free men (who can blame them), they wanted to exercise that freedom within the borders of the United States (who can blame them), not in South America, and certainly not in sub-Saharan Africa, where many of them came from. Growing up and working in the cotton fields of the South was constraining and hard but to have been shipped back to the jungles and savannahs of their origin, would have been a death sentence.
To the Southern plantation owner, however, the Black slave was his property. The farmer had bought the slave in exchange for U.S. dollars (usually paid to Northern slave market entrepreneurs). The farmer provided the slave with better housing than the former slave lived-in in Africa, food, healthcare, and in some cases, education (how do you think Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs learned to write and orate?). The farmer expected in return for his investment, that the property (the slave) work and produce a valuable commodity, which the farmer, in turn, could sell to the North and export to foreign countries.
Make no mistake about this; the slave was a farm tool or animal, if you like, just as a plow or a mule. Some ignorant farmers might neglect their plows or beat their mules, but if the farmer was prudent, he maintained the plow and kept the metal parts from rusting, just as he cared for the mule by feeding it and keeping it healthy so that it would have many years of productive service. Such was the relation between the slave and the owner.
This was not a system of forced employment as in a 1940s prison system where the laborers were kept busy busting rock for gravel. Laborers such as these were cheap and fungible, and so cruelly worked that they might drop dead where they stood. They were easily replaced by the next inmate imprisoned for “vagrancy” because they cost the state next-to-nothing. In the antebellum Southern system, the slave was capital—costly to purchase and expensive to maintain. The Southern slave could not be neglected just as a farmer’s tool could not be neglected and allowed to degenerate into disrepair.
During the four years of the Civil War the South lost its slave labor, and yet most of the agrarian economy made a comeback within a few years without the inhumanity of the slave system. The South would certainly have survived without slave labor if the North had allowed it to secede from the Union.
What so devastated the South was the loss in four years’ time of the value of its capital—this was even more devastating than the loss of its labor. Astoundingly, the dollar value of the South’s slaves in 1860 was approximately three billion dollars. As the total wealth of the U.S. at this time was about 16 billion dollars, this meant that the South’s slaves were worth about 19% of the nation’s economy.3 One can imagine what this loss did to the South when all this capital was wrenched from it virtually overnight. What began on April 12, 1861 had devastating long-term results to the South’s economy.
On March 16, 2013, the world’s attention was riveted by the Cyprus government’s attempted implementation of a policy of skimming off 10% of the savings accounts of Cyprus citizens held in banks. How “unfair” the citizens screamed, and the world, at least the world that was not a part of the European Union, agreed, especially the Russians who had vast wealth deposited in Cypriot banks. So what would be the reaction if the U.S. Federal government announced that it was going to immediately confiscate 10% of everything White people owned, money and property, to make reparations to Blacks for the South’s past sins of commission and omission?4
There would be no outcry about the violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers clause or some other unenumerated power reserved to the States. The argument would resound from the Atlantic to the Pacific about the sanctity of the ownership of private property. And so it was just before the outbreak of the Civil War. As the historian Larry Schweikart demonstrates, the South’s elected representatives spoke to the heart of the matter in the debates over the Compromise of 1850. Robert Toombs of Georgia exemplified the sentiment that it was only slavery and not a violation of state’s rights that was at the root of the Southerner’s resentment of the Federal government.
I stand upon the great general principle that the South has a right to equal participation in the territories of the United States [and to] enter them all with her property and securely enjoy it. 5
Toombs use of the word ‘property’ was not a euphemism. It was a fact—the property was the plantation owner’s slave.
At the same time, the Northern congressional representatives could make all the high-toned, pro-Constitution, abolitionist speeches they wanted, but it was the Northern newspapers who told the hard economic truth of the real cause against the South.
Let the South adopt the free-trade system [and the North’s] commerce must be reduced to less than half what it now is. 6
As the Northern newspapers recognized, if the South seceded, then it could establish commercial free trade that would massively divert foreign trade from the Northern ports to those in the South, such as the port in Charleston, South Carolina, which imposed lower tariff rates than the Northern ports.
We can safely say that grievances existed on both sides.
The average White Southerner may not have had the benefit of the education afforded to his Northern counterpart, but he was no fool, and it would have been the height of folly for him to risk his life, the well-being of his women and children and the loss of his property to merely prove a philosophical debating point about a “right” accorded to the individual states to secede from the Union. Such esoteric legal doctrines as “state’s rights,” “interposition,” and “nullification,” were foreign words to most Southern White people and meant nothing in their everyday lives.
But these doctrines did mean something to the lawyers of the South who prior to the outbreak of the War utilized these principles for all their worth in the service of their plantation owning clients. They railed in the Congress against the North’s efforts to circumvent the Fugitive Slave Act as being a clear affront to the authority of the Federal government. They attempted to use the power of the Federal government to prevent abolitionist newsletters from being delivered by the U.S. postal service. And, when the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that the state of Wisconsin pursuant to the doctrine of nullification could lawfully void the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, Southern Congressmen howled in protest at this illegal disregard of Federal authority.7
And when the Southern states formed the Confederacy, it was made clear in the Confederate Constitution that it was illegal for any of the states signatory to the document to enact any legislation “denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.” 8 (Italics mine). So much for the doctrine of “state’s rights” in this land of not-Lincoln.
On January 9, 1861, the Montgomery Advertiser jubilantly predicted Alabama’s secession and gave the reasons for this to happen.
A large majority of the members of our convention will not hesitate a moment to co-operate with South Carolina, Florida, and Mississippi in the formation of a Southern confederacy on the basis of the United States as construed in the Dred Scott case. The Union is already dissolved, and we will at once set about the work of preserving our liberties and honor by uniting with those gallant Southern States that are determined not to live under the free negro rule of Lincoln. 9
The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court in 1857 was an apparent victory for the slaveholding states in that it said, among other things, that no Black person, slave or free, could become a U.S. citizen. Northerners were shocked, since they expected a completely contrary result from the Supreme Court. But the South was elated and said the decision was necessary to preserve the Union. In an attempt to go around the ruling, Northern Democrats promulgated the idea that even if the expanded territories could not prohibit slavery, there would need to be local police regulations to accompany and protect the slaves and the owners. If the local jurisdictions did not want to pass such regulations, then slavery could not be supported. Obviously, this view enraged the South as it once again demonstrated the North’s attempt to flout federal authority.
When Georgia seceded, the fifth state to do so, a statement of secession was published on January 29, 1861, which enumerated the “causes” which “have led to the separation” from the Union. Several thousand words later, it is clear that there was only one cause—slavery. The document begins, “For the last ten years we have had numerous…causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.” The last paragraph lays it out explicitly by stating that, “Because of their [the Northern states] declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property [slaves] in the common territories of the Union…”. 10 (brackets mine).
The average Southerner, part of the 69% who didn’t own a slave and would never have the wealth necessary to buy a slave, chose to fight, not to protect the capital of the wealthy plantation owner (whose wealth he probably resented), but for one reason only—the prospect of hordes of Black people suddenly freed to roam at will on the Southern landscape.
One has to cast his mind’s eye back one and one-half centuries to a time when the average Southerner was not a plantation owner but rather a fairly well-off, small farmer, business owner, or professional person. 11 His only contact with a Black was perhaps walking by a shopkeeper’s porch sweeper or a cotton gin laborer. The Blacks were uneducated and behaved in a manner totally alien to the Southerner. He did not understand the Blacks’ language or their culture, which had been transplanted from their African homeland, and he had no desire to understand the ways of these—to him—odd-looking people. They were foreign and different from all the White people he had grown up with or wanted to associate with.
The average Southerner also attended church on a semi-regular basis. He was a Baptist usually but may have been a Methodist or a Presbyterian. 12 As he sat and listened to the pastor speak of the presence of freed Negroes walking among them, his fear grew precipitously. There were, so his pastor said, Northern abolitionist preachers of the firebrand variety who were coming to the South, holding tent revivals well attended by Negroes, where their minds were animated into a frenzy of the expectations of freedom. They were being inculcated with the ideas that they would have the right to demand wages not paid to them for all their years of toil in the hot sun as a slave. Further, they would have the right to vote for politicians who would promise them new laws that would impose heavy taxes on White men, the monies to be distributed to the Negroes.
But the darkest vision of all, as portrayed by the pastor, was that the freed Negro would have the right to “court” the Southerner’s daughters and sisters, and even marry them if the women should sink to such depravity because the anti-miscegenation laws would be repealed by the Negroes’ elected politicians.
It also occurred to the average Southerner that if the Federal government could intercede in the business affairs of the wealthy plantation owner and take his property, that is, slaves, from him without compensation, then the next day that same government could by force take his plow or his mule, and might even give the plow and the mule to the freed Negro so that he might have a fair and equal chance to earn a living—level the field, so to speak.
It was all too horrific for the average Southerner to contemplate. And that is why the average Southerner joined with the son of the plantation owner and both went off to fight and die. It was the looming specter of Blacks leaving the plantations and exercising their right to live in the White Southerners’ neighborhoods, attend their schools, and worship in their churches. If the average Southerner had heard of the political doctrines of interposition, nullification, or states’ rights, he might have cared about them and pondered the effect of such arcane theories on his ability to earn a living and care for his family. But in the main, he had not heard of them. He fought because of something more mundane, tangible, and cognizable to him—his Whiteness.
* * *
So we now must ask how all this is a portent for the White man today?
The USSR broke apart without the bloodletting of a civil war because the various peoples were naturally divided into geographic regions where they shared a commonality and the adhesiveness of culture, religion, language, or ethnicity. There is no simulacrum of this in the United States, a country where people of all colors, Whites and Blacks and Browns, share an uneasy coexistence at best, in the same state, county, city, and in some instances, in the same neighborhood. The U.S. is a country where Whites have been impractically attempting to secede from Blacks since the 1950s by selling their homes and buying a house in a newer, Whiter, area of their town. In some instances, the Whites have uprooted the entire family and moved to a different part of the state or to another state. This manner of secession is no longer viable as Blacks, and now Latinos, have become ubiquitous in the U.S.
Additionally, in the USSR there was no single racial, religious or ethnic group that was dependent on another group for their sustenance, even for their very survival. The people of Latvia were not dependent on tariffs on phosphate mining in Estonia. The Lithuanians were not heating and cooling their homes with power produced by the nuclear reactors in Armenia. There was simply no large wealth transference from one ethnic group to another that would cause the transferees to howl with displeasure at the thought of their impending loss of borsch or vodka.
In the U.S., however, there exists a very large sub-group who cannot and will not survive without being propped up by subsidized payments in the form of the many faces of welfare: Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 subsidized housing, the WIC program for women with infant children, HEAP emergency heating payments, the earned income tax credit, SNAP supplemental nutrition, TANF temporary food assistance, supplemental security income, AFDC for families with dependent children, free cell phones, subsidized daycare, affirmative action, set-aside programs, subsidized public transportation, and so forth. All these programs paid for, primarily by working White people, men and women, of the white and blue-collar variety.
And most recently, of course, we are saddled with mandated health insurance, the so-called Obamacare, that is too expensive for most self-employed individuals and for most small employers who have resorted to hiring more workers on a part-time basis in order to avoid the law’s mandated coverage for full-time employees.
But if one is unemployed there is still the old stand-by: the hospital emergency room where Blacks and Latinos, especially illegals, go for treatment on a regular basis. The hospital staff in every ER in this country share a name for these patients: frequent fliers. They come to the ER several times a week for every illness, real or imagined, sometimes traveling in an ambulance paid for by Medicaid. For the imagined aches and pains, the ER staff will administer a hypodermic of harmless saline solution in the butt, and the patient immediately feels relieved of their pain. The taxpayer picks up the costs for this because the Federal government mandates that a hospital cannot refuse treatment to any person for any reason.
At the time of its dissolution, the USSR had a large standing army trained to defend its borders and protect its people. What it did not have was a large standing police force ever ready to attack the populace.
The U.S. has created (thank you George W. Bush) the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the bombing of the twin towers, to combat terrorism. The DHS has morphed (thank you Janet Napolitano) into the largest and most secretive semi-autonomous security force in the world. It is armed with the latest personal defense weapons and is constantly emptying the inventory of ammunition manufacturers to increase its cache of bullets—for what? 13 Perhaps an invasion by the Al Qaeda National Army?
The DHS has armored troop carriers with bullet-proof tires to transport thousands of Kevlar-wrapped personnel who are ready, willing and happy to menace us like RoboCops. The DHS is monitoring our emails and phone calls, watching our movement with drones. Give them a half-ass excuse, and they will be searching your home without a warrant, as they did in Watertown, Massachusetts in April 2013.
This demonstration of force-of-arms is, in a very scary sense, a private army belonging to the people who are the recipients of the largess of the welfare wealth transfer programs. Don’t think for one second that the representatives of these people would hesitate to sic their dogs of the poverty war on you if you dared to resist your necessary contribution to the toxic dump.
You see, they have no choice; they cannot survive without you, without affirmative action and set-aside programs. They have no meaningful middle-class work (apart from jobs created by the federal government) to support themselves and their babies’ mommas and their drug habits, and their hip-hop trash music, and their ever-changing choice of the latest roundball sneakers. They own no personal property that they might barter for food. They own no real property that they might sell to raise cash in order to go grocery shopping. 14
We’ve all heard that some groups of people are “givers” and some are “takers.” But who are the takers and who are the givers? When we consider the taxes paid versus the consumption of government services of all kinds, those groups who are givers and those who are takers are clearly seen through the optics of race. White people per capita contribute by the payment of taxes an average of +$2,795 per year. That’s a net plus. On the other hand, Blacks and Hispanics per capita contribute <$17,314>. This means that Blacks and Hispanics take out of the economy $17, 314 more per capita than they put in with taxes paid. This, of course, creates a short fall that has to be made up by other people or corporations, the givers, who pay more taxes than they might otherwise owe because of the deficit generated by the takers. A stark way to word this is as a counterfactual: but for the presence of Blacks and Hispanics, the U.S. would have a budget surplus each year.15
All they have is you, and your toil, and your sweat, and your tax payments.
Might this dirty snowball rolling down the hill of our culture crushing our children, our homes, our creativity, our values. . . might it have been prevented? In June 1959 the executive editor of Look magazine offered MacKinlay Kantor, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Andersonville, a sizeable sum of money to write an alternative history story to be serialized in Look. The result was the hugely popular If the South Had Won the Civil War.
In the story, Kantor theorized, and quite a few historians agree, that if two events had been different in 1863, the South would have won the war. The events were the accidental death of Ulysses S. Grant during the battle of Vicksburg, and the other was a Confederate victory at Gettysburg.
But it was the second half of the story that is the most intriguing because it theorizes that the former U.S. is split into three separate countries: the United States, the Confederate States, and the Republic of Texas. Eventually, the Confederacy frees the slaves. Kantor concludes the story that the three governments after World War II realize that the people have more in common than was believed in 1861. Thus, in 1960 they reunite under one flag for their defense against a common enemy—the Soviet Union.
But Kantor can’t quite figure out what happened to the slaves as they attempt to integrate into mainstream society. On the one hand, he optimistically writes:
World War II only affirmed the speedy cohesion of Americans who breathed an identical atmosphere, were rooted to indigenous soil, laved by native rivers. Soldiers, sailors and airmen of all three countries—and black and white and red and brown, as well—assaulted the same beachheads rolled in the same fleets, flew on the same missions . . . . Exuberance deriving from a heritage more universal than their fathers would admit.
On the other hand, even Kantor’s Jewish partiality for the outsider does not obscure his knowledge of the inherent and perhaps irreconcilable problems that loomed in the future. He writes:
[The President of the Confederacy in 1885] seemed to assume that eventual difficulties would be minimized because emancipation had not been foisted upon a prostrate South in one fell swoop. But his hopes for a smooth and temperate transition could not be realized. Friction was recognizable immediately; it compounded through the years. The color question became, within a generation or two, the most painful disputation within the Nation.
So today, one hundred and fifty-seven years after the first secession, we talk again about secession, and we grind our teeth and seethe in silence at the thought of another day in this capitalist crapper that we live in while we cozily recline in front of our TVs believing that President Trump is going to build “the wall,” and somehow will save our lazy asses from the thundering Brown hordes. And yet, at the same moment, tens of thousands, of whining tardbots hit the streets on cue from George Soros, the Democrat Party, and wealthy Republicans to violently protest the merest baby step that ICE or Trump takes of safeguarding our borders from Mexico’s and Guatemala’s outpourings into our schools, our jobs, and our neighborhoods.
So, in this coast-to-coast milieu of perversion, of Black and Brown crime on Whitey, and of ever-increasing ululating Muslim enclaves just down the street, can we envision a somewhat peaceful breaking apart as did the USSR in 1991, or as in the Velvet Divorce of Slovakia and the Czech Republic in 1993, or as did Sweden and Norway a century ago, or as did the Jews in 1948? Can we not look to these actual historical events, not as curious factoids, but as exemplars, as blueprints perhaps, to stave off our own dissolution—of our people—White Europeans who once carved a civilization out of the forests and the deserts and the coastlands of North America and then put out a “welcome” mat—can’t we have a land of our own? 16
No, we cannot.
There is a difference, you see, between our desired peaceful ethnic secession and these named examples of countries falling apart by peaceable design or by political persuasion (as in the case of the creation of Israel). That difference is the same circumstance that prevailed in the U.S. 1861. That circumstance is the oxygen-sucking presence of unrelenting, swarming Third-World peoples living among us who are totally dependent on White people for their sustenance. That is what caused the first American Civil War.
That will be what causes the second. 17
- Magness and Page, Colonization After Emancipation (Univ. of Missouri Press, 2011)
- Larry Schweikart, 48 Liberal Lies About American History (The Penguin Group, New York, 2008) p.195
- Lucky for us that won’t happen here since we have a system where the U.S. government would just print more money.
- Schweikart, supra, p. 196
- Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D., The Politically Correct Guide to American History, (Regnery, 2004), p. 68
- Sam G. Dickson, Race and the South, Race and the American Prospect, ed. by Samuel Francis (The Occidental Press, 2006), pp. 206-207
- Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Art. II, Sections 2 and 3
- Schweikart, supra, p. 195
- The average net worth of a Black woman between the ages of 36 and 49 is only $5. On the other hand, a White woman in the same age group is worth $42,600. http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2010/03/09/Study-finds-median-wealth-for-single-black-women-at-5/stories/201003090163
- There are of course several arguments to be made about the precipitating factors existing at the time of the outbreak of the war. All of these cannot be dismissed as superficial disputations. However, to me the answer lies in asking this question: But for the presence of 4 million slaves on U.S. soil, was there a sufficient justification for the underlying hostility? If so, name it.