The Lincoln-Douglas Debates and Modern Chicago

Illinois

Here’s an excerpt from David Goldfield’s America Aflame: How The Civil War Created a Nation on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates:

“Douglas hammered on the Lincoln-as-radical theme. Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech provided fodder for Douglas’s charge that Republicans and Lincoln would sacrifice the Union to destroy slavery. Once emancipation occurred, Douglas asserted, freed slaves would flood Illinois to “cover your prairies with black settlements” and “turn this beautiful state into a free negro colony.” He was not above more primitive race baiting. Warming up the crowd at the debate in Freeport, Douglas related that he had spotted Frederick Douglass a while earlier on the edge of the gathering in a “carriage – and a magnificent one it was … a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as a driver.” While laughter rippled through the crowd, a Lincoln that the backer yelled out, “What of it!” Douglas replied, “All I have to say is if you, Black Republicans, think that the negro ought to ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so.” …

Prophetic words.

Just a few years later, President Lincoln unleashed the slaves and Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the first federal civil rights law in American history, which made blacks into citizens and which repealed the Illinois Black Codes that had banned free negroes from settling in Illinois.

Fastforward to the “Land of Lincoln” in 2012:

“OAK PARK — A woman assaulted on the CTA Blue Line in Oak Park last week told police another passenger struck her in the face with a sock filled with human excrement.

“He had a sock full of his poop on me,” said the 21-year-old college student. “It was everywhere; on my face, my hair, my clothes.”

She said she screamed and tried to follow him, along with another witness, but the attacker escaped up the Austin Boulevard exit and ran northbound on Austin.”

Free negroes are attacking 21-year-old female college students with socks full of feces on public transportation. Such is the civilization we live in because Abraham Lincoln, not Stephen Douglas, won the presidency in 1860.

About Hunter Wallace 11763 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. That’s illustrative of the negrophillia of Lincoln and his money men.
    It’s a very vivid scene. Does the article allude to other rich men entertaining blacks with the affections of their young pretty wives?

  2. Being the worst sort of sneering Negro he couldn’t wait to attack Robert E. Lee’s memory before the first dirt hit his casket. He was in many ways the model for the new empowered Negro of our day, a scowling animal with a white wife.

  3. Such is the civilization we live in because Abraham Lincoln, not Stephen Douglas, won the presidency in 1860.

    No–such is the civilization we live in because the South refused to give up slavery and cooperate with the North in removing blacks from the territory of the United States. The only thing we learn from the passage Mr. Wallace has quoted is that Stephen Douglas was a cheap American politician, indistinguishable from the vermin presently crawling around in Washington. Not only does Douglas engage in the lowest white behavior–the pursuit of a laugh by an unkind remark; he furthers the false choice between perpetuation of slavery and a mixed-race polity. He has no honor.

    The white race has been tested and has failed. Lawn care, the crating of negroes in slave ships–things of that sort come easy to whites. Thwarting socialism and non-white immigration? Above whites’ pay grade.

    Anyway, December 25th is fast approaching, and every good white man knows what that means: time to start planning his Super Bowl party.

  4. Now John B, you know very well that slavery was nothing more than an issue used to agitate for war by the radicals in the north who were determined to consolidate the continent under their central authority. They loved it as much as their philosophical descendents love “getting past race” and had no intention of getting rid of any negroes. Hell, they thrived on their being here. While there is good documentation of Jewish involvement in the slave trade, the fact is that almost all of the ships that brought Africans here in the first place were registered and captained by northerners.

    We might be in more agreement, only SLIGHTLY, about Douglas as a politician. While Douglas would surely have been preferable to Lincoln in 1860, his election would only have delayed the inevitable power grab by war by the radicals in the north. Typical American policy ever since.

    James Buchanan is no hero of mine but I wish he had been in better political shape in 1860. I always preferred him to his usual foe, Douglas.

  5. There is something odd about Thaddeus, Abraham etc. This incident with the carriage
    where the owner a negates himself in public is exactly what this issue is about.
    A white snivelling around a black, allowing his wife to accompany the snarling negro
    and acting as coachman in his own vehicle. It’s obvious what was going on here.

  6. There was never a serious offer to apprentice out the slaves. Certainly no attempt on a serious level to repatriate. Lincoln might as well have been a cuckold quite frankly.

  7. There was plenty odd about both Thaddeus and Abraham but there was a little difference. Stevens was a useful idiot of the George McGovern stripe while Lincoln was an cleverer insider.

    As for the coach episode, maybe I’m thick but it ain’t obvious to me. Self-hatred? Sexual deviant? Insanity?

  8. Now John B, you know very well that slavery was nothing more than an issue used to agitate for war by the radicals in the north who were determined to consolidate the continent under their central authority.

    I don’t know what the radicals were thinking, Bill, but I think there were white men–North and South, probably–who were opposed to both slavery and the presence of blacks among whites. As I’ve said here before, at OD, the South, by insisting on keeping slavery, made it impossible for white men of that type to get a political word in edgewise. The contest ended up being between those who wanted slavery and those who wanted not only to end slavery but to allow blacks to live freely among whites. As is usual in white politics, nobody with anything reasonable to say was heard.

  9. There was never a serious offer to apprentice out the slaves. Certainly no attempt on a serious level to repatriate.

    There could have been–and should have been.

  10. I hazard a guess that it was done to offend onlookers, the vehicle owner driving around the magic negro and a pretty wife? I’m surprised he wasn’t pelted with eggs.

    If I went into speculative territory
    Is hazard a guess that there was kink involved. If not actual kink the deliberate simulation and appearance of kink at the very least.

  11. PS Yes, Bill, I realize that the North was the big operator of slave ships; that’s my understanding, anyway. After posting my original statement, above, I realized that it (the statement) was misleading, in that it seemed to indicate that everyone in the North wanted to end slavery. That’s not what I meant. What I meant was that, if the South had agreed to give up slavery, on the condition that the blacks be removed from the territory of the United States, it (the South) could have formed an effective political alliance with Northerners who wanted that, too, but whose voices were being drowned out in the clash between the abolitionists and the slaveholders. If that had happened, I think, any abolitionists who insisted that blacks not only be freed from bondage but be allowed to remain, as free men, in the United States, would have been on the political defensive. I doubt they could have forced a war in favor of such a position. I realize I’m dealing with a so-called counterfactual.

  12. Coulda shoulda woulda Lincoln. He wasn’t a racist he loved em.

    Okay, John–suppose that’s true. It’s not Lincoln’s fault white men listened to him. Do you think there were no white men who were opposed to slavery but who were also racists and wanted blacks removed from the territory of the United States? Read what Hinton Helper had to say on the subject. Coulda shoulda woulda? Yes, that’s right. If whites weren’t fools, Obamacare coulda shoulda and woulda been defeated–but it wasn’t, was it? As I’ve said: the white race has been tested and has failed.

  13. John B,

    “…… the South, by insisting on keeping slavery, made it impossible for white men of that type to get a political word in edgewise. The contest ended up being between those who wanted slavery and those who wanted not only to end slavery but to allow blacks to live freely among whites. As is usual in white politics, nobody with anything reasonable to say was heard.”

    I agree about the reasonables usually being crowded out but seriously, knowing how politics works, which realistic choice would have been far more preferable, slave states or free roaming blacks?

    But I think you’re too convinced by 150 year old propaganda. The real power wielders in the 1860s didn’t care any more about slavery than did those in the 1960s care about “civil rights”. It was, in both cases, an deliberately exaggerated issue used to destroy a relatively decent order and to agitate the public and consolidate the ignoramus vote. Both times, in pursuit of ever more power.

    Notice how quickly and thankfully Lincoln switched from abolition to “preservation of the union” as his calling card. As if American colonial secession ever threatened the Union of Great Britain. He was a snake.

  14. OK John B, I get your context. I think you’re using too much hindsight. Yes, never having imported them in the first place would have been best, shipping them out as soon as it became an issue would have been good, on down the road to our paying for their EBT card and random shootings.

    These are all things we can see now that weren’t predictable, at least in the north, back then. My point is that Southern leaders, whatever their other faults, did in fact predict where we are today. They were right about race, no matter how horribly that may have offended the usual suspects.

    But more decisively, this racial disagreement has been the biggest leverage used in favor of the consolidation of power in the hands of, well, who knows who pulls the ultimate strings? It is that power, not the random black, that seeks to deny your freedom to defend yourself, not to speak of denying you the illusion of “self government”.

  15. Lincoln remains the greatest mass-murderer in American history.
    BRA is his legacy. Without Lincoln, there BRA would never have come into being.

    All for the sake of subhuman savages. Any fool who observes modern day Chicago can recognize the evil of Lincoln and his folly.

    The Yankee talent for indulging in maladaptive fantasies about their negro objects of worship can never be underestimated. Yankees are the target market for the putrid movies Lincoln and Django Unchained.

    Yankees like John B view our “wicked” past as a way to lord it over benighted Southerners. Rancid, putrified yankee mythology like the shit they serve at any high school in BRA. Anti-white to the core.

    The great undecided question of our time is simply this.

    Will the cultural and ideological descendants of Lincoln (i.e. yankees) succeed in destroying the white race?

    To adopt the phraseology of a famous yankee Jewess, yankees are the cancer of the white race.

    They keep telling Southerners that we have no right to exist and they want to destroy our culture and people.
    Maybe we should take them at their word.

    Deo Vindice

  16. The basic problem is that North Eastern whites do not understand what it is like to live in an area that is 20%+ black. They probably don’t even cotton on to what their cousins in the south are forced to deal with. Whites up in Vermont and Maine vote like they are in France or Sweden, because that’s literally their political condition.

    Gianni B, you should also see what happened to the Afrikaner. The Southron is essentially the same culturally. Youve spat on those vortrekkers on these forums as well.

  17. I agree about the reasonables usually being crowded out but seriously, knowing how politics works, which realistic choice would have been far more preferable, slave states or free roaming blacks?

    I reject your use of the word realistic, Bill. Anything that doesn’t involve, say, time travel or two objects’ occupying a place at the same time is realistic. I’m not joking. A political challenge is simply that: a political challenge, nothing more or less. Either you meet it–or you don’t. I wasn’t joking above, either, when I said the crating of negroes in slave ships came easy to whites. It did. Removing them from white territory is a challenge whites have not yet met–and might never meet; but that’s all it is: a challenge. Don’t tell me what’s realistic, please. As one white man to another, I presume to say to you: either strive to meet the challenge–or be silent.

    The real power wielders in the 1860s didn’t care any more about slavery than did those in the 1960s care about “civil rights”. It was, in both cases, an deliberately exaggerated issue used to destroy a relatively decent order and to agitate the public and consolidate the ignoramus vote. Both times, in pursuit of ever more power.

    I don’t know that that’s true; I find that sort of knowing rhetoric unhelpful.

    Notice how quickly and thankfully Lincoln switched from abolition to “preservation of the union” as his calling card.

    It wasn’t his “calling card”; it was, we are told, his avowed reason for fighting the war. Whether it was his actual purpose or whether he simply said so to maintain support he feared he would lose if the war were seen as an abolitionist crusade, I don’t know; but actually, I wonder whether he said it at all, just as I wonder whether Lyndon Johnson actually said (as we are also told) that, in signing the Civil Rights Act, he was costing the Democrats the South for a generation. Both of those things sound like liberal fabrications, the former to make Lincoln seem non-radical (i.e., not fiercely committed to abolition) and the latter to make Johnson seem idealistic-yet-realistic (and also to make racism seems merely a habit, a generational thing).

  18. Yankees like John B view our “wicked” past as a way to lord it over benighted Southerners.

    Nothing I post at Occidental Dissent, Apuleius, supports that statement.

  19. The basic problem is that North Eastern whites do not understand what it is like to live in an area that is 20%+ black.

    If I, as a Philadelphian, am included in your definition of Northeastern white, John, you’re quite mistaken.

    Gianni B, you should also see what happened to the Afrikaner. The Southron is essentially the same culturally. Youve spat on those vortrekkers on these forums as well.

    What makes you think I don’t know what’s happening to the Afrikaners, John? The information isn’t obscure. When and how did I spit on them? I recall referring to South Africa only once, here at OD; I mentioned it as a place where whites had maintained a black labor force without slavery.

  20. What happened to “moderation” re Chris313 = no logical or political points, pure invective??? Dare I make a case for equal rights?

    If this fellow wants to offer reasonably productive conversation, what’s the harm? But all he offers is insults. Isn’t that what invites moderation?

    Speaking of moderation, it seems to have disappeared with the return of Chris313. What be up wid dat brudha?

  21. “A black labor force without slavery” is a purely semantic phrase. As horrible as slavery is deemed to be today, by virtue of a century of movies about it’s evils, it is nothing but a word used to describe a social situation that was comfortable to human nature for most of its existence. In fact, blacks are naturally suited to servitude. Elsewhere they spend their time killing one another.

    Supposing that you can separate yourself from savagery is to deny reality. It will always exist, more often in less immediately discernible ways than by a knife in the back from your professed brother.

  22. John B,

    It’s equally true however that white Europeans, specifically the British suppresed and ended the Atlantic slave trade. This was done without butchering white sailors. This was done with letting loose negroes on Jamaican plantations to kill the Master.
    Brazilians for example ended slavery without a self inflicted wound administered by a smug regional cohort of negrophiles.

  23. The basic problem is that North Eastern whites do not understand what it is like to live in an area that is 20%+ black.

    Countless freedom riders were from NYC, they understood. I’m not one to partake in conspiracy theories but besides Pastor Sloane they were virtually all semites. And good on the boys that nabbed Goodman and the fat one, Schwerner. Good on the boys that got Leo Frank too. No sympathy for Jewish Yankees.

  24. “A black labor force without slavery” is a purely semantic phrase. As horrible as slavery is deemed to be today, by virtue of a century of movies about it’s evils, it is nothing but a word used to describe a social situation that was comfortable to human nature for most of its existence. In fact, blacks are naturally suited to servitude. Elsewhere they spend their time killing one another.

    Precisely. Hunter made the point long ago that Negroes simply don’t respond to market incentives as a group; immediately “throwing a wrench” into any political and/or economic system that – after coming into contact with Negroes – doesn’t enslave them or tolerate their exit from the historical stage altogether.

  25. Tamer,

    Jews from NYC are not white. They are not strong enough in number to throw an election at the ballot box either. They can buy the politician later but they do not make Anglos, Catholics, Italians, Germans, Irish from the New England area vote in the way that they do vote.

  26. “A black labor force without slavery” is a purely semantic phrase. As horrible as slavery is deemed to be today, by virtue of a century of movies about it’s evils, it is nothing but a word used to describe a social situation that was comfortable to human nature for most of its existence. In fact, blacks are naturally suited to servitude. Elsewhere they spend their time killing one another.

    Actually, I mentioned my earlier reference to the South African situation only because John said I’d said something about the Afrikaners, Bill; I wasn’t drawing a distinction between slave labor and what arose in South Africa. Even so, I should respond to what you said.

    I’m not persuaded by your statement that, in effect, slavery is no big deal, though I’m reminded that a priest on the faculty of the Catholic boys’ high school I attended from 1967 to 1971 once told me the same thing. For the moment, at least, I am still of the view that whites should not be holding slaves, whether white, black, or other. I also think whites and blacks should not be living among each other–not as masters and slaves (the early U.S.), not as legal equals (the present U.S.), not as legal separates (apartheid-era South Africa). Whether or not it’s true, as you say, that blacks, living on their own, spend their time killing each other, whites should not be involved with them.

    Supposing that you can separate yourself from savagery is to deny reality.

    I don’t suppose that I or anyone else can be separated from savagery. What I suppose is that whites can be separated from blacks.

  27. They are not strong enough in number to throw an election at the ballot box either. They can buy the politician later but they do not make Anglos, Catholics, Italians, Germans, Irish from the New England area vote in the way that they do vote.

    Agreed, I took your point to be purely historical. Modern Yankees know the reason they don’t live in a 20% Negro area is because race-riots forced them from most cities. Yankee voting patterns can’t be chalked up to racial naivety. It comes down to the lower class whites voting for more greenbacks and the defectives have their roulette wheel of causes celebres.

  28. Jews from NYC are not white.

    Jews were white when it meant something. If whiteness conferred advantages they’d ID as white. Why should they hop in our sarcophagus and die just because we are intent on doing so? After the civil war whiteness was over in America. You can’t sacrifice 600,000 white men for savages and pretend you’re a white republic for long.

  29. It’s equally true however that white Europeans, specifically the British suppresed and ended the Atlantic slave trade. This was done without butchering white sailors. This was done with letting loose negroes on Jamaican plantations to kill the Master.
    Brazilians for example ended slavery without a self inflicted wound administered by a smug regional cohort of negrophiles.

    I can’t tell what statement of mine you’re responding to, John, but I’ll try to respond to what you’ve said.

    I’m glad suppression of the slave trade did not involve the butchering of British sailors. I wish the elimination of slavery in the United States hadn’t involved the killing of any whites. Some political challenges are met more wisely than are others. The point I was making above is that the South’s insistence on keeping slavery was complicating the situation. A month or two ago, I looked through a few pages of John Calhoun’s writings, which had been linked here, at OD, by Mr. Wallace. If my recollection is right, Calhoun said, at some point, something to the effect that the South was opposed to the freeing of its slaves because the results would be like the result of the abolition of slavery in the West Indies. My reaction was that the results would not be the same if the blacks were to be removed from U.S. territory. All that Calhoun and the other Southerners had to do was agree to stop holding slaves, on the condition that the slaves not be set free within the U.S. That would have changed everything. Instead of being about slavery, the political debate within the U.S. would have been over the way in which blacks were to be liberated. The South could have worked with the Northerners who didn’t want blacks within the U.S.; abolitionists insistent on the freeing of blacks within the U.S. would have been in the minority, and on the defensive, as I’ve said. Whether or not those abolitionists were, as you say, a smug regional cohort of negrophiles, they would have had great difficulty forcing a Civil War.

  30. “All that Calhoun and the other Southerners had to do was agree to stop holding slaves, on the condition that the slaves not be set free within the U.S. That would have changed everything. ”

    Really? I think you first need to demonstrate the validity of that assertion. With over 200 years of documentation of the force and movement of what we call “liberalism,” with its adherents very obvious intent of producing just the situation that exists today, i.e, freeing non-whites to live, multiply and prosper among whites, even at the expense of whites, I think you have worlds to move before asserting that the North would have been satisfied with only ending slave labor by blacks.

    I really would like to see you make this argument, and make it persuasively.

  31. Brutus: concur. I’ ve read the Bible, Koran, Life of Bhudda, Vedas, Gita, Upanishads, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and Confucius, none of them condemn slavery, not one. You would think that if slavery was so evil and dastardly, at least one would have.
    The fact is our morality today in the West is not defined by any of these ancient writing. The new religion is Equality, and like Molac,it requires the sacrifice of children so the parents can attain sainthood . It’ s prophets like Auguste de Compte, John Stuart Mill, Jerome Champion de Cice, Henri Saint Simon, etc. It’ s apostles are MLF, Frederick Douglas, Lincoln, LBJ, FDR, Wilson, the list goes on and on.
    John B. can’ t get past the brainwash.

  32. Regarding the Koran, it speaks repeatedly of slaves, namely, all followers of Mohammed are Allah’ s slaves. If it is right for god to keep slaves, then it can’ t be evil. So Islam appears to condone it.

  33. I’ve had a few discussions about white issues and the South with respectable conservative colleagues and noticed their stumbling block is the morality of slavery. They can’t ever explain why it’s immoral, because the answer would be “because everybody thinks it is”. One went on a roundabout path of explaining it through Western Christian values, for which I reminded him of the Apostles letter to Philemon.

    Logically they have nothing, same thing when they try the evolutionary approach. Their belief is based 1000 percent on faith.

  34. Some supposedly conservative colleagues of mine were laughing about a billboard in New York that said “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married.”

    Why not one that says “If you don’ t like slavery, don’t buy slaves.”

  35. Fredrick Douglas was into white women. He had a white, Jewish mistress most of his life. She was the source of his political radicalism, since she was a socialist from Germany. You can read about this in E Michael Jones’s “The Revolutionary Jewish Spirit” in the “Out Of Africa” segments.

  36. Sen. Lyman Trumbull

    Does anyone know where he is buried? His grave should be the first one to be disinterred, and his bones scattered all over the nation, and a figure burned in effigy.

    You wanna start talking of power? Start with the dead. Curse them, liturgically speaking, covenant among the living to never retreat, call down the wrath of God, live lives of moral righteousness (for clearly, the PTB aren’t!) and start acting like this matters to y’all.

    Is the Texas legislature drafting a bill of secession to put before the Governor? Have enough men, wearing their six-shooters, arranged a ‘meeting’ with that wimp?

    Does rule of law mean nothing to you? OF COURSE THEY SAY IT’S ILLEGAL. Jews, and Fags, and Liberals all KNOW THAT WE RESPECT RULE OF LAW.

    But a law, ruled over by the illegal, is no law, at all…. duh.

  37. Prominent Germans (Jewish in many cases) were a critical factor in all this. Kampf Mt Sigel! Was a Union battle cry.

  38. John B.’s posts amount to a stunning confession of ignorance regarding the longstanding objectives of the abolitionist movement.

    I have had but one idea for the last three years to present to the American people and the phraseology in which I clothe it is the old abolition phraseology. I am for the “immediate, unconditional, and universal” enfranchisement of the black man, in every State in the Union.

    I know that we are inferior to you in some things–virtually inferior. We walk about you like dwarfs among giants. Our heads are scarcely seen above the great sea of humanity. The Germans are superior to us; the Irish are superior to us; the Yankees are superior to us [Laughter]; they can do what we cannot, that is, what we have not hitherto been allowed to do. But while I make this admission, I utterly deny, that we are originally, or naturally, or practically, or in any way, or in any important sense, inferior to anybody on this globe. [Loud applause.] This charge of inferiority is an old dodge. It has been made available for oppression on many occasions. It is only about six centuries since the blue-eyed and fair-haired Anglo-Saxons were considered inferior by the haughty Normans, who once trampled upon them.

    The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!
    – Frederick Douglass, 1865 “What The Black Man Wants”

  39. If creationism and fundamentalist dogma could be abandoned by southern Christians (Baptists mostly) then the status of blacks as a subspecies or at least breed might make more headway. Perhaps creationists see a stance against evolution as a roundabout shield against charges of racism. It’s certainly true that if we are all God’s children the otherwise bigoted white can defend himself with scripture.

    But this won’t help defend again the negro-judel onslaught. Scripture was used by the ancients as a weapon. They know it’s just a smokescreen for battering opponents and stealing their property.

  40. Really? I think you first need to demonstrate the validity of that assertion. With over 200 years of documentation of the force and movement of what we call “liberalism,” with its adherents very obvious intent of producing just the situation that exists today, i.e, freeing non-whites to live, multiply and prosper among whites, even at the expense of whites, I think you have worlds to move before asserting that the North would have been satisfied with only ending slave labor by blacks.

    I haven’t denied there were abolitionists who wanted whites living among blacks, Brutus; for all I know, the vast portion of abolitionists wanted that. That doesn’t mean the vast portion of Northern whites wanted it, any more than Obama’s recent election victories in the so-called blue states of the North mean the vast portion of whites there voted for him. My point is that if the South had supported the abolition of slavery, on condition that blacks be removed from the U.S., it (the South) could have formed an alliance with Northerners who were morally troubled by slavery but who didn’t want blacks living among whites. By insisting on keeping slavery, the South made it impossible for racist Northern whites to oppose abolitionists’ plan for race-mixing without seemingly supporting slavery; whichever side they chose, those Northern racists, if they objected to slavery, felt uncomfortable. If Calhoun had done as I’ve said, that tension would have been relieved; if you don’t think that would have changed the political contest significantly, well, I think maybe you’re missing something.

    I see Wayne has written as follows:

    Brutus: concur. I’ ve read the Bible, Koran, Life of Bhudda, Vedas, Gita, Upanishads, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and Confucius, none of them condemn slavery, not one. You would think that if slavery was so evil and dastardly, at least one would have.

    If I’m not mistaken, a number of those books voice, in one form or another, a sentiment to the effect that one should do unto others as he would have them do unto him. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule ) I believe that’s quoted in the 1688 Germantown Quaker petition against slavery. ( http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=4569 )

    Even if we put that aside, why would we expect those books to have anything instructive to say about slavery? They were written during what was essentially a brief period, in which arose the early civilizations, civilizations that had several common features (very possibly because those civilizations were erected or inspired by different branches of a single tribe). Slavery was one of those features and, apparently, was unquestioned. So, what? It was part of a phase of history, as Europeans’ involvement with non-whites will one day be. (Whatever contact there might have been between whites and non-whites in ancient times, whites’ present involvement with whites is an element of the rise and fall of modern colonialism–events that cover only five centuries, no matter how much distress slavery might have caused. That involvement will pass, no mattter how strenuously the multiculturalists exert themselves to perpetuate it.)

    Wayne adds:

    I’ve had a few discussions about white issues and the South with respectable conservative colleagues and noticed their stumbling block is the morality of slavery. They can’t ever explain why it’s immoral, because the answer would be “because everybody thinks it is”.

    If that’s true, then the respectable conservatives with which Wayne has discussed these things are not very bright. Any person with even elementary powers of observation can see that, whatever might be the differences between the races, blacks experience frustration and humiliation, just as whites do. That’s reason not to enslave them. To put it in the words of the 1739 Georgia petition against slavery, which I have quoted here before:

    “It is shocking to human Nature, that any Race of Mankind and their Posterity should be sentanc’d to perpetual Slavery; nor in Justice can we think otherwise of it, that they are thrown amongst us to be our Scourge one Day or other for our Sins: And as Freedom must be as dear to them as it is to us, what a Scene of Horror must it bring about! And the longer it is unexecuted, the bloody Scene must be the greater.”

    (Emphasis added)
    ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Petition_against_the_Introduction_of_Slavery )

    Tamer of Savages says the following:

    John B.’s posts amount to a stunning confession of ignorance regarding the longstanding objectives of the abolitionist movement.

    And what does he offer to support that? An extended Frederick Douglass quote that implies–maybe–that blacks should be set free to live among whites within the U.S. Where have I denied that there were abolitionists who wanted that? My whole point, if Tamer of Savages had paused to consider it, was that if the South had agreed to the abolition of slavery on condition that blacks be removed from the U.S., it (the South) could have formed an alliance with racist Northern whites against the abolitionists who wanted that.

  41. Jews were white when it meant something. If whiteness conferred advantages they’d ID as white. Why should they hop in our sarcophagus and die just because we are intent on doing so? After the civil war whiteness was over in America. You can’t sacrifice 600,000 white men for savages and pretend you’re a white republic for long.

    The base their decisions on what is good for the Jew. Jews are liars. Jews are always lying. So, more accurately, Jews feigned identifying as Euro white when it was good for the Jew and only because it was good for the Jew. They don’t do it now because being white confers no advantages, thanks in large part (not solely) to the recent efforts of Jews. And Jews, of course, are always attacking the few White folks who want to climb out of the sarcophagus and take other whites with them. Not surprising you would omit that.

    You absolve Jews at every turn at every turn and emphasize symptoms like blacks. Transparent.

Comments are closed.