The Jewish historian Eric Foner explains how his family background in radical Jewish socialist politics influenced his imaginative “reinterpretation” of Reconstruction era. Naturally, his sympathies are with the Radical Republicans, whose project Foner calls America’s Unfinished Revolution.
Why did the South secede from the Union?
“Secessionist emissaries spread a nightmare vision of Republican rule. One warned of consigning Southern daughters “to pollution and violation to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.” Another predicted political equality, which meant “black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything.” These overwrought fears made effective rhetoric, but they would be difficult to shake when emancipation and equal suffrage became a reality.”
The secessionists warned Kentucky and Missouri of what would happen to America if the Black Republicans were allowed to triumph and they decided to remain within the Union. Every single bit of it came true after the war.
“Even if disunion resulted in war, Yancey declared, rather than live under a government that violated the Constitution “and places me in a position inferior to the Northern free negro,” he would gather a corps of brave men who, “however few in number, would find a grave which the world would recognize, my countrymen, as a modern Thermopylae against invading Persians.”
I was a history major at Vanderbilt. I read Eric Foner’s book: “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men – The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil war” and thought it was an very good book.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Soil-Labor-Men-Introductory/dp/0195094972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1320500386&sr=8-2
This book did not strike me as anti White, vindictive or excessively Jewish. As I remember it, this was the first presentation of Republican, anti slavery forces being in most ways more White racist than the Southern system as most Republicans demanded a free White labor system – blood and soil – my first taste of a White socialist beliefs. I still have the book and I’ll give it another read and put it through my “jew radar” system.
The Crackers in the Lower North who lived in states like Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Oregon were anti-slavery because they were anti-black. David Wilmot (author of the Wilmot Proviso), for example, was a Pennsylvania Democrat.
Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon were the only three Northern states that banned or fined free black settlement. That was entirely due to the fact that Abraham Lincoln’s people from the Upper South had moved into the area. Ohio also rejected the 14th Amendment because there were so many Crackers in Southern Ohio.
As I have said here a million times, the North is not synonymous with Yankeedom; it just so happens that Yankees were the dominant ethnic group in the North and the dominant ethnic group in the Republican Party.
There were millions of White Crackers in the South in Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and so on that were anti-slavery because they were anti-black. The vast majority of them lived in Dixie, not in the Northern states.
The Yankees from New England and the Deep North were anti-slavery because they were abolitionists who rejected slavery on moral and religious grounds. They believed in immediate emancipation.
William Lloyd Garrison, Robert Shaw, John Brown, William Seward, Thaddeus Stevens, Beast Butler, Adelbert Ames, Benjamin Wade, Charles Sumner, Henry David Thoreau … virtually all of them were Yankees, not Crackers. Lincoln was nothing more than the Cracker figurehead of the Republican Party.
These people were the precursors of modern day leftists.
What happened to this blood and soil vision of the Northern states?
Plenty of soil was conquered by the Union Army. Plenty of blood was spilled in the process. Did the Glorious Union deport the negro back to Africa? What happened to all those suckers like Andrew Johnson who bought into the Radical propaganda about preserving the Union?
Everything that the South had predicted would happen came true: blacks were made into American citizens, they were given full civic and political equality, racial discrimination was banned.
Before the War Between the States, when fugitive slaves ran away to the Northern states, White Southerners came to the North to bring them back. The Fugitive Slave Law was part of the Compromise of 1850.
After the Yankees had destroyed their opposition within the Union, they imposed the Radical worldview on the entire country, which meant all the black codes in the Midwest where the Crackers lived who fought to “preserve the Union” were repealed.
Blacks started to trickle into the Northern states. Then the flood of blacks came. Half of all the blacks in the United States ended up moving to the North! That’s exactly what Northern Democrats said would happen all along.
If slavery was abolished in the South, it meant that the blacks would move to the North. That is why there are so many blacks in Chicago and Detroit. The Yankees changed the Constitution and invited them to move up there!
“Every single bit of it came true after the war.”
But none of it would have come true if their hadn’t been a war.
The most the Republicans could have possibly hoped to acheive would have been the implementation of their 1860 platform, not one plank of which (with the possible exception of the tariff) would have harmed the South.
Indeed, it was the platforms of Breckinridge and Douglass which presented a true threat to the South. They called for the annexation of Cuba, where slaves were plentiful and cheap. It would have been the demographic equivalent of re-opening the slave trade.
Lincoln, by contrast, took two steps which helped end the illegal trans-Atlantic slave trade: 1. He signed a treaty with Britain allowing for British inspection of suspected slavers flying the American flag. 2. For the first time, the death penalty for trans-Atlantic slave traders was enforced.
The war, the assasination of Lincoln, and the emotions aroused by these events, enabled extremists like Thaddeus Stevens to seize control of the Republican party from moderates like William Seward. When wartime emotions cooled the moderates (whose leaders included that epitome of Yankeedom, Charles Francis Adams) regained control of the national government. That was the decisive development which weakened opposition to the redeemers and enabled the South to win the struggle against reconstruction.
But even the extremists of those times were better than the mainstream media, academia and justice system of today. Today’s inter-racial porn (always Black male, White female), acceptance and celebration of “gansta” culture, affirmative action, interracial homosexual gang rapes in prison etc. would have shocked and appalled even the most extreme abolitionists. What we have today is not a system that treats Blacks and Whites as equals, attempts to establish good relations between Blacks and Whites, or even a system that seriously tries to improve the well being of Blacks. The Hollywood regime we have now is designed solely to humiliate and degrade White Christian men, even if Blacks are also degraded in the process.
Basically: Lincoln, Seward, Adams > Stevens, Thoreau, John Brown > Alan Dershowitz, Tim Wise and their ilk
And I would add: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson > Yancey, William Walker etc.
White supremacy in part being a shtick to make profits for the elite, “equality” in part being a shtick to make profits for the elite. Can’t win can we?
The secessionists looked at the North and saw the future because it was already becoming true there before the war. Blacks were already American citizens in five states in New England. There was no segregation in the Northeast. Massachusetts had repealed its anti-miscegenation law.
The Radical cause of abolitionism goes back to the 1830s. It was around for thirty years before the war. The Radical cause of women’s suffrage goes back to the 1840s. The Radical cause of temperance also goes back to the 1830s.
The Republican Party was full of Black Republicans who believed there was a “higher law” than the Constitution. They believed in negro equality. They believed in social equality with women. Many of these people had opposed Indian Removal. They opposed the Mexican War.
Why would the annexation of Cuba have been a “true threat” to the South?
The Louisiana Purchase opened up new cotton lands in the Western South. It allowed the older slave states to start divesting themselves of slavery. The acquisition of new territory had crippled slavery in Maryland and Delaware. Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri were getting out of slavery.
Why are West Virginia and Kentucky two of the whitest states in America? Because those states were selling their slaves to the Lower South. They were becoming whiter in the process.
(1) The Transatlantic Slave Trade had been outlawed since 1808.
(2) Virtually all the slaves that came to America were imported in the 17th and 18th centuries before the ban on the slave tarde.
(3) The slaves in America had such a high birthrate that there was no need to import them from Africa anymore.
(4) Lincoln’s army conquered the South and his Emancipation Proclamation implemented the Radical program of abolitionism. Mission accomplished.
If we were not part of the Union, that wouldn’t have been our problem. Neither would the 150 years of radical utopian social movements that followed. The secessionists saw where this was all going over a hundred years ago and were determined to get out of the Union for that reason.
Reconstruction was overthrown by violent revolution in Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina where federal troops were dispatched to all three states.
What happened to the abolitionists? After their victory in 1865, they just moved on to the next radical utopian leftist causes: free trade, women’s suffrage, temperance, anti-imperialism, civil rights, and liberalizing the immigration laws.
Yes, it is not a system that we would have created ourselves in a million years here. The type of culture that we have today was imposed upon us. It did not grow organically out of Southern culture.
Trannys aren’t allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military now, but the same people who got the DADT policy repealed are already working on it. Just as the same people who were behind abolitionism moved on to women’s suffrage and civil rights.
Yancey, Rhett, Davis >> Jefferson, Madison, Washington.
The Union was the worst mistake we ever made in our entire history. It was the cause of everything that followed. When we realized we had made a mistake, we tried to get out, but we were dragged back into it.
Don’t believe me?
In 2008, we voted down Barack Hussein Obama. If the South was an independent country, Obama would not be president. Neither would John McCain be president for that matter.
If the South was an independent country, there would not be a Civil Rights Act of 1964. There would not be an Immigration Act of 1965. There would not be a Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. There would never have been a BRA. The Jewish Question wouldn’t be our problem. We would certainly have a race based society today. No one would have to apologize for being White.
As for the blacks, we had gotten rid of half of them before the Second Reconstruction began. And we managed to do that as a quasi-independent country under the 14th Amendment.
There never would have been a 14th Amendment or a 15th Amendment in an independent South. How many of them would have been forced out if we had our own government?
If the South had been an independent country would it not have gotten the same blackmail treatment South Africa and Rhodesia got?
How would an independent Southern country responded to “world opinion” with its “legally” sanctioned extortion?
This blog has become way too one-note. Mr. Wallace, you seem to be completely incapable as seeing the Civil War or the conflict over slavery as anything but a monstrous crime perpetuated against poor innocent Southerners by Yankee monsters. You seem to be completely incapable or unwilling to assign the South, slaveowners or defenders of slavery any responsibility for the negative consequences- for blacks and whites- for the establishment of African chattel slavery on the North American continent. Your answer to any of these problems is that Southern slaveholders should have been able to do anything they wanted, and slavery having been ended by the war, that white Southerners should have been able to deal with blacks any way they wanted.
Everybody talks this and that and also that…..but were is the solution….To see the solution go to Truth From God.com and click Other Articles. These articles are dynamite and can shake foundations of the Powers That be and bring Victory for our Race! They are articles from Battle Ax News of the National Emancipation of ther White Seed Party from the 1970s! The Good News is back! Read it!
Southern stubbornness at the expense of rationality, was as much to blame for the war, as Northern idealism at the expense of realism.
@John Thomas
I’m sure you mean well, but no one gives a shit about what you keep advertising. Give it a rest.
Chris: I do mean well, but you tell me a better solution? What are you going to do? Please tell me the solution and I will listen and read! Dont give and damn and no one gives shit is why things are the way they are.,
If the conflict had really been over slavery, then the abolition of slavery would have ended the conflict. The North has falsely claimed for a hundred years that the War Between the States was about slavery.
Lincoln himself repeatedly stressed that it was about “preserving the Union,” not about slavery, and when Fremont attempted emancipation in Missouri, he was slapped down.
The conflict wasn’t about slavery: that is why it continued in Reconstruction and why it flared up again over the Civil Rights Movement and why we are still polarized to this day along sectional lines.
What happened after slavery was abolished? The conflict just shifted to other issues like civil rights for negroes, trade policy, national expansion, etc.
No, I concede that the South was a slave society, and that our economy was based on African slavery. That is why the South has always been the most authoritarian section, the most racially conscious section, and the most culturally conservative section.
As for the insane system that we live under today, the degenerate culture that goes far beyond the race issue, that is entirely the work of the North. The South had nothing to do with the counterculture and opposed the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.
It was not our idea to make blacks our equals, to elevate blacks over Whites, to create a commercialized economy where White women have the “right” to make a living in the interracial pornography industry, where homosexuals can serve in the military, where there are gay pride parades in public, where there millions of foreigners invading America, the Obama presidency, the tyranny of political correctness, multiculturalism, etc.
We don’t have slavery here anymore. We have the free labor system now. We have a free market liberal capitalist democracy. This whole area has been remade in the image of the North.
I don’t see slavery as being the problem at all.
It was a dying institution that we could have solved in a far better way as an independent country. The conquest of the South by the North was nothing but an unmitigated disaster.
For all the talk of a “Slave Power” conspiracy, the truth is that slavery was dead in Maryland and Delaware, it was dying in Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and by the time secession rolled around, it was even dying in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia which had become slave exporting states.
What would have happened if the fanatics in the North had been slapped down? The Upper South would undoubtedly have continued to sell off its slaves to the Lower South.
Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware … were ridding themselves of blacks! Those states were becoming whiter. Because of soil exhaustion, South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina were starting to lose blacks and to whiten in the same manner.
Was the expansion of slavery a bad idea? It depends upon your perspective. If you are from Kentucky, Missouri, or Virginia, then it was a great thing, as the spread of slavery to the tropics was pulling blacks OUT OF YOUR STATE.
As for Northerners, let’s not forget that they themselves (this is often forgotten) got out of slavery by selling off their own slaves to the South, where the expansion of slavery that they decried led to the abolition of slavery in the North itself!
Suppose we had acquired Cuba or parts of Northern Mexico as territories. The Black Undertow would have been drained to Latin America. As world cotton prices collapsed, planters would have sold off slaves to the tropics.
I don’t believe that the North fought the Civil War over the immorality of slavery, or that there was a common belief that blacks were equal to whites among Northerners. I don’t believe that the evidence shows otherwise. That being said, I don’t believe that the South was very different from the North. Seriously, having a race based society where one group is property and order is kept through a combination of good manners and force is a twisted utopian scheme if there ever were one.
I don’t hate blacks, and I understand that anyone is going to dislike being a slave or a second class citizen. If you can’t admit as much, you aren’t being honest. My issue is that I don’t believe that whites and blacks/non-whites mix well, and I tire of race being used as a weapon against me. In the end, I don’t believe that a multicultural or multiracial society can work–especially with a history such as ours–and that the groups should be allowed to separate if it becomes clear that they can’t live together in harmony.
The problem for whites is that as much as non-whites deride us, they also follow us wherever we go for order and prosperity, and usually wind up destroying what they followed us for in the first place.
Todd,
(1) It was a common belief among Yankees, who were the dominant ethnic group in the North and the Republican Party, that blacks were their equals. Is this not obvious?
Blacks were American citizens in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law. Kansas and Iowa repealed their anti-miscegenation laws before the War Between the States.
There were never anti-miscegenation laws in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Vermont and Hampshire, New York and New Jersey. Is that a coincidence?
The Deep North passed personal liberty laws to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. When Southerner planters went to the North to capture fugitive slaves, they were attacked by mobs.
The most popular book of the 19th century was Uncle Tom’s Cabin. ALL the leading abolitionists were Yankees. They were outraged by the Dred Scott decision which said that the Founding Fathers never intended to make blacks citizens!
John Quincy Adams argued the Amistad case before the Supreme Court.
(2) Yankees believed that blacks were their equals. That is why they made blacks their equals everywhere they settled. That is why John Brown launched his raid on Harper’s Ferry. That is why Oberlin College was founded as the first integrated university in America.
That is why John Brown was celebrated as hero all across Yankeedom by the likes of Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. That is why Yankees marched into the South at the head of negro armies.
(3) While it is true that Yankees generally believed in racial equality, it is not true that “the North” believed in racial equality. Yankees are not synonymous with the Northern states.
The Irish who rioted in New York City certainly didn’t believe in racial equality. The Scots-Irish who lived in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois did not believe in racial equality. They were committed white supremacists like the rest of the Scots-Irish who lived in the South.
Why did Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon alone ban free black settlement? Because the Scots-Irish, the Cracker Nation, lived in those states, and were more predominant at that time in the Lower North than they would be in later years, when wave after wave of European immigrants washed over the Midwest.
The other groups like the Germans and the Scandinavians had mixed opinions of the issue. They were definitely anti-slavery, but they had mixed views on the subject of racial equality.
We need to distinguish between the Deep North, the Lower North, the Upper South, and the Deep South.
The Lower North and Upper South had a lot in common because the Cracker Nation was spread across the region from Pennsylvania to Illinois. That is why states like Kentucky and Missouri had mixed views on the wisdom of secession and why there so much Copperhead sentiment in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio.
The Deep North and Deep South had little in common: there were major differences in race, ethnicity, culture, religion, ideology, climate, and economic self interest. New England and the Carolinas had been founded for completely different reasons by different peoples.
South Carolina was unabashed about being an aristocratic republic based on plantation slavery and white supremacy. Boston and Charleston were polar opposites. The former was liberal. The latter was strongly conservative. The former looked to the Enlightenment. The latter admired the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.
The Roman Republic and Sparta, which were widely admired in the Deep South, were slave republics. That is why the Southern gentry focused so heavily on the classics whereas Yankees admired the moderns.
Rome was an aristocratic Republic. There was nothing liberal about either Rome or Sparta. Athens, GA was named after Athens, Greece. Why do you think neoclassical architecture was so popular in the South? What about the Greek Revival mansions?
Again, if you travel through the Deep South, you will find that the cities and the towns look nothing like their counterparts in New England. Southerners built great mansions in their towns and cities. Southern homes have tall ceilings and broad porches. They had different kinds of furniture.
Yankees believed that their women were their equals. It is no coincidence that women’s suffrage and second-wave feminism and third-wave feminism came out of the North.
The Southern man was to be a patriarch and the undisputed head of the household. In the South, gender relations were wrapped up in the whole culture of slavery. Women and children were expected to obey their husbands and fathers.
To be a Southern man meant to be the master of your slaves, the master of your wife, the master of your children, the master of your property. Southern culture was very reminiscent of Roman culture in this way.
God was the master of the Southern man. It was a “Great Chain of Being” society.
OTOH, Yankees were often deferential and submissive to their wives, as Adelbert Ames was to Blanche Butler, who had the word “obey” removed their marriage vows.
Not only do victors write the histories, so do the highly literate and well-connected. We get a misleading view of history because it’s the words of the intelligensia that get published and saved for posterity. The Mexican War was far more popular than one would expect from reading about the opinions of Thoreau or Emerson. Taking them as representative of Yankees is like taking the New York Times, only the third largest paper in NYC, as representative of the people of New York State.
“The Republican Party was full of Black Republicans who believed there was a “higher law” than the Constitution. They believed in negro equality.” – Hunter
Mr. W.- it was NOT a ‘higher law’ it was a ‘competing religion.’ And it has, and had, NOTHING to do with real Christianity, for the record.
Cambria always has some good comments on his blog on this subject. Here’s just one:
http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2011/09/in-defense-of-non-inclusive-european.html
I’ve written about it as well, and noted other Christian writers on the subject:
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/a-refresher-on-slavery/
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/lev-2544-46-part-two/
One has to know who one IS, before one can change what one BELIEVES.
You say slavery was dying and moving south, and that may be seen in retrospect. But Southern slaveowners clearly did not see it that way at the time, or they wouldn’t have tried so hard to move slavery west and obtain the right to move it north.
Few Northerners believed in racial equality; they had a stratified social system as well. They just didn’t think people at the bottom end should be slaves. If a Northern farmer needed labor on his farm, he paid hired men a wage to do it. This wouldn’t have worked for plantation agriculture, which was such odious work it no one would do it for even uneconomical wages. But the idea of paying a wage to a man who can leave if he doesn’t like things rather than forcing him to stay and work and providing him with subsistence isn’t ridiculous out of hand.
The North had few blacks, and the ones they had were probably more intelligent, better behaved, and with a higher proportion of white ancestry. Northerners probably had an unrealistic idea of what would happen in the South when slavery was ended, discounting both Southern whites’ bitterness and blacks’ desire for revenge. But Southerners, who were in a position to understand how blacks might effectively be dealt with, mostly chose to just try to maintain as much raw power over blacks as possible.
Sorry, my post was to have been a bit longer.
Abolitionists were UNITARIANS, and often HATED Orthodox Christianity. It was the remnants of the Unitarians, the Socinians, the Trancendentalists, and all others who saw themselves as ‘gods’ that could ‘benignly’ [sic] ‘give ontological equality to the nigger’… in short, a heresy.
You mention patriarchalism. THAT is the Biblical norm. It was the hierarchical Anglicans in Virginia, that kept alive that ‘chain of being’ (though this is a false, thomistic, ultimately pagan construct, and not true Christian philosophy) whereas the ‘egalitarian Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and the non-canonical Methodists, operated on a level approaching the ‘demos’ which Ancient Greece feared, rather than the ‘aristocratic nobility of educated gentry’ which Washington, Jefferson, et al. saw as the ‘great white hope’ of our new nation.
In short, we saw others as we saw ourselves, and that is our great White Naivete. Couple that with our innate altruism, and it was almost ‘easy’ for duplicitous negroes and shyster jews to take over our institutions, once we departed from the Aristocracy of the Elect of God, as White European Christians.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/the-presumption-of-shared-culture/
It was quite obvious that slavery was dying and moving south and this was perceived as a cause of great concern in the Lower South. It had already died in the Northeast. In the 1830s and 1840s, the last slaves were being emancipated in New York and New Jersey.
Maryland and Delaware were slave states in name only. Slaves were being drained out of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. By 1860, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were slave exporting states. The Lower Chattahoochee Valley where I grew up (which was opened to slavery in the mid-1830s) was a slave exporting region by 1860.
Charleston itself was developing a White working class!
Slavery was so powerful that Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland failed to join the Confederacy. The only reason Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina joined the CSA was because Lincoln called for troops which forced them to choose sides. Secession had been rejected in all four states.
The mighty “Slave Power” wasn’t so mighty at all. It is a Northern legend. Oregon and California were settled by Southerners. They came into the Union as Free States. The attempt to export slavery to Kansas was a colossal failure.
Plantation slavery couldn’t possibly have been transplanted to Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, or Colorado. If the North had just let the slaveowners try the experiment, it would have ended in failure, and those territories would have become Free States even faster than California.
If the South was really so determined to spread slavery to the Western states, then why did the South secede? By seceding from the Union, the South withdrew its claim to the territories, which slaveowners could enter while we were part of the Union!
Maybe it is because few people had any realistic expectation that slavery could be exported to Arizona.
If they didn’t believe in racial equality, then why were blacks the political, social, and civic equals of blacks in New England prior to 1860? Why did they have American citizenship and voting rights in those states?
I completely agree.
That is the root cause of the collapse of Yankeedom. The Yankee religion collapsed in the nineteenth century. It collapsed into Unitarianism and Transcendentalism and Mormonism.
It is worth observing what happened to the Yankees who went to Utah and who remained Mormons and what happened to New England. The Mormons are thriving today out there. They have the highest White birthrate in America. There are more ethnic Yankees in Utah than anywhere.
Hunter: You put alot of good info on South….but….you need to read Richard Kelly Hoskins – Vigilantes of Christendom – Chapter 6. The reason the South had segregation and KKK is because the Banker Bandit Grey Wolves of North who stole and took land from White Southerners feared the Black Nationalist that they put in power – could take the land from them —-so they gave a free hand to Whites in South to 50s. In the early 1970s I came across a set of books in South Carolina entitled: HISTORY OF THE SOUTH and RECONSTRUCTION. It was the size of a set of Britanica Encylopedias and had history of each Southern State. It was published in the early 1900s. It had many pictures of the South Carolina State Legislature with all the BLACK LEGISLATORS put their by Yanks! On the REB and YANK issue —- I think and beleive it is a WHITE RACE issue no matter were you are now. I have had friends from Vermont, New Hampshire and Upstate New York who are racially aware. Many years ago I went to upstate New York and it was like being in Georgia! They played country music and had rebel flags in the bars! Both Yanks and Rebs have mistakes of past, but that is not the case now–because the true issue is the WHITE RACE! The problem is the damn White Whiggers and Diest Masonic judeos–both in North and South. Pastor Martin Lindstedt iis right about Tribulation and White Whiggers! As far as your relative: George Wallace — all of my family supported him. He was shot to Neutralize him! Any White Man who stands up for White Race will be attacked and demonized! You are right about a White Southern Movement arizing in South.NEWS is the answer and solution. One blogger on O.D. made the comment that no one gives a shit about Truth From God.com and give it a rest! The man who puts out Truth From God.com is a Hero of our Race. He formed NEWS in the early 1970s and Richard Butler and Neuman Britton were members. NEWS was more Militant and Radical than ARYAN NATIONS. In fact Aryan Nations came after NEWS when it went defunct because of Fed assualt. This man who puts out Truth From God had a big old Baptist Church called Temple Memorial in Knowxville, TN., and hundreds of people attended his meetings. He had secuirity guards with white uniforms on with M-16s—-he even had a Nigger Stick! He was a dynamite White Souhern Leader who could rebel rouse a crowd fast! He had a RV and traveled all over USA and gave out Battle Ax News and held Meetings!The Feds, FBI, Mossad, ADL were scared that this man could become like Huey Long—so they arrested him for income tax evasion and put him Springfield Fed Prison. Then they bombed his church and printing press. The NEWS FLAG was hated by the Powers that Be! This man had courage and balls! He is a hero of our race! NEWS is not Dead and it will have Victory! It is the answer and solution! Hail News and White Victory!
The South did not withdraw its claims to the Southwest by seceding. The White population was very small in those areas, but there were pro-Confederates among them who tried to take over. The small Federal Army units that existed to fight the Indians had a few run-ins with them, nothing that would pass for even a skirmish back east. The Southern officers had left to fight for their states, but the Northern officers stayed where they had been posted, giving the Union control of the only organized troops in the territory. As punishment for their Sescesh sympathies, Congress gave the new state of Nevada a chunk of Arizona’s Colorado River.
John Thomas – just converse. Stop posting screeds. It’s beyond tedious. I used to read your posts, when you first showed up. Now I just scroll right over everything.
I ador this blog because there’s really excellent info to be had. Oh – there are spats, among the posters, etc, but the regulars have pretty much settled in, and we “talk” to each other. No screeds. Just genuine conversation.
You are not unwelcome – make no mistake. I’m sure every-one here is happy you are here. But just talk. Converse. Capiche?
Oh – and for the record – I loathe Kikes like Foner. Really. I do. I will refrain from describing the desire for an immediate course of action that Kikenvermin like Foner inspire in me, out of respect to Hunter. It’s something along the lines of “Hey kids! Let’s do a real world experiment, and see if those de-lousing stations were delousing stations – or actual gas chambers, like the Kikes say they were. Quick! Where did I leave my matches?” But I won’t go into any detail…..
I’m sure my reaction to Kikes like Foner will be a surprise to all.
Denise: I will be politically correct. I only put up what I did to show what Hoskins says and that the founder of the National Emancipation of White Seed offers a solution and answer for our current situation. The National Chairman of NEWS to me is a hero and has guts to do something.
Hunter, you know your stuff.
Whenever this subject is debated those who either don’t know their history or who are too young to appreciate the circumstances of the times inevitably bring forth the argument that the purpose of the Lincoln regime was to rid the continent of blacks. I’m surprised I haven’t already seen the famous two quotes by Lincoln that are commonly used to depict him as pro-white and anti-equalitarian. So before somebody does this, allow me to introduce the name of Earnest Sevier Cox. Mr. Cox was a well-intentioned Illinioan who, about 1937 or 38 came up with the brilliant idea of convincing northerners (Southerners knew better) that Lincoln, who they had been led to worship, was actually a pro-white racialist. To do this he took the two quotes out of context. I won’t duplicate them here because 1)they’re not handy and 2)I think you’ve all seen them. Anyway, both statements were refutations of a belief in negro equality made by a politician who was continually confronted by voters who had heard that he was an equalitarian. In other words, Lincoln lied through his teeth about his intentions in order to get elected. Shock! Shock! The fact is, Lincoln didn’t give a damn either way – about race. What he did understand was how to succeed in politics. And he did so. He knew where the money was and he was the godfather of modern American politics. Although he was much better at it than any of the politicians who’ve followed.
Well, there it is.
One other thing I’d like to mention that people like Todd should consider. While I appreciate (believe me) the desire to be completely rid of the black plague, don’t forget that the most racially aware White people are the ones who are most exposed to blacks. While not true 100% of the time, it is clearly one of the main lessons of America. So I would colonize them in, say, Massachussetts, and require young white men to spend at least a summer or two tending to them.
Now HW, how about that info on the engineers and bankrollers of the anti-slavery agitation. And I don’t mean frontniks like Greeley and Thoreau.
@Bill Yancey
I agree that Lincoln was a politician who mostly spoke through both sides of his mouth. However, I see no reason to believe that Lincoln viewed black equality in the same way as do those who champion equality today. I have a hard time accepting the view that northern whites were largely racial egalitarians in the 1860s. After all, Lincoln had to lie through his teeth and speak to the audience in front of him to get elected.
Whatever the truth about Lincoln was, and I don’t know how you would dismiss his ties to the removal to Liberia scheme, the North was a racially stratified society. The Yankee progressives are the same people who were talking eugenics well into the twentieth century–they were at the top, followed by whites from the South, with blacks lagging well behind. It took threats of unrest during WWII for the North to open its industries to blacks, and during the early 1900s, northern industrialists made their desire to import European immigrants over blacks from outside the region perfectly clear. As least judging by actions, I think it’s pretty clear that the egalitarian strain often attributed to Northerners was strongest among radicals and writers.
I well understand your point about racially aware whites being those who are most exposed to blacks. I also believe that blacks and black history are too easily exploited for political gain to allow the two groups to live together normally–that’s not counting the facts that blacks themselves have a historical grudge against whites, and that as groups, we just don’t fit well together. Whatever the history, non-whites should not be my burden. There has to be a solution.
Either way, your original point reminds me of a group of Education students I met in Wisconsin years ago. They were the nicest people you could hope to meet, but they were idiots on the issue of race. To be honest, they were nice until they found out I am a Southerner, and then they went on to preach to me about race (a subject that I never mentioned one way or another) and how they would love to move down to Chicago or somewhere South and help black kids. They weren’t purposely rude to me, but they didn’t know any better. I think they were all from small farming towns near the Minnesota border with no black residents. I’d like to know how they feel about race these days!
Todd,
(1) We been over this in countless threads: “Northern Whites” can be subdivided into Yankees, Irish Catholics, Scots-Irish Crackers, Germans, and Scandinavians.
The Scots-Irish and Irish Catholics were unquestionably anti-black. The Yankees believed in racial equality. The Germans and Scandinavians had mixed attitudes on the subject. They were strongly anti-slavery, but not all of them believed in racial equality.
(2) Within the entity that was known as the “Republican Party,” you had Yankee racial liberals, you had ferociously anti-black Crackers, and you had anti-slavery Germans and Scandinavians who wanted the Homestead Bill.
The only thing they could agree on was that they opposed slavery and were opposed to its expansion. At the same time, the Crackers and the Yankees opposed slavery for totally different reasons, the former because they disliked blacks, the later because they believed it was a moral abomination.
(3) The Yankee progressives were into eugenics. They were convinced that the “white trash” were their genetic inferiors. Yet the same people who were obsessed with subracial differences and eugenics were strangely aloof and unengaged on the race question.
(4) The solution to the Black Undertow is obvious: reestablish white supremacy in the South and pass Jim Crow laws that make life here inhospitable for them and there will be a mass exodus. There is no way they will voluntarily choose to stay in the South after living through half a century of BRA.
(5) As for Lincoln, he endorsed black citizenship and political equality in his last speech. He wanted to create black voters in Louisiana. That is why John Wilkes Booth assassinated him.
Discard,
The South claimed Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. I mentioned that somewhere in these recent posts. We did not claim the rest of the Western territories.
In any case, the South had the stronger claim to that area. It was Southerners who colonized Texas, won the Texas Revolution, annexed Texas, and fought and won the Mexican War, which forced Mexico to cede the Southwest to the United States.
What about the Yankees? What about Abraham Lincoln? They opposed the Mexican War from the beginning. It was Jimmy Polk’s War, remember? Like the Louisiana Purchase, which they also opposed, it was just going to add “new slave states” to the Union. Lincoln denounced the war on the floor of Congress. Northern Whigs were ferocious in their resistance to the war.
Henry David Thoreau engaged in civil disobedience!
The only reason that California is even part of the United States is because Southerners fought and won the Mexican War. Southerners were also responsible for the Gadsden Purchase.
In the 1850s, Mexico wanted to sell Baja California and Sonora to the United States. That idea was shot down by Northern Whigs in Congress. They also opposed the annexation of Cuba.
In any case, the Yankees are returning California and the Southwest to Mexico from which they believe it was unjustly stolen in the Mexican War. They are the ones who passed the Immigration Act of 1965 and the IRCA Amnesty of 1986 and who support the DREAM Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Every single representative from New England voted for the DREAM Act in the House last December.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase
The administration of President Franklin Pierce, strongly influenced by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, saw an opportunity to acquire land for the railroad, as well as to acquire significant other territory from northern Mexico.[3] In the end, territory for the railroad was purchased for $10 million ($244 million today), but Mexico balked at any large-scale sale of territory. . . .
As originally envisioned, the purchase would have encompassed a much larger region, extending far enough south to include most of the current Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas. The Mexican people opposed such boundaries, as did anti-slavery U.S. Senators, who saw the purchase as acquisition of more slave territory. Even the sale of a relatively small strip of land angered the Mexican people, who saw Santa Anna’s actions as a betrayal of their country. They watched in dismay as he squandered the funds generated by the Purchase. Contemporary Mexican historians continue to view the deal negatively and believe that it has defined the American-Mexican relationship in a deleterious way.[2]
The purchased lands were initially appended to the existing New Mexico Territory. To help control the new land, the U.S. Army established Fort Buchanan on Sonoita Creek in present-day southern Arizona on November 17, 1856. The difficulty of governing the new areas from the territorial capital at Santa Fe, NM led to efforts as early as 1856 to organize a new territory out of the southern portion. Many of the early settlers in the region were, however, pro-slavery and sympathetic to the South, resulting in an impasse in Congress as to how best to reorganize the territory.
The shifting of the course of the Rio Grande would cause a later dispute over the boundary between Purchase lands and those of the state of Texas, known as the Country Club Dispute.
n 1861, during the American Civil War, the Confederate States of America formed the Confederate Territory of Arizona, including in the new territory mainly areas acquired by the Gadsden Purchase. In 1863, using a north-to-south dividing line, the Union created its own Arizona Territory out of the western half of the New Mexico Territory. The new American Arizona Territory also included most of the lands acquired in the Gadsden Purchase. This territory would be admitted into the Union as the State of Arizona on February 14, 1912, the last area of the Lower 48 States to receive statehood.
Perhaps one day Arizona will be welcomed into the restored CSA. It is the most admired state in the West here in the South.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Territory_(Confederate_States_of_America)
(5) As for Lincoln, he endorsed black citizenship and political equality in his last speech. He wanted to create black voters in Louisiana. That is why John Wilkes Booth assassinated him.
Thanks for mentioning that, HW. I’m continually surprised at how few racialists know it.
Todd, re Liberia:
Again, Lincoln paid lip service to it but true to his philosophy of modern politics took no action on it. 99 percent of the things I see pro-white racialists offer in praise of Lincoln are things that he said or was said to have favored and in fact always did the exact opposite. It’s really the draft memo for modern politics. Think of Wilson and FDR’s promises about avoiding war. Think about Reagan etc promising smaller government. Every single administration since Lincoln’s has engaged in this silliness. I think the reason so many don’t connect it to Lincoln is that his was the biggest example of it, followed by a much lesser degree of it but gradually escalating it to where we are today, knowing immediately that anything that comes out of a politicians mouth is more likely to be a lie than not. Anyone who studies what Lincoln actually did, and compares it to his rhetoric, will realize what a scoundrel he really was. One of the great myths was that he was a benevolent conqueror whose assassination is the only thing that empowered the black Republicans. Wrong. He didn’t live long enough to exhibit any tendency toward the conquered South except what he had accomplished by making war against it! There is no basis in fact for the belief that he was any different than a Sumner except that he was smarter and more politically cunning. There are several statements in his letters of his amusement at his colleagues’ inability to realize how little they forwarded their policies by espousing their views so publicly!
@Bill:
I wasn’t offering praise of Lincoln in any post. Whatever Lincoln’s true thoughts and goals were, I seriously doubt that he was a racial egalitarian–especially by today’s standards. That’s my point. I don’t believe that the Civil War was fought over the morality of slavery, which is something that I have stated before. Extending slavery to a certain section or wanting to abolishing the institution altogether usually had little to do with uplifting blacks to the same level of whites when political action was taken. Black welfare has always been a convenient political football.
Hunter,
I’m not trying to ignore you, but you offer so many points that it’s hard to find time to respond. I’ll start with your second response to me. I enjoy the back-and-forth, but feel free to ignore if you have moved on by now.
I understand that Northern whites can come from different backgrounds.
However, I don’t believe that there is much that separates English/Yankees from Scots-Irish, genetically or otherwise. Nor do I believe that the South is as distinct as many Southerners and Northerners tend to believe. Even a casual genealogist quickly recognizes that many southern family trees have early roots in places like New England and Pennsylvania, and there is quite a bit of mixing of English and Scots-Irish.
I also don’t know that Scots-Irish were any more anti-black than other groups. Most non-elites resented slavery and practically all whites considered blacks to be very different, if not inferior.
http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_104_AfricanSlavery.pdf
http://www.slavenorth.com/emancipation.htm
As far as eugenics being unengaged on the race question goes, I have a hard time buying that. Early eugenicists like Margaret Sanger were very involved with the race issue. Charles Davenport was definitely a Yankee eugenicist who considered race.
http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/hsmt/courses_reading/undergraduate/authority_of_nature/week_5/davenport.pdf
Theodore Roosevelt was also explicitly white.
I also understand exactly why segregationists felt the way they did/do. Multiculturalism isn’t working anywhere, and multiracial America isn’t doing so well, either. I would be better of in a segregated South. However, I don’t know if that genie can be put back in the bottle. At this point, I would settle for the right of freedom of association.
Lincoln may have pushed for black citizenship and political equality in Louisiana, but that doesn’t make him a racial egalitarian. As always, he was a political opportunist. That’s like freeing slaves in the South during the war. How hard did he push for political and social equality in the North?
Todd,
(1) A casual stroll through any Scots-Irish settlement in Appalachia followed by another cause stroll through any New England town is sufficient to reveal that we are dealing with two distinct peoples.
Does Appalachia look anything like New England? Does it vote like New England? Did it have the same religion as New England? The same accent? The same architecture? The same folklore? Etc.
(2) The South was a slave society. It had a racial caste system for hundreds of years. There was never anything like that in New England. There were a few slaves there, but New England wasn’t a slave society. It didn’t have comprehensive black codes. Blacks were treated as equals. They were citizens. They had voting rights.
(3) To be sure, the Scots-Irish have roots in Central Pennsylvania. It was their springboard down Appalachia and the Ohio River into the South and Midwest.
(3) Their laws and actions clearly show otherwise: there were Jim Crow laws in Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana prior to the War Between the States because the Scots-Irish had settled the Lower Midwest, but there never any Jim Crow laws in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The Yankees repealed the anti-miscegenation law in Iowa and Kansas. They repealed the anti-miscegenation law in Michigan. There was never any anti-miscegenation laws in Vermont and New Hampshire and New Jersey and New York.
Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in the 1830s. During the War Between the States, the Yankee states passed an orgy of anti-discrimination laws in the North.
(4) I’m not sure what else I can say to convince you that Yankees didn’t believe in white supremacy: John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry and his celebration as a martyr in the North and “John Brown’s Body” becoming the Battle Hymn of the Republic and Yankees like Robert Shaw marching on Richmond, Jackson, and Charleston at the head of negro armies should be sufficient to establish that point.
Who passed the 14th Amendment? Who was Charles Sumner? Who was William Lloyd Garrison? Who was Thaddeus Stevens? Who was Adelbert Ames? Why was Andrew Johnson impeached in Reconstruction?
(5) I’ve read deeply into the eugenics movement and personally own copies of virtually all the books that have been written on the subject over the last decade or two.
Madison Grant, Harry Laughlin, and Charles Davenport were obsessed with sub-racial differences among Whites and intraracial differences in intelligence and pushing for sterilization laws to neutralize the germline of the white trash, but they simply were not that active on the race question like the counterparts the South, Walter Plecker of Virginia foremost amongst them.
(6) TR was not considered pro-White in the South. He supported civil rights and dined with Booker T. Washington.
(7) As I have said a million times now, the South has degenerated because it was conquered by the Union, which emancipated the slaves and made them into American citizens and even established military dictatorships that backed black governments in three Southern states.
That wouldn’t have happened in an independent Confederacy in a million years. It is inexplicable in light of the theory that the North and South were more or less the same. It only makes sense when you realize just how different White racial attitudes were in the North.
What happened in the 1950s and 1960s? Why was there a “Civil Rights Movement”? What was the “Civil Rights Movement” about?
It was the South that had the Jim Crow system. The North wasn’t segregated. It didn’t have Jim Crow laws. Northern representatives and senators voted 9 to 1 to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(8) Bill Yancey had already pointed out that Lincoln was a cipher.
He was nothing more then a politician. He was Antebellum version of Mitt Romney. His position on negro citizenship and voting rights “evolved” between the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his last speech in March 1865 because he was following Northern public opinion on the subject.
Northern public opinion became more liberal on race. That much is obvious because the North passed dozens of non-discrimination laws at the state level during the war.
(9) Lincoln couldn’t push hard for racial equality in the North because he was constrained by the anti-black Scots-Irish who were anti-slavery Republicans because they were anti-black.
Of course later that changed when the war energized the utopian idealism of Yankees. As it became clear that North was going to win the war, the was less of an incentive to pander to the Scots-Irish. The Border states weren’t going to be lost at that point. Lincoln had to pretend to be a racist to keep the border states in the Union.
The same thing happened during the Second World War. In both cases, the war against the Confederacy and Nazi Germany energized Northern racial liberalism, with entirely predictable results.
HW: So we are agreed that the South did not withdraw any claims to the western territories. They did intend to bring slavery to New Mexico and Arizona.
Yankee opposition to War with Mexico? Only among the literati and their followers. The vote in Congress for war was 40 to 2 in the Senate and 173 to 14 in the House.
BTW, California was not won by Southerners. It was declared an independent republic by the local Americans, mostly Yankees. That’s why the flag says “CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC” right under the grizzly bear. The population at that time was about 4000 Mexicans and 3000 Whites, including some Europeans.
The Republic was short-lived. They gladly accepted American sovereignty at the invitation of the American Consul in Monterey.