Dixie
Cannons were fired in Charleston yesterday as hundreds gathered to watch the reenactment of the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter.
150 years after the beginning of the War, the Confederacy is still a divisive issue in America. There are still millions of White Southerners who reject the Union propaganda of Jewish and Yankee historians.
CNN Poll
A new CNN poll has found that 38 percent of Southerners (assuredly, all of whom are White) say they “sympathize more” with the Confederacy than the Union. Nationwide, 23 percent Americans said they side with the South.
54 percent of Americans believe the War Between the States was fought over slavery. 42 percent believe that slavery wasn’t the main cause.
65 percent of Democrats said the Civil War was fought over slavery. 42 percent of Republicans said that slavery was the cause.
66 percent of non-Whites believe slavery was the cause. 50 percent of Whites believe that slavery was the primary cause of the conflict.
Harris Poll
A Harris Poll on the War Between the States that was released last month explored national and regional attitudes on the subject in greater detail.
Some of the findings:
(1) 68 percent of Americans thought the mock swearing in of Jefferson Davis in Montgomery was an inappropriate way to remember the Civil War. 35 percent of “White Confederates” thought it was appropriate.
(2) 58 percent of Americans believe that secession balls and parades are an inappropriate way to remember the War. 45 percent of “White Confederates” thought it was appropriate.
(3) 52 percent of Americans believe that a “Confederate History Month” is an inappropriate way to remember the Civil War. 57 percent of “White Confederates” believe that a “Confederate History Month” is an appropriate way to remember the War.
(4) 61 percent of Americans believe that flying the Confederate flag is an inappropriate way to commemorate the Civil War. 51 percent of “White Confederates” believe that flying the Confederate flag is an appropriate way to remember the War.
(5) 82 percent of Americans and 81 percent of White Confederates agree that America has benefited from staying unified. 8 percent of White Confederates disagree that America has benefited and 5 percent somewhat disagree.
(6) 67 percent of White Confederates believe the South was fighting mainly for states’ rights. 33 percent believe the South was fighting to preserve slavery.
(7) 54 percent of Americans believe the South was fighting mainly for states’ rights. 46 percent believe the South was fighting to preserve slavery.
Surprising Results
The results of these polls are not surprising to anyone who keeps regular tabs on public opinion.
They are only shocking to liberal historians who are disappointed to learn that 150 years later they still haven’t won the argument that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. They were equally shocked to learn how many White people in Mississippi still hold politically incorrect views about race.
Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of White Southerners remain stubbornly pro-Confederate. This is surprising when you consider that 1/4 of White Southerners were anti-Confederates and that millions of Whites now live in the region whose ancestors fought for the Union.
White Ethnostate
These numbers have implications for the “South” vs. “Northwest” debate that goes on in White Nationalist circles. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
There are millions of racial conservatives (a majority of Whites in Mississippi) in the American South. These people hold any number of politically incorrect opinions on racial issues (i.e., miscegenation, interracial marriage, affirmative action, immigration, multiculturalism) and have preserved a separate regional and ethnic identity.
The majority of White Southerners identify with the Confederate flag. 1 out of 10 White Southerners still reject the United States. You can find Whites who are explicitly racial in almost every city in the Southeast.
I’ve always believed that if we can’t win in Mississippi we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning in the more liberal parts of the country which are more of an uphill struggle. The barrier to breaking out of our isolation is lower in the South than it is anywhere else.
We have the numbers to prove it.
SINGING DIXIE
There is an unfortunate tendency in the American right wing to glorify the old South. This view is based on a purely romantic and uninformed view of the plantation “civilization”. The South before the war was totally anachronistic. Its economy was agricultural, based on slave labor and completely unsuited to an emerging industrial nation. Had it been allowed to survive, the unification of the United States as the greatest industrial power of the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century would have been impossible. Before the war, there was great controversy over so-called “free” versus slave states. It was a question of primary political importance for the dominance of either the north or south. The United States could not have survived half free and half slave. The South had to go for the future development of the nation.
It is idle to argue over whether the destruction of slavery and southern political independence could have been achieved without the war. The fact is that the attempted compromises failed and the issue came down to force, as it usually does. Southerners singing Dixie always live in a fantasy world of states rights and strict constitutionality where the ugly realities of big power politics are never allowed to interfere with the reveries. Let’s examine what these Southerners ignore. If the South had succeeded in breaking up the United States into two nations, then the only half formed U.S. would have been at the mercy of the European powers and their balance-of-politics ploys. The French were in Mexico at this time under Maximillian. A divided U.S would have allowed the French to block U.S. expansion westward across the Mississippi. They could have formed an alliance with either the North or the Confederacy to block either of the two U.S. powers from moving into lands coveted by the French. The British Empire, world famous for playing one rival off against another, could have done the same, provoking either the North or the South and then picking up the pieces. (And, indeed, during the Civil War itself the British considered intervening to aid the South militarily.) No one knows how these imperial scenarios would have played out but a divided U.S. would have been very susceptible to such schemes.
Confederates with misty eyes simply assume that the Confederacy, once established, would have avoided all these snares. Presumably the great General Lee and the glorious Army of Northern Virginia would have solved all problems, as they did at Appamatox. The lack of reality in this kind of thinking is amazing. The old problem of “free” versus slave states would also have reemerged after a southern victory. If the United States had been allowed to expand westward despite the intervention of the British and French, then every new state or territory would have been up for grabs, exactly as before the war. The old struggle would have reemerged, threatening to revive the war once more. In short, the Confederate Southerners are kidding themselves.
There is no doubt whatever that the great War Between the States greatly accelerated government power and led to other undesirable results, as great wars always do. But the fact of the matter is that the North was right. A Confederate victory would have had disastrous results for the future of America. It is idle to object that the South was only seceding as their forefathers seceded from England. There is no logical consistency in politics. The Confederacy had to go. Secession is not the solution to present day American problems either. The solution to darkening America is not to retreat from the racial invasion by “seceding”. The solution is to fight for every inch of the land to preserve the Union. And if it takes William Tecumseh Sherman to burn Mexico City to the ground and scorch the earth of La Raza, so much the better.
I don’t think so.
(1) The most pessimistic nightmare scenarios of Southern secessionists about “Black Republicanism” was more than confirmed after the war during the Reconstruction period.
(2) The most pessimistic nightmare scenarios of Jim Crow segregationists were confirmed after the U.S. Congress imposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act on the South.
(3) Secession was a spur to industrialization and ship building. See Birmingham and Augusta or the Confederate Naval Yard in Columbus.
(4) Who cares if the United States was unified?
Every single bit of the prosperity that followed over the hundred years occurred in the Midwest and New England.
(5) By development of the nation, you are referring to the Midwest and New England which benefited from Republican rule.
(6) How so?
If the North had not attacked the South, there wouldn’t have been a war. No one in the South desired to invade and conquer the North.
(7) That makes no sense.
The North was more than capable of dealing with European powers by itself. That is one of the major reasons why neither France or Britain intervened. Mexico didn’t enter the war either because the South was more than capable of defending itself.
(8) The Union Army by itself was more than sufficient to deter the French in Mexico.
(9) I suppose that depends upon your perspective. I mean it was the Union Army that obviously posed the real threat to the Confederacy, not Britain or France.
(10) In terms of racial policy, the South would have indisputably been better off outside the integrated United States.
(11) If the North was right, then the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 were right, and so was racial equality and black rule in South Carolina and Mississippi.
(12) A Confederate victory would have meant a Southern Congress in charge of race and immigration policy.
(13) Secession would solve all the problems related to the federal government which are too numerous to mention. If you think Washington represents you, then by all means, celebrate the Union.
(14) Preserving the Union effectively means the continuation of Washington’s race, immigration, economic, and foreign policies which are destroying White America, no matter what part of the country you live.
I don’t want to live under President Barack Hussein Obama or pay taxes to Washington, DC for more black government employees can be hired.
I find it interesting that the CNN poll found that women, moderates, and tea-party neutrals are more sympathetic to the Confederacy than men, conservatives, and tea-party supporters respectively.
john thames: France could not have interfered with the westward expansion, the U.S. already owned all the land out to the Pacific. California and Oregon were already states. The absence of the 11 states of the Confederacy would have done little to hamper the economic and technological growth of the United States. The two countries would have resumed trade relations, on terms more to Southern liking, and life would go on.
The Union would likely have benefitted from secession. Free Blacks were very unwelcome in the North, and could have been deported as foreigners. Canada might well have become U.S. territory, as compensation from Britain for arming the CSA.
I agree strongly with you that secession is not the answer today. Any land conceded to our enemies will only be a base for further attacks on us. As a military question, expelling the invaders is a trivial problem, so if the will to separate is strong enough to surrender territory, so is it strong enough to reclaim the territory.
Canada might well have become U.S. territory
Heh. You Americans really don’t like to remember your lost war against us, do you.
We should remain separate to keep each other honest and get a different perspective. We have more of a British tradition, or did, but just like with your country the corporatists and neocons are doing what they can to destroy everything worthwhile.
Lockeford: Our First Amendment does a lot, I think, to keep your rulers honest, but your country doesn’t do anything to keep ours at bay. J. Rushton Phillipe would be in prison except that Canadian intellectuals and politicians would be embarrassed if he had to flee to the U.S. as a refugee. On the other hand, Canadian gun control and other leftist policies are always held up as examples that we should follow. I’m happy for Canada to be a separate country, all I care about is that we have a White nation on our northern border. If necessary, I would be in favor of war to liberate Canada. For that matter, I’d be in favor of a White Canada invading the U.S. to help with our liberation. No thinking Canadian wants a border with a non-White nation.
Discard, that is a good point about the First Amendment. I agree.
“I’ve always believed that if we can’t win in Mississippi we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning in the more liberal parts of the country which are more of an uphill struggle.”
If i was going to try and secede anywhere – or at least angle towards it – i’d prefer to do it somewhere the White population was either a large minority or a small majority because of the added “edge.” However i think the advantage of that edge would only really benefit people who already belonged to the group in question otherwise that outsider “edge” would be applied to the “outsider” secessionist group too.
Do you admit it was a historical mistake of the greatest proportions when White Southerners purchased slaves from other Whites including White Jews? Bringing them in America was the worst mistake Americans ever made.
Of course.
It wasn’t the biggest mistake though. The biggest mistake was either letting Jews into America or losing the War Between the States. Slavery was a Top 5 mistake for sure.
I think the biggest efforts should be directed to lobbying maybe only 10 mega-rich Whites. Some old shot-putter alum donated $200,000,000 million to USC. T. Bone Pickens game $165,000,000 to….wait for it……~$500,000,000 million has been given to Oklahoma University, $266,000,000 of this amount has gone to Oklahoma University’s athletic program, which adds status to you know who on the team! Shit! What a waste. If White nationalists just got a fraction of that the power of the movement would change overnight.
Hunter,
I want to learn more about the war between the states – can you recommend any good books?
I started out with the DiLorenzo books on Lincoln.
Mighty: It’s not about the WBTS, but A Country of Vast Designs, by Robert W. Merry, would be a good start. It’s about the presidency of James Polk, during which we got Texas, the Southwest, and the Oregon Territory. The WBTS didn’t start overnight, there was a long warm-up, and this book deals with some of that. Best of all, it’s surprisingly readable. Who wants to read about James K. Polk, right? The author has to be pretty good to keep you turning the pages, and he does.
I own that book.
I intended to write a review of it, but my writing schedule was disrupted by moving to Virginia. As for the War Between the States, there is no substitute for the memoirs of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens.
If Jews were not in America we would still as a country be in bad shape. Sweden has a minuscule amount of Jews, and just look at their immigration policy.
Jews tend to be leaders of all movements because they are energetic and intelligent. Too bad they happen to be so racially liberal.
The biggest problem is simply White liberals who make up the majority of the liberal voting wing.
Well, that’s true.
We are fighting a coalition of antagonists. The Jews had nothing to do with Reconstruction. They weren’t responsible for the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The anti-White coalition existed in embryonic form as far back as the 1830s. This can be seen in the White officers who led black units of the Union Army. John Brown was a prototype of the modern anti-racist fanatic.
Jews became a pillar of that coalition in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Hispanics, Asians, SWPLs, and homosexuals have all joined it over the years. The original alliance though was struck between blacks like Frederick Douglas and White liberals like William Lloyd Garrison.
If I were forced to name the single biggest mistake America has ever made, it would unquestionably be letting Jews into this country. That’s because Reconstruction was ultimately repudiated and Northern racial attitudes hardened again.
You can’t understand everything from the decline of racial theory in the social sciences to the triumph of the counterculture to American involvement in the Second World War to the creation of Hollywood and the Soviet Union to the decline of Southern Whites to the Democratic Party and the rise of Barack Obama without familiarity with the Jewish Question.
Every Western country was scarred by the Second World War including those as far removed from the conflict as South Africa and New Zealand. The antagonism between Germans and Jews was at the center of that conflict. Remove Jews from twentieth century Western history and everything else changes.
If Jews were removed from the equation, you can argue that White liberals in the United States alone would never have triumphed over Jim Crow and the conservative tilt of Middle America. There never would have been a Hitler or a Holocaust or a Cold War.
It is a gross overstatement to say that Jews are the sole cause of all our misfortunes. You can make a persuasive argument though that the presence of Jews in America has been the single biggest factor in causing our racial decline.
“If Jews were not in America we would still as a country be in bad shape. Sweden has a minuscule amount of Jews, and just look at their immigration policy.”
They exploit a pre-existing fault line but don’t undestimate the influence of Hollywood and American (or in reality transplanted Frankfurt school) academic ideas outside America. Those Hollywood race pictures from the 50s and 60s had (and have) a big sermonizing impact on kids growing up everywhere. If they’d completely colonized the media and academia in Turkey or Spain or Iceland instead of America their influence outside those countries would have been minuscule imo.
“It is a gross overstatement to say that Jews are the sole cause of all our misfortunes. You can make a persuasive argument though that the presence of Jews in America has been the single biggest factor in causing our racial decline.”
The way i see it the default position in White society is like a scales with an ounce weight of liberal-minded people on one side and two ounce weights of conservative-minded people on the other. Occasionally something happens that makes one of the conservative ounce weights change sides over some issue or another and the scales tip on that issue, eventually that becomes part of the new conservatism and the counservative ounce weight that changed sides shifts back to the conservative side of the scales to maintain the new equilibrium. Under normal conditions, admittedly with occasional disasters, this system works okay at keeping society cohesive while allowing for change when needed.
Jews distort this mechanism (in proportion the influence they wield at the time) by throwing all their weight on the liberal side of the scales and keeping it there because they don’t want the host society to be cohesive. They’re “liberal” for Jewish nationalist reasons. This is why to me they’re both the single cause and not the single cause at the same time. The scales already exist as a mechanism for change completely independent of Jews but Jews are primarily responsible for distorting that mechanism.
“If I were forced to name the single biggest mistake America has ever made, it would unquestionably be letting Jews into this country.”
Or how about not kicking out White liberals? I know tons of White liberals, including some in my extended family, who are okay with non-White immigration, for diversity, and okay with the prospect of interracial marriage. They are all older White liberal women and one older White liberal beta guy who is a retired teacher. And they all vote. It’s worse when one us is liberal versus one of them (i.e. Jews) because it is psychologically easier to fight the Other; and a liberal White is more persuasive to other Whites vs a Jew because the argument is coming from someone that looks like them. My 2 cents.
You can’t understand 20th century liberalism without understanding the impact of Jews upon the American liberal tradition and the Democratic Party.
If you set the clock back to the 19th century, and Jews never immigrated to America, the course of American history would have been completely different.
Jews didn’t create liberalism, but they played a huge role in (1) molding the American liberal tradition to suit their needs and (2) the triumph of radical strains of liberalism over the more conservative elements in the country.
If Jews never immigrated to America, blacks and White liberals would have still existed here, but the problem would have been manageable. The Jim Crow system would endured and Darwinism would have triumphed in the social sciences.
“and Darwinism would have triumphed in the social sciences”
Yes, hugely important imo.
Sorry, to rip off any rose-colored spectacles about the antebellum South, but I am a Yankee whose ancestor fought on the UNION side of The War Between The States. My ancestor was NOT a Negro-loving Liberal, but a very realistic White Working Class Yankee, who saw Negro slave labor as something that would ultimately enslave the White Working Class in the end and he was NOT WRONG. He did not want Negro freedmen running all over hell’s half acre, he wanted them sent back to Africa. Here is why I believe that White America’s preference for African Negro slave labor over White European peasant labor was at the root of TWBTS and is at the root of many of our problems today.
What could the South have been had she avoided using Non-White labor? What would have been so different if she had simply incorporated England’s tenant farmer or share-cropping system, using White European peasants? Not much, only better for everyone. For one thing, plantation owners would not have to worry about Haitian style slave revolts. For another thing, given the abysmal working conditions of Northern factories, there was no reason why Southern plantation owners could not out-compete Northern factory owners by virtue of offering these peasants a cleaner, safer, healthier environment to work in. Northern factory owners would have to clean up their acts to compete.
Had the South used free White labor, it would have been a matter of time before White immigrants who learned American ways and customs would have moved up into trade and ultimately created a Southern industrial infrastructure. It did the South no good to complain about Yankee mercantilism when they remained an agrarian society to the exclusion of industry. Of course, that put them at the mercy of Northern merchants who could hardly use national protectionism as an excuse to keep the South down if she had only had her own American merchants to support.
Had the South used free White labor, she would have never been limited by the Three-Fifths Compromise, her demographics of eligible White voters could have easily matched the North’s and then some. She would have been amply represented in Congress and had much more say in the direction of the country. Fulminating about and secession on behalf of States’ Rights would have never been necessary.
Had the South used free White labor, the Negro population in this country would have been small, manageable and portable. It would have been easier to pay that population reparations for slavery and then repatriate them back to Africa where they could colonize Liberia and we’d be done with them. Moreover, there would have been NO precedent for using Asian labor on the West coast or Mestizo labor in the Southwest.
It was a matter of time before technological advances would have made the need for keeping slaves unnecessary, counter-productive and too damned expensive for the average planter. Then what do you think would have happened? Emancipation, anyway, of course. And with no jobs available in the agrarian South, where would these free Negros end up going? Three guesses and the first two don’t count. The NORTH would have been stuck with them. Just like we are now. Don’t think we weren’t aware of that probability back then. And please understand that a LOT of Northern hostility towards the South stems from having to absorb freed Negro slave populations. All you have to do is visit what is left of Detroit, MI, Camden, NJ, Gary, IN to see how Negro slavery which resulted in Jim Crow which resulted in Negro emigration to the North has adversely affected OUR regions which never had slaves.
Had the South used free White labor, there would have been NO WBTS. There would have been NO excuse for a Lincoln to enhance the power of Washington at the expense of the states. There would have been no NEED for Jim Crow Laws. There would have been NO wedge issue for the Jews to exploit. There would have been NO racial spoils system for power hungry leftists to leverage. NONE of this shit would be happening now. Our country had first amendment rights to protect our religious and ethnic differences and we had our second amendment rights to protect our first amendment rights. Our Constitution was flexible enough to manage AND protect a country full of diverse White populations. That has NOT been the case since the introduction AND subsequent enfranchisement of one alien race after another which then uses its swelling demographics to dispossess and ultimately disenfranchise Whites.
Negro slave labor was the gateway drug to White supremacists who felt it was better to use and exploit cheap, “more manageable” Non-White labor than to pay the White working class fair wages and….God forbid …. eventually share power with the exceptional few with ability and higher aspirations. Negro slave labor led to Chinese coolie labor and illegal alien labor and every single curse of multiculturalism we are experiencing today.
So sorry, Hunter, I cannot look at that antebellum period as nostalgically as you do. I believe that Non-White labor is the White Man’s Kryptonite. Rhodesia and South Africa have proved that in spades and Whites still don’t “get it.” The South could have and should have looked at the fate of the French planters in Haiti as a cautionary lesson and taken steps right then and there to eradicate this menace from their midst and rid the country of the Negro cancer before it grew into the stage three malignancy it is today. ALL of this shit Whites are dealing with today could have been avoided if the antebellum plantocracy could have pulled its head out of whatever orifice they had it shoved up.
I am not here to incite regional backbiting in your thread, but until Whites can be honest with each other, we cannot learn from our mistakes. I realize that the problems of a Northern factory worker or yeoman farmer may not be immediate enough to concern someone from the South, but you also don’t factor the real harm it did to the White Southern working class. I was in chat with a descendant of a man who was my ancestor (a yeoman farmer)’s counterpart. He said that thanks to the plantocracy’s insistence on using Negro labor over freed White labor, HIS ancestor (who did not own any slaves) often had to take time off from his own farm to help planters round up runaway slaves, put down rebellious slaves, and patrol the neighborhood (without being paid by the plantocracy) in case some slave escaped and went on a killing spree. All you have to do is read William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” to see what happened to most of these people after the plantocracy lost their “Glorious Cause.”
I realize that the antebellum South is part of your heritage and, as a history buff, I find that era fascinating to study and do not deny anything of real value that it brought to the American culture. However, AFAIC, for all their style and airs and graces, the plantocracy were just another group of hostile, rich, White elites who showed no compunction about stabbing middle class and working class Whites in the back to exploit cheaper Non-White labor. They set a horrible precedent for the kind of thinking that is prevalent today and unfortunately even infected the North, which should know better.
If it is at all possible these days or in the future, for Whites to create a White homeland, I hope they learn something from history for a change. Non-White labor is the White Man’s Kryptonite. Whites have built up one great civilization after another only to import cheaper Non-White labor and not only seen their civilizations crumble their own populations be overwhelmed and absorbed by the Non-Whites and go extinct. Any new White civilization MUST put in place draconian laws against using Non-White labor or perish. It’s as simple as that.
(1) There are plenty of Yankees whose ancestors fought for negro equality. That’s just not what we were fighting for here.
(2) Sure he was. The Northern states repealed their Antebellum Jim Crow laws during the War Between the States. Previously, free blacks were banned from settling in states like Ohio and Illinois, but that changed under Black Republican rule.
(3) The Antebellum effort to resettle blacks in Africa was finally abandoned after the Republican Party rose to power and decided it was a much better idea to make them American citizens.
(4) I suppose the South could have imported a European underclass to exploit like the Cotton Whigs were doing in Massachusetts.
(5) The South began to industrialize under the Confederacy.
(6) As a matter of fact, the South was kept down for almost a century after the War Between the States.
(7) The black population was imported into America under British rule. The international slave trade was abolished in most states immediately after the Revolution. It was finally banned nationwide in 1808.
(8) Once again, slavery hasn’t existed in the American South for 150 years, but it is still a distinct region and remains politically at odds with New England.
(9) It was hardly our fault that Chinese coolies were settling in free labor California and Oregon. The Republican Party wanted them there.
(8) The real precedent for the importation of a cheap labor force is the Northern precedent of importing millions of cheap laborers from Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries.
(9) If memory serves, the South voted against the Immigration Act of 1965 in Congress and the IRCA amnesty of 1996 and the 1991 Immigration Act. The only reason the Bush amnesty was defeated was because the South was able to block it.
(10) Well, it was the North that loved them so much that it fought the bloodiest war in American history to make them citizens and give them “civil rights,” and it was the North that passed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Dred Scott decision and repealed its own laws – voluntarily, I might add – to allow free blacks to take up residence there.
(11) That makes no sense. It was a purely a Northern decision to abolish slavery, give blacks citizenship, and create a multiracial integrated society.
(12) The North gave blacks citizenship because they were reliable Republican voters.
(13) False. Slavery existed in the North until the 1830s. What happened to all the slaves that used to live there? Were they deported to Liberia? No, they were sold for profit to slaveowners in the South, who were then morally condemned by Yankees for buying their slaves!
(14) Like I said above, slavery hasn’t existed here for 150 years, but the North is still obsessed with its usual manias of “perfecting” American society, gay marriage being the latest incarnation of that ideal.
(15) Absolute bullshit.
If that were true, then it would have been the South which was passed the Immigration Act of 1965, and it also would have been the South that was behind Chinese immigration to California in the 19th C.
Since when was it our idea to built the transcontinental railroad to free labor California? California was a free state. It was part of the Union, not the Confederacy.
This whole idea of a “melting pot” and importing millions of foreigners from overseas to be exploited by industry – that is purely a Yankee idea – just like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were Yankee ideas.
The fact is, the South voted against the Immigration Act of 1965. It was the North that wanted it so bad. It was Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts who pushed harder for it than anyone else.
(16) The North was trying to expand the power of the federal government before the War Between the States, during the War Between the States, and is still to this day trying to expand the power of the federal government.
(17) The North had its own Jim Crow laws BEFORE the War Between the States.
(18) Have wedge issues suddenly gone away?
(19) There was no desire in the South to emancipate the negro, make him a citizen, and give him equal rights. That was another Yankee idea.
(20) Well, after the North triumphed over the Confederacy, humbling the power of the planter class, why didn’t the Union just “remove the cancer” and deport blacks to Africa?
Actually, what really happened is that the Union preferred to use its Navy to strangle our economy for they could liberate the negro, make him a citizen, and create the so-called “Freedman’s Bureau” here to promote nigger equality.
(21) Umm … the problem was never the presence of blacks in the United States. They were perfectly under control. The real problem has always been the Yankee obsession with liberalism.
If you look at an issue like “gay marriage,” it has nothing to do with slavery. It just one example among many others of Yankees taking liberal abstractions to extremes and decrying the immorality of America unless it adjusts itself to radical changes in our culture.
(22) The North cared so much about the Southern working class that it used its Navy to create starvation in the South, sent the Union Army here to kill hundreds of thousands of them, empowered the negro over Whites in South Carolina and Louisiana, destroyed our economy and then suppressed our industrial development for nearly a hundred years thereafter!
(23) The Southern working class was BETTER OFF under slavery in the Antebellum era than it was AFTER the war under sharecropping.
(24) What’s the alternative?
Well, the alternative to the Confederacy, which was founded on white supremacy, was living in poverty in the Union under negro equality and negro/carpetbagger rule. The North never gave a damn about the Southern working class and still doesn’t to this day.
(25) The precedent for mass immigration and race replacement is … ding, ding, ding … the North importing cheap labor from overseas to work in its manufacturing industries. Yankees are a minority in almost every Northern state except for Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire now.
Why is that?
White Southerners in every Southern state are overwhelmingly descended from the original colonists. The people who live in Alabama and Georgia have been here for centuries.
(16) BTW, it was the North’s ideas to import millions of Jews into this country.
(17) Who is pushing for non-White labor? It is CHEAP LABOR that they want. It just so happens that they can’t get CHEAP LABOR from Europe anymore and have turned to other sources.
Who voted for that? It wasn’t us. The North changed our immigration laws with the same supermajority that it used to overthrow Jim Crow.
Good news:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/24/georgia-county-votes-confederate-battle-flag-flying/
Even without African slave labor our situation wouldn’t have changed much. Europe didn’t import Africans (except Portugal) and look how many Africans and other non-Europeans are there now.
The main problem was Yankees and Jews.
Latins on the other hand destroyed themselves in South America.
Northern states have more Mediterranean ancestry, Southern states more Northern European. Is it starting to sink in yet?
1) You misunderstand, Hunter. Neither my ancestor nor most Yankees fought for Negro equality. White labor was resentful about fighting in a war in which the fate of Black slaves was so central. White elites were able to avoid service by paying a steep fee to have others serve in their place.No matter what today’s Yankee propaganda spews out today. Working class Yankees hated Negro LABOR. They did not want to compete with Negro slave labor and they certainly did not want to compete with free Negro labor either. In the movie, “The Gangs of New York,” the Irish rioted when it came out that this WBTS would emancipate and enfranchise Negro slaves. Lincoln took the North into war with the implicit understanding that it was a) to hold the Union together against mischievous foreign powers; and b) to repatriate Negro slaves back to Africa.
2) Yankees loathe Negros. I don’t believe our Jim Crow laws were as formal as yours, but Northern Whites did everything imaginable to keep Negros out of their trade unions and housing even up to WWII. As any Negro living in the North would tell any Negro living in the South, “In the South, they don’t care how close you get, as long as you don’t get too high. In the North, they don’t care how high you get as long as you don’t get too close.” The one thing that surprised me about the South when I visited was how often I saw dirt poor derelict neighborhoods within blocks of great neighborhoods. Up North, we use class disparities to effect de-facto segregation. We have “the tracks.” And we either come from (the neighborhood on) the right side or the wrong side of the tracks. Most Whites bust their asses to move to the right side of the tracks. Only poor White trash or immigrants lived on the wrong side of the tracks among the Negros.
3) Actually the move to repatriate Negro slaves back to Africa ended when Liberia formally declared its independence from the USA in 1847. Unfortunately, the Bank of England came in and loaned money to Liberia at usurious rates and then Liberia ended up on the losing end of all kinds of deals with the Europeans that lost them most of the territory that the American Colonization Society had acquired for them. So, the Americans would have to start again from scratch to resettle the Negros elsewhere. Lincoln himself felt that Negros could not be assimilated into White society and supported projects to remove them from the United States up until his assassination. Only the most radical Republicans wanted to enfranchise the Negros.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
4) My argument is that the South SHOULD have imported a European underclass to exploit like the Cotton Whigs were doing in Massachusetts. I do not believe the White indentured servant’s lot in Colonial America was any easier than a Negro slave’s, but you don’t see the historians sniveling over him hundreds of years later, do you?
5) Industrialization would have occurred long before the establishment of the Confederacy necessitated it. And I believe that a large non-White working class demographic would have given the South enough representative clout in Congress to better protect Southern interests making the need for the Confederacy unnecessary.
6) I do not deny that the South was kept down by a vindictive North after the WBTS. However, I am wondering how much that had to do with Northern labor keeping Negro freedmen tied to Southern plantations? A competitive post WBTS Southern industrial infrastructure would have been a magnet to White European immigrants who would have pushed the Negros northward, IMO.
7) I do not deny that Negro slavery was a British import, but I feel that the first order of business in America should have been to phase it out in favor of freed White labor ASAP to avoid an inevitable race war in the future. The American colonists knew as far back as 1712 and 1742 that Negros were a problem when they rioted in New York City, but they hit the snooze button. The French experience in Haiti in 1804 was another wake-up call, but again Americans hit the snooze button. Ditto, John Brown in 1859.
8) I have no problem with the American South being a distinct region OR at odds with New England politics. I am not only a history buff, but I am also, at heart, a cultural tourist who loves real diversity, so when I visit the South, I hit every landmark and museum and immerse myself in as much Southern culture and hospitality that I can. I love your regional flavor and fare. I mean seriously, have you tried the cooking in New England? They boil everything and season nothing, LOL.
9) I don’t fault Southerners over Chinese coolie labor in California and Oregon. However, I believe that America’s initial and the South’s greater reliance on Negros ultimately served as a “gateway drug” to encouraging the growth of more non-White labor underclasses in this country. Unfortunately, the Radical Republicans managed to shift what should have been the country’s real focus on the importance of using White co-racials for labor rather than creating a working underclass composed of an alien, antagonistic race to the issue of Negro slavery. The parallel today is disingenuous Whites saying they have no problem with LEGAL immigrants (no matter what race they are) rather than the flood of non-White immigrants (legal or illegal) overwhelming us especially with the non-White chain migration attached. Because of “mission creep,” Northern Whites who were suckered into a war that emancipated Negro slaves could not complain about Chinese coolie labor, because at least this wasn’t the slave labor they said they were objecting to. Anyone with a lick of sense knew that it was not only slave labor they were objecting to. It was also Non-White labor.
8) Had the founding fathers addressed the issue at the Constitutional Convention and implemented a gradual but aggressive program for phasing out Negro slavery and replacing it with free White labor rather than leaving the problem to fester and grow between two sides that they knew would get more fractious, all this shit we are experiencing today could have been avoided. As long as that cheap labor force was composed of White Europeans, White America could assimilate them within three to four generations. We will NEVER assimilate Non-Whites. If anything, the opposite is true.
9) Demography is destiny. The South voted against the Immigration Act of 1965 but she did not have a large enough population of like-minded White people to give her vote any support. She was not helped much by the Three-Fifths Compromise and then she was decimated by TWBTS and Reconstruction.
10) The North fought the bloodiest war in the history of the USA to hold onto the South. England could have been a problem on our Canadian border in the future and the French could have presented a problem from Mexico. Now do I personally think the wiser course would have been for the North to let the South leave, recognize the Confederacy, and establish mutual trade and defense pacts (all while using the Monroe Doctrine to warn off the European powers?) Absolutely. However, I would make any re-entry of the South into the Union contingent on the South getting rid of its Negro population (slave or free) and done my best to take over the West to contain this Non-White virus to the South.
11) It was Radical Republicans who did all that, exploiting post-war divisions and the Lincoln assassination by John Wilkes Boothe to seize more power by using this new population of voters. Your average Yankee so despised these people that these clowns were voted out of office by 1885, the Democrats lost the electoral vote in 1890, but won the popular vote and then they took office again in 1893. Within one generation.
12) Radical Republicans pushed through enfranchisement of Negro slaves to get future voters much like today’s Democrats are pushing for amnesty of illegal Mestizos for the same reasons. These were Yankee politicians we are talking about, not the rank-and-file Yankee working class.
13) No denying Yankee hypocrisy. However, if the South could have come on board and phased out Negro slavery and phased in freed White labor, Southern planters could have likewise sold their slaves further South at a profit to Brazil which did not formally abolish slavery until 1888. There was also the option to sell them to Arab and North African countries which still practice slavery to this day. Believe me, I am NOT trying to take the moral high ground, here. I am coming from a complete racial realist POV.
14) If the South had had the free White demographic numbers to back her up, she could have provided a much more powerful and effect bulwark against Northern “progressive” manias.
15) The idea of a melting pot was the inspiration of a Jew named Israel Zangwill. This would have worked just fine as long as White European racial demographics had held, thanks to the common English tongue and the first amendment Constitutional protections regarding religion. The 1964 and 1965 had Useful White Idiots backing it, but also pushed by Jews. Thanks to the presence of large Non-White populations that were “successfully” integrated into American society (and when I say successfully, I say that aside from a few lynchings and small-time riots, and of course the WBTS, there was never the kind of bloody strife between the races that we saw in Europe between White nations, White tribes, and White ethnicities). The unfortunate thing is that our “success” generated the multiculturalist movements by the Forces of Diversity which are now flooding our White European Christian homelands with Non-White, Non-Christian immigrants usually from their old North African and Caribbean colonies and who all feel that White Europe owes them something just like their Negro counterparts in America.
You are in your rights to conclude that the low-cost White European labor that Northern factory owners imported was the “gateway drug,” leading to illegal non-White labor. However, these European laborers had to meet get the permission and meet the criteria of the Anglo-Americans. It was the successful Anglo-American system that drew them here, they had great respect for the American way and they made a point to assimilate ASAP. Within the second generation they spoke English fluently and by the third, their differences with the founding population was minimal. White Europeans had no historical grudges against White Americans to avenge Contrast that to greedy, parasitical, self-entitled Non-White illegal populations all bearing a historical grudge (real or imagined) against White Americans.
16) Yes, but the Southern states could have checked Northern ambitions for hegemony if it had the free White demographics backing them. You’d have had a large voting bloc of like-minded co-racialists as clout in pursuing Southern interests.
17) Yes we did, because we already had a free Negro working class to compete with. Did I mention that we didn’t want that?! Nothing quite as “out there or in your face” as the South’s, but any White factory owner hiring Negros could expect to have some major problems on his job site. Again, I am not trying for any moral high ground, here.
18) The wedge issues would not exist in the first place if this country had taken steps to eradicate the use of Non-White labor ASAP at its inception. We’d probably see some minor class, regional or religious flaps, but our Constitution could offer equal protection to a heterogenous WHITE population.
19) There was no desire in the North (except by the lunatic fringe kooks) to emancipate the Negro, make him a citizen or give him equal rights. We didn’t want him around. Period. We didn’t care what it took to get rid of him as long as it was done as quickly as possible. Do you honestly believe any Northerner would have had a damned thing to say if your average Southern planter decided to sell his slaves to Brazil and replace them with White immigrant laborers? Slavery wasn’t the bone of contention; Negros were!
20) The time to remove the Negro slaves (through repatriation or resale to another country) was before not after the WBTS. I don’t think there was enough money left in the Yankee till after that. The South may have lost the WBTS, but they made the North pay dearly to keep them in the Union against their will and then there were the costs of not only imposing martial law on the South, but Reconstruction.
21) Funny. I’m sure that the French living in Haiti thought their slaves were under control as well, until they were not. I believe that a major bloody uprising by the slaves in the south would have been inevitable if the system had been continued. Demography was Haiti’s destiny and that destiny would have been repeated in areas of the South where Negro slaves outnumbered the White populace.
22) I never claimed that the Northern elites gave a damn about the Southern White working class anymore than they did about the Northern White working class. And I think every stunt that was pulled on the South during Reconstruction was designed to keep the South poor, agrarian, dependent on Northern industry and the Negros contained to Southern plantations. Again, I take no moral high ground here. My view is that of a racial/regional realist.
23) I believe that the founding Southern White working class would have been better off with White European peasant sharecroppers had they been used in the Antebellum South. They would have risen up to be the Southern mercantile class, because they would have the White European clientele to which they would supervise, instruct, and sell goods and services. Ultimately, they would have built an industrial infrastructure to rival the North’s.
24) The alternative to the Confederacy should have been a gradual but aggressive plan to phase out Negro slave labor and phase in free White immigrant labor. The plantocracy would be given and probably choose the option of selling their slaves to Brazil or other slave-holding countries. I assume those slaves would be primarily unskilled fieldhands. The self-righteous sappery composing the abolitionist wingnuts of the North would be given the option of financing ventures like the American Colonisation Society which would repatriate skilled Negro slaves to African countries.
25) I believe you are partially right about the North importing cheap European labor as a precedent for illegal alien labor, but you are also partially wrong. The Iron Curtain has been torn down since 1989. The conditions in Eastern Europe are desperately poor. There is nothing to keep the USA and Western Europe, for that matter, to put a halt on all Non-White labor quotas and granting work visas to all these Eastern Europeans. We would at least know who and what we are letting into our country. Yet we choose to turn a blind eye on an illegal Mestizo invasion that often ends up dropping a few anchor babies so they can squat on our social service programs which were provided by LBJ’s Great Society Programs as unofficial reparations for Negro Slavery.
Now, why is that?
16) Guilty as charged on the Jews.
17) Sorry, but because of Negro slavery, Non-White labor IS equated with cheap labor. Never mind about all the social service programs that these illegal alien Metizos take advantage of. American employers would prefer to underpay illegal Mestizos and defer the costs of their housing, feeding and medical benefits to the American taxpayer to simply hiring Ukrainians on temporary work visas and paying them a living wage.
And you’re absolutely right that the South did not vote for the worst shit to come down the pike in 1964 and 1965 or the Simpson-Mazzoli bills during Reagan’s tenure or several other mini-amnesties. Which underscores my point that if the South had been able to match the North in free White demographics, they would have been a great conservative bulwark against the idiocy of Northern “progressive” ideas.
Cheap Non-White labor is the White Civilization’s kryptonite. We either learn, before or after it is too damned late to do anything about it, that demography is destiny. I hope it is not already too late for America, but if it is, and the creation of a White nation is possible, a law must be put in place prohibiting the use of any but White labor. JMHO.