British West Indies
The following excerpt comes from Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy’s An Empire Divided: The American Revolution and the British Caribbean.
The single biggest mistake we ever made in our entire history was joining the American Revolution. In the process of revolting against King George III, we cleaved our own civilization in two, fatally undermined slavery in the Southern colonies and the British West Indies, and put ourselves under the thumb of the Yankee in the Union on the basis of dubious constitutional guarantees:
“Finally, the division of British America helped the cause of abolitionists in both Britain and the United States. It more than halved the number of slaves in the British Empire and made slavery appear virtually limited to the southern United States. The “peculiar institution” of slavery was not peculiar before 1776. On the contrary, slavery characterized the wealthiest and most populous colonies of British America. There were almost a million slaves in British America before 1776. It is little wonder that antebellum southern expansionists dreamed of incorporating islands in the Caribbean into the United States in order to enlarge their power and to balance the slave-owning states in the Senate against the North.
Abolitionists were well aware of the significance of the division of the British Empire. “As long as America was ours,” wrote Clarkson in 1788, “there was no chance that a minister would have attended to the groans of the sons and daughters of Africa, however he might feel for their distress.” It prevented the island and southern planters from uniting against the abolitionists. The West India lobby was unable to appeal for support from the colonial lobbies of Virginia and South Carolina after 1776.”
Just think of what might have been: Greater Dixie might have become a powerful Anglo-Saxon dominion like Canada or Australia.
Note: Wasn’t it Benjamin Franklin who famously said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly, we shall all hang separately?” In that case, we should have chosen to hang together with the British West Indies which spawned our own civilization and which shared our culture and long term interests.
150 years ago, we got the abolition of slavery and black citizenship. 50 years ago, we got BRA, negro equality, and open borders. 4 years ago, we got the first black president. Noticing a pattern here?
Exactly. let’s just leave them in Africa next time.
I’m not even sure why I am going to bother to do do this:
(1) Every region in America was connected to “Northern banking interests and British banking interests” in the mid-nineteenth century. The same was true of “Northern shipping interests and British shipping interests.”
(2) The North wasn’t satisfied with keeping its own liberal free market capitalist system confined to the North. Actually, the North wasn’t satisfied with keeping it confined to the Western hemisphere either after destroying the South and overrunning Hawaii and the Caribbean.
How was the Southern ruling class supposed to spread slavery to the Midwest where slavery was banned? It is true that Southerners sought to expand slavery to the Southwest which it was entitled to do under the Missouri Compromise.
Actually, it was the North that wanted to take over the entirety of Mexico and turn most of Mexico into free states, whereas it was the South that wanted just the sparsely populated territories of New Mexico and California.
Plantation slavery already existed in Cuba which it continued to exist even after the War Between the States.
There was no “massive genocide” when Mexico City itself was occupied nor was there any support in the South for absorbing all of Mexico like there was in the North at the time.
The slave trade had been abolished since 1808 and it was illegal under the Confederate constitution.
It was the North that no loyalty to “their fellow Whites.” After all, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was the most popular book of the entire nineteenth century in the North. It was also the North that armed literally hundreds of thousands of blacks to invade our country and kill the White men who were defending it.
The North blocked the annexation of Cuba. Naturally, American territorial expansion came to an end when the North finally got the upper hand in Congress in the late 1850s.
How many wealthy Jews were there in New York City at the time?
The North sent the whole Union Army into the South complete with black legions where it burned Atlanta, Jackson, Columbia, Charleston and other Southern cities to the ground.
How many blacks served in the Confederate Army? At least 180,000 fought for the Union.
Correct me if am wrong here, but didn’t John Brown invade the South with the avowed intention of inciting a black-on-White race war led by Yankees? Wasn’t he already murdering Southerners in Kansas?
Didn’t Lincoln attempt to incite a race war in the South with the Emancipation Proclamation? Didn’t he literally arm niggers to burn down our cities and to kill White men in the South?
The Yankees have attacked almost everyone in the Western hemisphere at some point or another.
That’s absurd.
There was no “Confederate Secret Service” in the 1840s.
It meant ridding ourselves of the Yankees who were determined to abolish slavery and bring about negro equality which is exactly what they did too after the war.
That’s true.
The first shot was fired by John Brown at Harper’s Ferry in 1859 if not in Kansas several years earlier.
There was no “Southern Secret Service” in the 1850s.
The South had every right to expand slavery into the Western territories. Is there some passage of the Constitution which reads “all territories in America belong to Yankees for their can expand their own economic system and increase their own economic power”?
The issue was that Yankees wanted to abolish slavery and make blacks into citizens and bring about the sort of negro equality that already existed in the Northeast before the war.
The abolitionist movement was about abolishing slavery and making blacks into citizens. It was about negro equality. Of course we got negro equality because the abolitionists triumphed in the North.
Isn’t the inverse true?
Didn’t the North want to extend its own economic system to the West, then to the South, then to Hawaii and the Caribbean, then to the whole Western hemipshere, then to the Philippines and China, then to Japan and East Asia, then to Western Europe, and then finally across the whole world?
This is utterly false.
ROFL … the Confederate Secret Service was behind the abolitionist movement in the North!
John Brown was a “false flag” by the Confederate Secret Service which didn’t even exist at the time!
If Britain was using the Confederacy as its secret cat’s paw during the war, why didn’t Britain recognize the Confederacy, break the Northern blockade, and invade from Canada and force Southern independence?
What really stinks to high heaven? Maybe emancipating every negro in the South and arming them to invade the South in the name of “freedom” and “equality”?
Actually, it was the North that tore the Union apart by aggressively supporting the abolitionist movement and pushing for negro equality.
There was no “Confederate Secret Service” in the 1850s.
There are all kinds of kooks on the internet.
Re: Jim
(1) More Africans have been brought into America since the 1960s than came during the whole slave trade.
(2) There are now more Hispanics and Asians in America than blacks.
(3) Millions of free negroes running around and being worshiped and idolized by Whites is just one symptom of a larger problem.
(4) Let’s not forget all the chaos that has come about as a result of women’s suffrage and feminism.
“(Note, I also know this now: If it is going to boil down to a military showdown to determine which ideas are going to prevail and who is going to be vanquished, you (we) better have Sherman’s and Eisenhower’s and not Lee’s and Guderian’s as supreme commanders. It may be a shame, but it appears to be a fact, if you want to win.)”
Eisenhower was a staff officer and never a general in the field. And while nobody is perfect, there is very little to fault in Guderian’s career. If we are to see open warfare after a crackup of the United States, generals of the type like Nathan Bedford Forrest is what will be needed.
Guderian? Wierd reference. The guy who made sure tanks had Two way radios and broke France in a week?
Hunter please bock Joe he’s a lunatic. Probably a Larouche supporter given his obsession with the Crown.
John Brown a SSS false flag? Domeafugginfavour!
Eisenhower…
What exactly did he do apart from keeping the coalition happy? I’ve studied him not terribly impressed. Few of the allies were. We simply had too much materiel for the Germans.
What you need is a Wellington, Fabius, Zhukov, Sherman or a Wolfe
If what Joe said about the CSS is true, then God bless that institution, its vision, its spirit, its men and their progeny both genetic and ideological. The Golden Circle is an idea and arrangement long overdue. The Enlightenment ushered in racial theory and Negro slavery was the logical economic antecedent. Enlightened European nations began easing the pressure on their serfs/working class by capitalizing on the manpower of inferior races. A multiracial caste society is the best way to avoid internecine class war.
If we didn’t have Niggers we’d have to create them.
And class-warrior anti-elitist white prole,
That means you.
I’m flying to the Dominican Republic tomorrow and will be researching this issue further. I credit my old friend, Hunter Wallace, someone I’ve not always seen eye-to-eye with but have always held the utmost respect for, for inspiring me to learn more about Caribbean society/history.
*racial theory was the antecedent though Negro slavery does predate the enlightenemt in Europe.
Tamer, you make Joe look lucid by comparison.
The current ills of society are not the result of multiracialism in itself but of a cultural decline among New World Whites. As the master race we stand to gain the most from multiracialism; I’m just being brutally honest.
Brutally stupid is more like it.
Looks like my mention of The Confederate Secret Service — owned and controlled by the Southern Ruling Class — Causing trouble, violence, and mayhem* around the USA to Foment and Start The War of 1861 —> so the Southern big-shots could have their war** , and their long-desired TALMUDIC Golden Circle Slave Empire , caused some kind of Brou-haha.
Maybe Hunter Wallace will run an ongoing series of articles about the “CONFEDERATE SECRET SERVICE “.
Google:
” Southern Slave Owners + The Golden Circle + Judah Benjamin ”
“Southern Slave Owners + The Knights of the Golden Circle”
” Knights of the Golden Circle + The Confederate Secret Service”
” Southern Slave Owners + The Confederate Secret Service”
And, Google various combinations of above. Lots of information/facts about this aspect of the War of 1861 that is not told in our abridged history books.
* Mayhem: The Confederates enlisted “their blacks” to attack White Americans.
* Mayhem: The Confederates enlisted Indians to attack White Americans.
* Mayhem : All started around 1848, the same year the Confederate Secret Service was Founded by the Southern ruling-class elite.
** It Went Awry.
The history of the confederacy isn’t sympathetic in American history books. Popular culture is at a point where slavers are depicted as vampires.
Other races exist to serve us and those that rebel against this natural order have raised their hand against a force stronger than God.
The history books aren’t that un-sympathetic to the South, not really : The abridged history books* leave out the role of The Confederate Secret Service, Judah Philip Benjamin, The Knights of The Golden Circle , the very concept of the Slave Empire the Southerners call ” Golden Circle” ; The history books very rarely ever mention the close ties the Southern ruling-class had with the British Banks, ipso facto the Crown of England Itself ; The books don’t mention how slavery is a Talmudic economic system [ and slave-cropping, for that matter]. The history books don’t mention how beholden the Southern plantation owners were to their Jewish/Talmudic business -partner- slave-brokers , and how beholden the Southern elite were to the Crown of England, the Royal Bank(s) of England ; The history books don’t mention how some of the Indians raids on White Americans were Actually by Indians Enlisted and Working For the Southern Confederate Secret Service : Enlisted by Southerners to Attack and Kill White Americans ; Ditto with attacks on White Americans by blacks : blacks “owned” by Southern big-shots : Black Slaves enlisted by Southerners to Attack and Kill White Americans.
All in all, the history books are alot more sympathetic to the South than not. If anything, the abridged history books are very obsequious to the Scottish Rite Freemasons.
Google :
” scottish rite fremmasonry + the golden circle + confederate secret servive”
One of various google searches that will lead to some real knowledge, real facts.
* All of our history books are abridged : Lies of commission and lies of omission both.
“Why shouldn’t I hate the damnyankee?”
Because he pays your salary, by your own words. You “hate” the damnyankee so much you serve his war machine, voluntarily, and purely out of self-interest. You don’t even agree with what he’s doing! That makes you, by anyone’s definition, an unprincipled man, and, in common parlance, a sellout. You’re even worse than the Germans and Irish you whine about because many of them actually did believe they were doing the right thing. They weren’t just in it for money. But hey, what are the Iraqis’ rights to be left alone next to Stoney’s paycheck?
The damnyankee and his dogboy shirtlifter are doing exactly the same thing in Iraq/Afghanistan that Stonelifter cries endlessly about when it’s done to the South. What we know from his admitted behavior is that his complaints aren’t principled. His only objection to damnyankee moralistic-warmongering was that it was visited on his people. He has no problems with damnyankee doing same thing to other people. In fact, he’s the first guy in line to sign up to help them.
This sort of head-twirling hypocrisy, which is pretty much ubiquitous in the “oh, we just like to fight; we’s fahtin’ men, we is” South that is one reason people outside the region find Southerners more than faintly ridiculous. You don’t respect yourselves. But you expect others to respect you. That’s not how it works…son.
Yep in an indirect rout the federal govt pays me very, very well. As I’ve stated, Ulster Scots, and others have done that type of thing for hundreds of years. Who doesn’t have a paycheck indirectly tide to fedzilla these days?
If you ever read my post, I never care what happens to non-Whites.
What keeps yankees divorced from the reality of how they benefited from slavery? It cannot be ignorance because we all know yankees are smarter than everyone else. Is it a genetic defect? Or are they just high on their own selfrighteousness and false sense of superiority?
yankee ships brought slaves to the usa
Initially, slavery was legal in the north, but not used for agriculture because the land didn’t support the size of farms or crops favorable to mass production/ slave labor. It wasn’t a moral decision but an economic one that turned into a moral crusade after generations.
The early us govt was funded by tariffs; tariffs paid for by the large part from Southron exports from slave labor
Those tariffs paid for the internal improvements in the north, not the South
Those tariffs ensured the north purchased raw materials at a reduced price vs the fair value on the international market
Those tariffs protected the fledging yankee merchant fleet on domestic shipping
Those tariffs protected the new manufacturing base up north in the domestic market. Not only was the South funding the federal govt, those funds assisted the northern economy and people more than Southron, Southrons received a lower price for their goods in the domestic market and paid a higher price for lower quality northern produced goods.
It was the dmanyankees who destroyed the concept of states’ rights and individual rights by electing the tyrant lincoln and setting us on the path to large federal govts. They doubled down on that mistake on a regular bases such as the civil rights act.
The union did not wage war on the South to end slavery, they waged war on the South so they wouldn’t lose the cash cow of Southron tariffs. Freeing the slaves was a political move to gain favor for their unpopular war. Then they elevated the negro to the level of a White man not to reward negros but to punish White Southron people under the false assumption the negro would stay put and rule over White Southron men vs heading up north and bothering yankee life
yankees never try to refute those things with facts because they cannot, or they are to ignorant to know the truth of the matter. Instead they attempt to spin the blame on Southrons using negro slave labor and gloss over how yankees benefited from it and how yankees caused the modern negro problem in the north
If the yankees weren’t so hungry for Southron tariff money, they would have let the South go in peace and negros would be our problem, not theirs. They reap what they sow on the negro question
Slavery now would serve no useful economic purpose. I’m not sure anyone here wants to reinstated it. Nice try at the straw-man augment though
No the yankees do not try to refute those things, instead, like women they try to shame people into being quite with personal attacks and name calling
“No the yankees do not try to refute those things, instead, like women they try to shame people into being quite with personal attacks and name calling”
He sure slapped your hypocritical bitch ass down. And going off tangent with an irrelevant rant about 150 year old tariff arguments doesn’t hide the fact that you are right at the forefront on this site with your own personal attacks and name calling.
yep, when bitches sling mud, I sling it back. just like your fairy tales on how to shot a rifle
and my augment about the tariffs are on point since yankees seem to think the north had no role or no benefit from negro slavery and the issue with negros today is 100% the fault of Southron planters
No fairy tale. Just effective advice on how to fire an M-16 on full auto or 3 shot burst at medium range in actual combat. But then I’m speaking from personal experience not just parroting training doctrine from the range.
Stonelifter, I ‘m wondering what you think of these few paragraphs I discovered today while browsing the internet. Honest thoughts please, no posturing. Seems many of your fellow Southerners were were against the war. Especially those not having slaves. Did the yankees defeat you? Or did your very own kin come to the conclusion that they didn’t have a dog in this fight?
Interesting quote: “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”
Americans probably know more about the Civil War than about any other event in our history. Yet one of the most interesting facets of the war remains the least researched by historians and almost unknown to the general public: the war within a war which helped defeat the Southern Confederacy. During the Civil War draft evasion, desertion, peace movements, and even armed resistance threw whole regions of the South into anarchy. Opposition to the Confederacy thrived in upcountry and mountain areas where few whites owned slaves, but it broke out in the plantation districts as well. Unionists–those Southerners who opposed secession and remained loyal to the Union throughout the war–provided the hard core of the internal opposition. Many others came to oppose the Confederacy in the course of the war because it demanded intolerable sacrifices from the common people in defense of an apparently hopeless cause.
Internal opposition also sprang up in the North, where the war touched off draft resistance, riots, and a strong peace movement. Small farmers, workers, and the poor carried the burden of the war in the North as well as in the South, and people in both regions began to call the conflict “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” It was also a war over slavery, however, and this fact lent a special significance to the internal conflict and dissent in the South.
Large plantation owners in the South–a relative handful of people–had always relied on support from the three-quarters of the white population which owned no slaves. Their acquiescence in the antebellum period lent the system its peculiar stability. The war, however, called that stability into question.
At the start of the Civil War nonslaveholders rallied to defend “Southern rights” in impressive numbers, creating the impression of a “solid South” in which whites of all classes stood behind the Confederacy.
However, as the war dragged on the Confederacy demanded increasing sacrifices. The draft, crop impressments, Confederate suspensions of civil liberties, EXEMPTIONS OF PLANTATION OWNERS from MILITARY DUTY especially rankled the nonslave holders.
Resentments against the large slaveholders, on whose behalf the war seemed to be fought, blossomed. Following periods of military failure, increasing numbers of nonslaveholders refused to fight and die for a slaveholder’s republic. Ultimately, according to some historians, so many of the common people turned against the Confederacy that internal conflict and demoralization, rather than defeat on the battlefield, destroyed the South’s ability to resist the North.
”
Re: Jim
(1) More Africans have been brought into America since the 1960s than came during the whole slave trade.
(2) There are now more Hispanics and Asians in America than blacks.
(3) Millions of free negroes running around and being worshiped and idolized by Whites is just one symptom of a larger problem.
(4) Let’s not forget all the chaos that has come about as a result of women’s suffrage and feminism.
”
All good points. You are right, there is a larger problem. Bringing millions of aliens into your midst is suicide no matter what the motivation. That is my only point. And I object to it no matter who is doing it for any reason whatsoever.
But you’re right. Alien worship, tolerance, or domestic exploitation are only symptoms, the disease is endemic, and it’s hard to pinpoint a single cause. Though I do feel leftist and jewish academic corruption and heretical theology that began in the early 19th century are the primary culprits. The latter primed the culture to be vulnerable to the former. The “enlightenment” did end up informing theologians, so maybe that is the source of the egalitarian heresy.
http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/25/scotland-legalise-same-sex-marriage?cat=society&type=article
Gays will be able to marry in Ulster.
I suppose this is somehow the damnyankees fault.
Those Scots are a traditional, conservative lot.
Why isn’t it taught any more rudel, since it was so effective and all…
Sean, your not normally a jackass. How could it possibly be the yankees fault since the yankees do not reside in Ulster? Scots were a minority in Ulster. Irish and English outnumbered us. It was a stopping point in our travels. We went there to keep the Irish down for the English. The problem with yankees and Europeans alike in the here and now is how secular they have become and how thoroughly in love with cultural marxism. And did so early on. Sadly it is catching on in the South at a rapid rate in some places. Which is why I favor secession.
The difference between what I do and what the Germans/ Irish did is… I don’t expand myself at the expense of White men. I’d think less if they believed in the tyrant’s war of enslaving free White people and enlarging the federal govt. Which is why I am harder on the Germans. I get the impression they were true believers where the Irish took the pay, did the job and maybe settled some scores with men they saw as English lords. I am totally consistent on this as well, I dislike what the Germans did in WW2 because they were trying to expand themselves at the expense of other White Europeans. I never fault them for reclaiming the land they lost or uniting German speaking people.
I left the Balkans because I figured out the contact was about the usa supporting hajjis over White Christians. Soldiers cannot do such a thing. Non Whites don’t matter. They have no value to me in any fashion nor do I think they have any rights or the like. I simply do not care if what I do makes mud people’s lives worse. Most of what I do is keeping hippies safe while they try to make hajjis lives better. Or work with the local police… fun times there. Our work is more defensive and police like in nature, compared to being a grunt. Although policing in the third world is not like policing in the West. I do what yields the maximum return for me and my family. If that benefits others as well, so be it. But it is my family and my kin above all else, and is 100% in line with my world view. My forefathers also fought for the English while they supported liberty from the English. As did other groups in Europe at other points in history. I don’t expect anyone without a broad base of history to understand, and frankly I don’t care if others approve. It’s what is best for my kin. That yankees, hippies etc don’t like what I do for a living only makes my life choices sweeter. I can’t recall a single Southron who’s had a beef with what I do. If any Southrons on here dislike it, let me know. I’d love to hear why. Not saying I care but it would be interesting.
The war was 100% avoidable. Twice before states threatened to secede. Madison and Jackson worked to prevent it. Southron men did not use force to preserve the union, though they did threaten to use force (Jackson). New England and Daniel Webster were the 1st to mention secession during the War of 1812. lincoln did not take steps to reduce tension over the tariff which was the initial compliment. Nor was lincoln on the ballot in 10 Southron states. I think the best he did was 3% of the votes in the states he was on the ballot. Those are key things to remember when discussing the War of Northern Aggression. All those things affected Southron thinking at the time and are rarely taken into account. The South was willing to leave peacefully and pay for whatever forts etc the federal govt had built in the South.
Sam, I do not have answers worthy of your questions. I’ve read things similar to you and do not refute your post or its historical accuracy. There are a number of complex things along that line I do not understand. More than that, I know a fair number of Southrons fought for the union.
Folks were not as homogeneous in their thinking back then. They had real diversity of opinions. That makes it pretty difficult to pin down a solid answer.
lincoln was willing to protect Southron slavery in the constitution. I’m not to say it wasn’t an issue, but I’m sure how much of an issue varies by the man who fought. Or didn’t fight. We know it became a bigger issue to yankees as the war dragged on. Initially lincoln seemed to not care as long as the tariff was collected. The tariff issue should not be ignored. I think the Morril Tariff was 70%. How could Southron exports survive a tariff war like that? And the South exported much more than cotton. THE issue was a man, hostile to the South, who wanted to enforce a tariff that would have economically crippled us, who wasn’t on the ballot in 10 Southron states and didn’t get more then 3% of the vote in the Southron states where he was on the ballot was elected president. Everything else is supporting arguments. Yes I know I am in the minority opinion on cause. But I think it plays into why and where men fought. If it bugged them more they fought for the South, if it didn’t bother them they didn’t fight or or didn’t support the war.
North and South, the people who pulled the strings had one reason to fight, and the men who did the fighting had another. I think the typical yankee did want to end slavery, while their leadership did not care much, or didn’t want to end it all given how much the north relied on it. In the South, of course the upper class wanted to protect slavery, and those who did the fighting cared about others issues.
Class was/ is always an issue in the South. Not in the same way as it is up north though because rich and poor down South share more common ties. Charles Maury’s latest book indirectly points to this still being the case. I think a good deal of what you’re asking is more about the deep South and I can’t speak to it. Nor can I speak to yankee draft riots and the like.
There was no direct tax on people at that time. Perhaps Southrons who didn’t support the war didn’t care because the tax issue didn’t affect them? If you weren’t exporting cotton or hemp, or importing foreign goods and the like the tariff wouldn’t directly affect your life much. Perhaps because slavery didn’t matter much up in the hills? That was still a time when Ulster Scots still hated the English. Perhaps they saw the planter class as English. Western Appalachia mountain folk where some of the 1st americans to embrace the federal idea. As in Andrew Jackson’s 1820’s western Appalachia. Perhaps the union mattered more to them as a concept over state’s rights?
Also never forget, some Southron states didn’t secede until after lincoln called up the army to invade the South. I think that is important on why some men fought and some men didn’t. Some states and men were willing to be completely neutral on the topic until lincoln wanted those states to fight other Southron men. Some remained neutral others did not.
Some men would fight to defend their state, but were unwilling to fight outside of their state. Some men would not follow Lee into MD or PA. Defending the South was one thing, and righteous, but aggressive war (like what the yankees were doing) was ungodly. They literally thought it would jeopardize their soul. Never read where those men were looked down on for it either. I remember reading about a group of men in Georgia who would not go north to fight, but fought the yankees when they invaded Georgia. Many Southron men saw their state as their nation above and beyond the Confederacy. Men stopped supporting the Confederacy as it became more like the union. What’s the point in fighting against the union if you think the govt you are fighting for is turning into the govt you are fighting against? I think that was more common thinking in Georgia
I know blockade running and luxury items were a bone of contention and played into the rich man’s war, poor man’s fight thing. Wars are won by breaking the civilian population. The north understood that and waged war on White people in a way the South was unwilling to, and unable after a certain point. That created all types of anti war pressure in the South, as it was intended too. Can’t say how much was a factor on what topics though certainly it was a factor.
On to my family.
I had kin stick it through to the end, and were there when Lee surrendered and I had kin who went back to the hills when they thought it was lost. My ex-wife’s family went the distances as well.
As best I can tell, my father’s family was neutral on the war initially. They didn’t care one way or the other until the yankees moved down the Shenandoah and burned us out. The yankees made a blood feud. Some might not have cared if the South won or loss as long as they evened the score. If the yankees picked another invasion route it is likely some would have never fought. And when one of us died in battle, the feud expanded. I’m fair certain few would have paid a draft notice much attention. Hell the mountains aren’t exactly well policed today and it would have been much less so 150 years ago. I have kin up in the hills who still think it’s wrong to fight for anything but family. They get involved in any feud like-crime thing going on because it’s family but would never join the army. What can I say? Not all of what goes on in the mountains makes sense to me, but I accept it all because they are my people. The good and the bad. They went home when their families need for them exceeded the possibility of victory. It was common thinking for the men, place and time. Many men from Georgia did the same thing with Sherman’s march, and I don’t recall reading much condemnation for it.
My mother’s side was in on it at the start and fought at the 1st battle of Manassas. This is plantation tidewater type thinking not mountain folk, with the tidewater kin thinking in terms of nation and state and the mountain kin thinking in terms of family and settling scores. For the most part, it’s easier to understand the tidewater folks as their thinking was more modern. My mother family was tidewater stock, living in Albemarle County at the time. They fought the length of it and supposedly some rode with Mosby and others marched with Jackson. Those two groups have a lot of contact with each other in the valley and I’m sure the different thinking went along blood lines and makes for confusing political lines
I hope I addressed what you where asking Sam. You always make fair points and ask fair questions and I’ll gladly answer them the best I can
@ Stonelifter: Very good, interesting explanation!
“Other races exist to serve us and those that rebel against this natural order have raised their hand against a force stronger than God.”
– Tamer
Funny. I know of no force stronger than God.
“Stonelifter, I ‘m wondering what you think of these few paragraphs I discovered today while browsing the internet. Honest thoughts please, no posturing”
– sam
Why do you find this out of the ordinary, Sam? The fallacy that the Englightenment gave us, in the ‘equality of man’ is the great LIE of Satan.
There are lessers and greaters in EVERY arena of life- confirming the Biblical analysis of the Westminster Shorter/Longer catechisms, and establishing the entire mentality of the validity of slaves for use by ‘The Betters’ in life. The problem is, in a society such as today’s, when all racial barriers are annihilated, the egalitarians have to aim for yet more ‘equality’ to keep the fiction alive- i.e., gay rights, gay ‘marriage,’ ‘transgender clergy’ etc.
But, back 150 years ago, women were subservient to men, blacks were subservient to Whites, and commoners were subservient to Nobility- whether of race/class, or position. That latter form (subservience to those in ‘positions of authority’ – clergy, teachers, senators, presidents(!) ) was the last bulwark of the Biblical foundation, that those who cared nothing for Law, God, nor [White] Man had sought to destroy, since at least 1791- you know, the French satanic Anarchy, known as the French Revolution?
So, by 1860, ‘no-account niggers,’ as well as ‘po’ white trash’ actually thought they were the equal of Plantation owners, Clergy, College professors, Lawyers- and sadly, so did many of the elected officials in what was already then becoming a ‘democracy’ that form of governance so feared by the Attic Greeks.
And that was their first- and most egregious mistake- against the Rule of Law- God’s Law- which can never be annuled, or ignored for long [Matt. 5:17ff.] We’ve been paying for THAT sin, ever since…..
“His only objection to damnyankee moralistic-warmongering was that it was visited on his people. He has no problems with damnyankee doing same thing to other people. In fact, he’s the first guy in line to sign up to help them.”
-Jim P.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that stance. It’s eminently biblical- and if you doubt that, (and are a dispensationalist) just look at the Israelis? And shut your trap.
If there is a ‘People’ who are God’s People, and they act according to their own laws for their OWN betterment (A case of Whites, acting FUBU), there is nothing wrong with fighting your enemies. Indeed, the ‘destroy them utterly’ clauses in the O.T., were written (as St. Paul says) as ‘ensamples’ (examples) of how the Church/Christendom was to act, against the ‘paynim foe.’
It’s the utterly satanic PERVERSION of that biblical vision, that has so corrupted and emasculated the Whites of Europe, against the Muslim invasion. And who can we blame for all of that? ROME, and her false, filioquist theology!
The Orthodox (who remember long, and lived next to the Hagarene far longer than any of us in the West have done) have a far BETTER way to look at things. St. Theodosius’ pithy statement was the thing that caused me to see that EVERYTHING Rome has touched, is anathema.
Theodosius wrote: “Love your enemies, but only your personal enemies, and NOT the ENEMIES OF GOD!”
I would advise, ‘Go thou, and do likewise.” We’d restore godly rule in six months, if White America would realize that Obama, Holder, and the proditors of the White Left, ARE the “enemies of God.”
“The problem with yankees and Europeans alike in the here and now is how secular they have become and how thoroughly in love with cultural marxism. And did so early on. Sadly it is catching on in the South at a rapid rate in some places. Which is why I favor secession.”
– Stone
Exactly, Stone. You cut through the crap like a knife through butter. Thanks.
“Soldiers cannot do such a thing. Non Whites don’t matter. They have no value to me in any fashion nor do I think they have any rights or the like.”
Exactly. Bravo, Stone. In God’s eyes, the ‘goyim’ of the world ARE as nothing. It is only the elect race that matters, and, since Christ has come, only those who are covenanted with the Messiah, who are called ‘sons and heirs’. St. Paul’s analogy of Hagar and Sarah is more than just about ‘salvation.’ It’s also RACIAL THEOLOGY, and most “Xtians” are such sycophants to the NWO/JewWorldOrder, they both finance Isra-Hell, and send their boys to fight for ‘freedom’ in Iraq/Iran/wherever.
It’s utter insanity. The Monroe Doctrine was FAR more biblical than Bush et al’s. dream of ‘Regime Change.’ What was the title of Barnes’ book- Oh yeah. “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.” UTTER B.S. – all of it.
And that’s where I just want to slap the faces of the Falwells, Robertsons, Hagees (especially Traitor John) and say, “WAKE UP!” Those who cannot fathom fighting for your KIN, and yet, fund Isra-Hell, are the most two-faced BASTARDS out there.
This mentality just makes me fume…. Thanks, Stone for speaking Truth to Insanity.
Thanks Mosin, I wasn’t sure I made it clear enough
Thanks to you as well Fr John
Cambria speaks of that ‘lesser and greater’ as one racial continuum in his most recent post. Here’s the pertinent quote from Burke:
“little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.
***Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom.***
The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that charity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.”
Astounding that men actually once valued these things as normative- how utterly beautiful.
Stonelifter, I appreciate your thoughtful, deliberated post. It was not a knee-jerk response filled with the clever rejoinders debaters toss at each other like grenades. I need to read it again to get the full import. Lots of stuff there.
Thank you Sam, you asked a serious and honest question. I gave you the best answer I have in respect
@John:
“Not fantastic speculative fiction. The Jim Crow laws drove down the percentage of blacks in the south 10%-20% in some cases more. Repressive laws do actually force out undesirables. Most of those Islands could be cleared with a simple blockade. There’s no desire there of course.”
The Jim Crow laws did not drive down the percentage of Negros at all, they simply shifted them from the South to the North. I hope you can understand, John, why a “damyankee” would have a problem with that considering they never wanted Negro labor in the country at all. The effectiveness of the Jim Crow Laws at forcing out “undesirables” only demonstrates how disingenuous Hunter Thompson is.
Every time Hunter waxes eloquent about the benefits of Negro slavery to the South and if only those nasty Yankees had let the South secede in order to pursue to its Glorious Cause of Negro slavery, life would have been a bed of roses for us all. But he never has an answer as to how the CSA would have disposed of its Negro labor once high tech made them so expensive to use that they became obsolete. What plans were in place to deal with them after they were no longer necessary.
Because the answer is only too damned obvious. No way, no how would the CSA bear the costs it would have taken to ship them back to Africa. The CSA would have dropped them off at the Mason-Dixon line and pointed them NORTH towards all those factories in the USA.
The USA would either have to absorb them OR incur the expense of shipping them back to Africa. Much the way the US taxpayer has to absorb the costs of illegal alien labor via public schooling, public housing, welfare benefits, and Medicare.
I loved Margaret Mitchell’s salute to the Antebellum South as much as anyone else, but when I really examine how selfish the Southern plantocracy was by prefering Negro slave labor rather than simply instituting more humane labor using White migrants, then I am on Team Abner Snopes. And I’d burn down more than a barn or two if I found myself in his shoes.
Demography is destiny. It is the height of stupidity and folly for ANY White civilization to introduce and then breed a workforce to exploit composed of an alien race that will acquire real and mostly imagined grievances towards them as time goes on. If we don’t pull our heads out our collective rectums, we will be living the South African nightmare.
Colored labor is the White Man’s Kryptonite. Anytime we are tempted to use them, we need to ask ourselves if we want to make our own beds or be murdered in them?!
@Stonelifter:
I read your most recent post and as a history buff, I found it fascinating and leaving me wanting to know more. What an interesting background you have! Have you considered writing a book? Or are there any works on your folk that you can point me to?
Thanks.
Hunter Wallace.
I think it’s simple. No white should be apologizing for anything ever. Indeed, have the guts to stand up for the exploitative vicious behaviour or Perish.
Thank you Clytemnestra. There are any number of books about Ulster Scots in the usa. I’ve read so many they’ve turned into a blur. Most of what I know in the form of family history is oral tradition, coupled with a knowledge of local history/ attitudes. While on some topics I cannot say exactly how my forefathers thought… I figure they were most likely typical in their thinking for the men of their time and place. However I have people on each side of the family into genealogy which is how I know what big names I’m distantly related too.
A lot of folks tell me I should write a book. Normally about the “insanity” that is my professional and personal life. Thank you again. I’m going to have to give it some consideration
I see no reason why yankees should be unhappy with negros in the north. Ok, that’s sort of a lie, but you get what I mean. yankees set them free, made them equal, ended Jim Crow etc etc. It’s the natural end of yankees actions. However, if the South had seceded peacefully, the negros would have been our problem to deal with. If we sent them north, the yankees would have been free to shoot them down or welcome them as they see fit. I think we would have been on good terms with the north in no time if they let us go peaceable. I doubt we would have done that, it would have been an act of war. Perhaps we would have sent them to africa, or hatti or sold them to Brazil, sent them to live on reservations like we did the injuns or shot them out of hand. What ever course of action would have been ours, the results for us to pay, good or bad.
The Brazilians would have bought them.
Excellent post Clytemnestra, you covered all the bases.
The Brazilian slave owners in the 19 century had an over-abundance of black slaves. As the black slaves in Brazil had tons of babies, there was no reason Brazilian slave owners would spend money buying American black slaves, when the Brazilian slave owners were getting slaves for free. The Dixie-Americans would have recieved about .50 cents a slave, if that. The blacks were worth more to the Southern wealthy as share croppers anyhow ; Also a type of slavery ; Another Talmudic economic system .
Eisenhower was the supreme commander in Europe at the end of the war. He was chosen for his brutality and willingness to do anything to to win the war and break the will of the Germans.
Sherman waged a war of attrition and what he called a “Total War” against the property of the South to break the will of the Southern people, especially the civilians.
Lee and Guderian were good, I didn’t say they were not. But that was not the point. The point should be obvious.
“Other races exist to serve us and those that rebel against this natural order have raised their hand against a force stronger than God.”
Says the wigger who shit his pants when a nigger walked up and spoke to him. Says a wigger who had to have some brown Muslim to stop changing the tire and take him by the hand and escort him to a getaway car.
Says the wigger who lives in coonsville.
“Come on, they did the bare minimum they had to to get by.”
You come on. Get real. That was as lame a comeback as ever I have seen. You are arguing that spending a fortune acquiring a slave and then having to support the slave, his family and children lock stock and barrel is no big deal? Come on! You want to take a few dozen families and support them while letting the oldest males do some chores?
Don’t spin this, my point is plain as day. Do you want to take in several entire families and totally support them or simply hire the husband for eight or so hours a day for minimum wage during those hours?
We all know your answer. Anyone’s answer. There is no way out but to spin if you do not chose the latter.
I get tired of simple, direct, point blank questions with obvious answers constantly being sidestepped because people don’t want to answer them.
And thank you for demonstrating my earlier point about work. And their are a whole shit load of Northern good ole boys TODAY who ultimately do and will defend a nigger’s “rights” if they think he “gives eight hours work for eight hours pay.” They will tell you about “how a man can’t help [fill in the blank] and so he should be [some version of[ respected” no matter if he is a nigger or what.
You want to point out the South’s problem with slavery. Fine. Awhile back I told a Southerner on here after reading his post on Northern transplants to TELL THE TRUTH. To tell ALL of it. Now I am going to tell you, a Northerner, to TELL THE TRUTH. Tell ALL of it.
Northern men will back up a nigger if they think he “works like a man should.” Whatever the virtues of work, it is a fact that Northerners have made a religion out of venerating “the working man.” And like most things, you must take the good and the bad that comes with that. The bad being that a northerner will fight for a nigger as long as he is punching a clock. The Northerner will let a nigger move next door in a previous all white neighborhood if the nigger meets this criterion.
If the Southern man points out some things about slavery that you do not like, then it should be pointed out some of the drawbacks to the extremes the Northern man will take when it comes to someone punching a clock. And it is “for the working man” that millions of Northern working men have sent liberal democrats to Washington. It was the Northern “working man” who put Bill Clinton in office. In the 1960s they sent Johnson to Washington DC. They have been either instrumental to or the without which not of sending liberal democrats to the white house and congress. Don’t come back here and spin it by saying it was only the Labor Union members who done it. That they did it is the point. Just this week I got a monthly union newspaper in the mail and inside was (yet another) monthly article by the white northerner business agent explaining why he was going to vote for Obama. There are hundreds of thousands and more white “working men” up here with Obama Obama stickers on their lunchboxes.
Now tell the truth. Tell it all.
Don’t worry poor whittle southerners. The Jews are going to save ya’ all — just like the Jew slave dealers in Charlestown, and the Jew banks in London, saved you in 1861* : Just like Judah Benjamin saved the Confederacy in 1865. Don’t cry whittle southerners.
* Around the same time the slave economic system wasn’t as profitable as in the past : Around the same time the Jew slave dealers, the British banks, and big-shot southern plantation owners , weren’t making as much money off slavery as in the past ; Around the same time the southern wealthy turned to share-cropping [ Slavery without the care and concern of spending any money on slaves] ; Around the same time the Robber Baron corporate-monopoly economy was getting off the ground in the country [ Big-Time] and there was more profit to be had being Robber Barons than being nurse-maids and caretakers for slaves , slaves who were starting to become unprofitable.
A Southern Win : The Big Prize —> The Golden Circle Slave Empire [ and return the slave-economic system into something profitable again, as in the past ]
A Southern Loss : 2 nd Prize —-> Share cropping [ slavery without overhead ipso facto profitable ] and transition into the Robber Baron economy, and invest the profits in the industrial economy outside the South.
The Southern elite made out like bandits because of the War of 1861. A war the Southern wealthy much fomented : That’s why they started the Confederate Secret Service : To cause mayhem all over the US — including terrorizing and killing White Americans in the North, the Mid-West, the Western territories, to get the war Started in the first place.
boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.
Excuse the typo : The War of 1861 ; A war the Southern wealthy ” Very” much fomented : Very much so.
Excuse the typo.
Brutus, you’re FULL. OF. SHIT.
Northern working people DESPISE niggers, and the only reason we tolerate the scum moving into our neighborhoods is because there’s potential jail time in store for objecting to it.
Northern working people don’t “venerate” our way of life into a “religion”. We work hard so we can feed our families and keep a roof over our heads. Dumbass.
And here’s the fucking truth about labor unions — THEY DID send cocksuckers like Johnson and Clinton and other deep-blue Democrats to Washington — it wasn’t the uninformed, abeit sincere, unionized workers who just voted as they were told was to their benefit. Unions used and abused their own membership like a communist regime does to it’s citizenry. Don’t dare equate the voting habits of the Northern, working-class 9 to 5er with the the selfish actions of Southern slave owners.
@Joew
I think I heard someone drop a quarter somewhere. Go get it before it rolls away.
Yes, it’s true many Northern men, especially where I’m from, respect the work ethic. If a flood or tornado wreaks havoc we join together, clean up the mess and rebuild in a jiffy. Men, women and children working together. Someone with a chain saw, another with a truck, lumber, skilled tradesmen, bull workers, volunteers, food, you name it. We don’t sit on our cans and wait for God knows who to bail us out.
But as for drawing no distinctions between Whites and blacks. Not in a million years. If a negro moves in next door to me what can I do about it? Shoot him? Then I go to prison and his brother buys my home. Can’t even call him a jig without 87 government agencies pounding my door down.
I will grant you a lot of union people are bound to diversity, not all of them. Most working people up here do not belong to commie labor unions government or private. There aren’t as many around anymore, losing power. Their ranks are dwindling.
@ #313 Chrissy
Thanks for the heads-up. I got the quarter before it rolled away. I just donated it to the “Save Detroit” charity fund, an outreach program for those stuck living in Mo’town.
Tearing off and shingling the roof of my shed.
Listening to Haggard’s ‘Working Man Blues’ to get me cranked up. Yes, sir.