0 comment Saturday, November 22, 2014 | admin
Recently I posted about the role of immigration in the War Between the States. A few days ago, I came across an old book, The Human Side of American History, which was apparently used in the schools once upon a time. More to the point, it was written just on the cusp of the present Politically Correct era, so the material is presented in a way that may not fit the current template of how things were then.
The book is full of primary source information from people who were there at the time and place of certain historical events. One of the excerpts was from letters written by an eyewitness to some of the troubles, describing his experiences in the New York City draft riots of 1863.
This is something about which I have read very little, and it is somewhat jarring to realize how serious these riots were.
Rather than post the excerpt here, although it is not overly long, I posted it at the Forum where you may read it if you are interested.
Other links from the web, with witnesses' accounts:
Martha Derby Perry: Eyewitness to the 1863 New York City Draft Riots
also, here and here, where you can view images of contemporary Harper's magazines reporting the riots.
The book is full of primary source information from people who were there at the time and place of certain historical events. One of the excerpts was from letters written by an eyewitness to some of the troubles, describing his experiences in the New York City draft riots of 1863.
This is something about which I have read very little, and it is somewhat jarring to realize how serious these riots were.
Rather than post the excerpt here, although it is not overly long, I posted it at the Forum where you may read it if you are interested.
Other links from the web, with witnesses' accounts:
Martha Derby Perry: Eyewitness to the 1863 New York City Draft Riots
also, here and here, where you can view images of contemporary Harper's magazines reporting the riots.
Labels: American History, Immigration, War Between The States
0 comment Sunday, November 9, 2014 | admin
When November 23 rolls around, which is the anniversary of the Battle of Lookout Mountain during the War Between the States, I usually post a little piece about that event. I do that in honor, mainly, of my great-great grandfather, who died in that battle, near Chattanooga, Tennessee.He was one of some 500+ Confederate soldiers who died during that battle, which lasted from November 23rd to the 25th. The South lost that battle, and took heavier losses than the Union army did in that battle.
It may not have been a crucial battle in that devastating war, though some say that if the battle had not been lost, the war might have had a different outcome. We will never know.
Right now, it seems as if we descendants of those ill-fated soldiers are still engaged in a continuation of the war, with our history, our way of life, and our symbols under attack. Our children are taught that their forefathers of the Confederacy (and all Southron people, really) were bad and immoral people, because of slavery and because of their 'rebellion'.
''There are those who despise us, who wish to stamp us out, or worse still, to use us as a milk cow so they can live lives of ease. There are those who believe us to be evil, and demand we repent at the alter of the damned while they sup at the table of the blessed. There are those who fear us, and so continually try to strip away all reminders of what we once were.
But we are still here, still living in our land, the land of our forefathers, more numerous than ever and though tyrannized, abused, and dispirited, poised to renounce our oppressors and reclaim what is rightfully ours.
For nearly 200 years, from George Washington to George Wallace, our people acted with a singleness of purpose. Even though defeated in a great war in 1865, we stood as one people to the outside world, defending our lives, land, homes, and inalienable rights with remarkable solidarity. But since our defeat in the Civil Rights War of 1965, we have been betrayed by many of our natural leaders in government, in the church, in business, and in the university.''
The above quote is from the late Dennis Wheeler, whose writings I have quoted here before. He was an eloquent defender of the Southron heritage, and he spoke truly there in that quote.
We are now seeing the fruits of the War's outcome; the defeat of the Confederacy meant the victory of an ever-stronger central government and the stripping away of state's rights and regional autonomy. The events of the day emphasize that fact unequivocally.
I am sure that my great-great grandfather, who was only one of several in my line of ancestry who fought for the Confederacy, was fighting not for abstractions, but for home and land and kin and faith. And for the right to live our lives in freedom, without an overbearing government to make us fear and cower.
It is time that we speak up in defense of our forefathers and our heritage, as we owe them that much. I believe in honoring my father and mother, and to me, that means all my fathers and mothers who
preceded me and gave me life.
And let me honor, too, the names of some other of my kin who served in the army of the Confederacy.
Benjamin Farrar Eddins - he was mortally wounded during Coxton's Raid in Alabama.
Zadoc Mitchell Holloway - killed at Shiloh.
John Allen Barksdale - died in battle, Spottsylvania, Virginia.
Lewis Summerfield Scruggs, and Joseph Howell Scruggs.
And there are others, your ancestors (perhaps) and mine,whose names are probably meaningful only to their descendants and kin.
Let's not forget our Confederate forefathers,nor let their names be slandered by those who are enemies of our heritage.
Labels: History, War Between The States
0 comment Friday, October 31, 2014 | admin
I somehow missed commemorating the birthday of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, whose birthday was July 13.
FORREST, Nathan Bedford (1821-1877) was a Confederate general who served in the cavalry during the War Between the States. When asked of the secret of victory, it is said that he made his famous reply "To git thar the fustest with the mostest men," although some biographies say Forrest phrased this in perfectly good English. He won fame by his brilliant raids, and took part in such noted battles as Shiloh and Chickamauga. Forrest was born in Bedford Country, Tennessee, and moved to Mississippi when a boy. He had little schooling, but became a successful trader and cotton planter." World Book Encyclopedia, 1956
The above is the simple entry about General Nathan Bedford Forrest in the old World Book Encyclopedia from decades ago, as noted.
If you knew nothing about General Forrest, would you consider him 'controversial' based on the biographical entry above? Well, it seems the gentlemen who wrote that entry were not as informed or enlightened as today's Washington Post and Associated Press writers, who pointedly cite Forrest's detractors who say he was a 'virulent racist' and a 'polarizing figure.'
I say that if he is a polarizing figure, it is only due to the fact that the media hacks have diligently done their assignment over the past few decades, that assignment being to re-frame General Forrest as an evil man. The NAACP and all the usual anti-South, anti-White forces have captured the dialogue and made sure that all the 'dead White males' who were once respected are now denounced as 'bigots'. Note that the WaPo piece concludes by quoting Union General William Sherman as saying that Forrest was a 'devil' who should be hunted down and killed.
Quoting Sherman here is quite ironic, as he is considered a 'demon' by many in the South because of his brutality, as noted in the following:
''Here is a more accurate summary of events, taken from Brian Cisco�s new book new book War Crimes Against Southern Civilians:
Women and children, black and white, were robbed, brutalized, and left homeless in Sherman�s infamous raid through Georgia. Torture and rape were not uncommon. In South Carolina, homes, farms, churches, and whole towns disappeared in flames. Civilians received no mercy at the hands of the Union invaders. Earrings were ripped from bleeding ears, graves were robbed, and towns were pillaged. Wherever Federal troops encountered Southern Blacks, whether free or slave, they were robbed, brutalized, belittled, kidnapped, threatened, tortured, and sometimes raped or killed by their blue-clad "liberators."
The WaPo article does quote some admirers of Forrest who praise him, though obviously the fact that they give bitter critics the last word shows their anti-Forrest, anti-Confederate, anti-White prejudice.
As always only one side of the picture is given, and thus each generation since the 1960s understands less and less of the context of the War Between the States, and the complicated period called Reconstruction that ensued once the South was defeated and degraded.
It's good that General Forrest is still honored even if only by a remnant of Southron people who have not been politically corrected and 'reconstructed.' But we need to find a way to get the truth out. A while back, a reader here asked me about Jim Crow, and I was at a loss for a source to which to direct him for accurate information. There is so little available today to give the other side of the story, so the NAACP, the far-left SPLC and their ilk are left to shape 'history' to their ends. This needs to be changed. If anyone out there knows of sources online or elswhere that can help to balance out the lies, please share such resources with us.
H/T: Michael at Southern Nationalist Network
Labels: American History, Confederate States Of America, Southron Heritage, War Between The States
0 comment Friday, August 29, 2014 | admin
It appears that some sane people showed up to comment on the thread I linked in the post below this one. It is heartening to see that some people are not buying into this silly name-calling match as to who is the ''real racist'' and who is the best friend of blacks.
The writer of the linked article answers critics by protesting that she herself is from the South -- that is irrelevant; whoever buys the PC view of history is effectively siding against their Southron forebears. And that's all that matters, in my judgement.
I am not sure if the following post is by the same Ernest who comments here, but good job anyway:
Posted by: Ernest
Oct 26, 05:49 AM
Good grief. I don't know who is more pathetic. You are the ones claiming hater. While you try to outdo each other as the ultimate hater, racist, oppressor, slave holder and just all around bad white people. The Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, MEChA, NAACP, LaRaza and hundreds of other race groups are laughing their asses off. No wonder our nation is swirling the drain. The Marxist have us all tied up in PCland.''
The following comments make good points, too:
Posted by: Quartermaster
Oct 26, 06:46 AM
You really do need to give some historical context to teh time period of 1850-1877. All you've done is parrot a leftist line about the evil Confederacy that is not, and never has been true except in the fevered minds of leftists. The leftists were the Republicans, not the Dems. People like Davis, Jefferson, and Jackson would not recognize what therir party has become and would be utterly disgusted with it.
Posted by: Gunner57
Oct 26, 06:56 AM
I don't agree with your underlying politically correct accusation that the plight of blacks in America are part of some diabolical scheme concocted by white people that is merely aided by a few opportunistic blacks. Cut me a break! BTW, I am no Democrat. Martin Luther King had his fingerprints all over the "Great Society". King was a full blown socialist, yet conservatives grovel at his feet and still talk about his "content of character" statement which has a hollow ring in Obamaland. The Obamaland that over 90% of blacks still support. Do you really believe Michelle Obama doesn't believe in these giveaways but is just being an opportunist Democrat? I don't think so. She is motivated by her hatred of white people. She wants to steal eveything she can from white people. Sadly, Republicans "play me too" all the time and still do to racially exclusive policies.
Are Democrats keeping blacks down by awarding them scholarships, entrance to our best academic institutions, degrees, jobs, mortgages, business loans when they don't qualify for any of them? Then let me be one of the downtrodden. No African nation could ever compete with a first world nation if they did not have the assistance of white people. That is a fact. God help those poor people when Arab Muslims intervene in their affairs. They still enslave them. Heaven only knows how the Chinese would exploit these people. Ms. Shiver why do these people need all this help in the first place? Is it because of some pseudo-science invented by white people? I don't think so.''
I am surprised some of these comments made it through; I rarely if ever see any such ideas expressed on American Thinker. Maybe all is not lost, yet.
I had long since given up commenting on ''colorblind conservative'' forums, but maybe there is some fertile ground there after all.
The writer of the linked article answers critics by protesting that she herself is from the South -- that is irrelevant; whoever buys the PC view of history is effectively siding against their Southron forebears. And that's all that matters, in my judgement.
I am not sure if the following post is by the same Ernest who comments here, but good job anyway:
Posted by: Ernest
Oct 26, 05:49 AM
Good grief. I don't know who is more pathetic. You are the ones claiming hater. While you try to outdo each other as the ultimate hater, racist, oppressor, slave holder and just all around bad white people. The Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, MEChA, NAACP, LaRaza and hundreds of other race groups are laughing their asses off. No wonder our nation is swirling the drain. The Marxist have us all tied up in PCland.''
The following comments make good points, too:
Posted by: Quartermaster
Oct 26, 06:46 AM
You really do need to give some historical context to teh time period of 1850-1877. All you've done is parrot a leftist line about the evil Confederacy that is not, and never has been true except in the fevered minds of leftists. The leftists were the Republicans, not the Dems. People like Davis, Jefferson, and Jackson would not recognize what therir party has become and would be utterly disgusted with it.
Posted by: Gunner57
Oct 26, 06:56 AM
I don't agree with your underlying politically correct accusation that the plight of blacks in America are part of some diabolical scheme concocted by white people that is merely aided by a few opportunistic blacks. Cut me a break! BTW, I am no Democrat. Martin Luther King had his fingerprints all over the "Great Society". King was a full blown socialist, yet conservatives grovel at his feet and still talk about his "content of character" statement which has a hollow ring in Obamaland. The Obamaland that over 90% of blacks still support. Do you really believe Michelle Obama doesn't believe in these giveaways but is just being an opportunist Democrat? I don't think so. She is motivated by her hatred of white people. She wants to steal eveything she can from white people. Sadly, Republicans "play me too" all the time and still do to racially exclusive policies.
Are Democrats keeping blacks down by awarding them scholarships, entrance to our best academic institutions, degrees, jobs, mortgages, business loans when they don't qualify for any of them? Then let me be one of the downtrodden. No African nation could ever compete with a first world nation if they did not have the assistance of white people. That is a fact. God help those poor people when Arab Muslims intervene in their affairs. They still enslave them. Heaven only knows how the Chinese would exploit these people. Ms. Shiver why do these people need all this help in the first place? Is it because of some pseudo-science invented by white people? I don't think so.''
I am surprised some of these comments made it through; I rarely if ever see any such ideas expressed on American Thinker. Maybe all is not lost, yet.
I had long since given up commenting on ''colorblind conservative'' forums, but maybe there is some fertile ground there after all.
Labels: Colorblind Conservatives, Party Politics, Pc Conservatives, Respectable Republicans, South, War Between The States
0 comment Wednesday, August 13, 2014 | admin
Even though I haven't blogged much about the state sovereignty movement lately, I am keeping an eye on what is happening around the country, and on the discussion here and there about the issue.
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Labels: Constitution, Federal Government, Secession, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Friday, August 1, 2014 | admin
On a recent McNeil-Lehrer Report, the subject of Reconstruction was brought up, in the context of the meaning of the recent elections. The video is here.
And over at the Kinism.net forum there has been some discussion of the issue of Reconstruction, sparked by the remarks made by Peniel Joseph. There is a 'Reconstruction References' thread here.
And because I think it's important to look back at those little-discussed events in our history, I've posted a little basic background on the subject over at the Forum, also. I hope those interested, especially those who are unfamiliar with that sad chapter in our history, will check out any information over at the Kinist forum and also at the VA Forum. Our schools do not teach the full story on that era, and the facts are hard to come by.
Our current politically correct histories will not tell the truth about some past events, so it's always best to seek out older sources.
And over at the Kinism.net forum there has been some discussion of the issue of Reconstruction, sparked by the remarks made by Peniel Joseph. There is a 'Reconstruction References' thread here.
And because I think it's important to look back at those little-discussed events in our history, I've posted a little basic background on the subject over at the Forum, also. I hope those interested, especially those who are unfamiliar with that sad chapter in our history, will check out any information over at the Kinist forum and also at the VA Forum. Our schools do not teach the full story on that era, and the facts are hard to come by.
Our current politically correct histories will not tell the truth about some past events, so it's always best to seek out older sources.
Labels: Historical Revisionism, Reconstruction, War Between The States
0 comment Monday, July 21, 2014 | admin
David Yeagley over at BadEagle.com has been writing something of a series on the South and the War Between the States. Recently he offered a piece, Home of the Patriots, in which he stresses the importance of the traditions of the South, and their distinctive place in the American story, and the American nation.
Those who are not of Southron origin may feel this is irrelevant to them, but I am increasingly convinced that this North-South issue is crucial to understanding how we got where we are today. The obvious area in which the history of the North-South division is relevant is that of the perennial race question. Race, whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not, is at the heart of much of what is threatening not only our country but the entire Western world. In essence, our great fear of addressing the race issue directly, and our guilt about it, and the strong taboos surrounding it, are paralyzing us at the very moment when we stand in danger of being displaced or replaced, blended out of existence as a people.
Most people, in our maleducated age, know little about the War Between the States, more commonly called the Civil War. The very name of the conflict is dependent on one's viewpoint; many unreconstructed Southerners call it the War of Northern Aggression, or, less pugnaciously, The War for Southern Independence. To Northerners, it's the Civil War, usually viewed as an act of treason by rebellious and disloyal Southerners who fought to retain possession of slaves.
But whatever the conflict is called, it is a terrible wound to our nation, which has never really healed, and possibly cannot be healed.
And without some knowledge and understanding of what really happened, and why, we cannot really resolve anything and come to terms with it.
The issue of race and slavery are issues that we never cease hearing about, in this liberal age in which we are expected to castigate ourselves because of our 'original sin', as Obama referred to it, or our 'birth defect', as Condoleezza Rice called it. Lately various states have issued apologies for slavery, even though no American today owns slaves or has been a slave. Next on the agenda: reparations. There will likely be a reparations payment in my lifetime, but count on it: reparations will not resolve the issue. Reparations would only create further demands.
But with a country populated mostly by people who have been fed only propaganda about the War Between the States and the 'peculiar institution' of slavery, we are destined to go on and on in the endless cycle of recriminations, apologies, demands, and conflicts.
It's time we were able to examine the history behind the Gordian knot of race in our country, and it would be helpful for most of us to go back and re-examine the War Between the States and Reconstruction, in order to give us some context and some background of how we got to the present impasse.
The South and her people are inevitably depicted as the caricatured villains in this piece. Most people, having been fed on Hollywood or other fictional depictions, have images in their minds of evil white slave-hunters as depicted in the fantasy "history" of Roots. We all know the stereotypes of Southern whites as evil and cruel and ignorant.
The real ignorance is exemplified by the persistent stereotypes of the South and of the Civil War era.
Dr. Yeagley, to his credit, examines the culture of the South with a sympathetic eye. I am not sure how much Dr. Yeagley, an Oklahoman, identifies as a Southerner; I surmise that his identity is as a Comanche and an American, but he is sympathetic to the South.
Here he describes the Southron culture, and American identity:
...The South was culture chiefly of gentlemen, men of honor. Men of bravery. Men of war.
And men of a homeland, and a way of life. Never before had America--any portion of America, had to fight for their homes and their way of life. The Southern came out of the war with an unforgettable image of home. And that's really what patriotism is about--the home. Love of home. To the Southerner, his own state was one giant, extended family. The unity and brotherhood they felt was akin to a nationhood. Their state was more important than any political theory or economic congolmerate pawned off as "nationhood." To the Southerner, home wasn't an idea. It was a place, a real place, with real houses and land, that grew real food and had real people--family, living on it. Those stars and bars stand for home. The "idea," or we should say, the reality, of home, is expressed in that Confederate battle flag. In a way, the Stars and Stripes were never the same. Home came with the victory. The South was held as part of the Union. The North bought a home, really. At least a sense of it, as never before.
The Union should remember the South for that mighty lovely cause. Home. Otherwise, the idea of the United States is little more than a giant business. Without the South, there is no sentiment of home in the United States. (I wouldn't expect most American people to understand how the Indians feel about the homeland, but, they should be able to grasp how Southerners feel. But, in a way, Southerners are like Indians. Indians still today enlist in the armed services from sheer intuition of valor, or warriorhood. Our home is still here, our land is still here, despite what has happened to us. The same is true for true Southerners. After the Civil War, their reservation was a bit larger, I must say, but, they were never trying to rule the world either. Like Indians, they just wanted to be left alone.)
[...] In a sense, the Civil War will never be over. It was the expression of an ever-occurring battle of ideas. Who shall rule, and to what extend. The nature of the country is under perpetual examination. With the trend toward globalism, the abolition of nationhood, and the delusion of global financial imperialism, we do well to raise the Confederate flag, and fly it high--above every other issue. The nature of our country, the meaning of our nationhood, the idenity of the United States of America is under seige--the enemy being Washington, DC. The challenge is from traitorous, avaricious failures who are unable to understand America, and behave like angry opportunists, like children fighting over the biggest piece of pie. At least the Confederate flag reminds us of something in the way of origins, something of how that pie came about. The Confederate flag calls our attention to the true identity of the United States. Obviously, we need to reconsider--when we see the kind of people running for the highest office in the country today.''
Dr. Yeagley has also written about the women of the South, who are often caricatured as vacuous and vain 'Southern belles', and he presents a much fairer picture, recommending some primary sources: the writings of Southern women themselves. I highly recommend reading some of these sources for another view of life in the Old South. He cites Mary Boykin Chesnut; she wrote A Diary from Dixie which is a very interesting account of her life during the War. She was the wife of a Confederate general, so she knew many of the principal figures in the Confederacy, and gives a good description of the times and the people. She was obviously very well-educated and articulate, and does not fit at all the shallow stereotype of the Hollywood Southern belle, who was always an empty-headed and manipulative creature. Mary Boykin Chesnut is nothing at all like Scarlett O'Hara or other such fictional creations.
Read some of the excerpts from her diary, describing daily life before,during, and after the War, and the interactions between the races, and between Southron and Yankee during that same era. We have heard one side of the story relentlessly in the years since the War, and the propaganda is the fiction on which our present politically correct house of lies is founded.
Are there not two sides to every story?
I think we need to go back to that era and read the whole story, from original sources as much as possible, not from some modern-day revisionist with a liberal agenda. Some perspective and some balance is desperately needed. The whole story of the War Between the States and Reconstruction is the background of our current situation. We can never really see our way out of this maze we are in until we get the whole truth and look at it through the eyes of those who were there, who participated in the events of the time.
There are still old sources to be found; read the old books and reference sources. As much as possible, avoid more recent sources, which are tainted with the PC agenda.
There are many sources to be found out there on the Internet; you can find Mary Boykin Chesnut's Diary from Dixie here.
The same collection has many works of Southern literature online.
It's vital to be able to understand and freely examine what happened in the past to have a correct and full perspective on what is besetting us now. As it is, we are crippled by a lack of knowledge and information; we are like amnesiacs, having only fragmentary or false memories of our past.
In our present presidential campaign, the issue of race will be front and center, and so far, the usual politically correct falsehoods go unchallenged and unquestioned. We need to be armed with real knowledge. The truth will set us free.
Those who are not of Southron origin may feel this is irrelevant to them, but I am increasingly convinced that this North-South issue is crucial to understanding how we got where we are today. The obvious area in which the history of the North-South division is relevant is that of the perennial race question. Race, whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not, is at the heart of much of what is threatening not only our country but the entire Western world. In essence, our great fear of addressing the race issue directly, and our guilt about it, and the strong taboos surrounding it, are paralyzing us at the very moment when we stand in danger of being displaced or replaced, blended out of existence as a people.
Most people, in our maleducated age, know little about the War Between the States, more commonly called the Civil War. The very name of the conflict is dependent on one's viewpoint; many unreconstructed Southerners call it the War of Northern Aggression, or, less pugnaciously, The War for Southern Independence. To Northerners, it's the Civil War, usually viewed as an act of treason by rebellious and disloyal Southerners who fought to retain possession of slaves.
But whatever the conflict is called, it is a terrible wound to our nation, which has never really healed, and possibly cannot be healed.
And without some knowledge and understanding of what really happened, and why, we cannot really resolve anything and come to terms with it.
The issue of race and slavery are issues that we never cease hearing about, in this liberal age in which we are expected to castigate ourselves because of our 'original sin', as Obama referred to it, or our 'birth defect', as Condoleezza Rice called it. Lately various states have issued apologies for slavery, even though no American today owns slaves or has been a slave. Next on the agenda: reparations. There will likely be a reparations payment in my lifetime, but count on it: reparations will not resolve the issue. Reparations would only create further demands.
But with a country populated mostly by people who have been fed only propaganda about the War Between the States and the 'peculiar institution' of slavery, we are destined to go on and on in the endless cycle of recriminations, apologies, demands, and conflicts.
It's time we were able to examine the history behind the Gordian knot of race in our country, and it would be helpful for most of us to go back and re-examine the War Between the States and Reconstruction, in order to give us some context and some background of how we got to the present impasse.
The South and her people are inevitably depicted as the caricatured villains in this piece. Most people, having been fed on Hollywood or other fictional depictions, have images in their minds of evil white slave-hunters as depicted in the fantasy "history" of Roots. We all know the stereotypes of Southern whites as evil and cruel and ignorant.
The real ignorance is exemplified by the persistent stereotypes of the South and of the Civil War era.
Dr. Yeagley, to his credit, examines the culture of the South with a sympathetic eye. I am not sure how much Dr. Yeagley, an Oklahoman, identifies as a Southerner; I surmise that his identity is as a Comanche and an American, but he is sympathetic to the South.
Here he describes the Southron culture, and American identity:
...The South was culture chiefly of gentlemen, men of honor. Men of bravery. Men of war.
And men of a homeland, and a way of life. Never before had America--any portion of America, had to fight for their homes and their way of life. The Southern came out of the war with an unforgettable image of home. And that's really what patriotism is about--the home. Love of home. To the Southerner, his own state was one giant, extended family. The unity and brotherhood they felt was akin to a nationhood. Their state was more important than any political theory or economic congolmerate pawned off as "nationhood." To the Southerner, home wasn't an idea. It was a place, a real place, with real houses and land, that grew real food and had real people--family, living on it. Those stars and bars stand for home. The "idea," or we should say, the reality, of home, is expressed in that Confederate battle flag. In a way, the Stars and Stripes were never the same. Home came with the victory. The South was held as part of the Union. The North bought a home, really. At least a sense of it, as never before.
The Union should remember the South for that mighty lovely cause. Home. Otherwise, the idea of the United States is little more than a giant business. Without the South, there is no sentiment of home in the United States. (I wouldn't expect most American people to understand how the Indians feel about the homeland, but, they should be able to grasp how Southerners feel. But, in a way, Southerners are like Indians. Indians still today enlist in the armed services from sheer intuition of valor, or warriorhood. Our home is still here, our land is still here, despite what has happened to us. The same is true for true Southerners. After the Civil War, their reservation was a bit larger, I must say, but, they were never trying to rule the world either. Like Indians, they just wanted to be left alone.)
[...] In a sense, the Civil War will never be over. It was the expression of an ever-occurring battle of ideas. Who shall rule, and to what extend. The nature of the country is under perpetual examination. With the trend toward globalism, the abolition of nationhood, and the delusion of global financial imperialism, we do well to raise the Confederate flag, and fly it high--above every other issue. The nature of our country, the meaning of our nationhood, the idenity of the United States of America is under seige--the enemy being Washington, DC. The challenge is from traitorous, avaricious failures who are unable to understand America, and behave like angry opportunists, like children fighting over the biggest piece of pie. At least the Confederate flag reminds us of something in the way of origins, something of how that pie came about. The Confederate flag calls our attention to the true identity of the United States. Obviously, we need to reconsider--when we see the kind of people running for the highest office in the country today.''
Dr. Yeagley has also written about the women of the South, who are often caricatured as vacuous and vain 'Southern belles', and he presents a much fairer picture, recommending some primary sources: the writings of Southern women themselves. I highly recommend reading some of these sources for another view of life in the Old South. He cites Mary Boykin Chesnut; she wrote A Diary from Dixie which is a very interesting account of her life during the War. She was the wife of a Confederate general, so she knew many of the principal figures in the Confederacy, and gives a good description of the times and the people. She was obviously very well-educated and articulate, and does not fit at all the shallow stereotype of the Hollywood Southern belle, who was always an empty-headed and manipulative creature. Mary Boykin Chesnut is nothing at all like Scarlett O'Hara or other such fictional creations.
Read some of the excerpts from her diary, describing daily life before,during, and after the War, and the interactions between the races, and between Southron and Yankee during that same era. We have heard one side of the story relentlessly in the years since the War, and the propaganda is the fiction on which our present politically correct house of lies is founded.
Are there not two sides to every story?
I think we need to go back to that era and read the whole story, from original sources as much as possible, not from some modern-day revisionist with a liberal agenda. Some perspective and some balance is desperately needed. The whole story of the War Between the States and Reconstruction is the background of our current situation. We can never really see our way out of this maze we are in until we get the whole truth and look at it through the eyes of those who were there, who participated in the events of the time.
There are still old sources to be found; read the old books and reference sources. As much as possible, avoid more recent sources, which are tainted with the PC agenda.
There are many sources to be found out there on the Internet; you can find Mary Boykin Chesnut's Diary from Dixie here.
The same collection has many works of Southern literature online.
It's vital to be able to understand and freely examine what happened in the past to have a correct and full perspective on what is besetting us now. As it is, we are crippled by a lack of knowledge and information; we are like amnesiacs, having only fragmentary or false memories of our past.
In our present presidential campaign, the issue of race will be front and center, and so far, the usual politically correct falsehoods go unchallenged and unquestioned. We need to be armed with real knowledge. The truth will set us free.
Labels: American History, Historical Revisionism, Political Correctness, South, Southron Heritage, War Between The States
0 comment Tuesday, May 27, 2014 | admin
Here's a very fine piece by Larry L. Beane II which I found over at LewRockwell.com. It's titled ''The Founders Knew Latin'', which indeed they did. Latin, up until perhaps the middle of the 2oth century was considered part of a well-rounded basic education, and the Founding Fathers were steeped in it. As the article points out, many of the concepts of the Constitution are contained in Latin phrases like 'E Pluribus Unum', which we may remember, Al Gore mistranslated as ''Out of one, many.'' His faulty translation, turning the meaning of the phrase on its head, may have been a Freudian slip, as today most of the important principles of the Founders have likewise been inverted.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
Labels: Constitution, Founding Fathers, Nullification, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Monday, May 5, 2014 | admin
I've written a lot about the effects of the present wave of mass immigration, legal and illegal, on our country and our culture and our future. I've written a little about the history of immigration to this country, and the many misconceptions about it which have been successfully implanted by the left-wing media and academia. For instance, the idea that ''we are all descendants of immigrants'' or ''this is a nation of immigrants'' and ''this country has always welcomed immigrants from everywhere.'' Then we have the more malevolent myths, such as the widespread idea that the old-stock Anglo-Americans were mean-spirited ''nativists'' who held unfounded prejudices toward certain immigrant groups, or perhaps all immigrant groups, irrespective of origin.
As someone whose ties are to the South, I have particular concern for the effects of mass, unchecked, Third World immigration on the South. Why do I worry more about the South? Well, it's not only because that is where my primary sympathies and affections lie, but because the South has, heretofore, been somewhat shielded from the disruptions of large numbers of immigrants. The South has maintained a much more stable demographic than many parts of this country, with the majority of inhabitants, at least up until the latter part of the 20th century, being descendants of old-stock colonists. The South was primarily settled by people of British Isles descent, with a scattering of Germans and French Huguenots. Of course since the 1600s there have been people of African origin in the South, but the White populace has remained mostly a people of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic origin. There are exceptions like the Cajuns of Louisiana, but then they were brought into the United States with the Louisiana Purchase; for the most part they did not come to the U.S. as immigrants, and although they keep a considerable part of their culture, they are also very American and very much a part of the South.
Even as late as the 1960s and 70s, most of the South remained as it had always been, but that era saw the beginning of an influx of people from the Northern states, who had come to find work in various industries: aerospace, the oil industry, and various other occupations. It seemed that by the late 70s and 80s, every other person you met in parts of Texas was from the North. Although many of these people were happy additions to the South, some of them brought very liberal ideas with them, and slowly the effect on local politics and culture began to be noticeable in some areas with a lot of Yankee newcomers. I suppose I had better add the usual disclaimer here: I don't ''hate'' Yankees; my own Mother was one.
But even the influx of many Northerners, with their different culture (and yes, there are two different cultures, Northern and Southron) and different ideas, was benign compared to the recent wave of immigrants from the Third World.
Did you all know that Nashville, Tennessee was the home of the largest Kurdish community outside Iraq? To most Americans, the name Nashville calls up associations with the Grand Ole Opry, and 'Music Row.' But now, I am told by relatives, the cab drivers there are mostly African immigrants, and the city is now one more multicultural bastion.
The South has a rich history, and a distinctive culture and way of life since the beginning. Will this survive mass immigration?
One other aspect of immigration has been fateful for the South: the role of immigration in the War Between the States. This is something we don't often hear discussed. But I have long heard it said by Southerners who cherish our way of life that in effect, mass immigration provided the manpower and 'cannon fodder' that enabled the North to win the war.
In an effort to find more information on the role of immigrants in the War Between the States, I did internet searches, and found page after page of results. But oddly there was not one webpage among those search results that offered the South's point of view, or a pro-Southron side of the story. I have heard that the search engines are now cleansing out the politically incorrect web pages and blogs; it seems to be happening.
This web page tell us that ''only'' a third of the Union troops were non-native born:
''Thus, only under one-third (1/3) of all troops were non-natives distributed approximately as follows:
German c. 200,000
Irish c. 150,000
British c. 150,000
Canadians c. 50,000
others c. 75,000 (mostly European)
Comparing the percentage of native and immigrant troops to the total population of the North (c. 21,000,000) reveals that the per capita percentage total enlistments from both groups is approximately equal. Thus, we can assert that the foreign troops did their fair share of service in their adopted land for the cause of Union.
[...]
The contribution of the foreign born immigrant troops to the cause of the Union was decisive in securing victory over the Confederacy. The loyalty and patriotism of these new Americans, with a few exceptions, never flagged. Their efforts helped insure a united country and a secure future for the nation.''[Emphasis mine]
The article is very pro-diversity and pro-immigration:
''America is a land of great diversity, and nothing is more diverse than the myriad of origins of its people. We are an immigrant nation whose ancestors sought opportunity in a new homeland. As if to demonstrate their belief in an eventual united people and hope for the future, they wholeheartedly supported the Union cause in the Civil War. This support was paid in both blood and sweat, for these recent arrivals fought and died in every battle and engagement of the war, and they who stayed at home provided the labor to clothe, feed and supply the armies. By their deeds did these newly arrived prove their devotion to the cause of Union. Without their considerable contributions, it is very doubtful whether the Union could have been preserved.''
Looking at this history in a very frank way, it appears that mass immigration was used as a weapon against the South.
For the writer, it is a given that preserving the Union was worth any amount of bloodshed, and any amount of suffering on the part of the South. And holy diversity, of course, must be part of this grand Union. Actually this is the party line expressed in just about all of the articles and web pages I perused on this subject.
This writer says that population, industrial capacity, and railroads were decisive in the Union's prevailing. He also believes that the North had 'better leadership', but I daresay most Southron people would disagree with that opinion.
Still, the author does mention the role played by mass immigration in the outcome of the war.
The outcome of that war has been devastating to the South, with the effects continuing to this very day. In the past, I've said that we are now experiencing yet one more phase of Reconstruction. I know others have said similar things about our situation. However, most people today, North and South, could not tell you what 'Reconstruction' was, nor do they have any idea how it parallels what is happening today.
The destruction of our history, both North and South, has had a very deleterious effect on us; the dumbing-down of our schools and media have had the desired effect of making us a people without a memory.
We can't unscramble the egg; we can't undo what was done a century and a half ago, although it looks as though history may be about to repeat.
I will leave you with a couple of quotes from the Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut, a Southron lady who lived through the War Between the States. Of the North, she said:
''How contradictory is their attitude toward us. To keep the despised and iniquitous South within their borders, as part of their country, they are willing to enlist millions of men at home and abroad, and to spend billions, and we know they do not love fighting per se, nor spending money.''
And of the surrender and aftermath, she said:
Dr. Boykin and John Witherspoon were talking of a nation in mourning, of blood poured out like rain on the battle-fields-for what? "Never let me hear that the blood of the brave has been shed in vain! No; it sends a cry down through all time."
As someone whose ties are to the South, I have particular concern for the effects of mass, unchecked, Third World immigration on the South. Why do I worry more about the South? Well, it's not only because that is where my primary sympathies and affections lie, but because the South has, heretofore, been somewhat shielded from the disruptions of large numbers of immigrants. The South has maintained a much more stable demographic than many parts of this country, with the majority of inhabitants, at least up until the latter part of the 20th century, being descendants of old-stock colonists. The South was primarily settled by people of British Isles descent, with a scattering of Germans and French Huguenots. Of course since the 1600s there have been people of African origin in the South, but the White populace has remained mostly a people of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic origin. There are exceptions like the Cajuns of Louisiana, but then they were brought into the United States with the Louisiana Purchase; for the most part they did not come to the U.S. as immigrants, and although they keep a considerable part of their culture, they are also very American and very much a part of the South.
Even as late as the 1960s and 70s, most of the South remained as it had always been, but that era saw the beginning of an influx of people from the Northern states, who had come to find work in various industries: aerospace, the oil industry, and various other occupations. It seemed that by the late 70s and 80s, every other person you met in parts of Texas was from the North. Although many of these people were happy additions to the South, some of them brought very liberal ideas with them, and slowly the effect on local politics and culture began to be noticeable in some areas with a lot of Yankee newcomers. I suppose I had better add the usual disclaimer here: I don't ''hate'' Yankees; my own Mother was one.
But even the influx of many Northerners, with their different culture (and yes, there are two different cultures, Northern and Southron) and different ideas, was benign compared to the recent wave of immigrants from the Third World.
Did you all know that Nashville, Tennessee was the home of the largest Kurdish community outside Iraq? To most Americans, the name Nashville calls up associations with the Grand Ole Opry, and 'Music Row.' But now, I am told by relatives, the cab drivers there are mostly African immigrants, and the city is now one more multicultural bastion.
The South has a rich history, and a distinctive culture and way of life since the beginning. Will this survive mass immigration?
One other aspect of immigration has been fateful for the South: the role of immigration in the War Between the States. This is something we don't often hear discussed. But I have long heard it said by Southerners who cherish our way of life that in effect, mass immigration provided the manpower and 'cannon fodder' that enabled the North to win the war.
In an effort to find more information on the role of immigrants in the War Between the States, I did internet searches, and found page after page of results. But oddly there was not one webpage among those search results that offered the South's point of view, or a pro-Southron side of the story. I have heard that the search engines are now cleansing out the politically incorrect web pages and blogs; it seems to be happening.
This web page tell us that ''only'' a third of the Union troops were non-native born:
''Thus, only under one-third (1/3) of all troops were non-natives distributed approximately as follows:
German c. 200,000
Irish c. 150,000
British c. 150,000
Canadians c. 50,000
others c. 75,000 (mostly European)
Comparing the percentage of native and immigrant troops to the total population of the North (c. 21,000,000) reveals that the per capita percentage total enlistments from both groups is approximately equal. Thus, we can assert that the foreign troops did their fair share of service in their adopted land for the cause of Union.
[...]
The contribution of the foreign born immigrant troops to the cause of the Union was decisive in securing victory over the Confederacy. The loyalty and patriotism of these new Americans, with a few exceptions, never flagged. Their efforts helped insure a united country and a secure future for the nation.''[Emphasis mine]
The article is very pro-diversity and pro-immigration:
''America is a land of great diversity, and nothing is more diverse than the myriad of origins of its people. We are an immigrant nation whose ancestors sought opportunity in a new homeland. As if to demonstrate their belief in an eventual united people and hope for the future, they wholeheartedly supported the Union cause in the Civil War. This support was paid in both blood and sweat, for these recent arrivals fought and died in every battle and engagement of the war, and they who stayed at home provided the labor to clothe, feed and supply the armies. By their deeds did these newly arrived prove their devotion to the cause of Union. Without their considerable contributions, it is very doubtful whether the Union could have been preserved.''
Looking at this history in a very frank way, it appears that mass immigration was used as a weapon against the South.
For the writer, it is a given that preserving the Union was worth any amount of bloodshed, and any amount of suffering on the part of the South. And holy diversity, of course, must be part of this grand Union. Actually this is the party line expressed in just about all of the articles and web pages I perused on this subject.
This writer says that population, industrial capacity, and railroads were decisive in the Union's prevailing. He also believes that the North had 'better leadership', but I daresay most Southron people would disagree with that opinion.
Still, the author does mention the role played by mass immigration in the outcome of the war.
The outcome of that war has been devastating to the South, with the effects continuing to this very day. In the past, I've said that we are now experiencing yet one more phase of Reconstruction. I know others have said similar things about our situation. However, most people today, North and South, could not tell you what 'Reconstruction' was, nor do they have any idea how it parallels what is happening today.
The destruction of our history, both North and South, has had a very deleterious effect on us; the dumbing-down of our schools and media have had the desired effect of making us a people without a memory.
We can't unscramble the egg; we can't undo what was done a century and a half ago, although it looks as though history may be about to repeat.
I will leave you with a couple of quotes from the Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut, a Southron lady who lived through the War Between the States. Of the North, she said:
''How contradictory is their attitude toward us. To keep the despised and iniquitous South within their borders, as part of their country, they are willing to enlist millions of men at home and abroad, and to spend billions, and we know they do not love fighting per se, nor spending money.''
And of the surrender and aftermath, she said:
Dr. Boykin and John Witherspoon were talking of a nation in mourning, of blood poured out like rain on the battle-fields-for what? "Never let me hear that the blood of the brave has been shed in vain! No; it sends a cry down through all time."
Labels: American History, Immigration, South, War Between The States