Alabama
Demonization as a political and social stratagem knows no temporal or geographical bounds; it is a ploy as old as civilization itself. The objective of the game is to dehumanize an opponent (an individual or a group) in order to gain public support for his marginalization or destruction. Modern America abounds with examples of the demonization process, most of them perpetuated by the Left (which includes Trotskyite neo-conservatives) against the traditional, populist Right. The Oklahoma City bombing, black church burnings, the Atlanta Olympics pipe-bombing, and the ever-present and ubiquitous citizen militia movement have all been used by the government and its lap-dog media to portray anyone to the right of George W. Bush and the Republican National Committee as a clear and present danger to the public weal. But the boogie-man singled out to receive the lion’s share of the liberal/neocon opprobrium is the battleflag-waving Southern “cracker” or “redneck,”who is uniformly presented by the media, the academy, and popular culture as Old Scratch incarnate. Unfortunately, the demonization of Southerners and their region is not of recent origin.
Though Southerners of both high and low estate contributed mightily to the founding and advancement of the American Republic, they have been subjected to a long-running process of demonization that has turned them into national whipping-boys in the latter half of the twentieth century. The demonization of the South did not begin, as some may think, with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, though it did take on a particularly hostile tone during those decades. Rather, the campaign to portray the South as the sole blot on an otherwise pure and shining “City on a Hill” began in earnest in the 1830s with the rise of the Yankee reformist impulse (i.e. Abolitionist, women’s rights, temperance, anti-tobacco, and other like-minded movements) and fears that the so-called “Slave Power” of Southern aristocrats threatened American Democracy. The three decades from the publication of William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator in 1831 to the outbreak of The War for Southern Independence in 1861 witnessed a virulent crusade to vilify not only the South’s culture and institutions but Southerners themselves.
To properly understand why the Yankee thought it necessary and profitable to demonize the South, we must trace briefly the dichotomy between a rapidly-changing antebellum North and a stable, conservative South. Southern men-of-affairs, especially South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun, rightly understood that unchecked consolidation and the campaign against slavery would result in either the destruction of the South or in the dissolution of the Union. The gathering forces against which the South had to contend were indeed foreboding. The sweep of “progress” was already gripping the North (especially New England), urging it toward finance and industrial capitalism and the exploitation of “free” labor. William H. Seward warned the South that unless it voluntarily discarded its old ways–particularly an outmoded adherence to states rights and the “peculiar institution”–it would later yield them amidst a sea of blood. Such threats to the well-being of their region caused thoughtful Southern leaders to consider what sort of checks might be imposed against an increasingly hostile North.
But progressive Northern leaders were in no mood to be checked by a numerical minority in the slaveholding South. Undermining the Southern way of life would be the first step in the triumph of the Yankee worldview, and to accomplish this the South had to be demonized in the eyes of a majority of Northerners before the radicals could hope for its actual physical destruction.
Revolutionary change in the North’s economic and political systems had been accompanied by European-style reform movements of every stripe. Indeed, New England and parts of the Midwest now produced a breed of perpetual reformers in whom emotion trumped commonsense and hard experience. Eventually, all the reformist strands were woven together into the rope of Abolitionism, and by the 1830s the anti-slavery movement had become a messianic, apostate religious crusade. Radical Abolitionist propaganda found its way not only into the literature and public oratory of the day, but into juvenile story books, church hymnals, and even almanacs, as well.
The milder form of Abolitionism that existed until the late 1820s in both the North and South called for gradual emancipation under conditions to be determined by those closest to the institution. Few men condemned the actual physical conditions of slavery; instead, they criticized the institution on the grounds of principle. In 1827 New Yorker James Fenimore Cooper told a French audience that “the American slave is better off, so far as mere animal wants are concerned, than the lower orders of the European peasants.” Moreover, both sides in the debate were aware of the problems inherent in the manumission of several million Africans who lacked experience with self-government. Many, if not most, early advocates of emancipation favored one or another plan for the separation of the races. The American Colonization Movement, for instance, proposed to transport out of the country those slave freed by their masters. Until the beginning of the 1830s, then, there was little overt hostility between the pro- and anti-slavery factions. But the first issue of Garrison’s Liberator changed the nature of the slavery debate forever.
The Liberator gave Garrison a platform from which to stoke the fires of sectional hatred against the South, and he wasted no time in doing so. In the first issue of 1 January 1831, he declared: “I do not wish to think or speak or write with moderation. I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” And so he was. Garrison and a vocal minority of New Englanders agitated unceasingly to distort and fictionalize Southern society and to make hatred of slavery synonymous with hatred of all who inhabited the slaveholding South. Southerners were described as “thieves and adulterers . . . who trample law and order beneath their feet; . . . ruffians who insult, pollute, and lacerate helpless women; and . . . conspirators against the lives and liberties of New England citizens.”
Like many New Englanders who wrote about the South during the middle third of the nineteenth-century, Garrison possessed virtually no first-hand knowledge of the region. Along with Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose only visit had been a brief one to a model plantation in Kentucky, and arch-Abolitionist Wendell Phillips, Garrison created a simplistic and false portrait of a South whose social system was much more complex than they were willing to admit. Phillips the orator exceeded Garrison the editor in his ability to tug on the heartstrings of New Englanders over the slavery issue. He contended that the institution was not only evil, but that it represented a direct threat to the political and economic well-being of the North. The South’s aristocratic Slave Power, as he called it, stood as an obstacle to the onward march of American Democracy, and if the North was to avoid contracting this contagious disease, it must remake the South in its own progressive image. Unlike Garrison, who preached a philosophy of non-resistance, Phillips conjured for his audience “scenes of blood through which a rebellious slave population must march to their rights.” Long before Lincoln made his “House Divided Against Itself” speech, Wendell Phillips had already convinced many New Englanders that the slave and free sections “cannot live together.”
Anti-Southern Abolitionist vitriol also found expression in the writings of some of New England’s most popular men-of-letters: John Greenleaf Whittier, James Russell Lowell, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, to name but three. Though none but Emerson had actually traveled to the South, all confidently scorned the region as a benighted cultural backwater where sloth and stagnation prevailed. Just how susceptible to hear-say and rumor these men were can be gleaned from Whittier’s The Narrative of James Williams. Williams, a run-away slave, told of being “sold down the river” by his owner in Virginia to a cruel master who foreshadowed Mrs. Stowe’s Simon Legree. Whittier scandalized his readers with Williams’ tales of his new master’s barbarism, which included raping female slaves, whipping pregnant women until they miscarried, and shooting escaped field-hands in the back.
The work was published by Boston’s Anti-Slavery Society in 1838 and quickly went through six editions before being withdrawn after it was discovered that Whittier had not bothered to verify the truthfulness of Williams’ fantastic tale. Nonetheless, Whittier’s book made its mark. Even after learning of its fabrication, many Abolitionists still held that the narrative gave an accurate description of slavery in the Deep South. Howard R. Floan’s The South in Northern Eyes, 1831-1861 (1958) tells us: “In considering the reception of The Narrative of James Williams, it is not hard to understand how, after twelve years of conditioning, the American mind was well prepared for Uncle Tom’s Cabin. . . .”
James Russell Lowell, though largely uninterested in the great political questions of the day that loomed over both North and South, was quick to assert that the preeminent struggle was one between the forces of enlightened Northern progressivism and Southern traditionalism. To Lowell, the South was “King Retro,” stubbornly clinging to an unnatural and hierarchical worldview that eventually must bring it to ruin. The region’s only salvation, he believed, was for it to adopt the prevailing ideologies of mid-nineteenth-century New England, especially egalitarianism. His depiction of the typical Southerner as an idle ruffian and an ignorant hypocrite created in the popular imagination, according to Floan, “a villain who the people of the North would soon be quite willing to meet in battle.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson, before joining the ranks of the radical Abolitionists in the mid-1840s, had opposed Southern slaveholders on principle but did not sensationalize the alleged cruelty of master to slave as did Whittier and Lowell. Emerson wrote in the late 1820s: “For it is true that many a slave under the warm roof of a humane master, with easy labours and regular subsistence enjoys more happiness than his naked brethren in Africa.” He also expressed a grudging admiration for the masculine fighting qualities of Southern men and thus feared they would outmatch Yankees in the contest of politics. “The Southerner,” he noted, “always beats us in politics. . . . [He] has personality, has temperament, has manners, persuasion, address, and terror. The cold Yankee . . . has not fire or firmness. . . .” Emerson’s view was representative of a growing Northern resentment of the South’s strength in national affairs.
Once Emerson joined the Abolitionists, he radically altered his view of the South. Most of his literary venom he saved for South Carolina, comparing it to contemporary Algiers. “We must go there,” he fretted, “in disguise, and with pistols in our pockets, leaving our pocketbooks at home, making our wills before we go.” South Carolina’s chief rascal was, of course, the Nullifier Calhoun, whose voice, Emerson claimed, spoke for the state.
The decade of the 1850s further convinced Emerson that, if unchecked, the South’s “slaveocracy” would render New England impotent in American politics. Many of his fellow Northerners were lured into sympathizing with the South, he thought, by “the ascendancy of Southern manners.” Alarmed at the prospects of Southern political dominance, Emerson discarded whatever objectivity he once may have had and increased the fury of his attacks on the region and its inhabitants. He called upon his fellow Abolitionists to help foster a climate in New England that would produce future Negro leaders in the mold of Toussaint, Douglass, Nat Turner, and Denmark Vasey. Such men, he believed, if unleashed on the villainous South, would bring more positive results than all the white anti-slavery societies then in existence.
But not all Northern men were of the same cut as Garrison, Phillips, Whittier, Lowell, and Emerson. For instance, Oliver Wendell Holmes, though he opposed Southern slavery in principle, refused to demonize the Southern people as “racists” as do the politically correct in our own day. Rather, Holmes believed in the natural superiority of white Southerners over blacks, and that should the South’s social system, including slavery, be forcibly dismantled by radical Abolitionists, the egalitarian forces unleashed would eventually work to undermine the superior position of the New England Brahmins in their own region.
Like Holmes, Nathaniel Hawthorne viewed the emotionally-charged, anti-South rhetoric of the Abolitionists as harmful to the nation’s social and political stability. Aware of the unbridgeable cultural gap between the regions, Hawthorne advised a Constitutional approach to the problem of slavery. He was indeed horrified to hear Emerson proclaim shortly after the execution of John Brown that “the death of this blood-stained fanatic has made the Gallows as venerable as the Cross!” Hawthorne joined most Southerners in thinking that Brown had received justice at the hangman’s noose.
The literati of New York City also kept their distance from the rabid Abolitionism of New England. Business and marriage alliances between New Yorkers and Southerners served to soften the former’s perceptions of the latter. Herman Melville, William Cullen Bryant, and Walt Whitman, though surely no lovers of the South or slavery, all refused to engage in the general demonization of the region and its people. As Floan points out, “one must find in New York a body of opinion which objected to slavery without cursing the slaveholding South.” When one looks closely at the demonization of antebellum Dixie, it is clear that New England, and particularly Boston, lay at the root of the movement.
Boston in the mid-nineteenth century was the center of a Unitarian-Universalist revolt against traditional Christianity in which sinful mankind was transformed into a creature of innate goodness and light. If mankind was inherently good, then all social problems were external ones that could be eradicated by one sort of reform or another. Perhaps even the Southern slave-driver could be redeemed if only he could be made over in the image of the sturdy, democratic New Englander and his cousin in the Midwest who knew the proper interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. To these abstract idealists, the South seemed woefully out of step with the idea that “all men are created equal.” While New Englanders called down the wrath of God’s “terrible swift sword” against the South, western men in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, writes historian A. O. Craven, “had a way of viewing evil as something there ought to be a law against.” This combination of sanctimony and the appeal to laws that surely would be enacted by Randolph of Roanoke’s “King Numbers,” served to unite the disparate elements of the white South and gird them for the impending conflict.
The war waged from 1861 to 1865 was precipitated in no small part by the Abolitionists who had for thirty years fanned the flames of hatred against the South. When the fighting broke out in April, 1861, they all rejoiced, some at finally being rid of the South and others at the opportunity of destroying her. One of their own, Julia Ward Howe, while in Washington during the early days of the war, penned the lyrics to what became the Unitarian-Abolitionist anthem–”The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Her words hailed the advent of a holy war against an evil South and equated the crucifixion of Christ with the present crusade against slavery. The South Carolina Presbyterian divine, Rev. James Henley Thornwell, well understood the nature of the “irrepressible conflict” waged against his homeland. He wrote: “The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground, Christianity and Atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity the stake.”
Four years of Jacobin-inspired warfare devastated the South. In addition to some 450,000 Confederate soldiers killed and wounded, the region’s civilian population suffered horrendously, especially during the final campaigns of the conflict. The last months of the Confederacy were filled with arson, robbery, rape, and murder, crimes perpetrated more often than not with the approval of Union military officers and civilian officials. Much of the destruction was pure vandalism directed against defenseless women and children and represented a deliberate policy to strike terror in the hearts of the Southern people. What General William T. Sherman called the “holiest fight ever fought on God’s earth” made little distinction between black and white. A reporter for the New York Herald, who witnessed the sack of Columbia, South Carolina, in 1865, noted that “Negro women were for the most part victims of the [Union] soldiers’ lust. A number of them were woefully mistreated and ravished.”
In the wake of this carnage, Northern business interests began a systematic and wholesale economic plundering of the South that would continue through Reconstruction. Oppressive taxes were levied on cotton, and in just three years (1865-68) over $70 million was expropriated from the Southern economy. As late as 1880 the value of Southern agricultural lands was only two-thirds of what it had been in 1860. Gross farm income did not rise above 1859 levels until the early 1880s, though the South’s population rose nearly fifty-percent during that period. In the decades following the war, the South became an economic colony at the mercy of Northeastern plutocrats who exacted enormous sums of capital through usurious interest rates, stole lands and resources through tax foreclosures, and rigged local elections at the point of a bayonet. Famine and pestilence stalked the land, and it was common to see homeless widows and orphans begging bread from door to door and once-proud veterans reduced to destitution. Indeed, Wendell Phillips summed up the situation well when he remarked after the war: “This [the North’s victory] is the new dispensation. This is the New Testament. 1860 is the blank leaf between the old and the new. . . . We have conquered not the geographical but the ideal South . . . and we have a right to trample it under the heel of our boots. This is the meaning of the war.” So it was.
The sort of destruction laid upon Southerners can be sold to the public only if the targets of that destruction are demonized to the point of having their humanity stripped away. Then they become non-persons against whom the vilest depredations can be righteously excused. For decades before the war Southerners were stigmatized as a brutal and backwards people in dire need of punishment and repentance. Thus all that was done to them they deserved. Both public and private organs in the North perpetrated a false image of Southern “savagery:” the murder of Union prisoners on the battlefield; the unique horrors of Andersonville prison; and the complicity of Jefferson Davis in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. By such lies and distortions, the War Department and the Congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War place the mark of infamy upon the South. Northerners who took a less emotional view of the South also had ulterior, mercenary motives: the restoration of the former Confederate states to the Union as markets for Northern goods and capital. They hoped that through contact with the North the region could be morally regenerated and brought to see the benefits of Republican rule.
The South’s defeat in 1865, as Thornwell predicted, cleared the way for the triumph of a Jacobin worldview in a consolidated American Empire. Wasted by war and military occupation and swindled by crooked Carpetbag and Scalawag “entrepreneurs,” the Southern people could do nothing to halt the centralizers’ juggernaut. One would think the demonizers’ work done at this point. But after a truce of sorts prevailed for several decades, especially during times of war when the American nation needed the services of Southern manhood, the demonization of all things traditionally Southern resumed apace in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement.
The on-going assault on the South is reminiscent of the Abolitionist campaign of the mid-nineteenth century in that it seeks to vilify an entire people on the basis of lies and half-truths perpetrated by men with little knowledge of the subject about which they write. I could give countless examples, but I shall limit myself to a rather recent one from popular culture. In the early 1970s, Canadian singer Neil Young wrote and recorded a neo-Abolitionist tune called “Southern Man,” in which he whines: “I heard screaming, bullwhips cracking, how long, how long?” Young’s musical diatribe was quickly answered by a group of battleflag-waving, good ol’ boys known collectively as Lynyrd Skynyrd, whose “Sweet Home Alabama” remains the favorite of many an unreconstructed Southron. Lead singer Ronnie Van Zandt growled a challenge to Young and his ilk: “I heard Mr. Young sing about her, well I heard ol’ Neil put her down. I hope Neil Young will remember, Southern man don’t need him around anyhow.” Van Zandt’s lyrics may lack a certain eloquence, but they say simply and directly what demonized Southerners have been thinking for the last 160 years.
Michael Hill
Killen, Alabama
Not a fact misplaced, but the Northerner will imply quite pointedly their moral superiority over any opposition, in this case the South. Now if you challenge that they will deny it but in the same sentence throw it right back at you and the all important audience to decide for themselves.
That is in part why the South has lost so much, they lose the battle for moral superiority and often times not by much but a loss over time magnifies and the rout ensues.
I know you intellectuals are too good for politics, but gentlemen you are not ready for being a mass movement. You type out wonderful essays, the anti-whites on the Left shout one word “racist” and your audience puts their heads down and shuffles away. Strip them of their false notion of moral superiority, defang the word “racist” and you liberate your audience from the terror.
Now to address your egos which I have no doubt are quite large as intellectuals are, those will be used against you, you are being saved up for that day that you become the morality play’s villain (hello Jack Hunter). We need millions behind us, not just hard headed and factual essays for small audiences of like minded types.
“They are not morally superior” is that so hard to say, is it?
Re: RRS
I disagree.
The South loses these fights solely because of the existence of the Union. In the 1960s, Southerners were nearly unanimous that segregation was morally right, and voted overwhelmingly to preserve segregation.
In the 1860s, the South was convinced that slavery was morally right, and seceded and fought the bloodiest war in history to preserve slavery.
In the 1970s, the South was convinced that abortion was morally wrong, but the Roe decision imposed abortion on every Southern state.
More recently, every Southern state has passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and the majority of Southerners believe gay marriage is immoral, but like integration it is advanced through the federal courts.
Here in Alabama, we passed HB 56 and banned federal gun control laws. We are not losing on immigration because we have been morally persuaded that illegal alien amnesty is the way to go. We lost at the Supreme Court and Congress.
The North always fails to morally persuade the South to support its ludicrous ideas – Prohibition and eugenics are exceptions to the rule – and resorts to force to impose its will on the South
After force is used by the North, demoralization sets in and then comes passive acceptance and finally the collapse of all resistance.
A fine essay.
It is obvious that anti-Southern animus, always strong in this nation, has increased substantially over the past decade or so. In the late 1970s (which were hardly a pro-Southern elysium), it was actually possible for Congress to vote overwhelmingly for bills restoring the citizenship of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. Such a thing would be utterly impossible today.
Northern whites are demonised (as “demonisers of the south”) here, and here http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2013/05/27/bicausalism-type-b-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1795414
“the South was convinced that slavery was morally right”
The task at hand is to re-convince them.
Racist the word trumps your wonderful political instincts by just enough. Why you don’t want to liberate people from its sting and effect is beyond me? Its quite obvious that the word is effective ask Jack Hunter. I’ll be blunt to expect millions to be the hard ass you are is folly, yet you refuse to even offer the decency to help the weaker Southrons like Hunter and Paula Deen confront and survive such evil. The LoS must lead not be a clique of essayists voguing as hardass confederates.
In the 1960s, the media denounced the South as “racist,” but the majority of Southerners thought that segregation and white supremacy was morally right, and Southerners in Congress voted overwhelmingly to preserve Jim Crow.
The North’s attempt to morally shame the South into accepting integration was a failure. It failed in the 1860s with slavery and it failed again with gay marriage. In each case, moral persuasion failed and force was used to change the South.
Segregation was destroyed by the Voting Rights Act, not by the power of the word “racist.” The word had no power in the South until the black vote swamped all the segregationist strongholds and shifted the axis of Southern politics to the suburbs.
Were it not for the existence of the Union, the Civil Rights Movement would have never triumphed, and the word “racist” would have no power over us today. Instead, MLK would been defeated as early as the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Federal power, not word games, has always been the real problem. In the North, the situation was otherwise because Yankees bought into the arguments for antislavery and feminism and civil rights and gay marriage.
The liberal transplants flooding into the South, the threat posed by amnesty, and the millions of legal immigrants coming here – all of these things like black voting rights are just a symptom of the existence of the Union. See the William L. Houston article at VDARE. Without the Union, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Act of 1965 would never have been passed.
It’s Ronnie Van Zant, not Van Zandt. Otherwise, good article. Michael Hill uses the proper tone for a polemical piece like this: convincing the reader through patient explanation and gentle persuasion rather than angry vitriol and exaggerated rhetoric.
Speaking of the demonization of the South, here’s a classic example from the New York Times:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/the-decline-of-black-power-in-the-south/?hp
However, I found this passage particularly interesting:
The transition from Democratic to Republican hegemony in the South reached completion in 2012 when the Arkansas Legislature turned Republican, putting every Southern Democratic legislator in the minority.
Republicans are currently entrenched, backed by decisive majorities of white voters. Republican legislators in the South have, in turn, moved aggressively on two fronts to secure their power: by designing legislative and Congressional districts minimizing Democratic prospects and by moving ahead with legislation designed to suppress voting under the guise of combating voter fraud.
What stands out, looking at the data, is how effective, in purely political terms, the Republican’s “white” strategy has turned out to be at the state level. Nationally, the party is enmeshed in an often bitter debate between those who argue that future success lies in building margins and turnout rates among whites, making little effort to woo minorities — or in fact actively scorning them; and those, on the other hand, who believe that this strategy can no longer work as the population of minority voters grows.
Republicans in control of redistricting have two goals: the defeat of white Democrats, and the creation of safe districts for Republicans. They have achieved both of these goals by increasing the number of districts likely to elect an African-American. Black voters are gerrymandered out of districts represented by whites of both parties, making the Democratic incumbent weaker and the Republican incumbent stronger.
Take Mississippi. In the state’s 2012 redistricting, all of the decisively black legislative districts – where 60 percent or more of the voters are African-American – have been preserved, and four new majority-black districts have been created. This, in turn, has allowed Republicans to reduce the percentage of blacks in districts where Republican incumbents had close contests in Mississippi’s 2011 off-year elections.
While increasing the number of blacks elected to state legislatures, Republicans have been effectively implementing their long-range goal of decimating the number of white Democrats. Depending on local demographics, this has been achieved in two ways.
Where possible, Republican redistricting strategists have reduced the number of blacks in white Democratic legislative districts in order to render the incumbent vulnerable to Republican challenge. In other areas of the state, where it has not been not possible to “bleach” a district, Republicans have sharply increased the percentage of blacks to over 50 percent in order to encourage a successful black challenge to the white Democratic incumbent.
In private discussions, Republicans in the South talk explicitly about their goal of turning the Democratic Party into a black party, and in many Southern states they have succeeded. African-American legislators make up the majority of state House and Senate Democratic caucuses in most of the Southern states.
The last paragraph is key. It’s a brilliant short-term strategy to pigeonhole the Democrats as the black party, but with rapid demographic change it could set the stage for black-ruled Democrats to take power in a number of Southern states on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. When the Democrats previously dominated the South they were a white-ruled party with a minority black contingent, but a truly black-dominated state government hasn’t existed in the South since the days of Reconstruction.
The most vulnerable state to a black takeover is Georgia, which is 30% black and 14% other minorities. Georgia is also one of the fastest growing states which means there are large numbers of liberals and leftists (of all races) constantly flooding in. The Georgia Democratic party has already been effectively ceded to the blacks, who, at 30% of the population, will conceivably dominate it from here on out. So when the demographic turning point comes for the state as a whole–as it almost certainly will, the black-run Democrats will permanently replace the white-run GOP as the natural governing party of Georgia.
The demographic situation in Mississippi (58% white, 37% black) is even more dire. The only thing preserving white-rule there is the sluggish economy, which attracts very few immigrants and internal migrants. But if that ever changes and the MS GOP loses power due to a major population influx, then they will be replaced by the blackest (and therefore most socialistic, incompetent and corrupt) Democratic party in the country. I would expect a massive exodus of whites from Mississippi if that ever comes to pass.
One thing that a lot of Southern nationalists don’t seem to understand is that Northerners can more-or-less safely vote for the Democrats in their own states in a way that Deep Southerners can’t. The people of Minnesota can vote for the white-ruled Democratic-Farmer-Labor party and they will get–at worst–a local version of the British Labour party or the German Social Democrats. But if the people of Mississippi ever vote for the black-ruled state Democrats, then they will get something a lot closer to the ANC or Mugabe’s ZANU-PF. OK, that might be an exaggeration, but only a slight one. Mississippi might as well be the American Congo if they ever succumb to black Democratic rule.
Just like the state GOP parties are different in the North and the South (with the Northern ones generally being more liberal across the board), so too are the state Democratic parties. But now, with the full-on blackening of the Southern Democrats, the consequences of them ever gaining power again are almost too ghastly to contemplate. To say that it would be an utter disaster for the white people of Georgia and Mississippi, or possibly Louisiana and South Carolina, is the mother of all understatements. The Southern GOP parties have bought themselves some valuable time with the 2010 redistricting. But what happens after 2020? Or, in the unlikely event that they manage to survive that redistricting, after 2030? Time is running out, folks.
Blacks are not the problem in the South.
The problem is and always has been the existence of the Union with Northern Whites. The Plessy decision and the 1901 Alabama Constitution showed how rapidly the negro could be disenfranchised and marginalized in the South. Edsall’s column at the New York Times is about the collapse of black political power in the South. In Alabama, the Reed and Arrington machines were very powerful in Montgomery until a few years ago when Democrats lost control of the state legislature.
The Shelby County decision which struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is another example of this. In 2011 and 2012, we spent a lot of time discussing the Voter ID laws that were being passed by states like Texas and South Carolina only to be blocked by the Holder Justice Department. Now all these Voter ID laws – including Alabama’s Voter ID law which was passed in 2011 – are about to be enforced and will undoubtedly inspire a flood of new Voter ID laws in upcoming legislative sessions.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/25/after-supreme-court-ruling-states-see-green-light-for-voter-id-laws/
Black political power in the South turns on 1.) Northern public opinion and 2.) the policies coming out of Washington. Without the Union, blacks could easily be dealt with here.
No icebergs in sight, full speed ahead.
-Captain of the Titanic, 1912
Blacks are not the problem in the South.
-Hunter Wallace, 2013
@ “the South was convinced that slavery was morally right”
The task at hand is to re-convince them.
No, slavery is an old done deal. I know no southerners who had slaves who want to own slaves again. As with any experience a PEOPLE has gone through, much wisdom comes out of it, and that’s all.
Rob Roy often seems very right. So why do people insist on avoiding playing offense and simply refusing to cede moral highground.
The IDEA OF A MORAL YANKEE is pretty funny (the contradictions abound).
Yet, NO ONE WILL ENDLESSLY POINT THOSE OUT, but rather stay on this defensive points from 150 years ago. It’s a losing tactic.
Hunter Wallace says:
The liberal transplants flooding into the South, the threat posed by amnesty, and the millions of legal immigrants coming here – all of these things like black voting rights are just a symptom of the existence of the Union….”
With all due respect, THERE ARE MANY players in the union who would like to be the sole Grand Collector of the Welfare-warfare tax kitty, at this point.
Many factions vying TO BE THE UNION. (It’s hardly monolithic at this point, right?)
Many would love to grab the reins of the beast, lol
Oh finally, that something I was tyring to say a long time ago…. the old yankees ain’t the new yankees. Time moved on
Sure there was lots of moral window dressing in North, and in New England in particular, but, the bottom line was the North wanted to steal the wealth of the South! Simple as that.
All of these literary men that Dr. Hill mentions were bought and paid for by the industrial, railroad, and merchant interests of the North.
Stop the anti-whites from hurting people with the word racist you will get your political army. As Mr. Hill wrote the LoS offers itself as servant/leaders not essayists who tell its people just laugh at them when they call you racist. You attain power by helping people not writing essays for fellow tough guys
Whites north of the Line are all demonic!
You can tell at a glance that Whites north of the Line, especially those of New England http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZubTju7g_s are an entirely different people — entirely different from good, southern people.
Earl Butz says:
Sure there was lots of moral window dressing in North, and in New England in particular, but, the bottom line was the North wanted to steal the wealth of the South! Simple as that….”
They still do, Earl.
There is NO POINT to constant defamation, degradation, plain old fashioned “BAD SOCIAL POSITIONING” unless the attackers WANT something.
Wasn’t that the whole lesson the Ex-SLAVES told us????
They SAID that all those minstrel shows, etc., were degrading and “kept them down” and made them say “yes sir” to things they wish they hadn’t!!!
So, OBVIOUSLY, that’s how doing “bad social positionings” (by media, movies, creating a fictional narrative in which a given person is the bad guy)— works. Ex-slaves told us, and we are also told that they lived through hell, and therefore became very wise.
So, all that being the case—- they, themselves, have said what a devastating (even Genocidal) experience such a thing is, TRUE OR NOT. In fact, if the white persons in question, really are the most evil thing in existence, shouldn’t they be HELPED, not further degraded, lol.
At any rate, it does SO OFTEN SEEM that a paycheck is deeply attached to the object of degradation (s/a a wasp, white southerner, cracker, peckerwood, blue-eyed mutant, racist, redneck, hick, hillbilly, and so on)—
Why the recent rash of “Amish” shows, reality shows, documentaries, etc? Why is that information being produced?
Rob Roy,
The contradictions of the north are endless.
They say they want freedom, yet they enslave, and so on.
Why don’t men point out these endless contradictions more often?
@DixieGirl
Having an African village on your farm isn’t exactly what I would call, living the good life.
“Without the Union, blacks could easily be dealt with here.”
ORLY? And just how will you do that so “easily?”
DixieGirl says: July 12, 2013 at 12:35 am:
“@ ‘ “the South was convinced that slavery was morally right” The task at hand is to re-convince them.’ ”
“No, slavery is an old done deal. I know no southerners who had slaves who want to own slaves again. As with any experience a PEOPLE has gone through, much wisdom comes out of it, and that’s all.”
I was being ironic, DixieGirl. But some of the OD crowd DO think the task at hand is to re-convince them.
Mosin knows very well that no one here is interested in reviving slavery. Northern Republicans abolished slavery and rewrote the Constitution to make blacks citizens. We could have ended slavery at some point in another way. It didn’t have to end at the hands of religious fanatics who were obsessed with creating their racially integrated utopia.
“We could have ended slavery at some point in another way.”
– Except you had no intention of ever doing so. You people waged a fratricidal war to preserve slavery. Even today Hunter, you yourself constantly expound on how beneficial you observe the institution of slavery to have been to both slave and owner.
Re: 313Chris
1.) If there had never been a war, slavery would ended in the same way and for the same reasons as sharecropping (in the 1930s, most sharecroppers were White), but it would have happened sooner (like the mechanization of agriculture in the Midwest) because labor wouldn’t have been as cheap and credit would have been as scarce as it was in the Jim Crow South.
2.) The North started a fratricidal war to preserve the Union. It was the North that invaded the Confederacy, not the other way around.
3.) Slavery really was vastly superior to “free labor.” The proof of this is what happened to the South after slavery was abolished and the “free labor” system was substituted.
Idiots who know little about Southern history claim that it was slavery that impoverished non-slaveholders. The truth is that the majority of non-slaveholders lost their land after the abolition of slavery when the economy was Southern economy was destroyed. They became sharecroppers and tenant farmers and picked cotton until the Great Depression.
Hunter Wallace says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:21 pm
‘ We could have ended slavery at some point in another way. It didn’t have to end at the hands of religious fanatics who were obsessed with creating their racially integrated utopia.’
Hunter, I appreciate much of what you write about, but in saying the abolitionists in the North were obsessed with creating a racially integrated utopia is not correct. Far from it.
Jared Taylor sheds light on this and other tangential issues in this fascinating article.
It appears Benjamin Franklin wasn’t all that enamored with niggras either.
http://www.npiamerica.org/media/reports/TheFounders.pdf
‘What the Founders really thought about race.’
The Abolition Movement
Today, it is common to think of the antebellum North as united in the desire to
free the slaves and to establish them as the social and political equals of Whites.
Again, this is a distorted view. First of all, slavery persisted in the North well into
the post-Revolutionary period. It was not abolished in New York State until 1827,
and it continued in Connecticut until 1848.
Nor was abolitionist sentiment anything close to universal. Many Northerners
opposed abolition because they feared it would lead to race mixing. The easiest
way to stir up opposition to Northern abolitionists was to claim that what they
were really promoting was intermarriage. Many abolitionists expressed strong
disapproval of miscegenation, but the fact that speakers at abolitionist meetings
addressed racially mixed audiences was sufficiently shocking to make any
charge believable. There were no fewer than 165 anti-abolition riots in the North
during the 1820s alone, almost all of them prompted by the fear that abolition
would lead to intermarriage.
The 1830s saw further violence. On July 4, 1834, the American Anti-Slavery
Society read its Declaration of Sentiments to a mixed-race audience in New York
City. Rioters then broke up the meeting and went on a rampage that lasted 11
days. The National Guard managed to bring peace only after the society issued a Disclaimer,” the first point of which was: “We entirely disclaim any desire to
promote or encourage intermarriages between white and colored persons.”
Philadelphia suffered a serious riot in 1838 after abolitionists, who had had
trouble renting space to hold their meetings, built their own building. On May
17, the last day of a three-day dedication ceremony, several thousand people—
many of high social standing—gathered at the hall and burned it down while the
fire department stood by and did nothing.
Sentiment against Blacks was so strong that many Northern Whites supported
abolition only if it was linked, as Jefferson and Madison had proposed, to plans
to deport or “colonize” Blacks. Most abolitionist activism therefore reflected a
deep conviction that slavery was wrong, but not a desire to establish Blacks as social and political equals.
William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina and Sarah Grimké favored equal treatment for Blacks in all respects, but theirs was very much a minority view. Henry Ward Beecher,
brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”
The American Colonization Society was only the best known of many purpose of removing Blacks from North America. At its inaugural meeting in
1816, Henry Clay described its purpose: to “rid our country of a useless and
pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population.”
The following
prominent Americans were not just members but served as
officers of the society:
James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William
Seward, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall, and Roger Taney.
James Monroe, another President who owned slaves, worked so tirelessly in the
cause of “colonization” that the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in recognition of his efforts.
Early Americans wrote their opposition to
miscegenation into law. Between 1661 and 1725, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and all the southern colonies passed laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage and, in some cases, fornication.
Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point in their past.
Many Northern Whites were horrified to discover that some Southern slave owners had Black concubines. When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a “gentleman” could have relations with a “negro or mulatto woman. (snip)
“Mosin knows very well that no one here is interested in reviving slavery.”
What I expressed very clearly is that some of the OD crowd is interested in reviving the APPRECIATION of the morality of slavery: regarding “the South was convinced that slavery was morally right”, I wrote (ironically) that “the task at hand is to re-convince them” — that slavery is right!
Slavery is a moot issue.
Why are you trying so hard to demonize slavery? Aren’t you satisfied with the levelling of all social classes? The Quakers spearheaded radical egalitarianism before anyone else. They were agitating for miscegenation before even their Unitarian allies.
“Many Northern Whites were horrified to discover that some Southern slave owners had Black concubines. When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a ‘gentleman’ could have relations with a negro or mulatto woman.”
Familiarity may breed contempt, but proximity often simply leads to breeding. How DID American Africans acquire so much European DNA?
That’s a good question.
Why is there so much European mtDNA in the black population? Obviously, it is the legacy of Yankees following their egalitarian beliefs to their logical conclusion and repealing their anti-miscegenation laws so blacks could marry and impregnate White women in states like Pennsylvania.
The first step to reviving “the slave based culture” is to revive the appreciation of the morality of slavery, though not necessarily slavery itself, since we have better machinery now.
I reckon Mosin is stretching the interpretation of Galatians 3:28 just a bit.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
One of the favorite Bible passages of egalitarian yankees and multiculturalists.
Its misinterpretation gives them carte blanche, or so they think.
Deo Vindice
Jared Taylor sheds light on this and other tangential issues in this fascinating article.
Jared Taylor is no historian. He believes in the myth that Lincoln was going to deport the Negroes. Lincoln’s racial legacy is abolition, Negro equality, the biggest slave uprising in Southron history, and hundreds of thousands of dead whites. In his very last speech, Lincoln endorsed partial Negro suffrage.
It appears Benjamin Franklin wasn’t all that enamored with niggras either.
Benjamin Franklin was the president of “The Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, and for Improving the Condition of the African Race”.
Franklin believed in negro equality. He argued with Jefferson about it.
Long Live Dixie says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:20 pm
‘Jared Taylor is no historian.’
LOL. Can you discredit factually what he wrote in his article? Did he fabricate the comments out of thin air?
Hunter you continue to evade my question posted in this thread and many times before: What do you specifically plan to do with the blacks (a majority of the total in the U.S.A.) when you achieve Southern independence?
Re: Rudel
If Southern independence were achieved, all the federal civil rights laws and the Supreme Court precedents like Loving and Brown would be dead. I expect power would be devolved back to the states. The welfare state would be dismantled. There would be no pressure coming from the top down to enforce “civil rights” and anti-racism on every state, city, and county in the South.
What would happen to the blacks? A push-pull effect would be created by dismantling BRA in Dixie. Blacks would have no incentive to stay put in a society that no longer revolves around them. They would move en masse to the Northern states.
“Why is there so much European mtDNA in the black population? Obviously, it is the legacy of Yankees following their egalitarian beliefs to their logical conclusion and repealing their anti-miscegenation laws so blacks could marry and impregnate White women in states like Pennsylvania.”
Hahahahaha! Yeah it was Pennsylvania white women who introduced all that mtDNA into the African American genome – NOT!
It is a well established fact that the niggers turned from black to brown down South.
Nope.
The blackest of all the blacks in America live in the old plantation belts. Miscegenation was more common in the cities. The South didn’t have many big cities. New Orleans was the biggest city in the South and miscegenation was the most accepted there. Blacks in Pennsylvania were intermarrying with White women before the Constitution was even ratified.
“I reckon Mosin is stretching the interpretation of Galatians 3:28 just a bit.”
Not really. I believe that churches are normally, naturally, Biblically, local and ethnic, and racially uniform.
Are you not the same Apuleius who identifies with the global, multiracial, universalist Roman papacy?
“They would move en masse to the Northern states.”
– And just what if they didn’t? What if all those niggers down there decided that the South was as much their home as you claim it is yours? Do you people have the numbers or the will to physically remove them if push came to shove? And what if the Northern states, in this hypothetical post-Union America, decided that since Washington DC and it’s enforcers weren’t around anymore, then they didn’t have any obligation to accept a mass-migration of violent, unwelcome niggers who they have neither the resources or the desire to care for? What then would your South do?
Re: 313Chris
1.) If we dismantled the welfare state here, racial preferences in government, and the countless other ways that blacks are favored over Whites in BRA, there is not a doubt in my mind that blacks here would seek out a new life in the Northern states. Just the sight of the Confederate flag fluttering in the breeze will prompt a mass exodus.
2.) It’s not something that we have to worry about. They will remove themselves to a place where they can live off the government. Paul Kersey has been writing about how blacks are moving out of Chicago to Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and Des Moines in search of better welfare benefits.
3.) Washington, DC would still be the capital of the United States.
4.) If the South seceded from the Union, it would be the equivalent of brake failure. The North would shift rapidly to the Left. They would become even more ardently negrophile than they are today without our influence over them.
Re: “Why is there so much European mtDNA in the black population? Obviously, it is the legacy of Yankees” and “Blacks in Pennsylvania were intermarrying with White women before the Constitution was even ratified”:
If so, then what became of them all? There were no blacks or mulattoes AT ALL in this county, until the mid-sixties when only one family escaped here from New York City, and then no more were seen until the 1980’s.
What became of the White women who intermarried with blacks? They tanned up the black population in the Northern states. There were lots of blacks in antebellum Philadelphia. There were even race riots there. It wasn’t until the late 1830s that blacks lost their citizenship and voting rights in Pennsylvania. They gained it back during Reconstruction.
“Slavery is a moot issue. Why are you trying so hard to demonize slavery? Aren’t you satisfied with the levelling of all social classes?”
Why are you demonising WHITE people north of the Line; teaching or implying that America is “BLACK RUN”; praising “Southern Talmudists”; and recommending a slave-based-cultural, caste or class-divided social order, instead of liberty that only suits our people? I for one will never accept belonging to ANY class or caste, only to family, kin and ethnic community.
1.) What do you mean by “demonizing” Northern Whites?
Are you saying they didn’t abolish slavery, didn’t make blacks into U.S. citizens, didn’t pass all the civil rights laws, didn’t loosen the immigration laws, didn’t vote for Obama twice? Those are the just the facts.
2.) America is run as a charity by Yankees and Jews for the benefit of the negro. This is the second time it has happened too. It took us thirty years last time to dismantle this system after it was imposed on us during Reconstruction.
3.) I’m comfortable with my own culture which placed limits on liberty and equality, which valued stability and order, and which valued social distinctions. The problem is the diseased, degenerate, radical egalitarian leveling culture of the Northeast and the existence of the Union which infects us by extension.
4.) I can travel to any city in Dixie and get a taste of Northern “liberty.” No thanks. I want to cut our ties to that failed system.
5.) That’s fine.
Feel free to agitate for the leveling of all social distinctions … in Pennsylvania, in your own country. Create the Quaker egalitarian paradise … where all men and women, the young and the old, negro and White, straight and homosexual, rich and poor, abled and disabled are “equal” … up there.
We can observe the result from a safe distance and chart a different course as an independent power.
“There were lots of blacks in antebellum Philadelphia.”
I’ve only passed through that city twice in my life, and I don’t know what goes on there. If the Line had been drawn further north to suit the demand of Maryland, Pennsylvania would have been rid of it.
Can you discredit factually what he wrote in his article?
Easily.
Taylor writes:
“Throughout his presidency, Lincoln took the conventional view that if slaves were freed, they should be expatriated.”
Yet, on 11 April 1865 Lincoln said:
“It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that is were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.”
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/last.htm
Do you give the vote to people you’re about to deport?
Did he fabricate the comments out of thin air?
He took them out of context while ignoring Lincoln’s statements to the contrary and Lincoln’s actions to the contrary.
Washington, DC would still be the capital of the United States.
This means either giving our second oldest state to the USA or allowing Washington to exist as a US enclave surrounded by a free Dixie. Washington is 100 miles from Richmond.
Hunter Wallace says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Re: 313Chris
‘1.) If we dismantled the welfare state here, racial preferences in government, and the countless other ways that blacks are favored over Whites in BRA, there is not a doubt in my mind that blacks here would seek out a new life in the Northern states. Just the sight of the Confederate flag fluttering in the breeze will prompt a mass exodus.’
Good luck with that. Because of our porous border and the exponential breeding rates of spics and groids you will become a tiny minority before you know what hit you.
You won’t be dismantling anything.
You didn’t answer either of my questions, Hunter. All you did was vaguely project as set of cirumstances that would be most favorable to your region’s problems working themselves out.
So, I’ll ask again: What would you Southerners do if the blacks refused to leave? And what would you do if the Northern states refused to take them in?
Re: 313Chris
As I told you, I am not worried about that scenario because the North loves blacks so much that it voted for Obama twice, and if the South seceded from the Union, the North would move radically to the Left. This is why Chuck Thompson and other Northern liberals think secession is such a great idea. They have even said that the North would happily take our blacks and illegal aliens.
If we dismantled the welfare state here, racial preferences in government, and the countless other ways that blacks are favored over Whites in BRA, there is not a doubt in my mind that blacks here would seek out a new life in the Northern states.
Except back here in the real world blacks are seeking out a new life in the Southern states. From 2010 to 2012, the percentage of whites in Georgia dropped from 55.9% to 55.1%, while the percentage of blacks rose from 30.5% to 31.2%. In just two years the numbers changed that significantly.
If we extrapolate those numbers out to the next census (and redistricting) in 2020, whites will be down to 51.9% while blacks will be up to 34%. What happens when the black-dominated Democratic party eventually takes control of the Governorship, House and Senate of Georgia? Oh sorry, I forgot: “Blacks are not the problem in the South.”
Here in the real world, the problem in the South is the existence of the Union with Northern Whites. Period.
The fortunes of the negro rises and falls in lock step with Northern public opinion – see Obama’s election and reelection and Eric Holder at the Department of Justice – and the attitude of Washington toward the South. The Plessy decision and the 1901 Alabama Constitution show how swiftly blacks were disenfranchised when the North gave up on Reconstruction. The Shelby County decision will inspire all kinds of new Voter ID laws now that the South has an inch of more legal wiggle room.
It was Northern Whites who created the negro voter in the first place with the 14th and 15th Amendments. They maintained the negro voter with several Force Acts and the Union Army. The last gasp of Reconstruction was the Elections Bill of 1890. In the 1960s, it was the North that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, and which sent the troops into Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi to enforce integration. It was the Northern-dominated Supreme Court which destroyed all the anti-miscegenation laws and integrated the public schools.
Immigration, you say? The Immigration Act of 1965, the IRCA Amnesty, the Immigration Act of 1990, the DREAM Act … the only reason we have any of it is because of the existence of the Union with the Northern states. Open borders and civil rights and abortion and now gay marriage … all of this is a problem solely because of the existence of the Union.
Without the indispensable assistance of Northern Whites, MLK would have been dead in the water in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Not literally dead, but politically dead, a non-entity. He was bailed out by federal courts and the Northern liberal media. His “I Have a Dream” speech was crafted for a Northern audience. The South overwhelmingly rejected the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and all the later civil rights laws in the 1960s.
Once again, the negro is not the problem; by himself, the negro could have never taken over Birmingham or New Orleans or Memphis in a million years. The only reason it happened is because of Northern Whites, the existence of the Union, and being a permanent minority in a consolidated government in which all major decisions are made by the Northern majority in Washington.
If we could only get rid of the Union, all our other problems – Hispanics, Jews, negroes – could be easily solved. It is the existence of the Union that blocks every attempt at reform – see Arizona’s SB 1070, Alabama’s HB 56, California’s Prop 8 – and which is the reason why there are open borders and liberal transplants and black voters, not to mention Jewish liberals all over the Supreme Court and Jewish senators like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein agitating for gun control and amnesty.
Yankees want to commit racial and cultural suicide. We can either dissolve the Union or imbibe the same poison and go down with them. It is a matter of self preservation at this point.
Hunter;
Pennsylvania had less than 3% black population in the mid 19th century so even if you went out looking for blacks to marry you would have a hard time finding one. Most mulattos pre 1960s were produce from white man black woman pairings and most of those births were from fornication not marriage.
Maybe because you have little experience living in a community with very few blacks but when negros are in the low single digits its not that revolutionary act to overturn segregation laws, blacks outside a few token communities were non existent in nineteenth century society and so the naive Northerners changed the intermarriage laws. Most White blood flowing through the veins of black American is from white Southern men banging their negro mistress, concubines and whores, not to be insulting to Southern men 95% or more never engaged in such activity but the ones that did are mostly responsible for the mulatos that we enjoy today.
The European mtDNA in the black population is from White women.
As I said above, most of the miscegenation went on in the cities, and the South only had a few big cities (New Orleans) until the 20th century. The North had large cities, a growing black population, and no anti-miscegenation laws. Blacks moving to the North from the South often took White women as wives and mistresses. The same thing goes on today with Asians and Hispanics.
“Northern Whites. Period (…) Northern Whites (…) Northern Whites” etc.
“Northern” WHITES are the obstacle that prevents the solution of all other problems and return to the slavery-based cultural paradise.
Re: “I can travel to any city in Dixie and get a taste of Northern ‘liberty’ (…) Feel free to agitate for the leveling of all social distinctions in Pennsylvania, in your own country. Create the Quaker egalitarian paradise where all men and women, the young and the old, negro and White, straight and homosexual, rich and poor, abled and disabled are ‘equal’ ”:
You may call it “Northern liberty,” but the degenerate, “rat race”-ial, materialistic, rootless, URBAN-COSMOPOLITAN “culture” that appears north AND south of the Line and elsewhere, around the globe, is NOT the true liberty that belongs to our people.
Refusing to accept “belonging to a class” and to “know our place”, under the rule of the “chosen” Elite, because we know that we are “freemen” (using Rhett’s term) is NOT being your “Quaker” strawman of a “leveller of all distinctions”. Biblical distinctions between male and female, Christian and anti-Christian, apostate, sodomist, etc. can never be “levelled”.
Wrong never makes right. I don’t believe DEMONISATION OF WHITE PEOPLE north of the Line will help achieve the excellent goal of secession from the Federal tyranny.
I’m not demonizing Northern Whites.
Obama is president because Northern Whites voted for him – twice. We have the federal civil rights laws because Northerners in Congress thought it was a great idea. We have the Immigration Act of 1965 because Northern Whites voted for it. We have illegal alien amnesty on the agenda because the North voted for it after voting for the DREAM Act in 2010.
Northerners boast in their media about all they have done to crush the South and “fight racism.” They are proud of how they destroyed slavery and supported the Civil Rights Movement. Lincoln is a hero to these people. Northerners can’t believe the South is so resistant to “progress” and so unwilling to join “the 21st century.”
As long as the Union exists, we will keep getting more of the same. That’s nothing against you. It is just the way it is.
Most mongrels pre civil rights movement both from the North and South were from White man/Black woman pairings thru fornication if you say it’s thru marriage of Northern white women and black men that you are just making things up to get arise out of Northerners.
European mtDNA is inherited through the female line.
I don’t believe DEMONISATION OF WHITE PEOPLE north of the Line will help achieve the excellent goal of secession from the Federal tyranny.
It’s funny that you endlessly harp on this because I think Hunter is way too nice to Yankees.
I’m not demonizing Northern Whites.
That’s the problem. Southerners are not going to assert our independence on account of being shown the political differences between Northern and Southern politicians (though that information does serve a purpose). Southerners will assert our independence if we think of ourselves as an entirely distinct people who are held in occupation by an entirely different people.
Trying to avoid demonising the people who have taken our land from us is not going to get us anywhere. We need the Southern masses to have a loathing of those people because those people are a real threat to our survival. It is long past time that we demonise the occupier. They do not hesitate to demonise us; let’s stop being so nice about it and return the favour.
Most pre 1960s mongrels were White male black female pairings
The south will be overrun by Mexicans soon. There will be no succession.
Re: “Quakers”:
I’ve been reading about Quakers in Philadephia and Barbados, in the good olde Golden Circle days. In both Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Barbados, many Quakers kept negro slaves at that time. Around 1680, all but four of the Quaker males in Barbadoes kept slaves; some had more than 100 slaves, and collectively the Quakers had over 1,600 African slaves. George Fox, the founder of the Friends, said that REBELLION of slaves is “a thing we do utterly abhor and detest”, while he opposed the Anglican policy of preventing Africans from hearing the Gospel preached. Slaves were allowed to indulge their promiscuous sex habits freely with multiple mates, but it was illegal for them to be exposed to Christianity, because it was thought it would make them rebellious.
Indeed, debauching assists slavery, and debauchery leads to, and is, enslavement — while knowing the truth, and walking in it, makes men free indeed.
“I think Hunter is way too nice to Yankees.”
He is gentlemanly and polite, and allows free speech on this blog. I give him full credit. I’ve even met him once, and was very favourably impressed. I simply don’t agree with his general description of whites north of the Line, if he means it to be taken literally. “It is just the way it is.” I don’t think it is helpful toward “the one goal” of secession.
LongLive says: “Southerners will assert our independence if we think of ourselves as an entirely distinct people who are held in occupation by an entirely different people” and “We need the Southern masses to have a loathing of those people (…) It is long past time that we DEMONISE (my caps)”
Honest objective study of the history, character, faults and virtues of white people above and below the Line is more helpful toward successful secession from the Federal Tyranny than stirring up hatred through sophistry.
Speaking of attempting secession: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57593080/could-north-colorado-be-americas-51st-state/ “Representatives from the 10 counties held a meeting on Monday in the town of Akron in Weld County to begin mapping the boundaries for the new state they say will represent the interests of rural Colorado. The secessionist movement is the result of a growing urban-rural divide”
and an increasing contrast between multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic areas and the few remaining purely white areas such as this the most intensively agricultural region of Colorado, and several adjoining counties of Kansas that express interest in joining the proposed new state.
This claims it is “illegal and impossible” to secede, but straightforwardly legal to create new states out of portions of existing states http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575185973863870474.html#project%3DLOSTSTATES1004%26articleTabs%3Darticle but how would this set anyone free from FEDERAL tyranny?