Dixie
The best way to illustrate the “geist” or the “race soul” of the nation of Dixie is through the use of the sports and music of the American South.
As I experienced the “great awakening,” everything that I had witnessed over the years (hence the tribute to “Vulcan”) suddenly seemed to click and make sense. The intellectual fog had faded and a new conservative paradigm emerged into view.
I began to understand my own race and culture in the setting of an epoch of American history known as “Black Run America”:
In this video, the Anglo-American country music artist Blake Shelton travels to Rome and Paris, but finds himself wanting to sing a song about his own home, which is place called Oklahoma and Tennessee.
He has wandered thousands of miles away among the great capitals of Western Europe, but his thoughts are of Dixie and the Heartland in North America. This is what it must be like to psychologically experience alienation and anomie in a commercial society that has been constructed on the basis of the U.S. dollar and the profit motive.
The tune reminded me of Harold Covington who finds himself living in exile and isolated from his own friends and neighbors in the Pacific Northwest. How many times has Harold pleaded with us to “come home” to the Northwest Republic?
Why do you suppose he does that? Maybe he is just lonely. My theory is that he misses North Carolina the way it used to be.
Note: It sounds like Shelton is the product of an organic agrarian society that exists somewhere in the United States.
To paraphrase Kipling, “North is North and South is South and never the twain shall meet.” Which is probably why black people have been moving back south, because they are whether they can deal with it or not, Southern.
Blake Shelton is also extremely HOT, lol !!!
🙂
Mary wrote:
“Blake Shelton is also extremely HOT, lol !!!”
Indeed, Mary. I think HE is the real cause of any polar ice cap melting….zowie!
Now you’ve gotten me started, Mary…..
Shelton is a FLAWLESS physical specimen. I love blue eyes/dark hair. He features are PERFECT.
P
E
R
F
E
C
T
Tall. Handsome. Well proportioned. Them thar Greek Statuaries got NUTHIN’ on that man.
He’s very talented. By all accounts he’s a lovely fellow to deal with. He’s married. Loves his wife. They are totally happy.
Sigh.
I like Josh Turner, too.
Uh — the cotton growers of the South tore the whole country apart to defend a “commercial society … constructed on the basis of the U.S. dollar and the profit motive.”
Did you happen to catch the show about Dixie on the History Channel last night? I think it was called, “You Don’t Know Dixie”. I was amazed that it was so complimentary. The one sad part was when they noted how the people in the South love their college football. It reminded me of Paul Kersey’s coming book regarding this subject.
If Covington feels lonely and isolated, I’m sorry about that, but he brought it on himself. The decisions he made in his life, and the consequences they brought, do not give him the right to arbitrarily dismiss everyone else’s home, history, and life as a decaying homage to “BeaverCleaverville” as he calls it, while simultaneously positing what is in reality just his final landing place as your “real” home, and by extension, himself as your “real” family. Fucking cult behavior. Does he not realize that?
John,
I’m sorry to disappoint your little theory of history, but it was the Union that declared war on the Confederacy. It was the Confederacy that defended itself in the War of Northern Aggression.
The people who lived in Dixie fought to defend their own homes from a foreign invasion. It was the North that fought for the “new birth of freedom” and “to end the evil of slavery” and to “preserve the Union.”
Well, the Union was preserved and here we are today in 2011 under President Barack Hussein Obama. Perhaps we would have been better off if we had won in 1865?
Paul loves college football. I’m sure he knows why he loves college football. It is because he loves his alma mater.
As much as he dislikes the “content of the character” of African-Americans, he still loves his own university, his own state, his own city, and especially his own culture and athletics.
That is why he does what he does. He does it because he sees himself as fighting injustice and the lies of the DWLs. The only reason you hate something so passionately is because you must love something that has tangible value.
For example, the time that Brittney Watts was murdered in Atlanta, it touched Paul and moved him to write about the story. Now there is someone who has figured it all out. 🙂
Paul is one of the hardest working bloggers in the blogosphere.
Why does Paul work so hard? Because he sees himself as being on a mission. He is driven by the mission. He has found his calling which is to expose the truth about Black Run America.
Protestants have a calling. They will defend their race and nation. Even if they don’t realize why they are doing it.
I didn’t realize the origins of my own calling until the other day.
Just what exactly is our culture? It is Calvinism. It is being a non-conformist with a conscience. It is refusing to bow to authority.
It is Protestantism.
To Mr. Wallace (at 10:00 pm, Aug 18):
As was obvious, Mr. Wallace, my “little theory of history” had nothing to do with who declared war. It had to do with who tore the country apart.
The failing then and now of you and other self-consciously Southern Americans (including that clown Calhoun) was whites’ great bane: an inability to listen.
John,
What are you talking about?
Robert E. Lee’s country was Virginia. John C. Calhoun’s country was South Carolina. Jefferson Davis’ country was Mississippi. The states are sovereign. It was the states that created the USA.
It was Abraham Lincoln who “tore the country apart” by attacking the Confederacy with the Union Army. It was that action which caused the secession of Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Why should have we listened to the North?
It is clear even then where the North was taking America. It was abundantly clear in Reconstruction. It was crystal clear in the 1960s when the North fell in love with MLK. Now it is so clear that you have to be blind in Dixie not to see it under Barack Hussein Obama.
We need our own government, own currency, our own culture, and our own racial ideals back.
What I am talking about is that the cotton growers of the South attempted to evade the central question — whether chattel slavery was to be allowed in the United States — in the same way that you are now trying to evade it, by raising questions about the individual states’ prerogatives in our Federal structure. It’s all nonsense. That central question was going to be settled, sooner or later, one way or another; the cotton growers, in their stubbornness, ensured that it was settled by war.
Their evasions also complicated the racial question, by effectively putting race-conscious whites of the North in a bind, in which race consciousness was difficult to distinguish from support for slavery — while at the same time, race consciousness was entangled with abolitionism, because race-conscious whites didn’t want Negro slaves brought into their lands.
Those growers just made a mess of everything — and now we’re all living with it.
The only mess that was made was when the imperial Yankee decided that Southerners had no claim to their own independence.
I fully expect that the eventual demise of the Federal beast will remove this invasion “evasion.”
Maybe the noble Yankees who all voted for Obama can solve their negro problems without “trampling out the grapes of wrath” or “Freedom riding” in our land this time.
We can do fine on our own without either their “central” questions or “central” government. Or any other totalitarian fantasy they care to dream up.
“Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.”
Jefferson Davis
Deo Vindice
To Apuleius (at 11:17 pm, Aug 18):
I find nothing of value in anything you said there. It’s all the same old things — the same old inability to listen, the same old nursing of grievance against an enemy, the North, that is really just your enemy in your own mind.
Your placing of the word “central” in quotation marks is not an argument: chattel slavery was the central question — and by defending chattel slavery, the South’s leaders not only forced a war, they complicated the racial question.
No, you can’t “do fine” on your own — because attending football games, having tailgate parties, and talking about Jesus don’t amount to “culture” simply by being habitual. You will do well to avoid not listening.
John,
(1) First, no one but the abolitionists contested the right to own slaves, which was recognized in the U.S. Constitution, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Dred Scott decision.
(2) Second, the Republican Party was opposed to the expansion of slavery in the Western territories (this was a convenient glue that held various factions together), but its programme was not to abolish slavery in the South.
(3) It is a historical fact that each colony seceded from Great Britain. It is a historical fact that each colony confederated under the Articles of Confederation. It is a historical fact that each state confederated under the U.S. Constitution.
(4) It is a historical fact that referring to “the United States” instead of “these United States” is a post-Lincoln development like the Pledge of Allegiance.
(5) In the nineteenth century, Americans were loyal to their families, their counties, their states, the Christian God … and last of all to the Union … whereas after Lincoln only the Union became sacred.
You could debase the family, debase the race, debase entire states, debase our communities, debase our culture, debase our currency, but Lincoln’s Union in Washington was holy, the only thing left in America that was holy and unquestionable.
In BRA, the union of a man and woman before God can be terminated by the state, but we can’t divorce Washington and Wall Street. That says a lot about the priorities of this facsimile of a country.
(6) The question is not settled. Why is it settled?
(7) As a result of Sherman’s March through Georgia, Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania got the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment. Maybe it was a mistake in hindsight?
(8) Who made the mess of things?
Well, the mess of things really all goes back to the triumph of Lincoln in 1865, which is what gave us the 14th Amendment and the entire ideology of “civil rights,” not to mention the Washington dollar and the Jewish Question and a racial discourse that is dominated by abstractions and which makes no sense whatsoever.
Arguably, the mess of things goes way back to the Middle Ages, when Europeans first began to experiment with the idea that material objects can be an object of faith, which led to the whole profit motive society in Western Europe.
If I don’t listen, it’s probably because as a Southerner I don’t much cotton to your incessant Yankee harangues. I’ve heard them all my life along with all the insulting stereotypes you people seem so obsessed with.
Let me see if I understand. Now that you’ve finished saving the niggers from us mouthbreathing Jesus-worshipping rednecks, you want to save us mouthbreathing Jesus-worshipping rednecks from the niggers. How noble and how superior. Thank you so awful much. We are eternally grateful.
We LOVE our country…it just isn’t the same one as yours, despite what you might think. We are politically joined to the Yankee empire only by conquest of our lands. Our hearts cannot be conquered and never will be.
Here’s a little song that sums it up nicely. I doubt if you can understand but have a Dixie day anyway!
Didn’t we have a discussion about “Warrior Monks” just the other day?
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/08/18/the-warrior-monk/
To Apuleius (at 12:10 am, Aug 19):
I think you’re the one who’s indulging in stereotypes — of persons in the North as “Yankees.” I haven’t harangued you, and I haven’t invoked any sort of stereotype. (If you have taken my reference to football, tailgate parties, and Jesus as a stereotype, please note that I was referring to Mr. Wallace’s recent post about those things, as elements of Southern “culture.” If you don’t like stereotypes of Southerners, take it up with him.)
I’ll admit that the only thing that moved me in the Johnny Cash video you linked was the beauty of Mr. Cash’s daughter. If you’re suggesting that, even before the Civil War, whites of the South had a particular attachment to Dixie — an attachment that was greater, in a way, than their attachment to the Union and that would have been that way even if the question of chattel slavery hadn’t separated North and South — well, you might be right; I don’t know enough history to say. Regardless, North and South could have lived happily, as a united country, if not for the dispute over chattel slavery.
This exchange that you and I are having began with a comment in which I objected, in effect, to Mr. Wallace’s disparaging of love of “the U.S. dollar” and “the profit motive” — as if the true men of the South are interested in loftier things. Personally, I don’t have a lot of U.S. dollars — but I like U.S. dollars, as, I’m inclined to guess, Mr. Wallace and you do, too. The cotton growers of the South certainly liked dollars — or whatever currency they were using. I like U.S. dollars, and I like living among white persons only — which is to say, you and I and Mr. Wallace are probably not very different, no matter how much importance you and he might attach to the Southern life you know and enjoy. If you want your situation to change, you must see it clearly. Denunciation of dollars and denunciation of the war that eliminated chattel slavery in the U.S. as an invasion are indications of a failure to see clearly.
John,
The leaders of the Confederacy always said that “chattel slavery” was merely an incident that caused the War Between the States. If the war hadn’t been fought over slavery, it would have been fought over something else.
Well, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, but for the next 10 years the South remained at odds with the North, and waged a guerrilla war to drive out the Union Army. In fact, the South maintained its own racial caste system until the 1960s, and was a nation in everything but name for the next 100 years.
Slavery hasn’t existed in America in 150 years, but Dixie is still very recognizable and distinct. Dixie is ferociously opposed to Obama. The Solid South is coming back now in the state legislatures. Slavery has been gone for 150 years, but the South mysteriously remains a distinct section.
It remains a distinct section between it is a nation.
John,
By the mid-nineteenth century, the Antebellum South had begun to evolve into the nation of Dixie. It wasn’t until after the War Between the States and the Reconstruction period that the blood sacrifice made between 1861 and 1877 crystallized into Southern nationalism.
Sure, I will grant that North America was settled on the basis of the profit motive. The entire Western Hemisphere was colonized with the profit motive foremost in mind. The difference is that in the mid-nineteenth century the American South had begun to diverge into a new type of society.
We never got to see how the South would have evolved if it had won its independence in 1865. In spite of this, we can still pick up where we left off in the 1850s, and use the materials that were left behind in that era to forge a new nation more in line with our own ideals.
To Mr. Wallace (at 12:01 am, Aug 19):
Your five numbered points seem to me to be the same old evasions. My knowledge of just about all of the historical particulars you mention is vague, limited — and that’s a strength. The very fact that I’ve failed, over decades, to absorb those particulars mentally is an indication that I won’t be drawn away from the main point, no matter how frequently anyone plays the Calhoun game.
The Constitution’s slavery provisions, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Dred Scott decision all reflected the deep divide over the question of chattel slavery. Why do you think two of them were called compromises? Why was it that Jefferson thought that one of them — whichever it was — was a fire bell in the night, a sign of division that would only deepen and, ultimately, destroy the Union? Was Jefferson as blind as I am, unable to see that, as you have put it, “only the abolitionists” were contesting the right to own slaves?
It doesn’t matter how the Republican Party positioned itself politically, for the election of 1860. Obviously, the question of chattel slavery — everywhere in the Union — was coming to a head — or am I mistaken to think the South was very troubled by the prospect of a Lincoln victory?
As for your points 3, 4, and 5: Yes — “United States” is plural in the U.S. Constitution. So? Are you saying it’s bad to be proud of and loyal to the United States? Are you saying that, if the question of chattel slavery hadn’t divided North and South, that the people of the South would have been thinking, “Let’s get out of this Union; it’s a drag”? I doubt it.
You and I would probably agree as to the country’s most pressing problems. All I’m saying is that you’re not helping to resolve any of those problems by denouncing money, or the “profit motive,” or a war that arose over slavery. Money is good; slavery isn’t. As I said in my preceding post, to Apuleius: if you want to change your situation, you must see it clearly.
It’s all a matter of tone, isn’t it? Deriding others for not “listening,” or being “stubborn,” oversimplified cartoon references to “cotton growers,” “nursing of grievances,” describing folks “talking about Jesus,” are really not meant as invectives?
You strain my credibility, sir. You might want to read more history before presuming to lecture anyone about it. The federally funded “dumbed down” schoolbook version of history is sadly lacking. You might find out if you cared about learning.
I’m quite sure that in your history class you were probably taught about our “pilgrim forefathers” without questioning why it is important to emphasize an English settlement that took place 13 years after the original settlement in Jamestown in 1607.
How much do you know about the English Civil War that occurred shortly after Jamestown? What was a “Cavalier” or a “Roundhead?” Was there any difference between these parties beyond religion, occupation, or ethnic group? Why would this be important to the united States?
How important is money to an agrarian society? How do farmers feel about banking establishments and speculators? I bet merchants, shopkeepers, factory owners, shipping magnates, and other city folks feel differently. I wonder what the impact of a trade tariff would be on a farmer? Any idea? Who would benefit from such a thing?
The last four Confederate states were not cotton states and only seceded following Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to invade the original seven Confederate states. I believe Hunter pointed this out to you only to be ignored. These other four states felt some sort of kinship with the original seven that was based upon a common cultural identity you seem unable to comprehend. I wonder what it could be?
I wonder why so many of the “hog and hominy” farmers of Tennessee (the overwhelming part of the population) felt obliged to lay down their lives for the few “cotton growers” around Memphis? Stupid “red state” hicks, right?
That we Southerners have a unique cultural identity may not sit well with you, but it is a fact. We cannot sit still and “listen” to your dismissals, however ill-informed they may be.
If you actually did some honest research into social mores and any number of cultural or political issues you would immediately notice a significant variance between the area we call “Dixie” and the rest of the country. It is not a figment of our fevered imaginations.
These differences have existed since the beginning of the united States of America (original spelling in the Declaration of Independence) and transcend the single issue of slavery which your Yankee history books are always fixated upon.
The North and South could have lived happily together…as long as the South consented to her own economic rape by Northern moneyed interests. Recommend you read Charles Dickens or Lord Acton’s comments on the “late unpleasantness.” You do know who Charles Dickens was, don’t you?
“Yankee” is the word your people use to describe themselves. It’s not a stereotype. See “yankee ingenuity,” “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” “New York Yankees,” “The Yanks Are Coming,” and my personal favorite “Yankee Go Home!”
John,
(1) As to your assertion that I am “evading” the issue of chattel slavery, my response is that “chattel slavery” hasn’t existed in the American South in 150 years, but over the course of that entire period the South has diverged from the North on countless other issues.
(2) As Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens said all along, “slavery” was never the real issue. The real issue was whether the South could secede from the Union and organize itself into an independent nation-state.
(3) It was Yankees who believed “the real issue” was slavery. If that was really and truly the case, explain the 10 years that followed the War Between the States, when slavery had ceased to exist, but the resistance continued by other means.
(4) Slavery was nothing more than a mechanism for controlling blacks and settling the race issue within the South. It was a practical relationship between blacks and whites.
(5) There was a Missouri Compromise, a Compromise of 1850, and a Dred Scott decision. Yet there was also a Compromise of 1877 and a Compromise of 1896 and finally the Verdict of 1965.
(6) The issue never went away because slavery was never the real issue. If slavery was the real issue, what were Southerners fighting for in the 1960s?
(7) Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both involved in the anti-slavery colonization movement. The only reason the anti-slavery movement declined in the South is because it became identified with Northern abolitionism which was ideological.
(8) Are you loyal to Washington, DC? Is the Union holy or something? Washington has said that the U.S. military must get rid of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. It just said today that “diversity” will be imposed on the federal workforce and illegal aliens will get amnesty.
Under Barack Hussein Obama, the USDA spends its time fighting “heterosexism” and polices Alabama and Georgia to ensure that the black holes in the central part of our state are allowed to exist indefinitely.
(9) I’m ready to get out of the Union now – in 2011!
(10) You don’t understand.
The triumph of Lincoln in 1865 led to the triumph of the Northern view of the United States. It led to the triumph of the Northern way of life and the marginalization of the Southern way of life.
There is a Federal Reserve now. That thing is the reincarnation of the Second Bank of the United States which Andrew Jackson destroyed in the 1830s. It has sold us into debt to China.
The profit motive and the “Civil Rights Movement” has geographically disfigured our entire country. The universities are full of Cultural Marxists who preach alien ideas. The television pumps alien ideas into Dixie. The Interstates that run through Dixie bring alien traffic.
The federal government allows millions of aliens to settle here. If the South voted on the Immigration Act of 1965, it would be defeated in a landslide. Just like every other stupid piece of legislation from affirmative action to multiculturalism to diversity, etc.
Wall Street is Alexander Hamilton’s dream come true. Everyone is a serf who works for the banks which are bailed out by the U.S. Treasury. Jefferson hated the banks more than he hated slavery.
(11) We can solve our problems by getting out from underneath Washington. In fact, that is the only way we will ever solve our problems. If you need any further proof, look at who sits in the White House, the community organizer from Chicago who just used the White House to give amnesty to illegal aliens.
Deo Vindice
Apuleius,
Here’s a toast to the Republic of Dixie!
To Mr. Wallace (at 1:39 am and 1:46 am, Aug 19):
If, as you report, the leaders of the Confederacy maintained that slavery was merely a pretext for the Civil War, then, in my view, they were lying, trying yet again to evade the central question.
You write:
“Sure, I will grant that North America was settled on the basis of the profit motive. The entire Western Hemisphere was colonized with the profit motive foremost in mind. The difference is that in the mid-nineteenth century the American South had begun to diverge into a new type of society.”
Diverge into a new type of society? You mean some new type of society in which human beings don’t need money to live? What are you talking about? Look at the video clip you yourself posted the other day — the clip in which the Calhoun character is saying that an attack on slavery is an attack on the very economic life of the South. Did some scurrilous Yankee trick you into posting that? You’re not saying anything valid.
You write:
“Well, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, but for the next 10 years the South remained at odds with the North, and waged a guerrilla war to drive out the Union Army. In fact, the South maintained its own racial caste system until the 1960s, and was a nation in everything but name for the next 100 years.”
Your statement is disingenuous. Obviously, the mere passage of the 13th Amendment didn’t mean that slavery wouldn’t have been reinstituted if the Union Army had withdrawn — and the postwar guerrilla conflicts and the decades of Jim Crow were all a consequence of the entanglement of the slavery question and the race question. That entanglement, as I have said, was a consequence of the Southern leaders’ insistence on defending slavery.
You write:
“We never got to see how the South would have evolved if it had won its independence in 1865. In spite of this, we can still pick up where we left off in the 1850s, and use the materials that were left behind in that era to forge a new nation more in line with our own ideals.”
As I’ve already said in this and the preceding post, I don’t think the South would have withdrawn from the Union if there had been no dispute over slavery. I think your view of the South as some sort of would-be-independent land — and not merely a region of the U.S. — is disingenuous, too. It’s merely thinly-veiled resentment over the loss of the War.
Do you want to know how white Southerners should think? Look to the Japanese. They had a slight inability to listen, too — which is why we had to hit them with two atom bombs, not just one; but they got the message.
Everybody likes to have pride in his or her part of the world; but for a century-and-a-half now, you diehard rebels have put yourselves and everyone else in the position in which loving Dixie means, in effect, approving of slavery. You’re disingenuous about that every time there’s a dispute about someone’s flying the Confederate flag — but you’re not fooling anybody but yourselves.
Do you know when the South will rise again? When 80% of white ten-year-olds who live there can demonstrate the Pythagorearn Theorem — not when they know who played in the last bowl game.
Here, here Hunter. Sic semper tyrannus!
To a free and independent Southland!
Deo Vindice.
To Apuleius (at 2:10 am, Aug 19):
No, it’s not all a matter of tone. The pre-Civil-War effort to argue that slavery was a states’ rights issue, plus the 150-year-old post-Civil-War effort to argue that slavery was not the war’s cause, are/were indications of a failure to listen. To point that out is not invective.
My reference to “cotton growers” was not oversimplified or cartoonish. Actually, it was an attempt to be polite, to suggest that a small group of men, the cotton producers, dragged the whole of the South into a war over slavery. It’s time I admit you’re right: it was the entire South, not just the cotton growers, that was wrongheaded.
Beyond that, I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make by insisting on the existence of a strong Southern identity. The main concern of this website seems to me to be race; that is certainly my main concern. What I have said is that the South entangled the questions of slavery and race and that by defending “the South” you are keeping them entangled.
John,
I’ve read the memoirs of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens myself.
(1) Do you know anything about these men?
(2) Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens WERE the Washington establishment in the 1850s.
(3) The slaveowner Alexander Stephens passionately argued against secession in Georgia. After it was a done deal, he sided with his country, which was the State of Georgia, and became Vice President of the Confederacy.
(4) What exactly was seceding from the Union supposed to accomplish? Lincoln’s Republican Party had no desire to abolish slavery in the South. By seceding from the USA, the South lost access to ALL the territories.
(5) If slavery was the “central question,” then why didn’t the abolition of slavery settle the differences between the North and the South? Why have the differences persisted for 150 years after the abolition of slavery?
(6) Yes, the South had begun to diverge into an agrarian society. Meanwhile, the North had begun to diverge into an industrial society and commercial society. Logically, there was tension between the two.
(7) By the mid-nineteenth century, the South had begun to shed itself of radical egalitarianism. Alexander Stephens said it best in the Cornerstone Speech:
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. ”
(8) Oh really?
What do you call debt slavery? What do you call the TARP? What do you call working two jobs for the U.S. dollar? What do you call working for the minimum wage?
What do you call working for Wall Street’s credit card and the Countrywide mortgage? What do you call working for the student loan industry? What do you call hocking our nation to China for Southern taxpayers can pay interest to Chinese bondholders?
That’s the Northern version of slavery.
(9) The Redemption movement in the South, not to mention the creation of the Jim Crow South, not to mention the massive resistance movement in the 1950s, not to mention the “Cold War” that Dixie has waged against Washington since the 1960s, not to mention the destruction of the Democratic Party in the South … proves that slavery was just one mechanism for dealing with the racial question and that abolishing slavery never ended the national question.
(10) The Confederate Flag was raised over Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina in the 1960s – why?
(11) Why was the Confederate Flag raised over Ole Miss in 1961?
(12) In 2011, there is no dispute over slavery, but we want to “withdraw from the Union.”
In 1861, we “withdrew from the Union” because we could see where the fanatics were taking us on the race question. In 2008, they elected Barack Hussein Obama president.
(12) The War Between the States ended 150 years ago. I’m quite sure we have plenty of new resentments in 2011 that could justify the resurrection of the Confederacy.
(13) The Union isn’t going to hit Dixie with atomic bombs anymore than the Soviet Union attacked Ukraine. There is no Union Army. Massachusetts doesn’t have an army.
Are you kidding? Who is going to fight for the BRA Army? Robert Reich? E.J. Dionne? Barack Hussein Obama? Rahm Emanuel?
(14) Slavery hasn’t existed in 150 years. It is the Yankee version of slavery that exists in 2011 – slavery to Wall Street and the Federal Reserve and to Communist China – slavery to political correctness and “anti-racism” and “multiculturalism” and other bullshit like “civil rights.”
(15) LOL, that’s funny coming from someone who lives in Philadelphia, land of the flash mobs, home of his Royal Highness Mayor Nutter, a decaying black hole which has been destroyed by the “Civil Rights Movement.”
I can take you on a tour of Ancient Greek philosophy and history, not to mention Roman history and philosophy, not to mention Medieval and Early Modern history and philosophy.
If no one learns anything in the BRA public schools (except that MLK was the greatest American in history), it is because they were designed for authoritarian school marms. Here in the South, we used to teach our children the classics, and our girls how to play the piano.
So much progress under BRA. Hail Barack Hussein Obama!
It is a better use of one’s spare time to watch college football games on ESPN than to read James McPherson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom” or the New York Times Editorial Page.
Apuleius,
Does this ring any bells?
“The same spirit, which would turn everything into gold … has invaded the sphere of woman.” Yancey contended that northern men had desexed women, had “brushed the down from her cheek, and raised the stiff beard in lieu.” Materialism in the North condemned women as worthless in their vocation as mothers and thrust them into the workplace. Horribly, northern society had led women to believe “that the rights of man are also women’s rights, and that the editorial chair – the medical – the legal and clerical professions should be filled by her, as well as by men.” Northern women had mounted the speaker’s platform and joined in “public harangues,” and some wore “Bloomers,” ready “for bestriding a fence or a saddle as utility shall demand.”
…
Therefore, “Conservatism became ingrafted” on white southerers’ minds, as well as a “habitual reverence for law and order – and a fixed dislike of change.”
In contrast to the organic, structured South, northern society had grown colder than its wintry climate. “In the North the masses are day laborers, confined closely – and unremittingly to the work-shop, the factory, or the field. Few are their holidays – few theirs hours of leisure.”
Northerners obtained their information primarily from reading newspapers. “Thoughts come to them cold – abstract,” and were unlikely to rouse them, unless a particular fact affected them materially. “Our own people read less than the Northern people – Thousands of them cannot read – They labor less – they make less money,” but Yancey argued, ” They have more leisure – They have more amusement. They are a far happier people.”
The point is a simple one. We want our country(Dixie) to be free once more.
Separation from “blue state” Amerika is separation from BRA. BRA is the illegitimate spawn of Northern corporate and political interests reinforced by Northern controlled media and academic eunuchs.
Your people have a lot to answer for. Perhaps you should start to clean up your own backyard in Philadelphia instead of lecturing us here. Or did the clever Yankee lock himself out of his own political process? Oopsies.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I would rather live a lifetime among the duskiest of darkies in the South, than spend a day living among any sanctimonious, know-it-all, Yankee prig.
I hear you loud and clear. The more you go on, the more you reveal yourself.
I also hear Emily Guendelsberger is looking for a date this weekend. Something tells me that you two would be “just like peas and carrots.” Maybe ya’ll could stroll around downtown in your superior Northern urban paradise?
Nuf ced. Anyway, now just where did I put that can of Troll-B-Gone?
To Hunter Wallace (at 2:49 am, Aug 19):
ESPN? Isn’t that some kind of Jew-owned Yankee thing that tries to induce young white women to copulate with Negro athletes? I wouldn’t know; you’re the expert on that.
As I go through your numbered points in your post of 2:48 am, I’m really not sure we’re disagreeing about anything significant. Let me see if I can take those one by one:
(1) Do I know anything about Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens? No.
(2), (3), (4) If I understand these comments, you’re saying that there were complications to the political dispute over slavery. So, what? Political disputes are always complicated. Slavery was the central problem.
(5) The abolition of slavery didn’t settle the differences between North and South because of the entangled question of race. If the population of former Negro slaves had disappeared postwar, the differences would have been settled.
(6) Okay — so the North was industrial, and the South was agrarian — whatever those tems mean. So, what? Were we going to have a war about that?
(7) You make my argument for me. You start out by saying that the South had begun to shed itself of radical egalitarianism — as if suddenly the South had begun to think it should reinstitute the British class system; but then your quotation from Stephens has solely to do with race differences. There were and are plenty of whites, North and South, who don’t want to live among non-whites; that doesn’t have anything to do with whether those whites object to “radical egalitarianism.” Again: you’re the one who’s complicating this, entangling race with another political discussion, just as it was entangled with slavery.
(8) What do I call TARP, working two jobs for the U.S. dollar, etc.? I call them things I object to — just as I object to chattel slavery. There are plenty of person, North and South, who object to them. It would be easier to fight them, politically, if persons like you weren’t complicating things by defending the Confederacy.
(9) I don’t get your point here — but once again, I think you’re making my point. You’re right back to defending slavery, Mr. Calhoun.
(10) Why was the Confederate flag raised over those states in the 1960s? I don’t know — probably because of opposition to forced racial integration. That’s what I’ve been saying, isn’t it? You Confederates are the ones who entangled race, slavery, and regional pride — and you’re insisting on keeping them entangled. That’s what I’m trying to advise you against.
(11) See number 10.
(12) For heaven’s sake, Hunter — I want to withdraw from the Union, too. You’re not making it easier to solve these problems by defending the Confederacy. You didn’t withdraw from the Union because you could see where “fanatics were taking you on the race question.” You yourselves were causing the race problem — by insisting on having Negro slaves.
(13) Not sure what you think we’re disagreeing about here. I would like to live in an all-white country.
(14) Where have I disagreed with any of this?
(15) I can’t tell you how happy I am that your Jim Crow laws drove the Negroes to Philadelphia.
To Apuleius (at 3:19 am, Aug 19):
I don’t think you hear me loud and clear at all. I don’t think you’ve listened to a single thing I said.
We people who live in the North have a lot to answer for? Well, to be honest — I’d say that the abolitionists who thought the black slaves should be set free to live among whites do have a lot to answer for — but I wouldn’t have been one of them. I’m a racist.
We racists would have appreciated it if Dixie hadn’t complicated the race question by entangling it with the question of slavery — and we’d appreciate it if you’d let it get un-entangled.
How are we stopping you from untangling the race question?
Let’s review: it was the North that wanted the War Between the States, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Immigration Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Brown vs. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
It was the North that wanted Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement and Barack Hussein Obama. It is the North that believes that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are “civil rights activists.”
The only thing the South has ever wanted from the North is to be left alone. It is the Yankee way of life to mind the business of everyone. It is the Northern way to force the South and the West to conform to its view of the world.
The North is convinced of its moral and intellectual superiority in the United States because of its commitment to anti-racism, multiculturalism, illegal immigration and political correctness, not to mention the gargantuan federal government in Washington which has sold generations of future taxpayers in Texas and Nebraska to China.
That is not our way of doing things.
John,
(1) If memory serves, Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law in the 1770s. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Alabama’s anti-miscegenation law.
(2) ESPN is a television channel that allows Southerners to watch SEC football games. There is also FOX Sports, CBS, and ABC.
(3) I’ve read the memoirs of both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens. Their position was clear: the South seceded from the United States because it had (a.) the right to do so and (b.) because of irreconcilable differences on various issues.
(4) Slavery was not “the central problem.” I know this is hard for you to believe, but the “central problem” from the South’s perspective is the tendency of Northern fanatics who are driven by ideology to force their insane views on the rest of the country, which is exactly what happened in Reconstruction when the North made citizens out of “African-Americans.”
(5) If slavery was the “central problem,” then the abolition of slavery would have ended the dispute between the North and South in 1865. In the 1960s, the North and South had the same dispute about the North’s insufferable arrogance and its insane position on race!
(6) It means there are permanent irreconcilable differences between the North and South which are dictated by the geography, by the climate, by history, by demography, and by the economy – differences which still drive voting patterns in Congress in the year 2011!
(7) No one in the South wanted a war with the North. It was the “Civil War” from the North’s perspective. No one here was fighting a “Civil War.” It wasn’t our desire to take over Washington.
Again, it was the North that declared war on the South. That is why Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee joined the Confederacy after having rejected secession in 1861.
(8) In the mid-nineteenth century, the South had begun to rethink its own philosophy and culture. The Middle Ages had come back into fashion. J.E.B. Stuart and Robert E. Lee were aristocrats. The South had begun to build its own institutions. It had completely rejected the theory of racial equality.
(9) Again, it was the abolitionist fanatics in the North who believed in racial equality. Do you remember the John Brown attack on Harper’s Ferry in 1859? That was a precursor to the abolition of slavery by Lincoln and the 14th Amendment which was passed by the Radical Republicans in Congress.
(10) In the nineteenth century, Southern political theorists eloquently critiqued the North’s own system of wage slavery to banks, its worship of materialism, the brainwashing of the masses by its newspapers, the degeneration of traditional gender roles, the spread of religious fanaticism and the belief in ludicrous ideas like racial equality in Boston.
(11) It was that view of the world that triumphed in 1865. Chattel slavery was abolished in 1865, but the North’s system of enslaving White people to Wall Street, to the Federal Reserve, and to Asian and European bondholders in very much alive.
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson hated the banks. They hated the Money Power that Alexander Hamilton had built in New York City. The Money Power on Wall Street has turned the whole country into serfs who work in the servant industry for the U.S. dollar to pay off their Wall Street credit card and mortgage.
(12) Why is defending the Confederacy a problem? The Confederacy was the most emphatic rejection of the New York City and Washington view of America. It was the rejection of Alexander Hamilton and the repudiation of the whole philosophy of Whiggery.
(13) We need to revive the Confederacy: free ourselves of New York City, free ourselves of Washington, DC, free ourselves of Los Angeles. We can rebuild the Confederacy, issue our own currency, invest our money in our cities instead of having it squandered by Wall Street.
(14) Chattel slavery hasn’t existed in Dixie in 150 years. That is a moot question. The real question in the year 2011 is slavery to New York City and Washington. Do we want to be ruled by Barack Hussein Obama? Do we want the Washington policy of defending our borders?
(15) The Confederate flag was raised all across Dixie in the 1960s because the race question is the central issue, not “slavery” which was only a mechanism for maintaining some semblance of order over blacks.
Once that mechanism was abolished, we had to come up with another mechanism for keeping the blacks under control. In the 1960s, the North had the great idea that it would elevate blacks over whites, not just in the South, but nationwide.
(16) You’re not making it easier by defending the Union.
The Union was on the wrong side of history. It was the Union that fought for racial equality. In the 1960s, it was the Union that supported Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement.
None of this was our idea.
(17) That’s nonsense.
No, there were Southerners who clearly and presciently warned in the 1840s and 1850s, as well as in the 1950s and 1960s, that Northern fanaticism – its obsession with abstractions like “liberty” and “equality” – would be the ruin of the South.
William Lowndes Yancey went to Upstate New York to tell them clearly and in the most lucid terms that their own fanaticism would destroy the Union. He went to New York to campaign to save the Union in the heart of abolitionist territory!
Did they listen? No.
(18) How were we causing the problem? Why is our business your problem? Maybe there is a problem when people who live in Pennsylvania think they have the right to tell people who live in Virginia how they should live.
We don’t care how you live in Pennsylvania. That’s your business. It is not our way to mind your business.
(19) I would also like to live in an all-White country. Hell, I would like to live in a country where it isn’t a thought crime to be pro-White! Maybe just a sane country. Just a country where I can get a job without having a PC schoolmarm report me to the authorities for being a White Southerner.
Is the USA such a country?
(20) The North voluntarily repealed its own black codes. It also voluntarily passed its own civil rights laws. Then it used the federal government to impose its view on the South which had the Jim Crow system.
To Mr. Wallace (4:19 am, Aug 19):
How are you preventing the untangling of the race question from the slavery question? What has been the subject of this entire exchange you and I are having? If the only thing you can think to do in opposition to forced racial integration is to fly the Confederate flag, you’re entangling the race question and the slavery question.
To Mr. Wallace (at 4:51 am, Aug 19):
You’re being disingenuous. That’s about the fifth time I’ve used that word — and if this exchange of ours continues, I’ll probably use it five or ten more times, because that’s what every defender of “the South” is: disingenuous.
Don’t tell me you just wanted to be left alone. You wanted to be left alone to push other persons — the blacks — around. That’s what the war was about. 400,000+ persons wouldn’t have died in combat if all you wanted was to be agrarian instead of industrial.
The only difference between John C. Calhoun and a modern-day liberal, whether from the North or the South, is the skin color of the persons he likes to push around.
Your disingenuousness is so flagrant it’s verging on the bizarre: slavery was “only a mechanism for maintaining some semblance of order over blacks.” Wouldn’t you know it? Those men of the choicest English breed came to Jamestown and — lo and behold — North America was swarming with blacks. “What are we going to do?” they asked themselves. “All we want is a world in which our noble descendants will be able to watch football games and in which we, with our great sense of honor, will be able to make all sorts of bold political statements on the internet, as we hide behind screen names — but all these blacks are here, swarming in the North American forests. We obviously need some mechanism to control them.”
Spare me.
John,
Perhaps the “slavery question” looks different from the vantagepoint of Philadelphia than it does in the Alabama Black Belt where I from where there actually was slavery 150 years ago.
In the year 2011, there is no “slavery question.” What you call slavery hasn’t existed in almost 150 years in this area. You keep mindlessly repeating your mantra that there was a “slavery question.”
Fact #1: By seceding from the United States, the Confederacy lost access to all the territories where “slavery” could have conceivably been spread.
Fact #2: In the 1860s, the only people who wanted to abolish slavery where it existed in the Deep South was the abolitionist fringe of the Republican Party.
Fact #3: In 1861, Abraham Lincoln himself attempted to ratify the original version of the 13th Amendment which would have legalized slavery for all time in the American South.
Fact #4: By seceding from the Union, the Confederacy endangered slavery where it actually existed, which is to say in Alabama and South Carolina.
Fact #5: Slavery wouldn’t have taken root in Arizona, New Mexico, Nebraska, or Utah no matter how hard Southerners tried to spread it there because of the climate.
Fact #6: The South had plenty of Free States allies in the Northern states to pass its agenda. The existence of Free States was no real threat to the South in the U.S. Senate.
Fact #7: Alexander Stephens and many of the biggest planters in the South opposed secession in Georgia and other states.
Fact #8: The idea that “slavery” was the only issue between the North and the South is absurd. It is a Northern view that was discredited first by Reconstruction, second by Jim Crow, and third by massive resistance in the 1950s.
Fact #9: The North and South have been at odds over various issues since the Continental Congress. There is nothing new about it. Now that the slavery issue is non-existent, the North and South just quarrel over other issues.
Fact #10: It is the Northern states that put the illegal 14th Amendment in the Constitution, which passed every single one of the “civil rights acts,” which glorified Martin Luther King, and which supported the Civil Rights Movement.
Conclusion: Dixie would be FAR BETTER OFF as a free and independent nation in the 21st century that it would be under the failed leadership of Barack Hussein Obama and his USA. That has nothing to do with slavery either.
The problem was never slavery. It was the North’s fascination with stupid radical ideas of morally perfecting America. The geneaology of anti-racism in America is descended from the DNA of abolitionism.
John,
How amusing.
(1) We are “disingenuous” for defending the South from the people who served the glorious Union in making blacks citizens of the United States. It is bad faith to argue that the North attempted to impose integration on the South in the 1870s.
(2) Instead of resisting the Northern invasion, we should have been positively thrilled that Lincoln sent this massive army into Virginia and other Southern states to destroy us and unleash racial anarchy for he could collect his precious tax dollars here.
(3) No, the War Between the States was about the INABILITY of the North to mind its own business. It was about the arrogance, the stupidity, the hypocrisy, and the fanaticism of the North with its utterly insane position on the subject of race.
(4) As proof that this insanity continues in the 21st century, I will point to the lionization of MLK in the North, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which only the North voted for in Congress, and the election of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.
(5) It is the North that feels it has the divine right to push the South around. Not to mention the entire world around. Why can’t Yankees simply mind their own business? Why aren’t they content to ruin their own cities?
If Yankees want to ruin Philadelphia and Detroit because of their stupid position on race, why can’t they leave Atlanta and Richmond alone?
(6) The only reason there was a War Between the States is because Abraham Lincoln attacked the Confederacy. The Confederacy was perfectly content to govern its own affairs. We had no desire whatsoever to impose our will on the North.
(7) LMAO.
That’s the funniest damn thing I have heard all month. Chris Matthews is from Philadelphia. It is Yankees who are obsessed by liberal abstractions and who desire to impose their silly ideas like “racism” and “multiculturalism” on the South.
Again, it was Yankees who put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House, and it was Yankees who gave us the 14th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 too.
Do you honestly think South Carolina imposed “anti-racism” on Pennsylvania? No, it is a home grown form of religious insanity that goes back to the Quakers who cultivated the original form of that disease in Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania repealed its own anti-miscegenation law in the 1770s. Did South Carolina make them do it? Hardly.
(8) The only reason anyone died in the War Between the States is because Lincoln attacked Virginia and the South defended itself from a foreign aggressor.
(9) Well duh.
After slavery was abolished in 1865, we had to create a new practical system for managing the negro problem and the threat it posed to our civilization, which is why there was a “Compromise of 1877” and a “Compromise of 1896.”
(10) If memory serves, it was Europeans who brought slaves to America. Later, it was New England and especially Rhode Island that brought its cargo of black slaves to the United States.
New England was the seafaring section of the Union, not Dixie. That is why the North was able to blockade our coast and starve people here to death. They did it in the glorious cause of “new birth of freedom” or some bullshit along those lines.
(11) I’ve got a great proposal for you: the blacks can go to Philadelphia where Yankees like you love them so much.
The blacks can go to Philadelphia and take over Philadelphia’s government and the “flash mobs” can terrorize people on the streets of Philadelphia and then you can sit back and pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourselves on the wisdom of your superior great ideas like “anti-racism” and “multiculturalism” in Yankeeland as it collapses into bankruptcy and chaos under the sovereignty of Wall Street and Washington, DC.
Here in the South, we will laugh among ourselves in full knowledge of the fact that as far back as 150 years ago we knew the Yankee system was unworkable and was doomed to failure, especially its insane position on race.
Quite honestly, you have had this coming for the longest time: enjoy your “civil rights sandwich” with your “Wall Street financial crisis” with a side order of MLK’s “I Have a Dream.”
How is your president Barack Hussein Obama and “Change Only You Believed In” working out for you up there? It’s a laugh riot down here. We’re flying the Confederate flag and Whistling Dixie watching you succumb to the realization that the society you constructed was not as “superior” as you thought it was.
To Mr. Wallace (at 7:43 am, Aug 19):
If you think I voted for Obama, you’re really not listening.
The gentleman from Philadelphia has apparently forgotten that slavery in North America was not started by Southerners. It began with the English and the Dutch and it was the Yankee shipmasters of Rhode Island and Massachusetts that made fabulous profits from the trade. Hunter, you forgot just one more fact: FACT-Slavery existed in Massachusetts far longer than it did in Alabama, Mississippi or even Georgia.
He insists on saying “you aren’t listening” but I have yet to read what exactly I should be listening to? The biggest lie told about that conflict is that somehow the enlightened Union actually cared about the suffering of poor blacks. Like Lincoln said at the 1865 Hampton Roads peace conference with Stephens, “root, hog or die” was his answer to the black question.
John are you a Nigger loving Guinea Retard? Are you one of those dumbass WOPS that shaves your hiar into a “fade” shaves your eyebrows, and wears tons of gold?
I love Italians. REAL ones. There is not end to my admiration for the breath-taking achievements of Italians, since th foundation of th Eternal City, through the MIRACULOUS Renassiance, up to them odeorn era. I’ve always thought that the real intellectual center of Europe was Italy. Not France.
You write like one pof the “Yo Vinnie” dagos, though. You are not worthy of your last name. What part of Philadelphia do you live in? Where do the female members of oyur family live? Where do they shop? Girard Ave?
Vaffanculo a Lei, la sua moglie, e’ la sua madre. Lei e’ un cafone stronzo. Io non mangio in questo merdaio!
Jack – Jews ran the slave trade, out of Rhode Island. Research the Wolfe family.
Hunter – Philadelphia was beautiful. Beautiful. Just…gorgeous. There are lovely homes all over the city. The architecture in my pooor belived RUINED town is still amazing. It’s going the way of Detroit, though…..
I cannot even go there anymore. It hurts my heart. I know a young man, a young father. His ancestors literally laid out the cobblestones of Olde City. I was there, for an event, approx 3 years ago. This young man had not been in Philadelpha for yearsd – and he was speechless. Grief stricken. To see what’s become of his family’s legacy.
It hurts my heart to venture in.
Yo Vinnie – the South was RIGHT. The North was WRONG.
Actually, Denise, I’m the only one here who has said he is a racist — and who has signed his name.
Then WHY, Yo Vinnie, are you complaining about “Blacks being pushed around”.? I would call well-developed Southern tin Dealing with Violent Prognathics something along the lines of “Effective Strategems for Protecting Negroes, and Every-one Else, FROM Negroes, for the General Welfare and Public Good”.
Denise,
I’m sorry that Philadelphia has been transformed into a black hole. What is truly amazing to me is how anyone can come to this website and (in light of the experience of living in Philadelphia) pick a fight with the South.
After all, if it were not for the “Civil Rights Movement,” Philadelphia would not be in its present condition. The North thought the Civil Rights Movement was a great idea. Now everyone has to live with the consequences of that bad decision.