Before the month is over..


Before saying goodbye to Confederate History Month, I just wanted to add another post to remind my Southron readers of the need to remember and honor our heritage and our forefathers and kinsmen who were part of that tragic part of our history.

It’s easy to begin to think of our forebears in an abstract way, not thinking of them as distinct individuals with real stories, as flesh-and-blood people, our own kin.

So I personally like to remember my Confederate kinsmen by name and place, and by what I do know of their part in the War. I’ve done this in the past on the old blog, and so I will do the same once again.

Here are the kinsmen whose names and memory I would like to honor. This is by no means a complete list.

Benjamin Farrar Eddins
He was commanding officer of Co. F, 41st Alabama, captured at Murfreesboro, TN, and held prisoner of war until exchanged. He participated in the battle of Chickamauga. He left service to care for his family, but raised a unit to defend the city of Tuscaloosa in the last days of the war. During Coxton’s Raid,which resulted in the burning of the University of Alabama, he was mortally wounded on April 3, and died seven days later.

Zadoc Mitchell Holloway
Killed at Shiloh

Marion Lafayette Nobles
Co. K; 1 (Colquitt’s) Ark. Inf.; Pvt/Sgt
died 22 Jul 1864 – place unknown

Milton Franklin Nobles (Capt.)
Civil War Service in Company K; 1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment; CSA:

Leonard Valentine Nobles
Enl 14 Feb 1862 at Dewitt, AR. Captured 1 Sep 1864 near Jonesboro, GA and exchanged 19-22 Sep 1864 at Rough & Ready, GA. Paroled 28 May 1865 at Greensboro, NC as a member of the 1st AR Consolidated Inf.

William M. Aten
Served in the Confederate Army: 18th Regiment Louisiana Infantry C.S.A.,   Lafayette Parish LA

John Henry Mitchell II
Co. I, Martins Reg. Texas Cavalry, CSA Military Service 1861 Texas

Lewis Summerfield Scruggs

15th MS Infantry, promoted to Captain, Co. B, 17th MS Infantry,
Major, Featherstone Brigade, Army of Northern Virginia

Joseph Howell ‘Jobe’ Scruggs
Served Virginia Enlisted C Co. 44th Inf Reg. VA discharged on December 18, 1861

Samuel Gross Scruggs
Company B, Forty-fifth Tennessee Confederate Infantry

John Allen Barksdale
Died in battle in the CSA, Spottsylvania, VA, 8 Apr 1864

Miles A. Dillard, Lt. Col. – 9th Texas Infantry (Maxey’s)

Henry Lawson Wyatt, first Confederate soldier to be killed in battle

(Note: there is a monument featuring Henry Lawson Wyatt; will it be allowed to stand or pulled down by the PC thought police?)

Colonel James Read Branch – led ”Branch’s Battery” which was called one of the most effective artillery companies in the Army of Northern Virginia, General Ransom’s Division. Colonel Branch (then Captain Branch) was credited with heroic action in the Battle of Malvern Hill, when he, singlehandedly, with his two guns held twenty-four Union Army guns in check for an hour.
Later, in another battle he was severely wounded and his leg broken in three places,which left him permanently disabled.

America First

From Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech earlier today:

The direction I will outline today will also return us to a timeless principle. My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people, and American security, above all else. That will be the foundation of every decision that I will make.

America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.”

Who can argue with that? What he says here has been the burden of my song for the years that I’ve been blogging.

There are those who can and do disagree with the speech, particularly the part I’ve excerpted above. ‘America First.’ That’s hardly a new idea; it was a given during much of the history of this country, before we got too big for our britches, drunk on power, and took on the role of world policeman/Messiah.

But the chorus of invective from the media (and the anti-Trump faction wherever they are) finds the phrase ‘America First’ to be redolent of fascism, Hitler, and all manner of evil. Why, even Charles Lindbergh was known to have used the phrase. CNN claims he coined the phrase, though that seems doubtful.

Now that Lindbergh’s name has been brought up, we might look back at his life and career. When he made the first solo trans-Atlantic flight in 1927, he was instantly the darling of the country; popular songs were written and sung about him.

However Lindbergh fell afoul of the gods of political correctness (which were already demanding sacrifices back in the 1930s) and Lindbergh’s star fell; he was no longer honored as he had initially been.

But now Lindbergh, who seemed impregnable in the world’s eyes, was preaching a dangerous doctrine. The great hero had become a leader of the notorious anti-war America First movement and was urging his country to keep out of the fight against Hitler.

It was a stance that would eventually topple him from the plinth of greatness. His selfish arguments would convince many Americans – among them, powerful politicians – that the country had no place in a European conflict, even if it meant that Germany could march into Britain unhindered.

It was a view that alarmed and horrified many in Britain which was then standing alone against the threat of invasion by the Nazis. Winston Churchill, a friend of Lindbergh’s was furious when he learned of his isolationist speeches.

But there was another, ugly dimension to Lindbergh’s rhetoric that would disgust his many critics – anti-Semitism.”

It seemed that from that point on ‘America First’ began to be associated by some (deliberately) with sympathy for fascist regimes, and with “anti-Semitism.” Those, like Lindbergh, who held to a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy, were labeled ”isolationists”, as unpatriotic and backward. From then on the view of the world as a ‘global village’ began to take shape. We couldn’t sit out any of the wars; it was our duty as Americans, as the world’s exemplar and savior and policeman to involve ourselves in wars everywhere. We had to give the world the benefit of our superior ‘values’ and ideals. We had to be bringers of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ to the world’s doorstep, at any cost in lives and treasure.

Could Donald Trump succeed in undoing the decades of globalist, interventionist propaganda and return us to our former state of things, when we were ‘keepers at home’, looking out for our own household and backyard? There are no guarantees, but it’s almost a dead certainty that nobody else in our political world is prepared to do so, nor that a single one of them has any desire to do so. However I believe that the ‘America First’ idea represents the truer version of America, which goes back to our Founding Fathers, as evidenced by their own words.

What a concept: a country exists for the benefit of its citizens, whose interests and well-being it puts first.

I know it’s the thing to do, these days, to sneer at the Founding Fathers and at ”Murka” or whatever the current term of abuse for our country is. But can’t we, for a while, just stop being cynics about our country and history and people? I think we have no choice; we have to suspend our disbelief and take a leap of faith. There’s no other option, as far as I can see, except to swear off politics and go live on a deserted island somewhere.

Pop culture matters

Politics doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

The powers-that-be knew what they were doing in using the entertainment media to shape opinions, tastes, and feelings. It started many decades ago, and it is certainly evident especially around World War II in Hollywood movies. However, it really went into high gear during the 1950s into the 1960s, after which entertainment became mostly propaganda.

I realize some think that entertainment is merely an innocent way for people to pass their leisure time, and that ”people know the difference between reality and entertainment — but do they? I don’t think so. Something seems to put most people’s logical brains to sleep when they are viewing a movie or TV, listening to music, or watching sports.

Changing people’s attitudes and shaping their tastes into something acceptable to the Powers That Be seems to happen while people are lulled into a passive, receptive state.

So yes, pop culture does matter. It isn’t all about politics, ”isms”, ideologies, and elections.

All our discussions about how and why our civilization was subverted and our country so politically corrected can be resolved by reading some of the comments at Steve Sailer’s blog on Prince’s death.

‘The mid-80s might have been the peak of interracial optimism in the US. There was a general optimism with Reagan’s “Morning in America” reelection campaign, the economic boom, the LA Olympics, the renovation of the Statue of Liberty, and the afterglow of America’s first victorious war in ~40 years. On top of that, blacks and whites both listened to Prince and Michael Jackson, both watched The Cosby Show, watched Magic Johnson and Larry Bird as friendly NBA competitors, etc.’

Anybody notice what I see here? The fact that black and white tastes seemed to converge in the 80s does not say that blacks had begun to assimilate; rather it shows that Whites assimilated to black culture. It’s we who were assimilated and absorbed. The state of things in the 80s is not something to be celebrated, but it was a fulfillment of the prophecies of the older generations in the South during the days of the Civil Rights coup: they said that “integration” of the races would lead to our children becoming more like blacks culturally, and our race adopting black social mores. Enough said.

Even the hard-core ”bigots” on some alt-right blogs praised Prince. Even ‘conservatives’ found little to complain about in Prince’s lewd lyrics.

One commenter on Sailer’s blog acknowledges the raunchiness of Prince’s lyrics and persona.

“You leave out of the Prince being out of line with trends argument what is to me Prince’s defining characteristic, aside from being a hometown hero and the Other Michael Jackson: his raunchiness. There is a perpetual arms race in pop music to be more sexually suggestive, or outright explicit. I can’t put into words what it means to be a ten year old watching Prince videos, with endless busty beauties writhing on him, fingers stroking flower petals, assless pants, etc. I was traumatized by his performance of “Get Off” live on MTV, with its simulated homoeroticism.

Madonna probably won, but Prince was the premier male “Do it!” rocker of his day. Tipper Gore certainly thought so.

By the way, he did this while also pumping out hits and appealing to a wide audience.”

Would Prince, or Michael Jackson for that matter, have appealed to a ‘wide’ (mostly White) audience a few decades earlier?

Pop culture does matter. It is the prime vehicle for social engineering in our day.

Praising the deceased

Thinking Housewife reflects on the death of Prince and the media adulation. I have been pondering the same situation myself.

The belief that it’s wrong to speak ill of the dead is a longstanding one, not a product of our degenerate age. However it seems to have become, in the last couple of decades, an ironclad law that we must not speak ill of the dead, even if what we speak is absolutely true.

Of course this is doubly true if the deceased was a member of a legitimate Victim Group, per the established PC hierarchy. For that matter, we daren’t speak ill of such people even when they are alive and kicking, but when people die, they are automatically sainted now, apparently.

Recently I was quite surprised and somewhat baffled by the great homages to David Bowie from all quarters and all age groups. I can see how people who were young in the 1970s and 80s, having glamour-lens visions of their long-ago youth, want to preserve those memories by continuing to revere the idols of their teens. But everyone from elder Boomers (Bowie’s age) to the Tumblr teens was waxing teary, using hyperbolic language to praise Bowie and his talent.

All right: I confess I actually liked, bought, and listened to some of Bowie’s early output, but that was when he was still a fairly nondescript pop singer, who sang fairly generic teen pop songs, and rather catchy ones at that. I never liked the ‘glam rock’ thing, though I was young and listening to rock music then. When Bowie appeared in his glam incarnation, with the makeup and the new ”androgynous” persona, I found it repellent. Male is male, female is female, and never the twain shall meet — in the same person, at least. Even though I was still politically liberal maybe my old-fashioned upbringing never left me, because I thought the unisex/androgyny thing was creepy and perverted.

I felt the same when Prince Rogers Nelson emerged into public view in the early 80s, he made Bowie look normal and average by comparison. The fact that his song lyrics “pushed the envelope” with hints at incest, speculations about his parents’ sex life, and other such shocking topics — shocking for that time, anyway, further turned me off. I used to watch MTV then, when they still played music, but when Prince appeared, I changed the channel.

What was shocking in the 1980s is now old hat, and raises not one eyebrow today. The young are more sexually ‘wise’ than their parents, who were in turn more ‘sophisticated’ than their parents. On it goes. Prince is now being spoken of in deferential tones even by gray-haired elders, establishment people. As was/is Bowie.

When Madonna Ciccone dies (as when Michael Jackson died) she will be honored as a great musical ‘groundbreaker’ and social influence. People will remember the sentimental significance her songs had for them when they were teens. She will be declared an “icon.”

Of Prince, a commenter on a certain right-wing blog said

‘Like him or not, he lived life on his terms. Have to respect that.’

That’s a rather poor defense of someone; the same could be said of almost anyone, of a moral reprobate or of a hero. Living life on one’s own terms doth not a hero make.

People who deliberately rebel against social constraints and mores almost always use the excuse that ‘I gotta live my life on my own terms‘, meaning they will flout morality or law or public opinion, or worse, even provoke people to attain notoriety or fame or a reputation as ”edgy”, a “free spirit” who won’t be constrained by law, either civil law or moral law. Is this a message we want our young to absorb? That’s exactly what the entertainment/propaganda complex has been pushing on the young for decades now. And the effects are glaringly visible.

There is a line of progression (or regression) from these sexually ”edgy” celebrity idols to our present situation, what with same-sex ‘marriage’ forced on us, transsexualism, sexual confusion in general, promiscuity, illegitimacy, STD epidemics, and now with miscegeny. Madonna, Bowie, Prince, all had a big part to play in engineering these social changes over the last few decades, along with other lesser names. Is that something we wish to honor?

Nonetheless there are people on the ‘right’ who idolize such a celebrity (they will say they don’t idolize them, but if they defend them vociferously, that’s a mark of excessive devotion to me) because ‘he was a great musician’ or ‘a huge talent’ — I just don’t buy that their ‘talent’ was so indispensable to us and our society to compensate for the harm done.

Besides, talent is in the eye of the beholder. It all depends on one’s tastes. Your idea of musical genius may be the next man’s noise pollution.

These people made today’s degenerate world possible by making deviance appear commonplace and ‘hip’; they are the means by which the Powers-that-be change public opinion, a generation at a time. An attractive (at least by someone’s standards) celebrity can provide an appealing face for deviance and social rebellion. They make the world safe for deviance. They help advance social rebellion and decadence. There’s a reason why these people were hyped to stardom by the entertainment/propaganda complex.

Is this the future?

I was speculating to myself the other day that this practice might one day be mandatory, or at least natural reproduction with someone like ourselves will be a “hate crime.”

I’m actually surprised that this is the first such story, at least in my experience, of this kind of politically correct self-immolation.

Somebody will no doubt think I am being heartless or unkind with this opinion, but the fact is, for all these centuries, millennia, of human history, this kind of thing is something new under the sun, and would have been viewed with shock by most human beings up until our present enlightened age.

Kind after kind. Like calls to like. It’s a law of nature. I didn’t declare it so; nature did, or God, if, like me, you believe in God. So if someone thinks me unkind for criticizing this, their quarrel is with God, ultimately. So it makes it a bit problematic for these people who profess Christianity. They are young; they probably grew up sitting under the teaching of the modern-day wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing “ministers”, thus getting second-hand cultural Marxism from their supposed shepherds. Or maybe they get their cultural Marxism first-hand via the media, and the schools.

This kind of thing is not yet known in my little town, but we have droves of people having garage sales to raise funds for their ‘adoption trip’ to Africa or Haiti. It’s not an uncommon sight to see people (most of them nominally Christian) in our town, parents with obvious children of their own, who look like them, also pushing sn obviously adopted baby in a carriage.

One day, it’s almost certain, given the state of racial tension and animus in our society, that these children will be alienated, angry adolescents and adults with identity conflicts, people who may well turn against their parents and ‘siblings.’ To believe otherwise is to believe in fairy-tales. Exceptions may exist but exceptions by definition are rare.

The fact that these two people (like other such indoctrinated people) chose not only to adopt but to conceive a child not of their own genetic kin shows that far from being “colorblind”, which would imply willingness to accept a child of their own kind as well as others, they deliberately excluded the possibility of having a White child.

As I write this, there are also ‘gay’ couples paying women in India or elsewhere in Asia to bear children for them. In some cases these children are fathered by the usually White gay males but even then, the child is in the “Other” category. And there is something much more personal about conceiving, carrying, and giving birth to a child with little or no genetic kinship to yourself. And that is the case with a partner of another race; one need only to look at a genetic map to see how distant Europeans are from other races. The differences mean something; it is far more than skin color or pigment cells. Far more.

And then there is that thing known as telegony. The followers of scientism, or the hard-nosed skeptics, deny the validity of the idea but it’s looking more possible, with new research. Those who are familar with livestock breeding know the idea, though even some of them deny it. But I’m inclined to believe it. It’s certainly something to think about in connection with promiscuous reproduction, both intra-racially and inter-racially. Maybe there are reasons why our Creator condemns promiscuity and adultery; one becomes ‘one’, DNA-wise, with those one mates or reproduces with.

Adultery, thus, takes on a new meaning.

And from a Christian point of view, artificial insemination is a kind of adultery, isn’t it? Doubly so in this case, as it violates the ‘kind after kind’ precept.

But that doesn’t bother most of today’s Christians or Churchians, for whom Thou Shalt Be Politically Correct is the first and only commandment.

Meantime I am expecting that this kind of thing may one day be compulsory, if today’s rush to madness continues.

Will this story be ignored too?

When this story came out in 2012, I was surprised that it received so very little comment from any quarter of the media, or the blogosphere. There was a deafening silence, curiously, from people who concentrate almost exclusively on the notorious ‘JQ.’

Now I could understand that if some obscure fly-by-night group was behind the study reported in that 2013 article. But the fact was that it was Johns Hopkins University , a respected institution, which did the study. And still there was little acknowledgement of the conclusions.

The fact that the Jewish media or the ‘community’ didn’t acknowledge it is not surprising, considering that they have publicly denied the early theories about Jewish genetics, as when Jewish writer Arthur Koestler wrote about the ‘Khazar’ hypothesis some decades back. The Jewish claim to a homeland in the Middle East hinges on the belief that they are THE Israelites of the Bible, so it makes sense that they would reject any idea of mixed/non-Middle Eastern origins of today’s Jews.

But why are people who are very critical of Jews and their role in Western society avoiding the discussion? Now, they have one more such report to pointedly ignore:

“Persian Jews converted Turks to Judaism to create the rump of what would become today’s Jewish population, DNA research has revealed.

The fascinating insight, which shows that most Ashkenazi Jews descend from Turkey, was made possible by state-of-the-art computer modelling and genetic techniques.”

It would seem that those who discuss the ‘Jewish Question’ would find this interesting and perhaps even helpful. I’ve often wondered why they don’t like to consider the viewpoint supported by these studies.

What comes to my mind is that many of those who decry the role played by Jews in the assault on Western civilization and our people also point a finger of blame at Christianity. This viewpoint claims that Christianity (per Nietzsche, I believe) is an “alien desert religion” not fit for us, or that it is a variation of Judaism meant to weaken and subvert the West. Those who believe that Judaism and Christianity are some kind of conjoined twins are, of course, very misinformed, but in some cases I don’t know if they honestly believe what they say or if they just want to take down Christianity along with Judaism. Many of these people are self-styled ‘pagans’ or heathens or outright atheists, people with longstanding resentments against Christianity as a religion that teaches restraint (which they find repellent) and holiness. And today’s hedonists abhor that kind of religion, choosing a make-it-up-as-you-go ”religion” of ‘do what thou wilt’, such as New Age or heathenism.

As long as this faction of people can attack Christianity by saying it is a “Jew religion”  they have to keep insisting that the people known as Jews today are one and the same with the people of the Bible — and incidentally, check your Bible to see how far you have to read to even encounter the word ‘Jews’ or ‘Jewish’. The word is not even there until 2 Kings, 16: 6. That’s quite a long time to wait for the word to be used.

In the meantime, a lot of people with differing agendas have an interest in keeping people confused and misinformed about this whole subject. So as long as these varying factions of people are ignoring this subject it will continue to perpetuate confusion.

But suppose what we’ve ”known” for all these years has been mistaken?

Some on ‘our’ side want the confusion to remain; they need to conflate Judaism with Christianity and to be able to discredit Christianity that way. They need to have Christianity associated with The Jews. Today’s uninformed Christians have also been led astray by ignorant preachers and ‘leaders’ who think there is something called ‘Judeo-Christian values’ which unites us to Jews and Judaism. The fact that our fathers and grandfathers knew of no such thing doesn’t deter them from believing it.

Those Jews who actively work against Christianity find it useful to associate Christians with themselves, paradoxically, knowing that those who oppose them will unwittingly (or even wittingly)  help their cause in opposing Christianity at the same time. Christianity becomes a target by association.

It’s time we were able to look at this subject honestly, but given the PC hierarchy, this subject is still radioactive. And yet truth should never be off limits.

That was then…

lost cause Forrest

One hundred and fifteen years ago in Memphis, the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest was being designed. Just last year the craven Memphis City Council voted to remove it. This is all part of a concerted effort to efface the history of the South, especially the history of the Confederacy, and to destroy and defame the memory of our ancestors. More importantly the Powers that Be want to destroy the name and reputation of our heroes and to shred what is left of our heritage.

Sadly there are modern-day carpetbaggers (transplants from the North and from the far-flung parts of the planet) and Southern-born scallywags to aid The Powers and Principalities in their work.

And even more shamefully, these same scoundrels voted to exhume General Forrest’s body — and that of his wife. How far does this base desire for revenge go? How long must this go on?

The magazine cover is obviously from the magazine called The Lost Cause. Southrons have long referred to the disastrous War as The Lost Cause — yet it wasn’t lost, not yet, as long as the South maintained its spirit and its pride of heritage and ancestry, its dedication to the distinctive way of life. As long as those things endured, the cause was not lost. I remember during my childhood one often heard the phrase ‘The South will rise again’. Now such phrases probably draw the attention of our Masters who so lovingly keep track of all that we say and do, and it’s probably considered Hate Speech to utter phrases like that.

Now it seems, by all outward evidence, as our symbols and heroes and our very integrity as a people are under siege, even more so than is White America in general.

And there seem to be no political leaders or anyone else to stand in the gap, to speak up. So the title ‘Lost Cause’ seems especially mournful now, as it seems as if our foes are ready to deliver the coup de grâce  Do we still have the will to endure? Are there enough of us who have not mentally and emotionally surrendered?

Reconstruction part 3 rolls on


No, this is not the actual proposed 20 dollar bill which will replace the current version, which unfortunately carries the image of a dead White Southron male. There has been talk about who would take Jackson’s place on the currency but I knew (as did most of you, probably) that it would likely be a ”twofer” — a female and a Person Of Color. Voila: Harriet Tubman.

The image that will likely be on the bill is of an angry-looking woman (who at first glance appeared to be a man), and I think that unsmiling face was chosen for a reason: to show that we are under the watchful eyes of Afrocentric America, and Big Sister means business.

The screencap above is from Free Republic. Yes, I know I shouldn’t read that forum, and I do so only to check the pulse of the patient, to see if there is any hope for recovery. The patient is not looking good. There’s an occasional sign of life from a few souls there but the majority of the posters are still trying to position themselves as the Best Friends of Blacks — if only the poor duped blacks would realize that the Democrats (did you know they are the Real Racists?) are keeping them down on the Plantation.

The caption on the image above illustrates how ignorant of history many Republicans are; they think that the Republicans during the War Between the States were the ‘good guys’ and they are proud to claim kinship to those same notorious Radical Republicans who were responsible for the evil known as Reconstruction and for the ensuing vendetta against the South and its people.

The Republicans of today often want to claim the dubious title of ‘Blacks’ best friends’ not realizing that they are thus making themselves out to be part of the ongoing war against our folk, against their own flesh and blood. How ”cucked” does one have to be to fail to see that?

For my part, let these Republicans vie with the Democrats to be the most non-racist party; let them outbid the Democrats, out-PC the Democrats. Let’s see those true colors at last.

And this might prove to be the undoing of the Republican Party.

Now that the Republican Party seems to be self-destructing, committing suicide by Political Correctness, and now that the sheep are being separated from the goats to make it all plain to see — let them rename themselves as the New Radical Republicans, taking up where the original Radical Republicans (almost) left off.

The bargain

An interesting piece at 28 Sherman makes an analogy between the ‘deal’ made by our so-called elites, in which for supposed economic benefits they agree to a deal with  outsiders which incidentally changes our very identity and essence, and the ‘deal’ made by the people of Innsmouth in a fictional story.

The story is by H.P. Lovecraft,” The Shadow Over Innsmouth”. Although I’ve read that story (more like a novella) several times since my adolescent days, being a Lovecraft fan, it never occurred to me to look at what is happening to Western countries as basically ‘the Innsmouth Bargain’ or Innsmouth deal, as the blogger calls it.

In the story, which I always found particularly creepy and disturbing for some reason, the seafaring families of the fictitious town of Innsmouth in New England, having contact with some unusual civilizations in the Ponape area of the Pacific, bring some rather atypical native wives — and native practices home to New England, and for some reason their town prospers in comparison with neighboring towns.

But a price has been paid, and must continue to be paid, in order to maintain that prosperity. Read the piece; it is a very fitting analogy for our situation and the ‘Innsmouth Bargain’ — the one our ‘leaders’ have committed us to.

Maybe what really disturbed me about the story when I read it in the past was the idea that a people could willingly morph themselves into something completely other — and in pursuit of some supposed material benefit.

Of course we know it isn’t just about economics; our ”elites” are ideologues on a vendetta it seems, but their phony excuse is that immigration benefits us. And giving up who we are, our culture, our faith, and ultimately our DNA is a small price to pay — right?

Maybe Lovecraft was warning us.

Accepting the guilt?

As this is Confederate History Month, I’ve been slow in taking the time to write about the War Between the States and the causes thereof. I won’t attempt to go into that much-documented question here, but only to write about the effects on our country of focusing exclusively on slavery.

It’s usually assumed that slavery was the main cause of the war, and few people think beyond that issue. In a way this works mightily against the South and its image in the minds of the rest of the country, because people in the last few decades have been heavily conditioned to believe in the primacy of slavery in causing the War, and even more, to believe as they have been told: that slavery was an ”abomination” (the most-often used word of condemnation), an unparalleled crime against humanity of which we (White people) and Southrons specifically stand forever convicted.

Now most Southron academics are inclined to accept this liberal interpretation of history, and they take a defensive and apologetic tone in writing or speaking about our history. This piece, while mostly fair, does tend towards the defensive approach, and unfortunately, in my opinion, uses the ”liberals are the real racists” defense. In this case the argument is more specifically ”the Yankees were the real racists”. The conclusion that one comes to if one reads this kind of thing is that yes, Whites were guilty as charged, and slavery was a horrible crime against humanity, but it wasn’t just Southrons; the Yankees started it and profited from it so they are as guilty or more so than we are. In other words, White guilt is assumed and accepted; the ‘defense’ just tries to spread the guilt around or focus it more on the ‘other guy’, hoping to deflect blame.

The writer of the linked piece is an academic, a Professor at Emory University and connected with the Abbeville Institute. I allow for the usual academic biases, since it seems that the vast majority of academics are more liberal than the average American. With all due respect to the writer’s credentials I will take issue with some things he says.

For instance he describes slavery as a ‘national enormity’ and says that most Americans saw it as a violation of natural law:

“Most all antebellum Americans believed two propositions. The first proposition is that slavery abstractly considered (that is independent of posi­tive law, circumstance, and custom) is a violation of natural law. This was as true of Southerners as Northern­ers”

Most people in the South were strongly Christian, and knew their Bibles well enough to know that it was not condemned in the Bible at all. Man-stealing was condemned, but the ”peculiar institution” was not forbidden by the Bible, rather it was regulated. There were laws concerning slavery but it was not against Biblical law nor the law of the land — which was, ultimately, grounded in Biblical law.

Some will object that the Founding Fathers were not Christian but Deists or Masons. Thomas Jefferson is often claimed to be a Deist who had very liberal notions, but even he did not argue for immediate emancipation or condemn slavery as such. He made practical arguments against emancipation because he saw the great problems that would result from sudden freeing of the slaves:

“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence [sic] of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

But if one believes that slavery was an abomination or a “violation of natural law” then no price would be too great to pay, presumably. Hence the 500,000+ lives sacrificed in the War.

It is also alleged that the New England Yankees were by this time arch-liberals and egalitarians, though the writer of the linked piece, Professor Livingston, says they were ‘nativist’ (as if that were a pejorative) and some kind of Anglo-Saxon supremacists, racial purists. In fact by the time of the War Between the States the New England states were already receiving tens of thousands of immigrants from Ireland, Portugal, and Italy as well as Eastern Europe. There were also many French-Canadians living in parts of New England. Many of the old Puritan stock had already moved Westward, looking for greener pastures. So there was hardly an Anglo-supremacist society in the New England of the 1860s.

However it is true that most old-stock Americans were what we today call ‘race-realists’, they were not egalitarians in the sense of denying the obvious evidences of their senses. They did not take the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ in the literal way in which people on both left and right take it in 2016.

However Professor Livingston sees this natural ethnocentrism as disreputable, judging as he seems to by the liberal standards of today.

“For two centuries the original Puritan stock had intermarried to form a strong re­gional identity. They thought the blood of the rest of the Union was diluted by foreign peoples who did not have a title to be the “true Americans.” Particularly disgusting was the South with its mixture of French, Spanish, Ab­original and even African blood. The defeat of John Adams and the election of Thomas Jefferson as president was a racial trauma for New Englanders. They referred to him contemptuously as the first “Negro president.” Jefferson had lived with Africans for so long that to New Englanders he had become Af­rican.”

Livingston exaggerates the ‘mixture’ of the Southern states; the South was originally just as Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-Norman) as the New England states, and remained so up until the influx of Northerners in the 1970s and afterward and the later disastrous waves of immigration from the four corners of the globe. I cannot at length argue the case for the preponderance of English blood in the South but even though there were some Huguenots, Germans, and others in the South, they intermarried with the English-descended Southrons and the Scots-Irish. They were not unassimilable peoples. The presence of many black people did not mean that the Southron people themselves were mixed a la the Brazilians of today. The essay might lead to that erroneous conclusion. Black people formed a parallel society alongside Whites. Yes, there was contact between the races but they were not amalgamated and very few people in the South would have proposed amalgamation, as is the case today.

Professor Livingston is contributing to false beliefs about the Southron people by implying that there was truth in some of the misconceptions about the South being made up of ‘mixed’ peoples. The South is not Brazil — not yet, anyway. But if present trends continue, with the South’s defenders adopting defensive postures, adopting liberal rhetoric (our enemies are “the real racists”) then we will have suffered a more devastating defeat than that of 1865.