ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Undoing the settlement, destroying the peace

ESR, an avowed Yankee, explains why it is a terrible idea to permit SJWs to demolish the symbols of Southern history and pride in the name of diversity and equality:
The statues now at issue were mostly erected between 1865 and 1914 by organizations like the Daughters of the Confederacy who were fully invested in the soft version of Lost Cause romanticism. In view of current revisionism, it should be remembered that, in the time before the early 1960s when one could express white-supremacist and segregationist beliefs in the South and expect a lot of applause, the statue builders generally didn’t play that song.

We know this because we can read the dedications they chiseled on their monuments. Whatever the statue-builders may have privately believed, the face – the myth – about that they presented was not one of white supremacy justified but of virtue and heroism in a lost cause.

My cultural and political ancestors, the Yankees who had won the war, got out of the statue-builders’ way because we understood that the statue-builders were, in fact, cooperating in the great settlement between South and North. Making heroes of the rebels was not a large price to pay if it meant that Southern pride became American pride.

In fact, the deception was quite mutual. Southerners, by and large, tried to pretend their revolt had not been a defense of the indefensible. Northerners by and large, decided that agreeing with that pretense (or at least not disputing it in public) was a polite fiction useful to everybody.

The statue-smashers either fail to understand that great settlement (likely), or intend to undo it (not likely), or are pursuing a broader aim which I’ll address near the end of this essay.

It is 2017 and the wounds of the Civil War have not entirely healed. “Damnyankee” is still a single word in much of the South. Failing to understand the great settlement creates the risk that those wounds could re-open into divisive regionalism and eventual conflict.

This is especially so since Southerners already feel like victims in the red/blue conflict that now divides coastal urban elites from Middle America. Many Blue tribesmen talk as though they think everybody living more than 60 miles inland and outside a university town is a closet neo-Confederate. This is fantasy, but there is a possible future in which Southern resentment becomes the dominant symbology of the Red tribe in a way it is not today.

Some people are going to want to interject at this point “What about the insult to black people? Aren’t those statues symbols of white supremacy that should be smashed on that account alone?”

Brother, if I believed that I would be swinging a hammer myself. But the mission of the statue builders was to redeem the honor of the South in part by editing white supremacism and slavery out of our cultural memory of the war. They largely deceived themselves with Lost Cause romanticism. Making those statues into symbols of black subjugation would have undercut their whole project.

I do not want to see the post-Civil-War settlement undone. Thus, I’m in favor of letting Southerners keep their statues and their myths. We should let Southern heroes remain American heroes because that is what worked to pull the country back together – and because after the war so many of them really did argue for reconciliation.
The USA isn't going to collapse because the South rises again, rather, the South will rise again when the USA collapses under the weight of all of its competing identities.

Labels:

112 Comments:

Blogger szopen September 28, 2017 12:16 PM  

Funny, but VD keeps on linking blogs I read :-) wonder whether he also enjoys evolutionistx, quilette, westhunt, socialpathology, thosewhocansee or audacious epigone ...

Blogger pyrrhus September 28, 2017 12:18 PM  

Not to mention that the South had two of the greatest generals in history, who are still studied today in the war colleges. Stonewall Jackson, the master of maneuver warfare, and Nathan Bedford Forrest, the master of guerrilla warfare....The South, of course, had nothing to apologize about, but the writer's point, that we should generally let sleeping dogs alone, is correct.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 12:23 PM  

ESR is, himself, misrepresenting the actions of the statue smashers.

these acts are an expression that they believe themselves to be the new Cultural Supremacy.

IF
they are the new Cultural Supremacy
THEN
tearing down the statues is nothing but the expression of their Social Dominance.

to permit the statues to stay up is to deny that assertion.

a 'mutual deception' can only occur between those who intend and wish to be co-equals. the Left has no desire to be co-equal with the Right or with History.

for they are the Future.

or so they say.

Anonymous Ledfordbot September 28, 2017 12:24 PM  

The plan, successfully executed in Charlottesville, is to demoralize and to provoke reaction.
I think a proper reaction would be erecting statues of plump, pierced, piebald antifa blue hairs, raising fists, commemorating iconoclasm. Decorate blue city parks with blue city people.

Blogger allyn71 September 28, 2017 12:25 PM  

"The USA isn't going to collapse because the South rises again, rather, the South will rise again when the USA collapses under the weight of all of its competing identities."

But what about Muh Constitution? Assuredly Paper is thicker than blood.

The NFL kneeling is but a symptom of the civic nationalist disease. Can't hold it all together forever.

At what point is the ability to lock people into debt slavery and usury no longer worth the force required to hold it all together?

Blogger Eric Slate September 28, 2017 12:25 PM  

That is the purpose of destroying the statues, to directly attack southern culture, driving the sides of the civil war to fight each other again. Sooner or later, someone is going to give the SJW'S the fight they have been picking for decades. It won't be a pretty sight.

Blogger pyrrhus September 28, 2017 12:26 PM  

Another sleeping dog that the feminists/marxists couldn't leave alone is the NFL...http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=11616

Anonymous DissidentRight September 28, 2017 12:28 PM  

If right-wing Yankees want to save their empire from the belligerence of SJWs, blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. they’re going to have to do a lot more than complain on the internet about Confederate statues getting knocked over.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 12:32 PM  

stated another way, ESR is himself displaying a distressingly Reactionary Consciousness simply by advocating for peace.

there is no Marxian Future without the Proletarian Revolution.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 28, 2017 12:34 PM  

Statue-smashers don't know history, or don't care, or do know and just want to put a finger in someone's eye; what diff?

They are deliberately disturbing the peace. They are sewing the wind. Like #OnlyBlackLivesMatter they don't understand what they may reap.

Blogger pyrrhus September 28, 2017 12:34 PM  

"At what point is the ability to lock people into debt slavery and usury no longer worth the force required to hold it all together?"

Good question. The ultimate problem is that too much debt violates Sun Tzu's maxim about always leaving your enemy a way out...When debt becomes too crushing, some folks are going to run up the black flag and start slitting throats (Mencken).

Anonymous Frank Brady September 28, 2017 12:42 PM  

That slavery was (and still is) evil is indisputable. However, the real purpose of the mis-named civil war was not to end slavery, but to end state sovereignty and impose central control on all Americans from Washington. Until the 13th Amendment, the federal government had no "citizens". The American people were citizens of the states in which they resided.

To describe the conflict as a "civil war" is a misnomer. In a civil war, the two sides are fighting over control of the government. The secessionists did NOT want to control the United States. They wanted to leave it for many of the reasons articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

Both sides in that conflict had their myths, but perhaps the most pernicious is the "Lincoln Myth" which became gospel (a false one) for the Republican Party. Those who are interested might find it useful to see https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/anthony-wile/the-myth-of-lincoln-secession-and-civil-war/. Thomas DiLorenzo's book isn't perfect, but it's much more accurate than the establishment version of that war which is drummed into young American heads from cradle to the grave.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 28, 2017 12:50 PM  

The heroism of the South was never doubted by those who fought. Any history book from 1865 foward openly acknowledges the superiority of the Southern officer AND average pro fighting-man.

The south didn't have enough of the latter, was fighting a defense against invasion, and STILL might have pulled off the miracle had one key battle turned lucky.

No Yankee in his right mind would have denied the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy their hard-earned peace. No Yankee with a shred of morality would deny the honor of those who fought.

Even a liberal Congress in the 1950s confirmed Confederates as US Veterans.

The SJW is knowingly attacking justice and society.

Their only mistake is thinking that the Southron is United Statesian, and therefore easily steamrolled.

Oops.

Blogger pnq8787 September 28, 2017 12:53 PM  

Those who fought for the South are often said to be traitors, but the U.S. was founded by traitors. The Founding Fathers commited treason against their king and country and kin when they rebelled. I suspect the rebellion was basically one of the rich colonists deciding they would be richer if they seceeded from the empire. I doubt the traitors against England were supported by the majority of Americans at the time. I suspect that the treasonous rebellion had to be propped up by a massive propaganda campaign the likes of which would have put Goebbels to shame. Ever since then we Americans have lived under a relentless storm of brainwashing and that is why America has become the civic nationalist liberal globalist Jew haven it is today.

Yet by today's propaganda you would think every Southerner was a slaveowner and every Yankee was an anti-racist SJW. More lies and propaganda that doesn't make any sense.

So the Founding Fathers were rich colonists who committed ratlike treason against their king. The Southern Rebels were rich plantion owners who committed "treason" against what was thought to be a volutary union of states. But the massive propaganda has the normies believing the narrative to keep this stupid multicultural empire together.

Blogger Desdichado September 28, 2017 12:55 PM  

esr is usually pretty bright, but if he believes he can credibly say that the North turned a blind eye to slavery, "pretending" that it wasn't the real cause of the war—rather than the truth which is that they've relentless and tirelessly beat the drum of "you must atone for slavery", pretending that it was actually a significant cause of the war, then he's got a massive, massive blind spot.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 28, 2017 12:56 PM  

Shelby Foote probably had the best handle for the Post-Civil War political and cultural settlement. The South acknowledged that it had been defeated, accepted the verdict of battle, and agreed not to do it again. The North conceded that the Confederates had fought bravely and well for a cause they deemed to have been good, and agreed not to impugn the Confederate commanders. That settlement held for 150 years.

Not any more. And I don't think the people trying to rip the scab off have any clue about how much trouble they are unleashing.

Anonymous Causal Lurker September 28, 2017 12:59 PM  

The other uncomfortable fact was why Kansas was that bloody. State 34 represented an opportunity for the Southern coalition to maintain a 1/3 +1 voting block in the Senate for several more decades, buying time to find a peaceable way out of the situation, but also blocking action (including changes to Senate rules) that would adversely affect them. Had the Atchison Convention succeeded, it was another capitol south of the Compromise line and two more senators (27-28 in the bloc?).

The Lost Cause myth covered many ugly points with a civilized veneer where all could agree with the polite meaning of "bless their hearts", and would recognize courage under fire and valor in battle.

The institutional Theft, er, Left and its Anitfa goons are now using a similar but uglier majority- minority stance and terror organization to stop peaceful solutions by legislative means and to make violent change in their favor. Sounds like 1853, but this time the split is intra-county lines on the edge of metro areas.

Pray for peace but consider contingencies for war. I dread the coming decade.

Blogger David September 28, 2017 1:03 PM  

Growing up in New Jersey, we never heard a word against Southerners and the Confederate generals. Whatever was said about the war usually involved "they were fighting to end slavery" and that was it. They were always called Americans. Attacking Dixie because of anti-Southern bias just wasn't something we were taught.

The real reason they're attacking Dixie now is because the South is seen as the quintessential White Christian America stronghold that must be torn down so the glorious neo-communist revolution can succeed unhindered. If the South goes, so will the rest of America.

Anonymous Philalethes September 28, 2017 1:07 PM  

Southerners, by and large, tried to pretend their revolt had not been a defense of the indefensible. Northerners by and large, decided that agreeing with that pretense (or at least not disputing it in public) was a polite fiction useful to everybody.

Some interesting observations in this essay. However, speaking as another whose "cultural and political [and genetic] ancestors" on both sides were among those who won the war, I have to say I now know that, contrary to what I was taught and told when young, the above statement is bovine excrement – and a perfect example of the lies the sainted Lincoln and his followers have used since then to justify their unjustifiable war.

The Constitutional principle of state sovereignty, and the simple fact that nowhere in that document is there any prohibition of any sovereign state withdrawing from the "Union" if it feels its sovereign interest to have been injured, makes clear that the Confederate cause was in no way "indefensible".

Neither the southern nor any other of the United States had ever agreed to an indissoluble "union"; in fact, the first serious discussions of secession were in the New England states during the lead-up to the War of 1812, which they felt was being forced on them by the other states against their interests.

Thus the Southern insistence that their secession – which was not a "revolt", since there was no overarching authority against which they could have "revolted" – was a defense of their right to "alter or abolish … any Form of Government [which] becomes destructive … and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" was no kind of pretense, but the simple truth.

That the "Civil War" was about slavery was/is almost entirely Northern propaganda, inflamed by deep thinkers like John Brown and Julia Ward Howe, who was "inspired to write 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic' after she and her husband visited Washington, D.C., and met Abraham Lincoln at the White House in November 1861". (Later, after the horrible carnage to which she had so substantially contributed, she was inspired to become an "antiwar activist" – exercising her womanly right to change her mind.)

Certainly slavery was an issue – as it was all over the Western world at the time – but it was not the primary issue. Only a small percentage in the southern states were slave owners – and there were many in the northern states as well (including some Black slave owners in New York, IIRC).

And the "pretense" the Northerners agreed and continue, from this evidence, to agree with is their own concoction. They lie, and lie again, because to admit the truth would be to admit that their aggressive war on the southern states was the real "indefensible" act.

"ESR" appears to be an intelligent man. So why is he peddling this garbage? If he is not a fool, he must be a conscious Liar.

Blogger Rabbi B September 28, 2017 1:08 PM  

The wrong side won and Lincoln was an asshole of incalculable magnitude.

Blogger Gloriam Deo September 28, 2017 1:08 PM  

The War of Northern Aggression 2.0 is coming. Get ready.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass September 28, 2017 1:10 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:Not to mention that the South had two of the greatest generals in history, who are still studied today in the war colleges. Stonewall Jackson, the master of maneuver warfare, and Nathan Bedford Forrest, the master of guerrilla warfare....The South, of course, had nothing to apologize about, but the writer's point, that we should generally let sleeping dogs alone, is correct.


Shhhh...because racism!

Being a Northerner, besides his bs claim that the South was fighting for slavery (just forget that maybe 3% of the South owned slaves, look here for more on that, and that the northern states sold their slaves to the South before banning slavery), he is right to say that the Southern heroes became American heroes.

One has to laugh at their tactics backfiring on them. Anyone hear about the increased security presence around Ray Lewis' statue because people want to tear it down. Desecration is a two way street.

pnq8787 wrote:Those who fought for the South are often said to be traitors, but the U.S. was founded by traitors. The Founding Fathers commited treason against their king and country and kin when they rebelled. I suspect the rebellion was basically one of the rich colonists deciding they would be richer if they seceeded from the empire. I doubt the traitors against England were supported by the majority of Americans at the time. I suspect that the treasonous rebellion had to be propped up by a massive propaganda campaign the likes of which would have put Goebbels to shame. Ever since then we Americans have lived under a relentless storm of brainwashing and that is why America has become the civic nationalist liberal globalist Jew haven it is today.

Yet by today's propaganda you would think every Southerner was a slaveowner and every Yankee was an anti-racist SJW. More lies and propaganda that doesn't make any sense.

So the Founding Fathers were rich colonists who committed ratlike treason against their king. The Southern Rebels were rich plantion owners who committed "treason" against what was thought to be a volutary union of states. But the massive propaganda has the normies believing the narrative to keep this stupid multicultural empire together.


People forget how their were attempts at secession long before the Civil War, which occurred right before the War of 1812 to be precise. They weren't successful since the citizens of the states involved ultimately decided not to go forward.

David wrote:Growing up in New Jersey, we never heard a word against Southerners and the Confederate generals. Whatever was said about the war usually involved "they were fighting to end slavery" and that was it. They were always called Americans. Attacking Dixie because of anti-Southern bias just wasn't something we were taught.

The real reason they're attacking Dixie now is because the South is seen as the quintessential White Christian America stronghold that must be torn down so the glorious neo-communist revolution can succeed unhindered. If the South goes, so will the rest of America.


Same for me growing up in Indiana.

Rabbi B wrote:The wrong side won and Lincoln was an asshole of incalculable magnitude.

LOL

Anonymous fop September 28, 2017 1:24 PM  

Hmmm...a yankeesplaining yankee is yankeesplaining.

Sounds gay, man.

Blogger Gospace September 28, 2017 1:45 PM  

I discovered Damnyankee was one word in the early 1970's visiting some not too distant relatives (2nd cousins) in SC near the GA border. All the elderly women of the family talked about Sherman's March to the Sea as if they had witnessed it, though none of them were yet a twinkle in their father's eye at the time. And I have several distant relatives who are graduates of The Citadel, and frequently heard references to USMA at West Point as The Citadel of the North.

It's been almost 50 years, and I'll bet if I went back and visited the relatives there today- nothing will have changed.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 28, 2017 1:45 PM  

That slavery was (and still is) evil is indisputable. However, the real purpose of the mis-named civil war was not to end slavery, but to end state sovereignty and impose central control on all Americans from Washington. Until the 13th Amendment, the federal government had no "citizens". The American people were citizens of the states in which they resided.

Slavery was - and is - merely an excuse for the usual suspects to grab more power. As for the evil of slavery, it only became "evil" when whites owned slaves. Musloid raiders kipnapping folks from English, Irish and even Icelandic villages and enslaving them for life is never mentioned. Nor are the numerous black slave-owners mentioned, nor is the fact that the court case in late 17th century Virginia which established chattel slavery was brought by a black slave owner against a black slave who paid his indenture. Nowhere in the bible is slavery condemned per se, only the maltreatment of slaves is condemned. The 19th century Anglo-American Protestants fell into the first significant step into their present total apostasy over slavery. Brazil - not exactly a place known for its rule of law - had far more slaves than the United States, yet managed to outlaw slavery 23 years after the confederacy fell without a civil war destroying a large section of the country. Slavery - a primitive econonmic arrangement - is back, and will be growing steadily. The abolitionists were the SJWs of their day - two-bit moralists were liars then as their carpetbagger descendants are liars now, but that's what SJWs and their cuck hangers-on always do. There's even a book about the subject.

Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 1:49 PM  

> As for the evil of slavery, it only became "evil" when whites owned slaves.

If it's such a great evil, why aren't they fighting it today? It's not like it's gone away. http://infogalactic.com/info/Contemporary_slavery

Blogger Stilicho September 28, 2017 1:49 PM  

Ah, the ever-popular myth of Yankee Morality. Regarding a war they claim was "against slavery" which they won with slave soldiers while holding chattel slavery legal in their own territory. Why, that war had nothing to do with economics, or pursuit of power, or a feminized/gay yankee leader. At least ESR recognizes that continuation of the war by the South is morally justified by yankee perfidy in breaking their side of the bargain.

Blogger Sheila4g September 28, 2017 1:53 PM  

@12 Frank Brady: "That slavery was (and still is) evil is indisputable."

I see this sort of assertion quite a bit, and I'm taking issue with it. Please note that:

1. I do not desire to be a slave
2. I do not desire to be anyone's master

But on what basis is slavery indisputably evil? It existed throughout history and across all cultures. All races took slaves and were taken as others' slaves. While I'm hardly a biblical expert, I do not recall reading anywhere in the Bible that slavery was sinful, immoral, evil, or merely even wrong. A friend argued that Jesus was definitely opposed to slavery; that it was implicit in everything he said. Yet I read only about servants obeying masters, and people not coveting others' possessions or wives or social status. I read Jesus telling me to strive to better follow God, to "love" others by teaching them God's word and for all to strive for personal salvation. Nowhere do I see anything about attacking other masters to free their servants or slaves, or making war on other nations, let alone one's own people, to rid the temporal world of that abominable evil called "slavery." So what am I missing? Not mocking, but genuinely curious.

Anonymous veryfunnyminion September 28, 2017 2:01 PM  

Still waiting for a tor-Nate-o to touch down on this thread...

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 2:03 PM  

5. allyn71 September 28, 2017 12:25 PM
At what point is the ability to lock people into debt slavery and usury no longer worth the force required to hold it all together?



at the point at which the Debt Holders get concerned about escaping with their lives.

they have no concern for those whom they enslave.

nor do they have any moral compunctions about Slavery.

otherwise, they would not live as they do.


13. pnq8787 September 28, 2017 12:53 PM
So the Founding Fathers were rich colonists who committed ratlike treason against their king.



it has long been the custom of the Nordic, Celtic and Teutonic cultures that the King serves AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PEOPLE ( Moots, Althings, election of Kings and war leaders, annual human sacrifice of the king in some of the Celtic cultures, etc ). this goes back to antiquity, thousands of years BEFORE CHRIST.

had King George not committed Treason against the peoples of the United States, we'd not have found it necessary to tell him to piss off.

as is our Cultural and Genetic wont.

perhaps you'd like to accuse Cromwell of Treason, while you're at it?



24. Gen. Kong September 28, 2017 1:45 PM
The 19th century Anglo-American Protestants fell into the first significant step into their present total apostasy over slavery.



have you not noticed that the Catholics were likewise Apostate over the Slavery issue? Pope Paul III issued Sublimus Dei in 1537.

Anonymous Cyclone Bob September 28, 2017 2:08 PM  

Frank Brady: "That slavery was (and still is) evil is indisputable."


If God's own Son didn't condemn the practice when he was incarnate, then there's a good chance it isn't evil. Face it: slavery was nothing but an uncomplicated employment system.

Blogger Gospace September 28, 2017 2:09 PM  

18. Philalethes September 28, 2017 1:07 PM

The Constitutional principle of state sovereignty, and the simple fact that nowhere in that document is there any prohibition of any sovereign state withdrawing from the "Union" if it feels its sovereign interest to have been injured, makes clear that the Confederate cause was in no way "indefensible".


It's true that nowhere in the Constitution is there a prohibition against leaving the union. However, there are ways to add states, subdivide states, and split states or allow them to trade territory. Seems a curious omission. Until you realize that the next paragraph you wrote is is a lie.

Neither the southern nor any other of the United States had ever agreed to an indissoluble "union"; in fact, the first serious discussions of secession were in the New England states during the lead-up to the War of 1812, which they felt was being forced on them by the other states against their interests.

The Constitution of the United States is a successor document to The Articles of Confederation. which actually founded the Union. Full title ‘‘Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union’’. A perpetual union is indeed indissoluble, signed by representatives of the 13 original states, New England and Southern. The people who wrote the Constitution were fully aware of the Articles of Confederation, and didn't include a provision for states to leave the perpetual union because, well, it was perpetual.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 28, 2017 2:10 PM  

But what about Muh Constitution? Assuredly Paper is thicker than blood.

As for Muh Constitution, a disembodied spirit transmitted the following to the Dept. of Doggerel here:

Ghost Dancers how they Cry

A black robe went a-ridin’ out one dark and windy day,

Upon a bench he rested as he went along his way,

When all at once a raging herd of red-eyed cucks he saw,

A stumblin’ through the ragged script…

To write their dumbassed law.

Cons-tit-u-tion, muh cons-tit-u-tion,

Ghost dancers so they cry.

Their butts were still on fire and their brains wuz gone to hell,

The pizza’s black and greasy and their foul breath how it smelled,

A bolt of fear went through him as they farted down the hall,

For he saw the cucks were comin' hard…

And he heard their mournful yell.

Cons-tit-u-tion, muh cons-tit-u-tion,

Ghost dancers how they cry.

Their faces blue, their hands wuz red and shirts all soaked with sweat,
They're writin’ hard to hide the truth but they ain't stopped it yet
'Cause they've got to lie forever in that whore-house in the sky,
With hookers snortin' fire
As they write on, hear their cry.
Cons-tit-u-tion, muh cons-tit-u-tion,

Ghost dancers how they cry.

With Judeo-Christ behind them he heard one call his name,

"If you want to save your soul from spirit-cookin' on this range,

Then shyster change your ways today or with us you will stay.

A-try'ng to keep the devil's word

For long these endless days.
"
Cons-tit-u-tion, muh cons-tit-u-tion,

Their cries heard in the sky.
Ghost dancers how they cry.

Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 2:12 PM  

> The people who wrote the Constitution were fully aware of the Articles of Confederation, and didn't include a provision for states to leave the perpetual union because, well, it was perpetual.

Then why doesn't IT say so? Because it wasn't considered to be, and would have never been passed if it were.

Blogger Lazarus September 28, 2017 2:13 PM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) wrote:ESR is, himself, misrepresenting the actions of the statue smashers.

these acts are an expression that they believe themselves to be the new Cultural Supremacy.



He addresses that in the 3rd to last paragraph.

Many of these people are, in effect, Red Guards. They don’t just want to erase icons of Confederate pride, they want to smash American pride. Statues of Columbus have already been defaced; I am pretty sure Washington and Jefferson will be next. The actual agenda is that Americans must be made to feel their nation was born in sin and cannot be redeemed – patriotism must be replaced with obsessive self-criticism and eternal guilt. Anything positive in our national mythos must be razed and replaced with Marxist cant.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 2:14 PM  

27. Sheila4g September 28, 2017 1:53 PM
But on what basis is slavery indisputably evil?



on the basis of the letters that the Saint, Apostle Marx ( whose Revelation declares the future vanquishing of the Beastial Bourgeois ), sent to the Proletariat.

which is what makes the breastbeating of such Christian luminaries as the estimable Mr. John C. Wright at turns disappointing and humorous.

if you did not laugh, you would have to cry.

Blogger Chris Ritchie September 28, 2017 2:20 PM  

It's still "The War of Northern Aggression" down here.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 28, 2017 2:23 PM  

Gospace wrote:The Constitution of the United States is a successor document to The Articles of Confederation. which actually founded the Union. Full title ‘‘Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union’’.

The Articles were fully abrogated and completely superceded by the Constitution. As of the adoption of the Constitution, nothing in the Articles carried any authority or force, including the title.

Anonymous Athor Pel September 28, 2017 2:24 PM  

"31. Blogger Gospace September 28, 2017 2:09 PM
...
The people who wrote the Constitution were fully aware of the Articles of Confederation, and didn't include a provision for states to leave the perpetual union because, well, it was perpetual.
"



You mean the Articles that the framers of the constitution wanted to replace?

Those Articles?

Because we can talk about that first constitutional convention... that was behind closed doors and an invite only affair, amongst other dodgy and otherwise questionable circumstances. Through certain lenses that sequence of meetings and what came after looks an awful lot like a coup.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 28, 2017 2:24 PM  

If you want to claim the Articles as your authority, then you need to explain how the rules and procedures of the Articles of Confederation allowed the adoption of the Constitution.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 2:30 PM  

31. Gospace September 28, 2017 2:09 PM
Seems a curious omission.



the Constitution omits NO subjects.

9.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


notice also, the order.

otherwise undefined subjects are FIRST held as Absolute Rights by We The People.

and subsidiarily, held as Rights by the individual State of which we are Citizens.


further, the Constitution and BoR exists only to Delimit and Constrain the Federal government.

that subsequent Amendments have been used to Federally Delimit and Constrain We The People demonstrates only how corrupt and debased we have allowed Civic life to become.


because YOU assert that the 9th and 10th Amendments mean nothing and have no restraining power on the Federales, we now have stupidity such that Federal agents can walk onto *your* private property and prosecute you for daring to sell raw milk in a private transaction to another citizen.

and don't even get started on the Treasonous nature of the EPA and the Waters of the United States abomination.
https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule

because you deny the clear and obvious meaning of Black Letter Law, you must now pretend that the Amendments mean nothing at all and that there are NO practical constraints on the Federal Government or it's actions.

why should the Federal Courts not rule that you MUST bake a cake because of "Interstate Commerce"? you gave that 'authority' more than a century ago.

Blogger Gospace September 28, 2017 2:31 PM  

Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris signed both the Articles and The Constitution. Gouverneur Morris as a representative of NY for the Articles, Pennsylvania for the Constituion. The Constitution did not disavow the Articles, that created the Perpetual Union. There was no need to address states leaving a perpetual union. To argue that the people who wrote the Constitution and signed it weren't aware that the United States was a perpetual Union, when there were signers of both, is silly. BTW, there is no provision in the Articles for States to leave the Union. But it does allow Canada to enter the Union without a vote of the states.

Anonymous johnc September 28, 2017 2:32 PM  

This isn't a southern thing; as was noted they're going after Columbus and the Founding Fathers as well. It is, in a nutshell, an anti-white thing. The question is, who from above is pushing this division and what is their ultimate end goal and, more importantly... how do we avoid it?

Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 2:32 PM  

> The Constitution did not disavow the Articles, that created the Perpetual Union.

It didn't need to, as it replaced them. You're still wrong.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 28, 2017 2:35 PM  

Finally, the Constitutional union that replaced the union of the Articles had no similarities at all with the prior. Can you name a single law, structure or provision of the Articles, aside from treaties, that stands today? Or hell, one that still stood in 1790?

The adoption of the Constitution is a direct, practical demonstration that the assertion of perpetual union in the title of the Articles was political cant. Nothing perpetual about it, the Union of the Articles lasted 8 whole years.

Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 2:37 PM  

> The question is, who from above is pushing this division...

The classic alt-retard answer is (((them))). I'm afraid there's far more to it than that, though there is little question a significant percentage of (((them))) are involved in the process.

> ... and what is their ultimate end goal.

At the very least, the destruction of the United States as it was founded and operated for the majority of it's existence. At worst, the genocide of all whites around the globe. You be the judge.

Anonymous Panzer Man September 28, 2017 2:38 PM  

These people have made me go from being neutral on the Confederacy, to hoisting the Battle Flag alongside Old Glory.

Of course, my neighbor has been displaying a Battle Flag for years...

Anonymous veryfunnyminion September 28, 2017 2:39 PM  

"But it does allow Canada to enter the Union without a vote of the states."

Way cool, where do I sign?

Blogger szopen September 28, 2017 2:43 PM  

@18 Philalethes
"That the "Civil War" was about slavery was/is almost entirely Northern propaganda,"

BUt it does seem to me that slavery was at least amongst the concerns of some slaveholding states? I mean, I do not know much about your history, but I often was shown this declaration from South Carolina (link and quote below). WHile there is a lot about independence and so on, there is also parts about slavery. COuld you please explain to me, why it's wrong? It would be nice to know and maybe use your explanation in future arguments with leftists:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#South_Carolina

quotes starting with " But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations", and then continuing to say "Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.".

While it is clearly formulated as being against the the other states to dictate the laws to SOuth Carolina, OTOH it also clearly mentions the slavery and the fact that north wants to abolish slavery.

Anonymous FP September 28, 2017 2:44 PM  

"It is 2017 and the wounds of the Civil War have not entirely healed. “Damnyankee” is still a single word in much of the South. Failing to understand the great settlement creates the risk that those wounds could re-open into divisive regionalism and eventual conflict."

Too late. ESR might want to get out into the boonies and not so boonies a bit more. Even before the flag nonsense in SC two years ago, one could find the Southern Cross flying from flagpoles in all parts of the country.

Anonymous Sam the Man September 28, 2017 2:44 PM  

All the folks saying the folks in the south did not fight for slavery but a more abstract ideal and ESR has bought a Yankee lie:

Go read the articles of succession of the several states that left the union. They were fighting for the right to own "niggers", their particular institution. By their own words they are condemned of this:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

So ESR articles is very good. The folks who condemn his statement as to why the war was fought reflect southern romantic views, views best expressed in Jefferson Davis 1881 autobiography, a document that rescued him from southern approbation which had been his former abode. Most of the southern statues and monuments are actually for the post 1885 to around 1925 period

By the bye, as a Yankee I note the southern spirit of independence is a good thing and might well be the saving of the Union, or what part of it that can be saved. Also the southern soldiers fought well, to the bitter end and deserve to be recognized for that. Also by act of congress they are US veterans.


Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 2:45 PM  

> ...one could find the Southern Cross flying from flagpoles in all parts of the country.

I saw it in a small town in western PA recently.

Anonymous Iacobus September 28, 2017 2:47 PM  

As a born-and-bred Yankee, I kind of laugh when I hear of the righteousness of the saintly North against the evil, racist South. Yeah. No. lol

I heartily suggest reading both "Rebel Yell" by S. C. Gwynne and "Good Time Coming" by C.S. Harris. The former is an excellent biography on Stonewall Jackson and the latter is a work of fiction but with bits of fact thrown in there. It points out that things were clearly not as black and white (see what I did there?) as they would seem.

Blogger szopen September 28, 2017 2:50 PM  

Ho, I am reading now declaration from MIssisipi and its even more straightforward: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

In contrast, no reference to slavery in declaration from Virginia (Except refering to "slaveholding states").

Blogger dc.sunsets September 28, 2017 2:51 PM  

I so tire of the myth that the South seceded to "protect" chattel slavery and that the North invaded to end it. How clueless are people, nowadays? (rhetorical question, in case it's not obvious.)

Such morons probably think, had the South won, that blacks would still be chained in Alabama. (facedesk.)

When we read Sherman's letters to his wife, and we pay heed to the notion that his "March" was the first instance of unlimited warfare in Western Civilization since--what?--the 16th century?--we should try to wrap our minds around what "reconciliation" meant.

Can anyone imagine "reconciliation" in the former Yugoslavia?

Blogger dc.sunsets September 28, 2017 2:54 PM  

@50 Sam the Man, keep in mind the class of people running politics in the South, and contrast that to the common man (who did not own slaves, and on whom the burden of manning slave patrols fell.) Slavery benefited a small slice of the populace, albeit a vocal slice.

This sounds surprisingly parallel to our current times, no?

Blogger szopen September 28, 2017 2:56 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:
Can anyone imagine "reconciliation" in the former Yugoslavia?

Sure. It happened, and resulted in freezing the hostilities for 50 years. Under communists oficially they all loved each other, were brothers and were condemning evil fascists who were killing fellow yugoslavians. And then everyone went berserk wanting to revenge they great-father being killed by great-father of the other guy.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 28, 2017 2:57 PM  

Sam the Man wrote:By the bye, as a Yankee I note ...
Hello, fellow (((White People)))).

Blogger szopen September 28, 2017 2:57 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:@50 Sam the Man, keep in mind the class of people running politics in the South, and contrast that to the common man (who did not own slaves, and on whom the burden of manning slave patrols fell.)
But still, those declaration of reasons behind the secession mention the northern hostility to slavery quite explicitly, don't you think?

Blogger dc.sunsets September 28, 2017 3:00 PM  

@44 Snidely, exactly. The Constitution of 1787 was a coup pure and simple. One need only note that its notes and records were held in secret, prohibited from public release, until all of the attendees were dead.

Suspiciously similar to all the JFK assassination archives, as well as all official inquiries into 9/11. Whenever something is secret, it's certain that the public tale is BS.

Our civics courses are no less stuffed with mythology than were Russia's under Stalin.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 28, 2017 3:06 PM  

@58 szopen, we're taught to anthropomorphize intangibles (like "states") all the time, but it renders our thinking fuzzy.

Look around us now. What issue is dividing people? What SINGLE ISSUE is pushing people toward the poles, and then toward conflict? Trannies in K-12? Gay wedding cakes? Mestizos under every bed? Silicon Valley turning into Little Hyderabad?

The top line is always the most convenient rationalization. Why did the 13 colonies revolt? The Stamp Act? Other parliamentary impositions? Low standard of living compared to the British Isles? NO! All of that is myth. Parliament had already repealed essentially EVERY act to which their brothers in North America objected. British subjects in the colonies enjoyed a HIGHER average standard of living than did their cousins in England, Wales or Scotland.

Simple explanations for simple minds. When ever you're presented with a simple explanation, someone is trying to BS you.

Slavery is the simple explanation for 1860-1864.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 28, 2017 3:09 PM  

BTW, why did the American Revolution succeed?
-France used it as a means to kick an old rival?
-Whigs in Parliament were sympathetic to the colonists?
-The UK was exhausted by a decades-long bear market?

Or because Gen. Washington crossed the Delaware? We steep in a swamp of myths.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 28, 2017 3:15 PM  

Szopen, why did Illinoisans volunteer in droves to join Lincoln's Army?
-IL's constitution prohibited blacks, slave or free, from entry.
-The battlefront's horrors (death, disease and dismemberment) were extremely well described in newspapers.

IL's men had NO DOG IN THE FIGHT. Yet they went. They were hardly all abolitionists (and many PROMINENT abolitionists actually wanted the South to secede, believing that by placing freedom on the other side of a very long border the institution would collapse of its own accord once Northern states no longer returned escaped slaves.)

Why did they go, many never to return?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 3:16 PM  

https://www.cntraveler.com/story/this-new-york-town-seceded-from-the-us-and-forgot-to-rejoin

"Coincidentally, the upstate locale of Town Line, New York voted to secede from the Union, contributing five soldiers to the Confederate troops. "


Vermont only exists because they demanded Secession from New York, and VIOLENTLY defended themselves against NYS government agents. that predates the formation of the USA itself, although Vermont was not fully recognized de jure it had already long been independent de facto.



58. szopen September 28, 2017 2:57 PM
But still, those declaration of reasons behind the secession mention the northern hostility to slavery quite explicitly, don't you think?



of course.

the Southern states were rather pissed that the Northern states were in open rebellion regarding both the Fugitive Slave Clause ( ratified by all 50 States in every edition of the Constitution, both subsequent to as well as predating the Civil War ) as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which had been passed to define how the FSC would be enforced. because the Northern States were refusing to abide by their sworn Oaths and uphold the Law otherwise.

Slavery and Northern Lawlessness regarding it certainly was the proximate cause for Secession.

what remedy do you propose for the Lawlessness of the North, if you will not permit the South to Secede? this very issue of the Underground Railroad had already been 'addressed' numerous times by 1850, with the North always refusing to abide by the Law.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Fugitive_Slave_Clause
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.


as the 13th Amendment still permits Slavery as a judicial punishment for criminal acts, the FSC is still in full effect throughout these United States.

Anonymous BBGKB September 28, 2017 3:17 PM  

Stonewall Jackson, the master of maneuver warfare, and Nathan Bedford Forrest, the master of guerrilla warfare

But they couldn't compete with the North throwing fresh off the boat Irish at them until they ran out of ammo with no men taken from the northern manufacturing.

I suspect the rebellion was basically one of the rich colonists deciding they would be richer if they seceeded from the empire.

Americans wanting Puerto Rico to succeed from the US is the exact same sentiment.

Blogger Res Ipsa September 28, 2017 3:28 PM  

Rabbi B,

Moving to the south has had a positive effect on you ;)

Blogger Jan Minář September 28, 2017 3:29 PM  

Slavery never was outlawed in the US. The only difference post-war is that now it is that a judge has to sign off on it. People enslaved "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" are curiously the very same people who had previously also been enslaved.

Blogger Desdichado September 28, 2017 3:32 PM  

Sam the Man wrote:By the bye, as a Yankee I note the southern spirit of independence is a good thing and might well be the saving of the Union, or what part of it that can be saved. Also the southern soldiers fought well, to the bitter end and deserve to be recognized for that. Also by act of congress they are US veterans.
(((You're))) not a Yankee.

And you're either a liar or completely ignorant of contemporary sources. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, THOUSANDS of Union soldiers defected, and there were riots in NYC that had to be put down... precisely because the North felt that they'd been baited and switched. They specifically—and they said so in their own words in hundreds of preserved documents—did not go to war in behalf of the Negro, and had no interest in killing their brothers over the question of slavery.

Blogger Res Ipsa September 28, 2017 3:36 PM  

Is the biggest problem facing race relations in the USA statues of guys from a war that is over 150 years old? We've done a heck of job as a nation if the biggest bitch the racebitters can come up with is objecting to statues of guys dead for over 100 years.

It's easier to protest make believe problems than to deal with ones own inadequacies.

Blogger Jan Minář September 28, 2017 3:36 PM  

Have you not heard that when Bible talks of men, it means to address both genders equally and without prejudice? Have you not heard that Jesus rrally loves it when people engage in sodomy, adultery, and fornication?

Is is a blatant heresy. The Scripture will soon be retranslated, and you will soon be able to find an answer to your question, supported by some nice quotes. No more than a five-year-plan or two away.

Blogger Frank Brady September 28, 2017 3:37 PM  

27. Sheila4g wrote: “But on what basis is slavery indisputably evil? It existed throughout history and across all cultures. All races took slaves and were taken as others' slaves.”

30. Cyclone Bob wrote: “If God's own Son didn't condemn the practice when he was incarnate, then there's a good chance it isn't evil. Face it: slavery was nothing but an uncomplicated employment system.”

Without getting into a theological discussion about God’s definition of evil (which is way beyond my pay grade), I believe individual liberty to be the ultimate human right and that no authority on earth has a moral right to restrict that liberty except to prevent genuine harm to others.

I would argue that, as a result of the so-called civil war, the chattel slavery of blacks has been replaced by slavery to the state for all.

Blogger Rabbi B September 28, 2017 3:44 PM  

Res Ipsa wrote:Rabbi B,

Moving to the south has had a positive effect on you ;)


And I'm not even moved down there yet ...but soon, very soon.

While visiting for a job interview, I was careful to salute the Confederate flag whenever the opportunity presented itself.

I can't speak for Jack Ward, but I stand with the CSA and John Wilkes Booth was a war hero. If he had only acted sooner.

Anonymous Sam the Man September 28, 2017 3:45 PM  

63:

So the supposed states rights advocates were mad that the northern states did not like the federal intrusion into their court systems as 1850 compromise dictated? Let's see the fugitive slave act allowed the state courts and individual legal protections to be bypassed, state officials to be dragooned by federal marshals and exactly what states rights principle were being upheld by the south in that? The south seemed to have no problems using the full power of the federal government to impose their regional preferences on the northern states.

One often hears of the south being against internal improvements paid for by the central government (states rights). But the south was all for the transcontinental railroad, as long as it took a southern route (Gadsden purchase 1853). When they could not get that they refused to allow it to go through a central route, for fear of development of free states. Why would that be unless the real issue was a preoccupation with their "peculiar institution" and protection of same?

Fact was the folks who want to say the south was right in the cause have to use all sorts of justifications to get around the reality that the central cause of the CW was slavery. Take that institution away an there is no war. Slavery and its distortions were the fundamental cause of the regional split. Not exactly the South's fault, but strip away all the distractions and cloud of dust thrown up to obscure the truth of it and you are left with this:

The South cared dearly for states rights, most particularly the right of states to protect the institution of negro slavery. All other concerns were subjugated to this issue.

Those who deny it, how do you explain the articles of succession previously posted (# 50). Go read them and then deny that reality, you have no excuse, I provided a link to the primary sources. The south said the war was about slavery when they attempted to leave the union and began the fight. The other supposed abstract causes only became predominate after reconstruction ended, when the loss of 275,000 young men and devastation to the economic and social structure of the south had sunk in. The need to justify and make noble the loss of those young lives impelled a certain degree of amnesia on the proximate causes of the war. Very understandable, which was the central point of ESR article, he hit the nail on the head.

By the way , I stand with revering the Southern Army, they were good soldiers and I would uncover my hat to them without a second though, as brave and noble men fighting for a cause they thought just.

Blogger Frank Brady September 28, 2017 3:46 PM  

Here are three quotes of Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. How would these play today?

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."

There are many others which are devastating to the Republican Party's Church of Lincoln's fictional accounts.

Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 4:16 PM  

> Take that institution away an there is no war. Slavery and its distortions were the fundamental cause of the regional split.

Offering a hypothesis which can't be disproved doesn't advance your argument.

However, I'm equally certain that you're wrong and that there would have been a secession movement and resulting war within 30 years even if slavery hadn't been an issue.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 28, 2017 4:20 PM  

Frank Brady wrote:I believe individual liberty to be the ultimate human right and that no authority on earth has a moral right to restrict that liberty except to prevent genuine harm to others.
See, this is why Libertarians can't keep nice things. Like Liberty.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 28, 2017 4:34 PM  

Yup. If you dig into it, there are four reasons for the Civil War. In no particular order:

1. Taxes. The seven Cotton States were paying nearly two-thirds of the entire Federal tax burden in 1860.

2. Spending. A significant amount of Federal revenue was being spent on "internal improvements" such as railroads and canals. Almost all of that money was being spent in the North. It's worth pointing out that most of the differences between the U.S. and C.S. Constitutions deal with spending - things like a line-item veto and a ban on omnibus spending bills.

3. Free soil. The Northwest Ordnance divided the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi relatively equally between small family farms and plantation agribusiness. The Louisiana Purchase added new lands, which wound up divided around 2:1 under the Missouri Compromise. The Mexican War added new land, most south of the Missouri Compromise division line...then the North decided to allocate all of it for family farms. A bitter blow to Southerners who had fought in the war.

4. Abolition. Specifically, the fact that the militant abolitionists were going terrorist. John Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry was the largest terrorist attack until the Oklahoma City bombing 140 years later.

It's also worth pointing out that this was not a two-sided fight. It was a five-sided affair, with New England, the Corn States, the Tobacco Belt, the Cotton Belt, and the Slaves all having different interests.

My own opinion? Had the Confederates won, both the C.S. and the U.S. would have had second secession crises around 1885. The Tobacco Belt (VA, NC, and the states to their West) would not have liked the direction the Cotton States wanted to go...and the Corn Belt would have found New England a most obnoxious neighbor.

Blogger SirHamster September 28, 2017 4:55 PM  

Napoleon 12pdr wrote:My own opinion? Had the Confederates won, both the C.S. and the U.S. would have had second secession crises around 1885. The Tobacco Belt (VA, NC, and the states to their West) would not have liked the direction the Cotton States wanted to go...and the Corn Belt would have found New England a most obnoxious neighbor.

Would a divided America yielded a better 20th century?

Or would it have led to an American Unification War, fought out over several decades?

Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 5:14 PM  

> Would a divided America yielded a better 20th century?

It's entirely possible a divided America would have taken different sides in the great European wars of the 20th century, so it would have been "interesting".

Blogger James Dixon September 28, 2017 5:16 PM  

> Yup. If you dig into it, there are four reasons for the Civil War. In no particular order:

An excellent summary. Yes, slavery was part of the complicated mess, but even without it I think the war was coming.

Anonymous Frank Brady September 28, 2017 6:13 PM  

@ 75. Snidely Whiplash

No it's not, Snidely. When someone takes another's "nice things" that is by definition doing them harm.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 6:17 PM  

72. Sam the Man September 28, 2017 3:45 PM
So the supposed states rights advocates


why did the Northern states ratify the Constitution if they had NO INTENTION of adhering to the Laws and Principles expressed therein?

i already quoted the 9th and 10th to you. you know full well that EVERY State has unlimited and unbounded power EXCEPT as otherwise delimited in the Federal Constitution or their own individual organizing documents.

and the Fugitive Slave Clause still applies in all 50 States.

so now, you demand that the Northern States have free rein to disregard any part of the Constitution which they deem distasteful, at any time and for any reason. even though they swore oaths to uphold that document as Law.

while at the same time, demanding that the Southern States adhere to principles which have NEVER been part of the Constitution and which they NEVER ratified. you demand that they adhere to the changing whim of foreign powers ( the Northern States ) with no recourse to the Law which both sides had already ratified.

you truly are a sleazy, lying little piece of shit.

a true heir of Lincoln.



76. Napoleon 12pdr September 28, 2017 4:34 PM
1. Taxes. The seven Cotton States were paying nearly two-thirds of the entire Federal tax burden in 1860.



and these taxes were being collected on a population which ( counting slaves ) was only 1/2 that of the North.

and you wonder why the North was more economically viable than the South?

duh.



76. Napoleon 12pdr September 28, 2017 4:34 PM
John Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry



i don't know how many have noticed this yet, but Antifa is the John Brown of 2017.



78. James Dixon September 28, 2017 5:14 PM
It's entirely possible a divided America would have taken different sides in the great European wars of the 20th century



considering that the Lusitania was carrying munitions ( almost certainly with Wilson's approval, making the President a war criminal, as well as campaigning for re-election under false pretenses ), not having the full weight of US forces on Germany's neck at the end of WW1 cannot be seen as anything other than a good thing.

without the rape of Germany at the Paris Accords, it's unlikely that Hitler would have risen to power.

in effect, it would have "killed baby Hitler".

and slavery would have ended by 1900 anyways.

Anonymous Sam the Man September 28, 2017 6:20 PM  

# 76

Your post is a classic example of the cloud of dust thrown up to obscure the reality of how slavery was the core of the issue.

Point 1 is almost certainly wrong. It is used by defenders of the noble south legend, but strangely I can find no attribution to the 2/3 payment after 1830 on the relative share of tariff dues paid, a lot changed in 30 years. Tariffs had been lowered in 1845 and 1857, the northern percentage of population had climbed much faster than the southern.

In 1860 the population of the US was 31.2 million of which 3.95 million were slaves. The union states had around 22 million free citizens, the south around 5.5 million. so you can use the rough estimate of 4 to 1, north to south:

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

Now if the south paid 2/3rds of the tariffs in 1860, as some assert, if we ignore the land sales which were almost all in free territory (homesteading acts) we are left with the 1857 tariffs. For the south to pay 2/3 of the revenue, that would mean every southerner was utilizing imported taxed good at 7.67 times the rate of Union folks. Not likely given the demographic of the south, where 1/2 of the population was inland farmers with little to no use of imported products. Using 30 year old assertions in congressional debates of 1830 is not an exactly intellectually honest defense of the south in 1860.

If it was such a significant issue, as you state(you did put it at # 1), why is it missing for the articles of succession. I just checked and South Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Mississippi, none of those states made an issue of it, all they mentioned was the federal threat to slavery. considering those states percentage of slaves: 57% (SC), 55% Miss, 31 % VA, 30 % TX, one can see why that was of concern to them.

Only Georgia mentions the tariffs as an issue, but not as a cause of the succession: they complain the south agreed to high tariffs for assurance that slavery was sacrosanct and that the union was no longer living by that deal. Implicit is they were willing to pay tariffs if slavery was left alone, but that the north was a threat to slavery: As Georgia had 44% of their population as slaves, it was an issue of some concern to the signers of the declaration of succession.

By the way the south immediately set up its own tariff system, if it was so objectionable why did they do that in the first confederate congress of 1861?

The 1860 date is also interesting as it points out the relative percentages of families that owned slaves in these states. Not what southern apologists generally admit to. Why is that, when the 1860 data is self reported and accurate. Hmmm.....

As the post is getting long I will leave it at that. Go read the articles of succession and then come back. Your post war southern post-facto justifications of their actions are specious and always were, but as victors most northerners did not make an issue of it....which was the point of ESR

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 28, 2017 6:20 PM  

People here are talking about their murederous anger at those stealing and destroying their heritage,a nd all you can come up sperging with the NAP.
How does the NAP address this issue?
By trying to destroy Southern Heritage, what "harm" is being done? I'll bet $20 you can't identify one.
When people are ready to kill, on both sides of the issue, you can only think in terms of your pseudo-dialectical dogma and ideological fetish. The NAP is not even true. It's a blatant attempt to pretend moral superiority on the part of people who don't even believe in morality.
Your ideology is false, inhuman, and useless, but you're proud to death of it and want to impose it in every debate, especially those in which it cannot apply.

This is why Libertarians can't have nice things. Like Liberty.

Anonymous Sam the Man September 28, 2017 6:25 PM  

81

If you are not able to debate the intellectual aspect of this issue without resorting to insult all I can say is you would be at home with the liberals you hate so, they also resort to individual attacks on character when they cannot face an abstract argument.

Ask yourself this: if you are in the right, why resort to that. Because you cannot respond to that argument in a measured way, and so have to attack the person presenting that argument. That way you can disregard the message without considering the rights or wrongs of it.

Something to ponder.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 6:30 PM  

76. Napoleon 12pdr September 28, 2017 4:34 PM
The Tobacco Belt (VA, NC, and the states to their West) would not have liked the direction the Cotton States wanted to go.



curious. why not?

as i understand, the tobacco farming of the day was nearly as heavily dependent on slave labor as the cotton harvest was.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 28, 2017 6:32 PM  

84. Sam the Man September 28, 2017 6:25 PM
Because you cannot respond to that argument in a measured way



i already responded in a measured way.

your response was to cast aspersions of hypocrisy at your opponents because you could not respond in a "measured way".

therefore, you are damned by the words of your own mouth.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 28, 2017 6:35 PM  

bob kek mando
Antifa is the John Brown of 2017

Search "John Brown Gun Club". See what you get back.

Blogger JACIII September 28, 2017 6:58 PM  

He is imagining a polite fiction that never existed. The polite fiction is the north realizing sometime later: "Boy did we ever fuck up." As all the dire predictions of Southerners to hasty emancipation came to pass in northern cities.

Suck it yankee scum. You deserve it - Detroit, DC, Chicago, East St. Louis - the list goes on.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf September 28, 2017 7:41 PM  

RE:
"IF
they are the new Cultural Supremacy
THEN
tearing down the statues is nothing but the expression of their Social Dominance."

--oOo--
Sorry to interject, but according to the rules of propositional logic, this syllogism has not been completed with a second premise and therefor there is no conclusion.

Only this part has been completed.
P1: IF A ---> B
P2: ???
Conclusion: ????

If we argue "A" then yes "B" (MP). But, what if we argue "not B"? Then the conclusion is "not A" (MT). (also, does "B" have some circular reasoning in it?)

Anyway, it just struck me that you might be writing out a syllogism using sentential/propositional logic. I find that, itself, interesting. I wish my deductive analysis skills weren't so poor, I'd try to figure this out a bit better. I really need to get on that.
Sorry :/

Blogger papabear September 28, 2017 7:44 PM  

#23 "And I have several distant relatives who are graduates of The Citadel, and frequently heard references to USMA at West Point as The Citadel of the North.

It's been almost 50 years, and I'll bet if I went back and visited the relatives there today- nothing will have changed."

You should ask your relatives what they think of the convergence of the Citadel.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 28, 2017 8:18 PM  

@76 Napoleon 12pdr

I think there's a connected 5th & 6th issue, as well.

5) The SCOTUS had, via Marbury vs Madison (1803), seized final authority in what is "Constitutional". This made every time they failed heightened because there was no redress without passing an Amendment. If the issue at hand wasn't cut & dry for the populace, SCOTUS always wins those fights.

The exceptions to SCOTUS always winning would be Pres. Jackson and the 16th Amendment.

6) Because of this reality, the Abolition Movement had been engaged in Lawfare against the Cotton States for around 50 years before the breakout of the War. This is what created much of the "Us vs Them" dynamic.

It should be noted that the Abolitionists lost in pretty much every case the entire way up, which only made the situation worse, as there was no "deconfliction" strategy available. That's the problem with SCOTUS having final say: it ties groups together as a "side" and pits that side against the other.

There was likely always going to be a Civil War, of some form, even if slavery was abolished in 1789, though in that timeline, it's probably everyone ganging up on VA + New England. There was already too much non-English immigration with fairly different takes on the way things should be done. The USA has acted as a "federated Empire" since the first states beyond the 13 colonies were added.

USA-North & CSA wouldn't have been able to maintain themselves. Neither was likely viable at the size they would have been. They either needed to be split up smaller or get bigger. Someone was going to take to get "bigger".

Anonymous Looking Glass September 28, 2017 8:36 PM  

@78 James Dixon

"Divided America" probably sees something akin to one of the Chinese 3 Kingdom Periods or something similar before it gets fought out again. One of the many sides would have gotten involved with one of the European Powers during the late 1800s. Plus, someone would have thought to expand their empire there. (Russia, maybe?)

Anonymous Avalanche September 28, 2017 9:44 PM  

@23 It's been almost 50 years, and I'll bet if I went back and visited the relatives there today- nothing will have changed.

Why would it -- why should it?

Anonymous Avalanche September 28, 2017 10:08 PM  

@70 " I believe individual liberty to be the ultimate human right and that no authority on earth has a moral right to restrict that liberty except to prevent genuine harm to others."

And we should care about or take as some sort of .... what, shared principle? ... that YOU believe something? Who are you and why should anyone CARE that you think something about slavery? Any bona fides? Ever been a slave? Ever owned a slave?

Every man is an island? Every man has an "ultimate human right" only if he LIVES on a island, all by himself! Otherwise, there are other people who must be taken into consideration!

Lots and lots of words in your claim that need lots and lots of definition and restriction... what's moral? what's genuine? You just throwing out buzzwords? Cause it ain't workin'!

Anonymous Avalanche September 28, 2017 10:10 PM  

@71 "I can't speak for Jack Ward, but I stand with the CSA and John Wilkes Booth was a war hero. If he had only acted sooner."

BRAVO Rabbi B!

Blogger DonReynolds September 28, 2017 10:11 PM  

He has only deceived himself. The statues and plaques were not some mythology about a romantic Lost Cause.

During the 12 years of military occupation and rule of the South after the Civil War, Southerners were not allowed to mark the graves of the dead Confederates. That is correct. They were not permitted to put grave stones and markers on the graves of Confederate soldiers. When that prohibition was lifted many years later, it was difficult to recall just who was buried where. Sometimes that was possible and they were marked with stone engravings but often it was not. The Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of Confederate Veterans erected monuments, statues, and memorials on behalf of those who were buried without proper marking. These were family members and their lost graves adds to the bitter legacy of the war. These monuments to the Southern people is much like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

At my grandfather's church in Tennessee, there are at least twenty graves of Confederate soldiers in the churchyard, all on the same row, with no marker or stone. No one can recall which is buried where, except that they were local family members.

But the real mythology is the last word he uses in the article ... "reconciliation"....which is only used once in the entire article. There was a genuine effort to reconcile North and South in the century after the civil war. Southerners were forced at bayonet point back into the Federal Union and so the Yankee had to pretend that Southerners were fellow countrymen....maybe even fellow Americans. The United States was quick to appreciate having Southerners serving in foreign wars and to get that, they had to at least pretend that men in the South were not their enemy. Lately, it seems, the Yankee is no longer interested in reconciliation and would like it just fine if we would just die off....or be replaced by Mexicans.

Vox is entirely correct. The South is not interested in destroying the United States. (They never were.) But they will be glad when the Federal Union goes belly up and we can claim our own independence again.

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly September 28, 2017 10:13 PM  

@62. Was always taught that Southerners fought for states rights, Yankees for abolition, and Midwesterners for preserving the Union.

Simple, sure. But it captures the Midwestern mindset pretty well even today. Fight to keep things the way they are and punish those that cause a stir.

That's why the Midwest will be happy friends with the South in a couple decades. Not one body, but agreeable pals. We see the coasts are rocking the boat this time. That makes us angry.

Anonymous Avalanche September 28, 2017 10:14 PM  

@73 "There are many others which are devastating to the Republican Party's Church of Lincoln's fictional accounts."

Oh! You mean the negro rioter who defaced and destroyed that statue of Lincoln was actually a historian!? (I suppose, I wouldn't actually be surprised if it turned out to be a history PROFESSOR!!)

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly September 28, 2017 10:16 PM  

Don't get me wrong, looking back, it was a dumb choice. But such is the mind of the Midwestern man. We'll get her right this time. Leave us alone and let us farm and do heavy industry damn it.

Blogger DonReynolds September 28, 2017 10:43 PM  

@76 Napoleon 12pdr
"3. Free soil. The Northwest Ordnance divided the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi relatively equally between small family farms and plantation agribusiness."

You leave out an important detail. The Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery north of the Ohio River. For the first time, an entire region of the frontier was reserved for Free states, which meant that other parts of the frontier could fairly be reserved as Slave-Owning states (again moving Westward) and the Louisiana Purchase created exactly that problem, which led to the Missouri Compromise. How to divide up the frontier between Slave-owning and Free? None of which actually caused the civil war.

What caused the civil war in this regard was the determination of Northern politicians to NOT keep their end of the bargain. The Missouri Compromise was intended to settle the issue of slave-owning states on the frontier and free states on the frontier. The line between the two was supposed to extend to the Pacific Ocean, but Yankee violence and terror was used to end the compromise, with what we know as Bleeding Kansas. AND the fact that California was admitted as a Free state, contrary to the Missouri Compromise (and the other compromises that followed).

The compromises were intended to avoid civil war....and they would have....had the Yankee actually kept his end of the bargain.

Blogger Frank Brady September 28, 2017 11:32 PM  

@ 94. Avalanche wrote: "And we should care about or take as some sort of .... what, shared principle? ... that YOU believe something? Who are you and why should anyone CARE that you think something about slavery? ... Every man has an "ultimate human right" only if he LIVES on a island, all by himself! Otherwise, there are other people who must be taken into consideration!"

Fascinating. So you believe that the rights of people who are being enslaved need NOT be taken into consideration? It is exactly the need to take those people into consideration that makes enslaving them evil.

Blogger Akulkis September 28, 2017 11:37 PM  

...to create a more perfect union...

Anonymous Mr. Rational September 28, 2017 11:48 PM  

Sam the Man wrote:Go read the articles of succession of the several states that left the union. They were fighting for the right to own "niggers", their particular institution.
Given the problems we've had as a consequence of considering them humans instead of property, I'm giving the South a pass on that one.  This does not mean I want to own any.  I'd rather they were back in Africa.  At a cost of over $10k/capita/yr and 37 million of them, that's $1 trillion in a bit over 2.5 years.  Let Africa deal with its own.

dc.sunsets wrote:Such morons probably think, had the South won, that blacks would still be chained in Alabama. (facedesk.)
What part of obsolete farm equipment do you not understand?

Blogger DonReynolds September 29, 2017 12:12 AM  

@103 Mr. Rational
"Let Africa deal with its own."
.
There are any number of practical ways to accomplish the same end result. Even when the choices are narrowed to humane and fair at the same time.

The problem is in two parts....
A) There is no Afrikan country who wants them returned. None of them look upon American Negroes as some sort of lost cousins.
B) Very few American Negroes travel internationally, except as part of the US military. Partly, this is because they do not wish to and partly because it is an expense they cannot put on their EBT card.

Of course, American dollar bills make many things possible, like a trip to the moon and paying them to leave might actually be a practical solution to both A) and B) problems.

If they are bringing money with them, they might be welcome everywhere.... including Afrika. If they have money, they can go wherever they like.

We can make it simple and do it in a year. Those who elect to leave the USA the first month, get 100 percent of the payout. Those who leave the second month, get 11/12th of the payout (91.7%). etc...etc....And those who choose to leave the 12th month only get 1/12th of the payout (8.3%). Leave whenever you like, but after the 12th month, they get nothing. Go wherever you like...just don't come back.

Anonymous Luke September 29, 2017 3:07 AM  

1) To be consistent, anyone that claims that there is no right of secession by U.S. states, no matter what, should also unshakeably hold the position that no wife has the right to separate from (let alone divorce) a husband, no matter how ill-treated she is.

2) Yes, slavery of blacks (and Indians) was evil. Letting either be here now, legally equal, is worse. Both should have been expelled from U.S. territory.

3) NB Forrest was a master of maneuver warfare as well, superior to TJ Jackson. Had NBF been in command at Forts Henry and Donelson, and supreme Confederate military commander outside of VA/NC/SC thereafter, with a free hand, I believe the North would have sued for peace. Imagine the course of the war with Bragg, Pemberton, and Hood never holding commands above a division. Ah, if only...

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 29, 2017 4:26 AM  

87. A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 28, 2017 6:35 PM
Search "John Brown Gun Club". See what you get back.



damn. anybody in the Phoenix area ( Razorfist? ) needs to keep an eye on those boys. somebody over there is a LOT smarter than your run of the mill Antifa Nazi puncher.

i've been aware of this principle since i figured out that "Conservative" isn't intrinsically Right Wing however many years ago. obviously, i didn't affix John Brown to Antifa until this year but that's because this latest iteration of Leftist terror groups didn't exist until this presidential cycle and i wasn't really thinking about them in a historical context. i probably put the two together about 6 months ago.

if they're bright enough to have realized that they are the ideological heirs of John Brown AND they are weapons training, there's a good chance they could actually try to emulate him.

and that means a shooting war in the street.


89. Meng Greenleaf September 28, 2017 7:41 PM
and therefor there is no conclusion.



are you actually trying to convince me that IF-THEN statements don't exist? but you're supposed to know what a syllogism is? O.o

gotta be a troll job.



100. DonReynolds September 28, 2017 10:43 PM
had the Yankee actually kept his end of the bargain.



Yankees gonna Yankee. and, except for the magic dirt of Longview, i pretty much am one.

by 1860, the Yankees had been flagrantly violating their oath to abide by the Constitution for 70 years. why should anyone believe they would keep their word with regard to any lesser legislation in the intervening years?



101. Frank Brady September 28, 2017 11:32 PM
So you believe that the rights of people who are being enslaved need NOT be taken into consideration?



slaves have Rights. just not the same ones as Free Men, rather, almost the same treatment as Indentured Servants. which, by the by, is how most White people came to the colonies. and, of course, neither Slaves nor Indentured Servants possess any Privileges.

"The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350."

you notice how you're going, "RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"?

that's the same thing the Radical and Progressive Republicans were doing.

you didn't give a fuck about "Slave Rights" when the Constitution was ratified in 1789, you don't get to retroactively and arbitrarily change Law by edict in 1800 or 1850 or 2050. that's the very definition of Tyranny.

except, you did. and you enforced your Tyranny at gunpoint. so now we have no defense against the Supreme Court legislating from the bench.




104. DonReynolds September 29, 2017 12:12 AM
Go wherever you like...just don't come back.



or stay.

and forever forfeit any claim to your "40 acres and a mule" and all preferential treatment.

you want to be an American citizen like the Honkies? you gots to be Equal Before The Law.

Blogger Thucydides September 29, 2017 6:43 AM  

A more positive form of counter attack might be to cast replicas of the statutes in concrete or even Plaster of Paris and start erecting them all over the place. SJW's will have a hard time dealing with hundreds of Stonewall Jacksons, Robert E Lee's and "Pete" Longstreets staring at them from hundreds of parks, street corners and Municipal parking lots.

Might make a fun "arts and crafts" project...

Anonymous Mr. Rational September 29, 2017 1:26 PM  

@104 I think even Blacks can do the math on that; whatever we could pay them would cost more than what we're spending now.  We could probably exile our felons and not too many more.  That would reduce recidivism but the criminal pipeline and failure factories would still be operational.

Given that the average Black costs about $10,000 per year, the neater solution might be to pay Black women (actually all women who fall below a threshold for failure, which would include 95% of the ghetto) that much as a lump sum to be sterilized, plus a monthly stipend thereafter.  Reducing the contribution of new hood rats from even 2 to 0 gets rid of the problem fairly rapidly as these things go.  Imagine Head Start disappearing in 5 years!

Of course, you'd also have to stop them from getting pregnant as dependent teens.  Conditioning EBT recharge on getting the scheduled Depo-Provera shot would take care of that.

Anonymous Mr. Rational September 29, 2017 1:30 PM  

@108 assumes that straight explusion isn't on the table, of course.

Blogger S1AL September 29, 2017 4:32 PM  

I wish the Southerners commenting here actually know their own history.

You shot first.

There were waves of secession, of which at least one was resolved on the issue of slavery.

James Madison, primary Framer and a Southerner, asserted that the only valid method of unilateral secession was Revolution.

Until you come to terms with those three issues, you can't reasonably complain that the North is misrepresenting anything.

Blogger allyn71 September 30, 2017 2:47 AM  

Deo Vindice

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts