The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
July 4th and What It Really Means for Us
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_665700475

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We celebrate July 4 each year as the anniversary of America’s declaration of independence from Great Britain. For many Americans, the day has become little more than another holiday, a day off from work, and a time to barbecue with family and friends.

The Declaration of Independence and the day we set aside to commemorate it should make us reflect on the sacrifices of the men who signed it. Representatives from thirteen colonies came together to take a momentous step that they knew might land them on the scaffold or suspended by the hangman’s noose. They were protesting that their traditional rights as Englishmen had been violated, and that those violations had forced them into a supreme act of rebellion.

For many Americans the Declaration of Independence is a fundamental text that tells the world who we are as a people. It is a distillation of American belief and purpose. Pundits and commentators, left and right, never cease reminding us that America is a new nation, “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Almost as important as a symbol of American belief is Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It is not incorrect to see a link between these two documents, as Lincoln intentionally placed his short peroration in the context of a particular reading of the Declaration.

Lincoln bases his concept of the creation of the American nation in philosophical principles he sees enunciated in 1776, and in particular on an emphasis on the idea of “equality.” The problem is that this interpretation, which forms the philosophical base of both the dominant “movement conservatism” today – neoconservatism – and the neo-Marxist multicultural Left, is basically false.

Lincoln’s opens his address, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth …” There is a critical problem with this assertion. It was not the Declaration that “created” the new nation; the Declaration was a statement of thirteen colonies, announcing their respective independence from the mother country, binding themselves together in a military and political alliance. It was the Constitution, drafted eleven years later (1787), after the successful conclusion of the War for Independence, that established a new nation. And, as any number of historians and scholars have pointed out, the American Framers never intended to cobble together a nation based on the proposition that “all men are created equal.”

A brief survey of the writings of such distinguished historians and researchers as Barry Alan Shain, Forrest McDonald, M. E. Bradford, George W. Carey, and more recently Kirkpatrick Sale, plus a detailed reading of the commentaries and writings of those men who established the nation, give the lie to the claim (See for example, Elliott’s Debates, a compilation of the debates over the new Constitution).

The Framers of the Constitution were horrified by “egalitarianism” and “democracy,” and they made it clear that what they were establishing was a stratified republic, in which most of the “rights” were left to the respective states (with their own particular arrangements), and in which serious restrictions and limitations on voting and participation in government were considered fundamental. Indeed, several states also had religious tests, and others had established churches, none of which were directly touched by the First Amendment, added to insure that a national religious establishment would not be effected. A quick review of The Federalist Papers confirms this thinking; and a survey of the correspondence and the debates over the Constitution add support to this anti-egalitarianism.

Obviously, then, Lincoln could not found his “new nation” in the U. S. Constitution; it was too aristocratic and decentralized, with non-enumerated powers maintained by the states, including the implicit right to secede. Indeed, slavery was explicitly sanctioned, even if most of the Framers believed that as an institution it would die a natural death, if left on its own. Lincoln thus went back to the Declaration of Independence and invested in it a meaning that supported his statist and wartime intentions. But even then, he verbally abused the language of the Declaration, interpreting the words in a form that its Signers never intended.

Although those authors employed the phrase “all men are created equal,” and certainly that is why Lincoln made direct reference to it, a careful analysis of the Declaration does not confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in those few words. Contextually, the authors at Philadelphia were asserting their historic — and equal — rights as Englishmen before the Crown, which had, they believed, been violated and usurped by the British government, and it was to parliament that the Declaration was primarily directed.

The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, “created equal” to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of “equality.”

Rather, from a traditionally-Christian viewpoint, each of us is born into this world with different levels of intelligence, in different areas of expertise; physically, some are stronger or heavier, others are slight and smaller; some learn foreign languages and write beautiful prose; others become fantastic athletes or scientists. Social customs and traditions, property holding, and individual initiative — each of these factors further discriminate as we continue in life.

None of this means that we are any less or more valued in the judgment of God, Who judges us based on our own, very unique capabilities. God measures us by ourselves, by our own maximum possibilities and potential, not by those of anyone else — that is, whether we use our own, individual talents to the very fullest (recall the Parable of the Talents in the Gospel of St. Matthew).

The Founders understood this, as their writings and speeches clearly indicate. Lincoln’s “new nation” would have certainly struck them as radical and revolutionary, a veritable “heresy.” Even more disturbing for them would be the specter of modern-day neoconservatives — that is, those who dominant the conservative movement and claim to rigorously defend the Constitutional republic against the abuses of the Marxist multiculturalist left — enshrining Lincoln’s address as a basic symbol of American political and social order.

They would have understood the radicalism implicit in such a pronouncement; they would have seen Lincoln’s interpretation as a contradiction of the “First Founding” of 1787 and a revolutionary denial of its intentions; and they would have understood in Lincoln’s language the content of a Christian and millenialist heresy, heralding a transformed nation where the Federal government would become the father and mother and absolute master of us all.

Thus, as we commemorate the declaring of American independence 242 years ago, we should lament the mythology about it created in 1863, and recall an older generation of 1787, a generation of noble men who comprehended fully well that a country based on egalitarianism is a nation where true liberties are imperiled.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 4th of July, Constitutional Theory 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dr. Doom says:

    There is no America. Not anymore. Not my fault. I never went along with this or agreed with it. The US Constitution is fit ONLY for a moral and productive people. Letting blacks be citizens was obviously a mistake. These savages CANNOT “peacefully coexist” with each other or anything else. They live better here than ANYWHERE in History, but even as multimillionaire celebrities they still cry about “oppression”. That cheap crack by Barry Soetoro about how “You didn’t build that.” shows what its about. ENVY. Its that THEY didn’t build it THAT MATTERS.
    There are NO multiracial nations. Nation and race are inseparable. Mestizos generally DESPISE blacks, but Puerto Ricans don’t. Why? Blood. They mixed with blacks and have family that is black. Mixing with blacks makes your children dumb and criminal. Lowest common denominator.
    The Left ADMITS the White Genocide. Not openly of course. They cry about “endangered owls” losing natural habitat and living space. “They’ll end up extinct!”, they say. When blacks decry that Whites are “gentrifying” “their” neighborhoods, the media and Left backs them up. So dishonest. Never trust the DISHONEST. NEVER take their word.

  2. Dan Hayes says:

    A very succinct refutation of the pernicious ideas of Harry Jaffa & Co.

    I was intuitively suspicious of Jaffa’s ideas and disciples when years ago I first became acquainted with them in the National Review. These suspicions proved correct in reading this essay.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  3. Thanks to Dr. Cathey for this excellent essay, touching on the same issues as Mel Bradford’s great rebuttal of Jaffa, “The Heresy of Equality.”

  4. “All men are created equal” is a simply a rhetorical argument against the “divine right of kings” used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government, where men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a “fasces” to form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no standing army.

    Which is why there are fascist symbols throughout the US government, including in the US Senate. Watch CSPAN if you don’t believe me. See those fasces?

    And do study what the Founders said more. Like the author of the term “all men are created equal.” He wrote in the same document:

    “…the merciless Indian Savages…” – Declaration of Independence

    Does that sound like he thought whites and Injuns were equal? Nope.

    He also wrote:

    “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography)

    Does that sound like he thought blacks and whites were equal? Nope.

    So stop spouting false Leftist propaganda about what the term “all men are created equal” means. All it does is make you sound extremely uninformed.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    , @Crawfurdmuir
  5. I was a guest with USA friends on the 4th of July.
    They knew they were celebrating something against the British, but that was it.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  6. @Dr. Doom

    Yes, there is still an America, living and breathing, somewhat piled-on by Fake Americans at the moment. Don’t give up on the Comeback Kid. You do not want to be as bitter and wrong as the defeatist Never Trumper” Cuckservatives. The Fake Americans will have to go back. Just like the Fake Europeans are already going back. Viktor Orban called Italy’s decision to turn away rescue ship a “great moment.” And the pendulum is just beginning to swing. The trend is your friend. Why don’t you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

    • Replies: @anon
  7. Biff says:

    Equal rights will only open you up to abuse, and the abusers know it.

  8. @Dan Hayes

    Thank you for mentioning Jaffa. I had to look him up. Only Wikipedia so far but I found something of interest that you might like to comment on. Mention is made of Lincoln rejecting the Douglas arguments for states’s rights on the ground that (majoritarian) democracy should not be allowed to enslave anyone. Is it possible to say that America’s original sin of slavery ensured that there was an insoluble problem left behind by the original constitution makers plus the extension of the franchise to all adult white males?

    • Replies: @Jake
  9. Anon[294] • Disclaimer says:

    “..a careful analysis of the Declaration does not confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in those few words. Contextually, the authors at Philadelphia were asserting their historic — and equal — rights as Englishmen before the Crown, which had, they believed, been violated and usurped by the British government,..”

    Thank you Mr Cathey. As a non American, I was always puzzled by the obvious falsehood of the statement “all men created equal” —particularly in a nation that still legalized slacery— and how it could still be repeated ad nauseaum. Interesting, how one victorious man and one victorious teaching can have such profound consequences for the way people live and think generations later.

    ‘All men are created equal’ is almost the opposite of that other common mistake, ‘no pity for the weak’. Yet both lead to oppressive regimes. A true anthropology will lead to different healthy political systems. A twisted one, always to repressive institutions.

  10. Jake says:

    Cathey’s concluding sentence tells the truth that if acted upon would mean that people have the light go on and understand that any ‘second founding’ replaces the actual founding, which means in this context that what Mr. Lincoln and his Republican Party did was a replacement of what had been done from 1776 through the adoption of the Constitution and the Washington Presidency.

    If American people understand that, they must necessarily lose their faith in DC and in American imperialism. And that would mean an end to Yank WASP ‘invade the world/invite the world’ policies.

  11. Jake says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Original sin of slavery’ is at best a statement of Christian heresy used by the ignorant.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  12. @jilles dykstra

    Tell them 13 of the operators of the North American British franchise decided they no longer wanted to pay their franchise fees. That will get their dander up enough to recall the history beaten into them in the indoctrination camps we call public schools in the US.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  13. The roadmap to the 2018 RACE WAR in America:

    Take the intervention in the Korean War Highway….

    to the integrated US Military turnpike…..

    get off onto the 1964 Civil Rights Act Interstate….

    ..then make a left on the 1965 Nonwhite Legal Immigrant Increase Act….

    ..go sight seeing at the nonwhite majority Democratic Party National Park…..have a look at cage that houses the White Republican Party Voting Bloc…feed them strips of the US C0nstitution and Bill of Rights at feeding time….

  14. I’ll read and comment, but first, F*CK THE 4TH OF JULY!

    It’s INDEPENDENCE DAY. The “4th” means nothing. It’s a number. It’s like “Cinco de Mayo” – an intentionally meaningless excuse to get drunk.

    Yes, America was once proud to be INDEPENDENT. Shocking eh? We were proud to have kicked old George’s fruity ass back across the Atlantic. Screw those British faggots and all the other “foreign entanglements” Washington warned us against.

    Real men bled, spilled their guts in muddy or frozen ground, for our independence, not for the number 4.

    INDEPENDENCE DAY. MAGA.

  15. The passage of the 1965 Nonwhite Legal Immigrant Increase Act

    The fate of the Native Born White American Working Class…..

    In the hands of Chinese “American” Federal Judges….and Hindu “American” Federal Judges…

    Appointed by Barack Obama…and Hindu-Jamaican POTUS Kamala Harris…

    Who the F ordered this?

    • Replies: @Moi
  16. @Jake

    No I wasn’t writing for a pure medievalist Christian like you Jake, just using a convenient metaphorical shorthand that most would understand and, even in the South, probably not object to as a reference to something the United States would have been better without and which led to long lasting evils.

    OT but interesting on slavery was the part of a documentary on North Aftican/Arab/Muslim slave trading which told me two things I didn’t know and are probably true. One is that the death rate crossing the desert was higher than on the Middle Passage. The other that there was less violence than might be thought because there were – AND ARE!! – large numbers of slave families who have just internalized their slave status as their destiny.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  17. pyrrhus says:
    @Echoes of History

    The intention of the phrase was equal in the eyes of God. Neither the founders nor Lincoln thought that blacks were equal to whites. Lincoln wanted to send them all back to Africa, and said so in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

  18. @pyrrhus

    But for John Wilkes Booth, what would the USA be today?

  19. @Echoes of History

    “All men are created equal” is a simply a rhetorical argument against the “divine right of kings” used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government, where men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a “fasces” to form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no standing army.

    My take is a little different, but not incompatible with yours.

    The Declaration’s assertion is “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

    So, to begin with, this is not a claim that all men are created equal in ability or character. The Founders recognized that they were not, and that ordinary social and economic inequalities, due to innate differences in ability or character, were natural, normal, and inevitable. The Declaration is first and foremost a legal document. It claims equality of rights – a legal claim, not a sociological, anthropological, or psychological one. Moreover, the rights are unalienable – that is, they cannot be alienated – sold, bartered, or given away – because someone entitled to them shall have moved from old England to the New World.

    The grievance of the colonists was that taxes – the stamp tax, the tea tax, etc. – had been imposed upon them by the parliament at Westminster, an assembly in which they were not represented. Hence the slogan, “no taxation without representation.” It was a principle based in the main non-religious issue of the English civil war (1642-1649). Charles I had attempted to levy “ship money” by royal prerogative, without the consent of Parliament. Unlike previous levies, which had been confined to coastal towns and were raised only in time of war, he did so in peacetime and extended the tax to inland areas. This provoked strong resistance; some local officials refused assistance to collection of the tax. The Petition of Right, written by Sir Edward Coke, complained:

    Your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.

    Extra-parliamentary taxation was effectively ended by the Long Parliament of 1640. After the “Glorious Revolution” of 1689, it was formally prohibited by the English Bill of Rights.

    All of this history was much more familiar to the Founders in 1776 than it is to Americans today. The point of the claim that “all men are created equal” was simply to argue that Englishmen, under English law, were equally entitled to representation in any assembly that levied taxes on them, whether they were resident in England or in its colonies.

    The argument for levying taxes on the colonies was that they were needed to pay for the defense of the colonies during what we call the French and Indian War, which was in fact just the North American theatre of what in Europe is known as the Seven Years’ War. That they may have been needed for this purpose was not in dispute. Englishmen in England were taxed to pay for the Seven Years’ War, but they were represented in the Parliament that levied the tax. Americans were not. From their point of view the taxes levied on them were as objectionable as ship money had been to the people of England in the time of Charles I.

    The Declaration is therefore a sort of American version of the Petition of Right. Jefferson was an admirer of Coke and undoubtedly saw the parallel. His high-flown language about equality was meant to make the case against George III on behalf of English subjects in North America in the same way that Coke’s Petition of Right made the case against Charles I on behalf of English subjects in England. The colonists’ objection was that English subjects, wheresoever domiciled within English jurisdiction, should have equal rights under English law.

    Jefferson never intended to proclaim the equality of negro slaves or “Indian savages” with free whites. Jefferson’s observations in his Notes on the State of Virginia make quite clear that he did not believe them to be equals with whites in ability or character. The Indians he regards as primitives, having some admirable and some frightful qualities, but above all, as formidable enemies. He despairs of the intelligence of blacks; he faults black slavery because it brings out lamentable tendencies of laziness and petty tyranny among whites. These remarks are striking for their candor and have the ring of truth even today.

  20. Russ says:

    I appreciate Mr. Cathey’s work here. On Tuesday the 3rd, one of the many overemployed sycophants in the executive ranks of the corporation which employs me deemed it necessary to bulk-email all of us peons with the message of how vital diversity and inclusion are to proper celebration of the 4th. Right — because reserving mid-January through February for the blacks, March for women or Hispanics (I forget which), and June for the tutti-fruttis isn’t nearly enough …

  21. Moi says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    I think the idea is to all but disappear whitey from America.

  22. @pyrrhus

    Jefferson’s phrase is not religious but political in nature. Just read Locke and the Declaration of Independence, in parallel, as they are presented here:

    “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal…This equality of men by nature…an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world…” -John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter II, sections 4-5, 1690

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” -U.S Declaration of Independence, 1776

    http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/locke%20decindep.htm

    And you are correct that the Lincoln wanted to ship the Blacks back to Liberia, because he knew we’d never get along. “My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land…We cannot, then, make them equals.” (Lincoln, 1854) Better late reparations than never, right? Reparation means to repair, to restore. Restore back from whence they came. Certainly that is better than the RaHoWa alternative:

    “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia)

    Reparation back to Africa preserves racial diversity. Who doesn’t want more diversity?

  23. @The Alarmist

    Probably no better and no worse than now. Lincoln had plans to be far more moderate towards the defeated South than the Radical Republicans in Congress, who were effectively his enemies. In reality, limited by precedent to two terms, Lincoln’s presidency after the fall of Confederate forces would have in many ways resembled that of Andrew Johnson: a largely conciliatory administration fighting against fiercer Northern elements in Congress. I think that the early period of Reconstruction would have been little different if under Lincoln instead of Johnson. Congress was much more powerful in those days, and Congress was out for what it considered a hard justice.

    Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Lincoln’s temporary expansion of the government during the war would have been permanent. For example: remember that much of the labor of prosecuting the conflict was done by the Northern states during the war anyway; almost all Union units were raised (and even armed) by the states, not the federal government.

    I, too, am suspicious of certain notions that the Declaration created a new nation based in total human equality. But Lincoln was not as idealistic or as foolish as this (otherwise good) piece would indicate; he never once espoused racial equality, and his historical argument against chattel slavery in the Cooper Union Address is nearly unimpeachable.

    Moreover, arguments that Lincoln is responsible for the evil American empire of today ignore 1) That the size of the federal government shrank dramatically after its boom during the period 1861-65, 2) That Lincoln opposed foreign interventions consistently as a congressman (the Mexican War) and as President, and 3) That it took decades and the introduction of tens of thousands of Jews for the central banking cartel to begin its takeover in 1913.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  24. @Crawfurdmuir

    Jefferson’s observations in his Notes on the State of Virginia make quite clear that he did not believe them to be equals with whites in ability or character.

    Jefferson never did get to meet Thomas Sowell. But then Thomas Sowell was raised during a very brief period of about 100 or 80 years (roughly 1865-1964) where blacks got the chance to be truly educated without being corrupted by liberalism.

    That’s all they’ve ever had in this country. Only about 100 years of real human freedom to succeed or fail. Before 1865, they weren’t allowed to read at all in large parts of the country. After 1964, the new “Great Society” created a new culture of dumbing down.

    Perhaps you will find this interesting. These are some comments from an address Lincoln gave in August 1862 to a “committee of colored men” gathered to meet on the subject of American black colonization schemes. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5/1:812?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

    You here are freemen I suppose. Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

    It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated…

    …There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.

    Years subsequent, the liberals have “systematically oppressed” the black people with a climate of dependency, which reduces a man to nothing. Of course it’s a two-way street; blacks were only too willing to go along because enough of their leaders accepted the easy way out of welfare statism and cushy “organizer” jobs. Now they are weapons in the Democracy’s war of social engineering against tradition.

    Lincoln’s suggestion in this address is that the blacks should go somewhere where they can work for themselves. That’s the difference between him and those who view blacks as victimized and entitled.

  25. @Crawfurdmuir

    All correct. Thank you. You’ve done a great job, even better than mine, showing the Declaration’s famous phrase does not mean what the Democrats, and unfortunately Cathey, are making it to be.

    Another error Cathey makes is saying the Constitution established the United States. Not so. Fourteen Americans served as President of the Continental Congress under the Articles of the Confederation before the Constitution was written.

    By the United States, in Congress assembled, September 4th, 1782 : On the report of a grand committee, consisting of a member from each state, resolved, that one million two hundred thousand dollars be quotaed on the states, as absolutely and immediately necessary for payment of the interest of the public debt …

    https://www.loc.gov/item/90898072/

    Appears to be rather United-Statesey to me, even though pre-Constitutional. Nothing establishes the United States more than spending money! :)

  26. I think you’re giving the opponents of the argument too much credit for attention to logic and context.

    The opposition argument, stated or unstated, is that even grudging acknowledgement of the Founding Fathers and their work is to be discouraged because they were white men who didn’t immediately grant universal suffrage and socioeconomic parity.

    Everything they said and did is open for cherry-picking and redefinition FOR NOW because current generations are still being taught that they played some important part in the transformation from the primitive past to the utopian future.

    You can’t make historic heroes into villains overnight while there are still people who still find them legitimately inspiring. The passage of time tends to lessen the outrage of the playbook of controversy, corruption charges and sex scandals that opponents (and apolitical forces of profit, drama and spite) always use to bring down current political leaders. The main strategy right now is to get everybody poorly educated through college, so they can standardize a sloppy grasp of history and a proper contempt for anything valuable that The Man has done in the past.

    The transformation is still in the “they did some good things despite being horrible people” phase. Once the mainstream has fully internalized that line of thinking, the next step is to portray the Founding Fathers as ridiculous and evil (see the British and Roman Empires, or Christianity) and populate history with obscure or utterly fictional dissenters who were way ahead of their time (and conveniently sympathetic to the current one).

    I’d recommend watching the language of textbooks, if textbooks themselves were still relevant.

  27. @Crawfurdmuir

    My recollection is that the British made a peace offer in 1778 that would have included voting reresentation of the 13 colonies in the Parliament at Westminster. Had that offer been made in 1775 it likely would have settled the matter. America would have gained independence within the Commonwealth sometime in the 19th Century and cooler heads in Westminster and Whitehall might have ended slavery and headed off the American Civil War.

    • Replies: @bartok
  28. Mr. Cathey wrongly conflates the “nation” – as in “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own” (dictionary) – with one type of government for that nation (the system under the U.S. Constitution, introduced in 1787).

    The preamble of the Constitution itself implies that a nation is choosing to apply a new constitution; it does not say a new nation is being created. One was already extant!

    I did not invent the argument that there was a union, a nation, before 1787. Lincoln did not invent it either. John Jay argues in the second Federalist paper that there was a “union” in 1774!

    What happened in 1787 – or, if you prefer, on 3/4/1789 – is that the nation chose a new system of government. But the colonies and (later) states of America together existed as a “nation,” certainly, by that 4th day of July in 1776. Said nation then successfully fought a war that forced Great Britain, and other states, to legally recognize its government as a sovereign state.

    For a not-nation, America sure did a lot of things one associates with a nation. Like having a government that levied taxes, raising and fielding a “Continental army,” and engaging in trade and commerce with other nations. A bunch of misfits from Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other regions, all suffered and fought together during the brutal winter of ’76-’77 – sure seems “national” to me.

    Lincoln was well within sound history to say a “new nation was conceived” in 1776.

  29. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Echoes of History

    http://theduran.com/ https://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/ https://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/lindsey-graham-warns-u-s-withdrawal-from-syria-would-be-terrible-during-surprise-visit-to-manbij/

    Technology has biased the outcome in favor those who have used our governments to further their private interest,. yes the tide is changing, but the resources of those doing the changing may not be sufficient.. as the challengers are the global corporations, who are much stronger, and quite a bit more brutal than the nations.

  30. Them Guys says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Far less violence against slaves by slave owners due to when back then they paid from $300 to as high as $2200+ Per a single male slave….It was akin to todays farmers buying a John Deere Tractor that today costs from $40,000 to double or more that amount. It is accurate to multiply those slave era prices by a factor of at least 25 to 30 Times to get todays equal per slave cost. Plus constant feeding of and maintenance costs per slave.

    Therefore no sane cost wise slave owner in their right mind would Bull Whip every slave from 6-AM until about 9-PM, and then Gang Rape the female slaves after a daily bull whipping, and beat with fists and feet the male slaves until bed time around midnite. And do that 24/7/365, as we have constantly been told as truth via every tv msm, and documentary show, and Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson.

    Lies, Lies, Lies….and yet More slavery issue Lies.

    Yes of course one must consider there is always a few bad slave owners that are typical sadistic minded racists etc….But that’s not the norm nor an average by far.

    Ever drive past a country rural farm, and pull off side of road to watch while some delusional farmer guy spends his early morning beating his john deere costly tractor half to death, with a large heavy Sledge Hammer?….Nope, and you wont see that happen in a hundred years either. Due to so expensive of a tractor the farmer owner guy is likely to house and care for his new tractor better than his own kids and wife!

  31. Them Guys says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    But the 1913 jewish private banks didn’t just happen then in 1913….1913 was the Third era of usa private jewish banksters. A Main reason it took until 1913 for a new bank charter is due to us prez Andrew Jackson fought tooth and nail against jewish banksters and their renewed bank charter.

  32. @Dr. Doom

    Africans were in the US BEFORE it became a country. They were in the US before most Yankees came from Poland or Ireland or Italy.

    The US has always had Africans. This is not a recent development. The average US black would argue, not wrongly, that his family had been in America for 400 years longer than Trump or my family.

    Hispanics are not that new of arrivals either. I’d wager Cheech’s family was in California before Fred Trump’s parents conceived him in Germany.

    These groups reproduce loads faster than whites because they are Alpha as hell and I knew blacks in Detroit who fathered 8 children out-of-wedlock. The white Beta has two kids and invests all his energy and money in them. The average Detroit black simply has kids seasonally, like the Monsoon rains that drift though the tropics.

    Its hard for any tax system or legal framework set up for whites to cope with this much reproduction. Sweden is simply going to run out of money to pay for Muslims, because that is what happens in socialism with low IQ people who have a many children while the whites don’t.

  33. @Dr. Doom

    The Yankee Disclaimer

    The Northern US is not responsible for blacks. They hauled a load of Italians, Polish and Irish into the industrial base to pay them slave wages and the little Italian girl in the turn-of-the-century sweatshop is a sad photograph but nobody was running around kidnapping poor dagos and Polacks from Sicily and Warsaw.

    Of note, the Germans and Scandinavians came to do business or as tradesmen and Milwaukee and Minnesota never had ghettos or projects full of poor immigrants.

    As for the Chicano, that is because Spanish women did not want to come to America due to the macho sexist culture. So the Spanish soldiers and colonists all shafted the Red Indians and created the Mestizos. Nor did Latin America ever really solve its problem with Indians, whom the English just blew away.

    The US problems don’t come from Canada or Maine, they come from the South because the redneck’s English ancestors dragged the Africans into South Carolina and the Spanish screwed all the Indians.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @bartok
  34. Biff says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Milwaukee and Minnesota never had ghettos or projects full of poor immigrants.

    Milwaukee is thee most segregated city in the United States hands down. During the Civil Rights movement blacks were marching through white neighborhoods and across bridges in cities, and towns all over the country – not so in Milwaukee. They tried, but when they got to the first white neighborhood, which was Polish, they were met with hundreds of dudes armed with clubs, bats, and chains. They turned around and went home.
    Milwaukee does infact have ghettos.

  35. BIFF

    White in the South have a long and weirdly paternal relationship with blacks while Polish in Detroit or Milwaukee, for example, just indifferently let the blacks in the ghetto to their own devices. There was never that love-hate colonial thing going that Atlanta had.

    This is why a German-American queer serial killer can eat 17 blacks and it goes unnoticed. There is no shared idiom or mores like the blacks and the whites in the South.

    African-Americans sort of have some fondness for Italian-Americans or Jews on the East Coast. Blacks like marble, they are fond of Italian sociopath gangsters like Tony Soprano etc.

    But when you talk about blacks and Polish, Germans, Scandinavians of the Great Lake cities you are talking about alien and incompatible races.

    • Replies: @Biff
  36. Dr. Doom says:

    Who is this blind idiot god that sees no difference in men or races? Its not the God of Abraham that gave Moses the Ten Commandments, that’s for sure. Maybe you all worship Azatoth?

    BTW, God kind of HATES Babylon.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  37. bartok says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Of note, the Germans and Scandinavians came to do business or as tradesmen and Milwaukee and Minnesota never had ghettos or projects full of poor immigrants.

    Don’t let German immigrants off the hook. Some of them were leftists who lost the German revolution of 1848. As soon as they got here they allied with the most radical abolitionist groups and helped foment the Civil War, in which Whites slaughtered Whites in the name of hopeless Blacks.

    As usual, immigrants start out on the extreme left and it is a century-long process to Americanize them, if the Americanization works (not at all guaranteed). The exceptions that prove the rule are immigrants fleeing Communist regimes (Cubans & Vietnamese). These non-White, rock-ribbed Republicans have children and grandchildren who abandon the GOP and vote for White genocide (Democratic).

    • Troll: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Jeff Stryker
  38. bartok says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Had that offer been made in 1775 it likely would have settled the matter.

    Try Hutchinson’s Strictures if you believe the colonists’ grievances were anything but a leftist (Whig) power grab by Trustafarian John Hancock and Thug/Domestic Terrorist Samuel Adams, featuring the Otis family:

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1776-hutchinson-strictures-upon-the-declaration-of-independence

    h/t Moldbug. The American Revolution was a Whig proxy war against the Crown.

  39. Biff says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    This is why a German-American queer serial killer can eat 17 blacks and it goes unnoticed.

    Funny, in sick sort of way. I went back to Milwaukee in the early nineties, and the first thing my uncle did is take me on a drive over to have a look at Jeffery Dahlmer’s house. It was boarded up with 24 hour police guards, and it was right on the line between black and white. It was demolished a few years later – so much for the landmark that made your city famous.

    I get what you’re saying about the differences between the north and the south. My school years in Milwaukee were lily ass white along with my neighborhood, and it was highly intentional.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  40. Biff says:
    @bartok

    helped foment the Civil War, in which Whites slaughtered Whites in the name of hopeless Blacks.

    The myth that will never die. You’ve got to be a political third grader to think whites from the north are going to fight and die trying to improve the life of the black man.

    The only thing I can do for you is drop a hint as to what “war” is mostly/all about – the consolidation of money and power.

  41. @bartok

    Cuban Republicans are white.

  42. @Biff

    BIFF

    The German/Italian Problem

    A feral black thug whose IQ of 80 is buffed by “sizzling dem boulders with glass rose and Choirboy” is caught at 22 for his first or maybe second homicide. Teen Cholo with tattoos on their face are also caught.

    But a Tony Soprano or Jeff Dahmer has an IQ of 130-something in addition to having enough muscle mass to have been a champion tennis player in high school like Dahmer or high school football star like Soprano.

    So when white men like this are psychopaths or sex maniacs-fearless, remorseless, narcissistic-the impact on society is worse.

    I’d add that crack cocaine was part of the problem. People don’t remember just how “cracked out” black areas were in the late 80′s or early 90′s when Dahmer was on the loose.

  43. @Dr. Doom

    Who is this blind idiot god that sees no difference in men or races?

    The International Jewgod, Jesus, whom you worship.

    Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Acts 17:26 “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” (origin of the liberal creationist We All Bleed Red canard.)

    James 2:8 If you show favoritism, you sin.

    Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.

    Luke 24:47 Proclaimed in his name to all nations.

    And that’s the difference between the older Jew Testament and the newer Jew Testament: equalism and internationalism.

  44. You take a very Humanistic view of Declaration of Independence.i say ours, because as founders of any nation , they assumed their followers would continue in their footsteps. I cannot understand how or why you would think that as millinial go by this country would ignore the bravery and sacrifice. I think Lincoln under stood this.
    If mankind were created by the English Monarchs and Parlimant., I would give some credence to your argument.
    If Jesus Christ is tainted by sin. Then our whole Religious endeavors are invain, useless.
    If Almighty GOD created inferior beings , then still our Religion is useless.I don’t think you truly believe in the power of Almighty GOD.
    Almighty GOD created MAN as equals. In his Image.All men are Created equal.True , Sin has diluted man’s stature and ability.,BUT , GOD said If ye believe in me, all things are possible.
    I shutter when I think of your Communistic views.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.