Robert Lewis Dabney on Northern Conservatism


H/T Michael Hill

Faith and Heritage has a great post on Dabney’s take on Northern conservatism as it confronted the women’s suffrage movement in 1897:

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy ,from having nothing to whip.”

Here is George Fitzhugh quoting Thomas Carlyle in Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters:

“Further study, too, of Western European Society, which has been engaged in continual revolution for twenty years, has satisfied us that Free Society every where begets isms, and that isms soon beget bloody revolutions. …

Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens? Cut every human relation that has any where grown uneasy sheer asunder; reduce whatsoever was compulsory to voluntary, whatsoever was permanent among us to the condition of the nomadic; in other words, LOOSEN BY ASSIDUOUS WEDGES, in every joint, the whole fabrice of social existence, stone from stone, till at last, all lie now quite loose enough, it can, as we already see in most countries, be overset by sudden outburst of revolutionary rage; and lying as mere mountains of anarchic rubbish, solicit you to sing Fraternity, &c. over it, and rejoice in the now remarkable era of human progress we have arrived at.”

Now we plant ourselves on this passage from Carlyle. We say that, as far as it goes, ’tis a faithful picture of the isms of the North. But the restraints of Law and Public Opinion are less at the North than in Europe. The isms on each side the Atlantic are equally busy with “assiduous wedges,” in “loosening in every joint the whole fabric of social existence;” but whilst they dare invoke Anarchy in Europe, they dare not inaugurate New York Free Love, and Oneida Incest, and Mormon Polygamy. The moral, religious, and social heresies of the North, are more monstrous than those of Europe. The pupil has surpassed the master, unaided by the stimulants of poverty, hunger and nakedness, which urge the master forward.”

Here is Rhett lashing out at the North’s “fondness for novelties, misnamed progress” in the final issue of the Charleston Mercury:

“The South now lived under a despotism of consolidation, the states and their sovereignty abused by Washington. With universal male suffrage it would only get worse. “Swelling the multitude of voters” would not make liberty but be its downfall, while the military Reconstruction now in place attempting “to put the half-savage negro over the civilized Caucasian, may not be forgotten or forgiven.” History would remember it as an act of abject hatred and bigotry. The South, a more tolerant and congenial region, did not like change and revered the past, while the North, “fond of novelties, misnamed “progress,” was the slave of its own dogmatism.”

Note: This was obvious to Rhett and Fitzhugh in the 1840s and 1850s, Dabney in the 1880s and 1890s, Bilbo and others in the 1940s and 1950s, and it is still obvious to us in the 2000s and 2010s. As long as the Union exists, the dystopian slide into BRA will continue.

I don’t even have to watch television to know that Republicans/Conservatism Inc. either have already or soon will surrender on the fiscal cliff, amnesty for illegal aliens, gun rights, climate change, gay marriage, the “Violence Against Women Act,” the “Sequester.” I don’t even have to be told over the phone that their mouthpieces like Sean Hannity are slobbering over the likes of “Dr. Ben Carson” or that idiotic conservatives are behind the “What Would Django Do” campaign.

Every single bit of it has always flowed from the same source: the original mistake made by the Founders, which is the existence of the Union with the Northeast, and the dominance of liberalism over conservatism across that broad swath of Yankeedom in the Northern state.

About Hunter Wallace 12381 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Started to appear in a mutation… It took a few thousand for it to spread as an eye type. It bred in, didn’t spontaneously appear except in the original mutation.

    It’s an aesthetic eveolutionary trait too. Sexual selection as an iris colour. I’m quite proud of mine.


    Rudel is an insufferable twerp. The research suggests that it’s some time between 6,000 and 10,000. This accords with my initial statement of 6,000. In a casual Conversation about biblical timelines, it’s worth noting that the cross over in the emergence of blue eyes and the dating of genesis by that Bishop Usher fellow. I’m not a Christian Identity type. But it’s still interesting to think about how whiteness emerged at the same time that civilization begins to flower.

    What is with the pedantic corrections he insists on making? It’s hasbaratic.

  3. Hi Chris! Yes, Apparently the Stoned Sniffer is referring me yet again. He just can’t get me out of his mind. I own his imagnation….. he’s chiding decent, honorable Mosin as a ball-less eunich, too. Mosin is a Cavalier type. A Yankee Cavalier, and rather a scholar. Thing is Chris – I am a female. I like to talk to real people in the real world. This milliue is a very small milliue, relatively speaking. We WN women talk to a lot oa people. I know folks in person, and over the phone. I know what people are in the real world. I know real names. Not every-one, of course…..Mosin is not a “ball-less eunich at all. He’s a very good and decent man.

    The Stoner’s mis-reading of every-one and everything is actually pretty funny. I think he’s doing what Freud the Jew wrote about and sublimates his own issues, and projects on to others, if you catch my drift.

    Myself – I have let the salty language fly. I’m trying to be more circumspect – but my 4 years in NJ left a terrible scar (; } ! Stoner refers to women he doesn’t like as “whores” because whores are the ONLY type of females he has ever interacted with, his entire life. He has no other frame of reference. He must abuse Mosin as a “ball-less eunich”, because….well…we don’t hear much about that 25 year old who loooks like one of those Dutch soccer girls, do we?

  4. “You are the one who doesn’t believe in Genesis, the foundation of the Christian religion.”

    Genesis is the beginning or foundation of the Torah, but the Torah is not necessarily the foundation of Judaism (arguably, the Talmuds are) — and the Christian religion begins with the Gospel. Nevertheless, we are concerned with “rightly dividing” or interpreting ALL of inspired Scripture, and I believe that I am rightly and faithfully interpreting Genesis — and that contemporary, anti-science Creationists are wrongly interpreting it — either from ignorance, or in over-reaction to science-based anti-Christian arguments by atheistic scientists and intellectuals, or because it is profitable (serves a certain “market” or “demand” of people who want to hear it) or serves an agenda (denominational or political).

    I am surprised you haven’t probed how much I accept literally (“as it is written”) of the book at the other end of the Bible. The Apocalypse of John is another example of a series of metaphorical lessons that would become absurdities taken literally. The same people who accept Creationism also tend to accept the absurdity of modern premillennialism.

  5. I like to say: “God gave us brains and he expects us to use them.” He gave us this Book, that concerns our ETERNAL destiny, and he expects us to study and think very seriously, as we also draw upon the gathered intepretive wisdom of the church over two millennia…traditional, conservative, orthodox, Biblical wisdom. There is no more serious issue in life.

  6. Jesus quoted from the Torah, not the Gospels. Did Jesus quote lies? Or did Jesus not know himself? Was Jesus raised on the third day, or do you have a handy interpretation for that as well? Where do the myths stop and the miracles start?

  7. I’m interested at where you draw the line. I assume you believe in the resurrection, but what about feeding the multitude? Walking on the water? Why these and not those spoken of by Daniel, for example?

  8. “Jesus quoted from the Torah, not the Gospels.”

    Jesus didn’t need to quote the gospel that he originated. Yes, he quoted from the “Torah,” which means “teaching (with the force of law)” — teaching, NOT history or science. The historical elements, metaphors, etc. are used to teach or illustrate the lessons. That is how the authors, editors and compilers of the Torah and the rest of the “Tanakh” understood it. You are posing a false dilemma that if anything taken literally is not historically or scientifically accurate, the Bible is false and then we are excused from obeying God, or even believing in THIS god, at least.

    Where do we draw the line between literal and didactic-metaphorical interpretation? As I said no interpreter is inerrant, but there are certain ESSENTIALS that ARE taken literally (“unity in the essentials, liberty in the nonessentials, charity in all things”) such as the literal incarnation of the Deity, and His literal death and resurrection. We depend on two millennia of accumulated interpretive tradition, the best scholarship of language, archaeology, etc. — and finally, our “sanctified common sense.” God gave us brains and expects us to use them. We cannot understand the inspired word properly, however, if we are not willingly living out its teachings. “If any willeth to do His will, he shall know….”

    If the southern preacher Robert Dabney were alive today, I believe he would approve of our discussion on this southern secessionist site. He would agree that southern racial renewal depends largely on southern religious renewal. No salvation outside the church.

  9. One more notes, Wayne: Your notion that the Christian religion (or as the deceivers/deceived usually put it: “the Judaeo-Christian religion”) “begins with” or “depends on” the Torah is mistaken. The Christian religion begins with the gospel.

  10. Typo: “One more notes” should have been “two more notes” — the second being that writing in someone else’s name (“Jonah” being the example you mentioned) was not considered dishonest, but was a commonly understood practice. We need to understand the culture of the ancient Middle East.

  11. “What is with the pedantic corrections he insists on making? It’s hasbaratic.”

    Nice try John but no cigar yet again. YOU are the one who tried to equate blue eyes with the nonsensical and insidious 19th Century English preaching of Whites being a “Lost Tribe of Israel.”

    Although I have observed some slight improvement on your part in the last couple of months, on the whole you still remain an ignoramus who shoots his mouth off without checking his statements against the facts.

  12. @Denise
    “we don’t hear much about that 25 year old who loooks like one of those Dutch soccer girls”

    I much prefer the plump, blonde, rosy cheeked, Dutch milkmaid type so amply illustrated in the paintings of Buckelaer, Snyders, Aertsen, and Wtewael. Not that you can’t find these fine examples of Aryan womanhood on the streets of Antwerp today (although I’ll have to pass on any with tattoos.)

  13. “The Apocalypse of John is another example of a series of metaphorical lessons that would become absurdities taken literally.”

    That’s why I cut religious folks a certain amount of slack. In any and all cases they are speaking metaphorically. They just don’t realize it.

  14. Don’t some metaphors refer to truths, or point to facts? Aren’t some metaphors more true than others?

  15. “Don’t some metaphors refer to truths, or point to facts? Aren’t some metaphors more true than others?”

    They certainly are which is why I try not to go all village atheist when talking to churchgoers. It can be tough dealing with Baptists though. I think they have all inherited the “stupid” gene, praise the Lord.

  16. “WHO are the atheists of the villages?”

    Those wise souls who don’t believe all the BS that preachers espouse. ‘Twas always thus.

  17. Most atheists and “agnostics” I know are down to earth, no bullshit folks with a lot of common sense. Most of the “Praise Jesus” at the end of every goddam sentence, folks I know have double-digit IQ’s.

  18. Re: the superiour intelligence of atheists and agnostics:

    The notion of “genetic inability” to understand religion and believe in God is as nonsensical as genetically determined sodomy. Everyone will be called to give an account.

  19. It is hypothesised that some humans are “hard wired for religion,” genetically determined to rely upon an “Unseen Companion” (“a primitive survival mechanism that has no benefit in modern civilisation”) whereas atheists and agnostics generally lack this “ability” and are most suited to living in an age of science and technology.

  20. No I fucking didn’t. Twat. It’s no coincidence that literature comes into existence alongside the flowering of the societies that are white. All the good thunder god stories belong to us in a sense.

    Generally I find that atheists are Jews denying their Jewishness often in their twenties. By the time middle age returns the atheist finds his god again, often in private.

  21. its sad to see
    the downfall of mankind, i’m 20 i think i’ll see it outlive me yet,
    just barely
    the world will be consumed by hellfires soon, we been cookin it up for a long time, we already can see the tools that God’s wrath will use
    the a-bomb, the h-bomb etc.
    it can only carry on for so far before it either turns back around or goes off the cliff, frankly i dont see us bringin em back into the fold, theyve gone to far to turn back now,
    the only salve to wash away the monstrous mountain and depths of depravity and wickedness in this world is the cleansing of it by nuclear fire
    with God’s good grace the few survivors can rebuild a righteous one, take #3

  22. Luke 9:50

    When it comes to the race question, I am perfectly comfortable sharing the movement with both religious and anti-religious loons. As a realist and a religiously moderate Christian, I am cynical enough to see layers to our future. First, let us address our society’s race problem. Then, when that’s done (or, at least, simmering) we can hash out the theology. In that way, I suppose you could call me a racial “liberation theologist.”

Comments are closed.