The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 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
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "The South"
 All Comments / On "The South"
    Much is written about slavery and its aftermaths. A large part of this is frenetically modified history issuing from people both excited and poorly read, a comic-book version apparently intended to support agendas of the impenetrably adolescent Left. A few points: First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous, much worse in the Deep South than...
  • You could have saved time and just published the 13th paragraph, which pretty much nullifies any points you might have made previous to it or following it:

    “Seventh, Southerners believed that they knew the Negroes and that they could not function as equals of whites and thus would destroy society. Except for ardent abolitionists–perhaps for ardent abolitionists–so did Northerners, but by then these latter didn’t have many Negroes and never expected to. Today, a century and a half after the Civil War, the Southerners seem to have been right.”

    Us Northerners have, from time to time, suspected y’all felt this way, but I don’t recall ever having seen it put down quite so starkly in black and white. I guess those Northerners (as a member I’m going to be so bold as to assume there were a few) who didn’t susbscribe to that line of reasoning would have come round to your way of thinking sooner if they had only experienced the trials and tribulations of actually owning slaves? Perhaps getting to know gentlemen like Thurgood Marshall, James Baldwin, Sidney Poitier, Quincy Jones, etc., etc., etc. might have reshaped some of those Southern beliefs. Or maybe not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [A major oration, previously unpublished, by Prof. Paul Gottfried] Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues...
  • As an aside; I had a Basque Sociology Professor who left us with several gems; “By their Civilizations ye Shall Know them.”
    Yep. Yep. Yes indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carlton Meyer
    I've addressed this in my blog, part is reposted here, the rest is here, near the bottom of the long page. http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm

    The President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis, was a West Point graduate who led an American regiment into Mexico during the Mexican-American war. He was a U.S. Senator and a U.S. Secretary of War for four years. As Davis explained in his 1881 memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he believed that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union, but he never supported secession. Yet he was popular and accepted the Confederate Presidency because of a sense of duty, and immediately attempted to make peace by offering Lincoln compensation for abandoned federal property in the South. After Lincoln refused, the CSA realized that defeat by the far more powerful Union was inevitable, unless it launched a hasty offensive to seize Washington DC and end the conflict quickly. The CSA failed, yet that surprise attack demoralized and disrupted the Union Army's organizational efforts for two years.

    Preserving and Expanding the Union

    So why have the Power Elite now targeted the Civil War for revision? They fear the massive job losses and lower wages they inflicted on American workers might encourage "states rights" movements and talk of secession from the USA. The idea of state independence floats around in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Texas. This is never reported in the media, and whenever organizations form to promote this, they are quickly under investigation by the Feds.

    When it was learned that Sarah Palin's husband once belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, she was ordered to denounce the group and describe it as just a club. When Arizonans passed a minor law to deal with mass illegal immigration, the Power Elite aimed its media and business guns at that state. Conventions were cancelled and all white Arizonans labeled as a racists for demonstrating a tiny element of autonomy.

    The Power Elite have spent the last two decades trying to add Canada and Mexico to a "North American Union" with some success. They have used "free trade" to ensure to the flow of duty free natural resources from Canada and the transfer of factories to Mexico. Canada is an oil-rich nation and a major oil exporter, yet it citizens pay more for gasoline than those in the USA, which imports 80% of its oil. However, Americans and Canadians strongly oppose their "open borders" effort to allow more cheap labor to migrate northward. Watch your corporate media closely to follow this effort to demolish talk of state rights, autonomy, or state laws against illegal immigration. And watch the ongoing effort to rewrite the Civil War as a war against slavery, rather than Lincoln's disastrous crusade to reclaim abandoned federal property.

    They can pull down all the monuments, rewrite all the books and propagandize all they want. You won’t change people.
    I would recommend a book called “The Battle for the Mind” by William Sargent.
    The bottom line is this. Southerners do not and will not buy in to Northern or West Coast propaganda. Those are to a very great extent the propaganda centers of the country.
    You can look at any country on Earth and every one of them are segregated by race, religion, politics, education or wealth.
    The war was only a manifestation of what people have felt and will feel for millenia.
    The more people keep pushing the narrative forward the more it will grow. Like a good magician they keep the people of this country watching the right hand while the left picks their pocket.
    Because of this narrative, I now refuse to spend money which may counter my belief system. Where I shop, eat, tip, drive, watch, listen or worship.
    Vote with your money, presence, attention and effort.
    Even Hollywood, the recent episode of Speilberg calling the director of a young actress to get rid of her because of a comment. Well, free speech aside I guess such unilateral authoritative behavior is ok for some but not for others. No movies for me.
    Bottom line is keep pushing. People are waking up. People do not watch entertainment to be proselytized.
    NFL, down. Movies, down. TV down.
    I am pleased to have more free time to spend on things truly more inportant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Robert Magill
    The 'flag' behind all the outrage is bogus. It is not an historical artifact but a product of early 2oth century. See ' dont-rally-round-bogus-flag-boys'

    http://noabominoidshere.blogspot.com/2010/01/dont-rally-round-bogus-flag-boys.ht

    The rectangular flag is an ensign of the Confederate Navy.

    The square flag is the flag of the Confederate Army.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I am descended from a Southern family but living in Massachusetts (fortunately went to school in Virginia), I am becoming quite worn out with the desecration of Bobby Lee. I have the Stars and Bars which have come down in my family, and a flagpole. I am tempted to load my shotgun and run the Stars and Bars up the flagpole.
    “Reparations”? Our house was burned by Sherman, I lost 13 collateral ancestors at Gettysburg, and more at Antietam, I think I “gave at the office”.

    I don’t “hate” anyone, leave me alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @psuedohandle
    ' [T]he South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. [ That's exactly what it was. ]

    ' Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities [ because the Southern planters shipped vast amounts of slave grown cotton to England and vast amounts of manufactured/luxury goods back ?] that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ], as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery ... [ "even if" ... and you don't, obviously ... hope the Old South will rise again? In the lands the USA's military is devastating, laying waste to and making ripe for exploitation? Southerners have always been over-represented in the Imperial expeditionary/occupational armies of the USA. ] '

    Americans who live in Dixie are just like all other Americans. And all Americans hate slavery and the slave culture that flourished in the Old South ... and is flourishing again in the guise of low-wage slavery throughout the globalized neo-liberal empire and has now rolled back home. The only difference is that they are constantly called to the side of the Old South, by the political wedge driven by paleo- and neo-conservatives, as though the southerners of today had anything at all in common with the slave-holding oligarchs pre-Civil War.

    The Old South, reincarnated, is attempting to rise again. Globally. It was the Stars and Bars the neo-Nazis flew in Kiev along with their swastikas at the Maiden.

    [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ],

    And what is it that you imagine the north did with their black troops? Watch “Glory” and blow off the fluff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @fnn
    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    Thank you for this comment. I support secession in general. I am a descendant of slave owners in the South. And I feel shame, not for my great-grandfathers, but their descendants who were not involved in the America First Committee. I was not aware of that fact, if it’s really true. But I do know that my fellow Southerners are more likely than most to be supporters of the wars of the past and the eternal present. And of course they are mostly uncritical supporters of Israel, which makes them even more likely to support war in the Middle East, and to support sanctions against Russia, North Korea, and others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    You're too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to carry on a meaningful conversation.

    see above,

    Motivated Reasoning is an


    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”
     
    you're demands to "take a stand" and "make it official," based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before appears to be an instance of Corvinus puffing out his/her chest in moral indignation, and creation hypotheticals -- similar to the hypothetical of "Lee would have done the same thing in Philadelphia . . ." That's not FACT, that's a scenario spun in someone's head -- yours. It's what Francis Bacon called "spider thinking."

    btw, if you're looking for an example of someone advocating use of violence, try
    http://www.unz.com/article/anarcho-tyranny-the-corruption-of-charlottesville-va/#comment-1987106
    and the linked video, Mark Bray interviewed by Amy Goodman on a syndicated broadcast
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhC4AByODE

    which Bray repeated on internationally telecast C Span
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?433052-4/washington-journal-mark-bray-discusses-role-antifa-movement

    In other words, he had a far more powerful platform/microphone that a commenter on an unknown blog.

    Notice Bray uses "Dartmouth" wallpaper -- he's a visiting scholar at a Gender Studies institute at Dartmouth; the President of Dartmouth has "disavowed" Bray's calls for the use of violence to "destroy" "fascists." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/a-dartmouth-antifa-expert-was-disavowed-by-his-college-president-for-supporting-violent-protest-angering-many-faculty/?utm_term=.61304f27c8bf

    You also carefully cherry-picked your way around a key point: knocking down a pillar of violence -- Just War Theory -- undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.

    ---
    This conversation is over.

    “you’re demands to “take a stand” and “make it official,” based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before…”

    Irrelevant. What matters is that a member of an Alt Right group that prides itself allegedly on Western Civilization and the Baltimore Catechism formula is contradicting its basic tenets. His sentiments are similar in nature to the antifa. Yet your own beating your chest in moral indignation appears to focus on those groups who have significant air time. I did not realize that calling out someone’s ethical indiscretions is based squarely on the extent of a person’s or group’s ability to use a megaphone.

    It could be argued that the Confederacy violated the Just War Theory by binding its citizens when fighting a war to preserve a corrupt culture. Given your own metrics, there actions should be condemned. Motivating reason got your tongue?

    “knocking down a pillar of violence — Just War Theory — undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.”

    You mean civilization is undermined by war and its participants, who despite theories and covenants, break them in order to emerge victorious. That is the human way, my friend.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was."

    There is no implication, just fact. Few private homes in Georgia were burned; Confederate desertion rates increased as their resolve had been weakened to continue; Savannah surrendered, and their infrastructure remained intact.

    "that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules..."

    Exactly. His underlings went against Sherman's orders. That happens in war.

    "resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people"

    That starvation and subjugation had been primarily the direct result of the Union naval blockade.

    "In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The title is appropriate.

    "The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea."

    The Confederacy employed the same logic as Sherman in their murdering of Union fugitives and border ruffianing. Are you vocal in your condemnation of their tactics, or just "Yankees"?

    Moreover, Sherman's military training included ethics and war at West Point. The sources used in a course taught by Chaplain Warner contained "many of the operative strategic and ethical concepts of the Civil War and that these concepts, including retaliation, blockade, emancipation, and unconditional surrender were discussed at West Point more than 20 years before the first short was fired at Fort Sumter." In fact, the content contained in one such book, Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, was also rigorously studied by high ranking members of the Confederacy. Moreover, Sherman's transformation from an advocate of warfare by rules of courtesy to an advocate of warfare by rules of survival was due to Confederate actions of living off the land and terrorizing civilians.

    In August 1862, Sherman wrote to Secretary Chase "The Government of the United States may now safely proceed on the proper role that all in the South are enemies of all in the North; and not only are they unfriendly, but all who can procure arms now bear them as organized regiments or as guerillas. There is not a garrision in Tennessee where a man can go beyond the sight of the flagstaff without being shot or captured".

    http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/1982/1982%20brinsfield.pdf

    "b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No. The New York Times author says No. You yourself say No."

    I stated that it could be argued Sherman committed a war crime. The legitimate targets were civilians who supported slavery, a moral evil, AND who supported the Confederacy, an illegitimate government, AND who engaged as soldiers in war similar acts of aggression and violence as their northern counterparts, AND who were given the opportunity to unconditionally surrender. The argument could be made with distinction that Sherman's actions met the criteria.

    "Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw..."

    North. Winning.

    "it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians."

    It was in the minds of those individuals who supported keeping the Union intact, both northerners and southerners, and who opposed slavery that victory be achieved.

    "because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement."

    There was an offer on the table--unconditional surrender. Moreover, southern civilians had the choice to pressure their government to give up, lest they endure the consequences of their decision.

    "The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives..."

    Actually, based on the methods and motives of military leaders historically.

    "the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Nations, in their geo-political machinations and engagements of war, have committed crimes against humanity. Not surprising given the complexity of such interactions and given the inherent cruel nature of people.

    "Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”...

    Which you went off on a tangent.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    Answer the questions directly.

    You’re too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to carry on a meaningful conversation.

    see above,

    Motivated Reasoning is an

    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”

    you’re demands to “take a stand” and “make it official,” based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before appears to be an instance of Corvinus puffing out his/her chest in moral indignation, and creation hypotheticals — similar to the hypothetical of “Lee would have done the same thing in Philadelphia . . .” That’s not FACT, that’s a scenario spun in someone’s head — yours. It’s what Francis Bacon called “spider thinking.”

    btw, if you’re looking for an example of someone advocating use of violence, try

    http://www.unz.com/article/anarcho-tyranny-the-corruption-of-charlottesville-va/#comment-1987106

    and the linked video, Mark Bray interviewed by Amy Goodman on a syndicated broadcast

    which Bray repeated on internationally telecast C Span

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?433052-4/washington-journal-mark-bray-discusses-role-antifa-movement

    In other words, he had a far more powerful platform/microphone that a commenter on an unknown blog.

    Notice Bray uses “Dartmouth” wallpaper — he’s a visiting scholar at a Gender Studies institute at Dartmouth; the President of Dartmouth has “disavowed” Bray’s calls for the use of violence to “destroy” “fascists.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/a-dartmouth-antifa-expert-was-disavowed-by-his-college-president-for-supporting-violent-protest-angering-many-faculty/?utm_term=.61304f27c8bf

    You also carefully cherry-picked your way around a key point: knocking down a pillar of violence — Just War Theory — undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.


    This conversation is over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "you’re demands to “take a stand” and “make it official,” based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before..."

    Irrelevant. What matters is that a member of an Alt Right group that prides itself allegedly on Western Civilization and the Baltimore Catechism formula is contradicting its basic tenets. His sentiments are similar in nature to the antifa. Yet your own beating your chest in moral indignation appears to focus on those groups who have significant air time. I did not realize that calling out someone's ethical indiscretions is based squarely on the extent of a person's or group's ability to use a megaphone.

    It could be argued that the Confederacy violated the Just War Theory by binding its citizens when fighting a war to preserve a corrupt culture. Given your own metrics, there actions should be condemned. Motivating reason got your tongue?

    "knocking down a pillar of violence — Just War Theory — undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it."

    You mean civilization is undermined by war and its participants, who despite theories and covenants, break them in order to emerge victorious. That is the human way, my friend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Vae victis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    aw shucks, Corvinus, I thought I could slip by without talkin' about that NYTimes article.
    I did read it.
    I even read it real careful like.
    I said to myself, golly, Corvinus is hauling out the big guns: the New York Times. I mean, talk about your Slam Dunk arguments: If the New York Times said it, it must be so!

    Which made a real problem for me, 'cuz I had a hard time with some of the big words:

    Words like Ad Verecundiam, Bifurcus, Casuistry/ Sophism, and Motivated Reasoning/Cognitive dissonance.
    Phew, how was I ever going to get through all of that.

    So let's do that critical analysis you're demanding, and let's take a stand.

    Now, let's talk about those words that tripped me up, starting with Ad Verecundiam.
    Oops, that word didn't really appear in the NYTimes article. But the foundation of your argument is an appeal to the authority of the NYTimes: if NYTimes said it, it must be so.

    But dadblame it, I went and poked around a bit with the NYTimes article.

    First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word "myth," implying that Sherman's March was not really as bad as people think it was, and that people get that very negative impression from getting their facts from movies, like Gone With the Wind (a truly ironic statement, inasmuch as the NYTimes author goes on to compare Sherman's March to World War II about which most people get their information -- or false impressions-- from movies and television).

    Back to the NYTimes article: the author says GWtW gives an impression of total devastation, but that is a "myth," but then he says that Sherman established rules of engagement and that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules, resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people (tho not that many women and children were deliberately killed, in contrast to the situation in WWII. More on that later.)
    In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman's march to the sea is not a "myth."


    The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman's March to the Sea.

    Both you and the NYTimes article relied on the fallacy of motivated reasoning, a form of casuistry by which you replaced Just War theory w/ "Winning is the only thing."
    Both of you evaluated evidence to support your own outcomes.
    According to wikipedia, Motivated Reasoning is an

    " inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe". This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives"
     
    The key word is "rationally."
    The claim(s) I made were for Just War theory as the basis for assessing whether Sherman's scorched earth policy was moral.

    A rational analysis of that question would take a fairly straightforward form:
    a. What are the requirement of Jus in bello (waging war in accord with Just War theory)
    They are discrimination and proportionality --

    "The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. "
     
    ( a somewhat lengthy explanation of Just War Theory can be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
    I have read it as carefully as I read the NYTimes article. You might wish to do the same.)
    b. Did Sherman's actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No.
    The New York Times author says No.
    You yourself say No.

    That should be the end of the story, and should have been the assessment undertaken by political and military leaders in the course of the Civil War.

    The NYTimes author stated that Sherman and the political leadership fell sway to a false dilemma (Bifurcus) coupled with your own claim that "winning was essential" (discussed later). Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw; it was, in Sherman's mind, essential that the Union achieve a "victory." In Sherman's mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.

    That was a false dilemma that Sherman -- as well as Ulysses Grant and Lincoln himself snared themselves (and all subsequent US policy) upon, because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman's motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.

    The wrongness of Sherman's actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the 'peace' that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman's methods and motives (but, as Groce notes, with far more destructiveness -- the result, I suggest, of far more potent weaponry and the bloated hubris that fueled the use of propaganda to demonize the enemy, including civilians, to bring about total war).

    re Your question about 'preserving western civilization"
    If Just war theory is a pillar of western civilization
    and if that pillar is sophistically replaced by the concept "winning is the only thing,"
    then you may have "won," and you may have behaved in accord with your new sophism, but in doing so you have shattered, not upheld, a pillar of western civilization.

    Sherman's March to the Sea was immoral and a crime against humanity.

    Such crimes do not disappear: they infect the heart of a nation, until that crime is called to account and cauterized.
    Instead, and because the people of the United States have not called themselves to account, as Groce listed in his NYTimes article, the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.

    Such are the behaviors of a psyche addicted to murder that it sophistically labels "victory."

    The old Baltimore Catechism formula still applies:

    Confess your sins
    Do penance
    Make reparations
    Repent (which means, "re-think")
    Resolve to sin no more.

    Such principles used to be the basis of Western Civilization.

    “First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was.”

    There is no implication, just fact. Few private homes in Georgia were burned; Confederate desertion rates increased as their resolve had been weakened to continue; Savannah surrendered, and their infrastructure remained intact.

    “that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules…”

    Exactly. His underlings went against Sherman’s orders. That happens in war.

    “resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people”

    That starvation and subjugation had been primarily the direct result of the Union naval blockade.

    “In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The title is appropriate.

    “The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea.”

    The Confederacy employed the same logic as Sherman in their murdering of Union fugitives and border ruffianing. Are you vocal in your condemnation of their tactics, or just “Yankees”?

    Moreover, Sherman’s military training included ethics and war at West Point. The sources used in a course taught by Chaplain Warner contained “many of the operative strategic and ethical concepts of the Civil War and that these concepts, including retaliation, blockade, emancipation, and unconditional surrender were discussed at West Point more than 20 years before the first short was fired at Fort Sumter.” In fact, the content contained in one such book, Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy, was also rigorously studied by high ranking members of the Confederacy. Moreover, Sherman’s transformation from an advocate of warfare by rules of courtesy to an advocate of warfare by rules of survival was due to Confederate actions of living off the land and terrorizing civilians.

    In August 1862, Sherman wrote to Secretary Chase “The Government of the United States may now safely proceed on the proper role that all in the South are enemies of all in the North; and not only are they unfriendly, but all who can procure arms now bear them as organized regiments or as guerillas. There is not a garrision in Tennessee where a man can go beyond the sight of the flagstaff without being shot or captured”.

    http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/1982/1982%20brinsfield.pdf

    “b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No. The New York Times author says No. You yourself say No.”

    I stated that it could be argued Sherman committed a war crime. The legitimate targets were civilians who supported slavery, a moral evil, AND who supported the Confederacy, an illegitimate government, AND who engaged as soldiers in war similar acts of aggression and violence as their northern counterparts, AND who were given the opportunity to unconditionally surrender. The argument could be made with distinction that Sherman’s actions met the criteria.

    “Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw…”

    North. Winning.

    “it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.”

    It was in the minds of those individuals who supported keeping the Union intact, both northerners and southerners, and who opposed slavery that victory be achieved.

    “because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.”

    There was an offer on the table–unconditional surrender. Moreover, southern civilians had the choice to pressure their government to give up, lest they endure the consequences of their decision.

    “The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives…”

    Actually, based on the methods and motives of military leaders historically.

    “the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Nations, in their geo-political machinations and engagements of war, have committed crimes against humanity. Not surprising given the complexity of such interactions and given the inherent cruel nature of people.

    “Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”…

    Which you went off on a tangent.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    Answer the questions directly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    You're too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to carry on a meaningful conversation.

    see above,

    Motivated Reasoning is an


    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”
     
    you're demands to "take a stand" and "make it official," based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before appears to be an instance of Corvinus puffing out his/her chest in moral indignation, and creation hypotheticals -- similar to the hypothetical of "Lee would have done the same thing in Philadelphia . . ." That's not FACT, that's a scenario spun in someone's head -- yours. It's what Francis Bacon called "spider thinking."

    btw, if you're looking for an example of someone advocating use of violence, try
    http://www.unz.com/article/anarcho-tyranny-the-corruption-of-charlottesville-va/#comment-1987106
    and the linked video, Mark Bray interviewed by Amy Goodman on a syndicated broadcast
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhC4AByODE

    which Bray repeated on internationally telecast C Span
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?433052-4/washington-journal-mark-bray-discusses-role-antifa-movement

    In other words, he had a far more powerful platform/microphone that a commenter on an unknown blog.

    Notice Bray uses "Dartmouth" wallpaper -- he's a visiting scholar at a Gender Studies institute at Dartmouth; the President of Dartmouth has "disavowed" Bray's calls for the use of violence to "destroy" "fascists." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/a-dartmouth-antifa-expert-was-disavowed-by-his-college-president-for-supporting-violent-protest-angering-many-faculty/?utm_term=.61304f27c8bf

    You also carefully cherry-picked your way around a key point: knocking down a pillar of violence -- Just War Theory -- undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.

    ---
    This conversation is over.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it's a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You'd be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    You’re right that to secede you don’t need anything in the constitution. But I don’t think you need any theories either. It’s just a matter of fait accompli. You declare independence, you form the government, you establish control over the territory – and voila, you seceded. Now, if you manage to defend it, you have a country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught."

    For those keeping score at home, here is the query you fired at me--“What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    Again, there are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored. Did you not read the source and carefully analyze it?

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march

    Second, here is exactly what I said --> We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who were honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing [meaning that the only purpose in war is to win].

    1) So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    2) Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    I offered an other than binary response. Now, you have questions posed to you. Answer them.

    aw shucks, Corvinus, I thought I could slip by without talkin’ about that NYTimes article.
    I did read it.
    I even read it real careful like.
    I said to myself, golly, Corvinus is hauling out the big guns: the New York Times. I mean, talk about your Slam Dunk arguments: If the New York Times said it, it must be so!

    Which made a real problem for me, ‘cuz I had a hard time with some of the big words:

    Words like Ad Verecundiam, Bifurcus, Casuistry/ Sophism, and Motivated Reasoning/Cognitive dissonance.
    Phew, how was I ever going to get through all of that.

    So let’s do that critical analysis you’re demanding, and let’s take a stand.

    Now, let’s talk about those words that tripped me up, starting with Ad Verecundiam.
    Oops, that word didn’t really appear in the NYTimes article. But the foundation of your argument is an appeal to the authority of the NYTimes: if NYTimes said it, it must be so.

    But dadblame it, I went and poked around a bit with the NYTimes article.

    First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was, and that people get that very negative impression from getting their facts from movies, like Gone With the Wind (a truly ironic statement, inasmuch as the NYTimes author goes on to compare Sherman’s March to World War II about which most people get their information — or false impressions– from movies and television).

    Back to the NYTimes article: the author says GWtW gives an impression of total devastation, but that is a “myth,” but then he says that Sherman established rules of engagement and that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules, resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people (tho not that many women and children were deliberately killed, in contrast to the situation in WWII. More on that later.)
    In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea.

    Both you and the NYTimes article relied on the fallacy of motivated reasoning, a form of casuistry by which you replaced Just War theory w/ “Winning is the only thing.”
    Both of you evaluated evidence to support your own outcomes.
    According to wikipedia, Motivated Reasoning is an

    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”

    The key word is “rationally.”
    The claim(s) I made were for Just War theory as the basis for assessing whether Sherman’s scorched earth policy was moral.

    A rational analysis of that question would take a fairly straightforward form:
    a. What are the requirement of Jus in bello (waging war in accord with Just War theory)
    They are discrimination and proportionality –

    “The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. “

    ( a somewhat lengthy explanation of Just War Theory can be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
    I have read it as carefully as I read the NYTimes article. You might wish to do the same.)
    b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No.
    The New York Times author says No.
    You yourself say No.

    That should be the end of the story, and should have been the assessment undertaken by political and military leaders in the course of the Civil War.

    The NYTimes author stated that Sherman and the political leadership fell sway to a false dilemma (Bifurcus) coupled with your own claim that “winning was essential” (discussed later). Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw; it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.

    That was a false dilemma that Sherman — as well as Ulysses Grant and Lincoln himself snared themselves (and all subsequent US policy) upon, because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.

    The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives (but, as Groce notes, with far more destructiveness — the result, I suggest, of far more potent weaponry and the bloated hubris that fueled the use of propaganda to demonize the enemy, including civilians, to bring about total war).

    re Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”
    If Just war theory is a pillar of western civilization
    and if that pillar is sophistically replaced by the concept “winning is the only thing,”
    then you may have “won,” and you may have behaved in accord with your new sophism, but in doing so you have shattered, not upheld, a pillar of western civilization.

    Sherman’s March to the Sea was immoral and a crime against humanity.

    Such crimes do not disappear: they infect the heart of a nation, until that crime is called to account and cauterized.
    Instead, and because the people of the United States have not called themselves to account, as Groce listed in his NYTimes article, the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.

    Such are the behaviors of a psyche addicted to murder that it sophistically labels “victory.”

    The old Baltimore Catechism formula still applies:

    Confess your sins
    Do penance
    Make reparations
    Repent (which means, “re-think”)
    Resolve to sin no more.

    Such principles used to be the basis of Western Civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was."

    There is no implication, just fact. Few private homes in Georgia were burned; Confederate desertion rates increased as their resolve had been weakened to continue; Savannah surrendered, and their infrastructure remained intact.

    "that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules..."

    Exactly. His underlings went against Sherman's orders. That happens in war.

    "resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people"

    That starvation and subjugation had been primarily the direct result of the Union naval blockade.

    "In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The title is appropriate.

    "The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea."

    The Confederacy employed the same logic as Sherman in their murdering of Union fugitives and border ruffianing. Are you vocal in your condemnation of their tactics, or just "Yankees"?

    Moreover, Sherman's military training included ethics and war at West Point. The sources used in a course taught by Chaplain Warner contained "many of the operative strategic and ethical concepts of the Civil War and that these concepts, including retaliation, blockade, emancipation, and unconditional surrender were discussed at West Point more than 20 years before the first short was fired at Fort Sumter." In fact, the content contained in one such book, Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, was also rigorously studied by high ranking members of the Confederacy. Moreover, Sherman's transformation from an advocate of warfare by rules of courtesy to an advocate of warfare by rules of survival was due to Confederate actions of living off the land and terrorizing civilians.

    In August 1862, Sherman wrote to Secretary Chase "The Government of the United States may now safely proceed on the proper role that all in the South are enemies of all in the North; and not only are they unfriendly, but all who can procure arms now bear them as organized regiments or as guerillas. There is not a garrision in Tennessee where a man can go beyond the sight of the flagstaff without being shot or captured".

    http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/1982/1982%20brinsfield.pdf

    "b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No. The New York Times author says No. You yourself say No."

    I stated that it could be argued Sherman committed a war crime. The legitimate targets were civilians who supported slavery, a moral evil, AND who supported the Confederacy, an illegitimate government, AND who engaged as soldiers in war similar acts of aggression and violence as their northern counterparts, AND who were given the opportunity to unconditionally surrender. The argument could be made with distinction that Sherman's actions met the criteria.

    "Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw..."

    North. Winning.

    "it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians."

    It was in the minds of those individuals who supported keeping the Union intact, both northerners and southerners, and who opposed slavery that victory be achieved.

    "because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement."

    There was an offer on the table--unconditional surrender. Moreover, southern civilians had the choice to pressure their government to give up, lest they endure the consequences of their decision.

    "The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives..."

    Actually, based on the methods and motives of military leaders historically.

    "the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Nations, in their geo-political machinations and engagements of war, have committed crimes against humanity. Not surprising given the complexity of such interactions and given the inherent cruel nature of people.

    "Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”...

    Which you went off on a tangent.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    Answer the questions directly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Miller
    Civil War was about slavery, not State's Rights.

    The CSA offered to rejoin the Union if the Fed Govt used its power to overturn individual state laws restricting slavery and guarantee it in the new territories.

    The secession documents issued by CS as well as period literature newspapers etc etc are unequivocal on this point. Revisionist narratives to the contrary are intended to provide ethical wiggle room for those who want to glorify the Confederacy, and somehow separate it from this defining institution.

    To spread slavery to the new territories the political leadership of the slave states was willing to go to war, and they did. The Union had every right to take the fight, once begun, to the CSA, and to finish it decisively - which they did.

    The only question is whether the Union had any right to force the CSA back into the Union afterward, in my opinion they didn't.

    The civil war was not about slavery or states rights it was about commerce.
    The north wanted control of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers plus New Orleans.
    It was about building railroads and funny Lincoln as a lawyer represented railroad companies before he was president. Go figure.
    The cotton gin made slavery obsolete anyway so it was time to go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    "I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years."

    Not so. First off, Abolitionists were not the dominant force in the North. Rather, Lincoln and the ruling North elites used Abolitionist rhetoric to justify their war on the South.
    It's like US had no interest in liberating Asia from Japan during WWII. Rather, US sought supremacy over the Pacific and defeated Japan for that reason. The stuff about US liberating Asia from Japan was just a useful moral excuse. (Same thing with the Iraq War. It was essentially a War for Israel but it was promoted as spreading democracy in the Middle East.) After all, if US cared so much about Asia, why did FDR ask Stalin to swallow up North Asia and hand it over to Mao... who then took all of China?

    Northern ruling elites weren't so enlightened on race themselves. They supported the westward expansion that took lands from Indians who were forced into reservations.
    Furthermore, the last thing that most Northern whites wanted to see was white southerners raped and murdered en masse by blacks... no more than Chinese government enjoyed watching boatloads of Vietnamese-Chinese sent to near-certain death in the seas in the late 70s. During the Boat People fiasco, China was communist and Vietnam was communist, but Chinese were angry with the Vietnamese treatment of Vietnamese-Chinese capitalist population who were dispossessed and pushed into the seas(in an event that was not unlike what Turks did to Armenians).

    True, there were lots of self-righteous Northerners who'd read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN and saw the Negro as some saint and felt white loathing and all that, but the real power and most sentiments in the North was not particularly anti-south after the war. If anything, there was far more anti-north sentiment in the south because (1) resentment of having lost the war (2) sense of betrayal that northern whites killed fellow whites in the south for the sake of blacks.

    For the most part, North and South buried the hatchet. Also, as the Democratic Party traditionally depended on both urban northern whites---especially Catholic Irish---and rural southern white voters, it wouldn't have made much sense for American Progressives to especially vilify the South. Indeed, Wilson, FDR, and Truman all relied on the South. Kennedy chose LBJ to carry Texas. And before the final political realignment in the 1994 Congressional election, there were still some vestiges of southern Democratic power. Since then, the Deep South has become totally Republican while the Northeast has become almost totally Democratic. So, it's politically much safer for Northern/Western Democrats to attack the South wholesale. They no longer have any political allies there.

    The North/South enmity in the past need not be exaggerated. Especially as masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into the Northeast Coast, even many white Anglo-Americans in the North began to sympathize with whites in the South. With so many swarthy foreign-looking people---even thought to be non-white by some Northern Europeans---cramming into big cities, especially New York, Northern whites thought they finally better understood the problem that Southern whites were having with blacks.

    But as it turned out, European immigrants---even from southern and eastern Europe---turned out to be pretty solid civilizational material and they assimilated and made the social climb and became like any other Americans. So, the North lost its fears about the 'other', at least in regards to European immigrants.
    In contrast, blacks in the South remained the dangerous 'other'. Some progressive types blamed this on the discriminatory attitudes in the South, but blacks turned out to be as or even more problematic in the North in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and etc. Of course, as there were discriminatory policies in the North as well, black failings in the North could be blamed on white 'racism' too, but in truth, black problems owed really to the fact that black character/personality had been forged for 100,000 yrs in hot Africa with lots of nasty diseases and monstrous wildlife that chased Negroes all around and drove them crazy.

    Anyway, since Southern blacks moved to the North, the North could always blame the South for having turned the blacks crazy---though one wonders why a whole bunch of blacks in France and England are also crazy even though they came directly from Edenic Africa.

    North and South seemed to be getting more or less fine, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened. Initially, the North felt smugly sanctimonious about racial discrimination in the South, especially as such sentiments were egged on Jews in Hollywood and media.
    It was as if the North was so advanced whereas the South was still stuck in the 19th century.

    But there were few reasons why the North/South divide became stalled n the 60s and 70s. One reason was US was still far from the blue state/red state political divide that has become so iconic in our politics.
    Back then, there were forces in both the Republican and Democratic Parties that were for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace was a Democrat before he was an Independent. And there were Northern Republicans who were for the Civil Rights Movement and Western Republicans who saw it as an encroachment of the Federal government on states rights--not only against the South but against the West as well.

    Another huge factor was the wild 6os. As blacks began to burn down cities, riot, and act crazy, many in the North had second thoughts about the Civil Rights Movement. Also, black crime began to climb precipitously at this period. So, even in a city like NY, there was a lot of fear of black crime, finally culminating in the undreamt of triumph of Giuliani in the 90s.
    Of course, the hardened white working class was never much with the blacks in the North. But prior to the Civil Rights Movement, whites mostly had their own communities and blacks had theirs. So, they could tolerate one another. Also, prior to the rise of civil liberties, the police had been much tougher on black crime, and that kept the black community in line. But in the 60s, with the triumphal march of blacks, rise of youth culture, rise of Jewish radicalism, the rise of new optimism with the Kennedy presidency, the popularity of black music, the cult of Muhammad Ali, and etc., Northern white youth became more idealistic/naive/optimistic and northern blacks got rowdier, more aggressive, more demanding, and etc. Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey.

    Prior to the 60s, because white power seemed so monolithic and dominant, even tough blacks in the North and South thought the best way would be mind their manners somewhat, but in the new era when the heavyweight champion of the world was a loud-mouthed Negro who taunted his opponents, made fun of whitey, and acted the thug-loon, blacks began to show their true nature. With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    So, the North vs South narrative was broken. Many Northern whites in 1968 came to see eye-to-eye with Southern Whites about the race problem: blacks are indeed dangerous and crazy. And when MLK marched through some Northern towns, he was met with even more hostility than in the South. Northern whites began to see MLK's Trojan Horse bulljive for what it was. After all, MLK was no saintly Negro but a loutish thug who'd cheated his way through college, led a life of debauchery, and even beat up a woman unconscious and laughed/joked about it. But he had a boom box voice and a penchant for bellowing cliches that naive white folks couldn't resist. He was the Oprah of his day. MLK's assassination is now remembered as some great national tragedy. But in 1968, it meant burning cities and more Negro mayhem, and so, if anything, it helped Nixon and drove many more Northern whites to the anti-black camp.

    At this time, many Northern whites fled to the suburbs and voted Republican. And they loathed blacks more than they loathed Southern Whites. And even ultra-liberals in big cities began to have second thoughts about the preponderance of black crime and violence. Also, no matter what policies were tried on blacks, too many of them seem to be getting only crazier. And the Great Society was a massive failure.

    When we look at Nixon's second election, Reagan's victory, and Bush I's victory, it was obvious how so many Northern Whites and Southern whites saw eye to eye on lots of things. Though MLK was elevated to iconic status and Civil Rights Movement came to be sacralized, there were too many race problems in the North for white Northerners to get too rosy about that stuff. They were mainly concerned about black crime and violence, and as such, sort of understood why the South hadn't been too keen on blacks either.

    Even so, history is controlled by the elites, and as the moral narrative sacralized the black struggle, and lionized MLK; and with PC censoring and blacklisting all competing views, the black issue went from a political and social(or even moral) one to a spiritual one. It's like MLK wasn't just a great man but the greatest man of all time, maybe a messiah. Thus, it became taboo to even question the sacred narrative of the civil rights movement that came to be mythologized in Manichean terms.
    Also, as American Conservatism caved into this mythology, it went on the defensive, and the policy of the GOP became one of seeking the approval of Jews and blacks.
    Also, as Jews became very powerful and as Neocons were insistent on stamping out white 'racism' in the GOP, American Conservatism became increasingly intolerant of any dissenting views that might be deemed 'offensive'. But for some reason, the GOP under Neocons became more 'racist' against Arabs and Palestinians. I guess you gotta win moral credits in one area to use it to cover up moral lapses in another area. If GOP is with the MLK cult, I guess it can help Israel bash Palestinians with a clearer conscience. 'With MLK on our side' is the new 'With God on our side'.
    Jews especially love MLK since MLK gave his full blessing to the Zionist war on Palestinians.

    Of course, the rise of rap music also had an effect. Before rise of rap, white kids listen to white rock mostly and blacks had their own music, but with rap as the big musical act among all kids in America, white kids became more worshipful toward blacks.

    And then, there is the Jewish factor. It's not surprising that Jews view the Civil War through the prism of WWII. After all, even though Germany was defeated and crushed, US had gone relatively easy on Germany soon after the war. This angered a lot of Jews who thought Germany should pretty much have been wiped off the map.
    As USSR was the new enemy, Germany was allowed to rebuild quickly. And it wasn't until the 1960s that Germans really began to face all the horrors they committed during WWII. Also, with the Cold War, many Jews in America came under suspicion as subversives, and many Jews panicked that McCarthyism is New Nazism in America.

    So, the way Jews see the postwar era, white Americans and white Germans patched up their differences rather too quickly and white Americans set their eyes on Jews as the enemy. Philip Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA dramatizes this very Jewish fear.

    Indeed, what if Churchill had sided with Hitler as Hitler wished him too? What if US had come to a peaceful solution with Japan and there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no great war among white nations. And all three might have ganged up on the Jews. It was because UK fought Germany and because US got embroiled in the war thanks to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor that Nazi Germany was finally defeated. It wasn't so much the result of 'good guys' prevailing over the 'bad guys' because history always chooses the good but a matter of an accident of history. So, there was nothing assured about what happened during WWII. There were plenty of American whites who didn't want to fight Germany. What gave the Jews a crucial opening in their survival and eventual chance at supremacist power was cracks/divisions among white nation and groups. Jews lucked out because UK chose to fight Germany, because Hitler decided to fight white Russia, because white American fought white Germany. And during the Cold War, it was the white America/Western Europe vs white Russia/Eastern Europe. Because of the Cold War, white America came under moral pressure to open up its society and make it more tolerant to win the propaganda battle with the white Soviets who inspired and aided people of color all over the Third World to take up arms against white nations/imperialists.
    So, it is in the interest of Jews to make white people hate and fight other white people. Similarly, Jewish-controlled US government employs a foreign policy that seeks to maximize and exploit the differences among various Muslim sects and groups. Jews love to see Muslims/Arabs slaughter one another.

    The last thing Jews want is any kind of united white consciousness in the US or around the globe. Indeed, what is all this business with Russia and Putin about. Cold War is long over. Russia wants closer economic and political ties with the West. He wants peace and brotherhood. But Jews don't want Russian whites to become chummy Western European whites, especially as Putin's brand of nascent nationalism and respect/revitalization of tradition might rub off on Western Europeans who've been injected with the New Normal culture of homomania. Jews especially dislike Russians because it's impossible for Jews to morally browbeat Russians about the Holocaust and WWII. Russians lost more lives in WWII than any other people and did most to defeat Germany.
    So, Jews have used their financial and media power to vilify and isolate Russia, and since most of global media are owned by Jews and since most elites in US and EU are slavish to Jews, Russia has been hit with all kinds of sanctions. And of course, the homomania cult is very useful in making Russia out to be the bad guy. Jews, in having sacralized homosexuality and transvestism in the West, have persuaded a whole bunch of Western morons that it's evil to ban 'gay marriage' or 'gay poo-ride' parade. Since Russia won't allow homos to parade down Red Square, a lot of idiot Americans see Russia as 'new Nazi nation'. This is how dumb Americans have become. Of course, Jews are ecstatic with hideous glee as nothing makes them happier than seeing goy hate goy. Jews are also working in Asia to increase tensions among China, Japan, Vietnam, India, and other nations. A truly nasty and vicious people.

    So, just like Jews want to divide Western Europe from Russia, Jews wanna divide 'blue state whites' from 'red state whites'. Though most of the racial violence in the South has been black-on-white, Jews who run the media have suppressed the truth and perpetrated the myth of permanent black victimhood and nobility through fantasy movies like GREEN MILE, THE HELP, MISSISSIPPI BE BURNING, DJANGO UNCHAINED, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, and etc. And of course, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is like a required reading bible for young ones.

    As for all the white folks robbed, beaten, raped, bullied, terrorized, and murdered by black thugs since the 1960s, forget it. Jews in the media don't care and don't want us to care either. Let us worry about some mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse as the new messiah.

    Furthermore, new tough policies in the North have made it safer for white liberal elites in cities. Today, the posh parts of NY, Chicago, San Fran, Washington DC, and etc are nicer and richer than ever. It is in those areas that the urban elites work, and they feel safe. And as they feel safe, they feel holier-than-thou in pointing fingers of blame at other whites, especially white southerners.
    If downtown areas of cities were run down and filled with crime--as in the 1970s--these liberal elites wouldn't be so glib and conceited.
    Also, generations of PC-brainwashing has stamped out much of honest talk that used to prevail even up to the 1980s. The kinds of columns Mike Royko wrote back then---hard-nosed, tough, cynical, politically incorrect, personal, etc---wouldn't be allowed today. And if older folks spoke candidly, young ones(as pod people) would shout them down as 'racist'. We don't have people like Jim Traficant anymore. Sure, he was a nut but he was also a straight talker---even when he was full of shit. Today, all white folks have to be so mindful of what they say. Indeed, we now live in a world where if someone says he thinks a male fecal hole isn't a proper sex organ, he will be censured, fired, and blacklisted forever in elite community. So, forget about honest talk about race.

    But if we were to have an honest talk about race, I'd argue that the Confederate flag is a useful, indeed necessary, symbol. The meaning of symbols change. Statue of Liberty wasn't originally a symbol of immigration that it came to be.
    Whatever the Confederate Flag used to symbolize, it should now symbolize the need for white unity, the need for white interests, the need for white sympathy for whites suffering at the hands of non-whites, the need to defy Jewish power, and the rightness of a people to prevent biological slavery of their own people at the hands of another race.

    Indeed, the South only had two choices in the past: social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks. Whites and blacks are not the same, i.e. whites are not blacks with white skin, and blacks are not whites with black skin. We can sort of make the case that Asian-Indians(the Hindus)are something like whites with brown/black skin. If indeed whites had brought Asian-Indians as slaves in the American South, then, maybe upon the end of slavery, both groups could have worked to live peacefully side by side or intermingle. But it was different with blacks since evolution had made blacks stronger, more aggressive, wilder, more dangerous, bigger, and more fearsome. Unless whites held social control over blacks, blacks would whup the white man's ass and conquer white women. Or white women would voluntarily ditch the white male as loser dork and go off with the Negro deemed to be sexually/physically/racially superior.
    Of course, Libs will denounce such talk as 'racial or sexual paranoia', but look at rap culture. Much of it's about muscled black thugs howling about how badass they be, how they gonna whup punkass white boys, how white girls are all gonna be their sex slave cattle. And Jewish-run music industry promotes this sort of stuff. Look at TV advertising during the superbowl that feature white women throwing themselves at big muscled Negroes. Look at rape statistics along racial lines, and the sexual violence is overwhelmingly black on white, black on brown, and black on yellow. And the man-to-man violence is black whupping white boys, blacks whupping brown boys, blacks whupping yellow boys, and etc. Black guys used to have fun whupping wimpy Jewish boys too, but as Jews ar so rich, most of them live in safe neighborhoods and use their political muscle to push dangerous blacks to other places.

    While social slavery of blacks was wrong--Lincoln was right to want to free the slaves and send them back to Africa or set up a separate black nation--, it was also wrong to force whites to live under biological slavery of blacks. Every race should live in safety, with male pride, with self-respect, and its own autonomy. This was impossible with blacks in the South since too many blacks are too mean and strong and aggressive. So, it wasn't simply an issue of freedom vs slavery in the south. It was an issue of social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks.

    Though white libs and Jews will deny it, actions speak louder than words. If you look at the social, economic, and behavioral patterns of urban white libs, they also wanna segregate themselves from mostly black areas. This doesn't mean they are 'racist' against blacks, but they too sense a problem with blacks insofar as blacks cause the most mayhem and trouble all across America. Is black violence due to the legacy of slavery? No, it is the legacy of blacks realizing during the Civil Rights Movement that whites have lost it, are vulnerable, and no longer have the guts to stand against black thuggery. After all, when blacks began to attack whites in the 60s, most whites ran, hid, or cowered and didn't dare fight back because they were afraid of bigger and stronger blacks.

    Also, Jews need to shut up since, when faced with the same problem, they've done the same thing in Israel and Occupied Territories. As Palestinians hate Zionists and have used violence against Jews, Jews have used ultra-violence and ultra-segregation to teach Palestinians a lesson not to mess with Jews. And it appears even most Liberal American Jews are pretty much with the program of Jews in Israel and West Bank using harsh measures to keep the Palestinians in their place and teach them a tough lesson. If indeed Jews act this way for their own security --- and Jews in America work tirelessly to force all politicians to sign a pledge to AIPAC --- , who the hell are they to be lecturing white southerners about the Confed flag? Isn't the Zionist flag associated with ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the killing of innocent women and children, gangsterism, terrorism, and the attack on USS Liberty? And of course, long before Jews sought to stamp out the Confederate Flag, they(as Bolsheviks) tried to blow up every Church in Russia. And today, Jews fund garbage like Pussy Riot to desecrate Russian Churches. There is simply no limit to the foul hypocrisy of the Jew.

    Jews and glib Northern white liberals would us believe that slavery was the 'original sin' of America, as if slavery had been invented in America. Furthermore, Brazil brought over 10x the number of blacks to the New World than the US, and lots of Jews were involved in the Brazilian slave trade and plantation. So, Jews need to shut the F up.

    But if we must talk of America's 'original sin', why is it black slavery and not the conquest of America and the 'genocide' of the Indians? After all, something like 300,000 blacks w were brought to the US whereas something like 5 million native Americans might have been wiped out by diseases and then guns brought by white folks. Furthermore, this was the ancestral land of Indians who were pushed out, rubbed out, and forced into reservations? Sounds to me worse than slavery. And this process began before a single black dude was brought over as a slave.

    So, why isn't this Narrative used as the original sin of American? Is it because what whites did to Indians sounds a bit too much like what Jews did to the Palestinians?

    The left often quotes George Carlin so how about this one.

    “political correctness is fascism”
    -George Carlin

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The modern multiracial United States as a modern single nation was formed out of the Civil War between a two groups of federated, but semi independent states.

    The problem is that the issue of state’s rights has never really been fully resolved.

    As a foreigner coming to the US, now a US citizen for many years, it is striking to me how incredibly similar most of the states are to each other, with the differences being mostly cosmetic.

    For example the homes in New Mexico have stucco painted brown with rounded corners to make them look like they are made of dung, but once you get inside they are much the same as anywhere else.

    Here in Florida streets will just stop and then start again somewhere else, just the same as they do in North Carolina, and yet the states are not contiguous, so one assumes this happens in all states, for some reason.

    In a recent professional exercise based in Florida, I have been talking on the phone to numerous elderly people thousands of miles away in California about their health, but for practical purposes they might as well be next door.

    It would be very, very strange if, say South Carolina, was still a slave state, or if the de facto apartheid in the South of the first half of the twentieth century when touring black musicians like Louis Armstrong found it hard to find a place where they could legally take a piss was still in effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    Isn't the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny 'genocide' of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    Besides, weren't FDR and Truman very chummy with Southern Democrats?

    And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.

    As for symbols of the rebellion. I for one do not hate them I merely despise them as symbol sof treason.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman's march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.

    That you find it necessary to slur my parents and to accuse me of what you, yourself endorse, suggests that you do not have sound arguments and must resort to dishonest methods.

    “It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.”

    For those keeping score at home, here is the query you fired at me–“What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    Again, there are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored. Did you not read the source and carefully analyze it?

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march

    Second, here is exactly what I said –> We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who were honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing [meaning that the only purpose in war is to win].

    1) So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    2) Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    I offered an other than binary response. Now, you have questions posed to you. Answer them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    aw shucks, Corvinus, I thought I could slip by without talkin' about that NYTimes article.
    I did read it.
    I even read it real careful like.
    I said to myself, golly, Corvinus is hauling out the big guns: the New York Times. I mean, talk about your Slam Dunk arguments: If the New York Times said it, it must be so!

    Which made a real problem for me, 'cuz I had a hard time with some of the big words:

    Words like Ad Verecundiam, Bifurcus, Casuistry/ Sophism, and Motivated Reasoning/Cognitive dissonance.
    Phew, how was I ever going to get through all of that.

    So let's do that critical analysis you're demanding, and let's take a stand.

    Now, let's talk about those words that tripped me up, starting with Ad Verecundiam.
    Oops, that word didn't really appear in the NYTimes article. But the foundation of your argument is an appeal to the authority of the NYTimes: if NYTimes said it, it must be so.

    But dadblame it, I went and poked around a bit with the NYTimes article.

    First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word "myth," implying that Sherman's March was not really as bad as people think it was, and that people get that very negative impression from getting their facts from movies, like Gone With the Wind (a truly ironic statement, inasmuch as the NYTimes author goes on to compare Sherman's March to World War II about which most people get their information -- or false impressions-- from movies and television).

    Back to the NYTimes article: the author says GWtW gives an impression of total devastation, but that is a "myth," but then he says that Sherman established rules of engagement and that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules, resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people (tho not that many women and children were deliberately killed, in contrast to the situation in WWII. More on that later.)
    In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman's march to the sea is not a "myth."


    The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman's March to the Sea.

    Both you and the NYTimes article relied on the fallacy of motivated reasoning, a form of casuistry by which you replaced Just War theory w/ "Winning is the only thing."
    Both of you evaluated evidence to support your own outcomes.
    According to wikipedia, Motivated Reasoning is an

    " inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe". This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives"
     
    The key word is "rationally."
    The claim(s) I made were for Just War theory as the basis for assessing whether Sherman's scorched earth policy was moral.

    A rational analysis of that question would take a fairly straightforward form:
    a. What are the requirement of Jus in bello (waging war in accord with Just War theory)
    They are discrimination and proportionality --

    "The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. "
     
    ( a somewhat lengthy explanation of Just War Theory can be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
    I have read it as carefully as I read the NYTimes article. You might wish to do the same.)
    b. Did Sherman's actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No.
    The New York Times author says No.
    You yourself say No.

    That should be the end of the story, and should have been the assessment undertaken by political and military leaders in the course of the Civil War.

    The NYTimes author stated that Sherman and the political leadership fell sway to a false dilemma (Bifurcus) coupled with your own claim that "winning was essential" (discussed later). Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw; it was, in Sherman's mind, essential that the Union achieve a "victory." In Sherman's mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.

    That was a false dilemma that Sherman -- as well as Ulysses Grant and Lincoln himself snared themselves (and all subsequent US policy) upon, because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman's motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.

    The wrongness of Sherman's actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the 'peace' that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman's methods and motives (but, as Groce notes, with far more destructiveness -- the result, I suggest, of far more potent weaponry and the bloated hubris that fueled the use of propaganda to demonize the enemy, including civilians, to bring about total war).

    re Your question about 'preserving western civilization"
    If Just war theory is a pillar of western civilization
    and if that pillar is sophistically replaced by the concept "winning is the only thing,"
    then you may have "won," and you may have behaved in accord with your new sophism, but in doing so you have shattered, not upheld, a pillar of western civilization.

    Sherman's March to the Sea was immoral and a crime against humanity.

    Such crimes do not disappear: they infect the heart of a nation, until that crime is called to account and cauterized.
    Instead, and because the people of the United States have not called themselves to account, as Groce listed in his NYTimes article, the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.

    Such are the behaviors of a psyche addicted to murder that it sophistically labels "victory."

    The old Baltimore Catechism formula still applies:

    Confess your sins
    Do penance
    Make reparations
    Repent (which means, "re-think")
    Resolve to sin no more.

    Such principles used to be the basis of Western Civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Leslie Garrett
    The primary problem here is failure to properly identify who the "they" are in the title. It is, of course, forbidden to talk about the small minority group who own almost all of America's media, that is a forbidden move, but it is they who have quite methodically decided and moved against the Conservative South and the world of Islam. The sleepy world of the South and the Muslims were until rather recently amazingly similar in many many ways, and both places will be far safer, healthier places to be living when this latest and greatest usury bubble breaks than the urban wildernesses of New Jerk and Hell A.

    “They” also built the ships, owned the ships, and made the rum used to buy and transport slaves from Africa to North America. “They” became so prominent in the slave trade until slave markets remained closed on Jewish holidays.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    Isn't the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny 'genocide' of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    Besides, weren't FDR and Truman very chummy with Southern Democrats?

    And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.

    Today, and for the past 70+ years, The American flag has symbolized global terror on a mass scale not previously thought possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    What does the West really owe he? V American Southery little, indeed.

    The Southern people do not think they are owed anything, and have never asked for anything except to be left alone. A simple request from a courteous people that busy-body, self-righteous Yankees find impossible to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    I respectfully disagree. I think the West owes a great deal to the American South.

    I’ll inform you that General R. Edward Lee was related to George Washington and was a man of great integrity.

    I think that General Lee also greatly valued and carried on the military traditions of George Washington.

    I think a lot of that carried on down to men like General George S. Patton, Jr.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    Stupid but I don’t think you share the history. The South provided the positive trade balance, before the Civil War.

    The North preempted it through tariffs, to finance infrastructure.

    I think you should read more and bloat less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children"

    Just a Christian. Not evangelical.

    "There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated."

    And there are organizations who think people who are non-white, non-Christian should be obliterated.

    That's why both groups are considered radicals.

    "They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration."

    Yes, both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Fringe Left.

    "Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you."

    You are overgeneralizing, per usual.

    "Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?"

    Clearly your parents neglected to teach you that fundamental principle.

    It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.

    That you find it necessary to slur my parents and to accuse me of what you, yourself endorse, suggests that you do not have sound arguments and must resort to dishonest methods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught."

    For those keeping score at home, here is the query you fired at me--“What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    Again, there are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored. Did you not read the source and carefully analyze it?

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march

    Second, here is exactly what I said --> We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who were honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing [meaning that the only purpose in war is to win].

    1) So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    2) Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    I offered an other than binary response. Now, you have questions posed to you. Answer them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @fnn
    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    I remember reading an article years ago by a Russian historian where he argued that the Romanov’s biggest mistake was supporting the North during America’s civil war. The American South would have been allied with Great Britain, and the North would have sided with the Kaiser. There would have been no Versailles, no Hitler, no WW2, etc…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dear Paul Gottfried,

    I am profoundly concerned with the chaos and insanity that is being promoted at high levels by this latest round of the American Cultural Revolution. Thanks for your typically insightful column.

    I must offer a gentle correction: It is at the very end of William Faulkner’s book “Absalom! Absalom!”
    (not the “Sound and the Fury”) at which Quentin Compson is asked, “Why do you hate the South?”, and he replies, “I don’t hate the South! I don’t hate it!”

    Jim Given

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Why? Targets of opportunity. Beyond that, it is meaningless. Take away the political element and the removal or maintenance of historical artifacts is of zero consequence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?
     
    You're absolutely right, Corvinus.

    From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children

    There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.

    They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.

    Nothing should stop them -- no "Just war theory" -- that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.

    Nice knowing you Corvinus, even if just thru this Forum, but powers mightier than you think you should be obliterated; they think your children should cease to exist as well. They intend to go one better than merely salting the earth: they intend to pollute with DPU the land that had given you sustenance . Maybe you can do without food for a thousand years.

    btw --
    Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?

    “From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children”

    Just a Christian. Not evangelical.

    “There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.”

    And there are organizations who think people who are non-white, non-Christian should be obliterated.

    That’s why both groups are considered radicals.

    “They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.”

    Yes, both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Fringe Left.

    “Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.”

    You are overgeneralizing, per usual.

    “Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?”

    Clearly your parents neglected to teach you that fundamental principle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman's march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.

    That you find it necessary to slur my parents and to accuse me of what you, yourself endorse, suggests that you do not have sound arguments and must resort to dishonest methods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Nandarani
    Good good article. Met descendants of former slaves living in homes on a large plantation still owned by the same white family .in Virginia, the family of my godfather. No question of the closeness of the association or the treatment.

    This article sums up the truth adroitly after the writer succeeded in finding it and putting it on the record. Thank you. From someone with 1/2 the heritage from the deep south and planning to return there from .... Hawaii

    Experiential learning can be quite compelling when applied judiciously. One experience well worth a trip is to visit a place like the Carter’s Grove Plantation (which used to be open, near Wiliamsburg, VA) or similar locales. See and feel and hear and imagine how slaves and poor whites, the overwhelming majority of the whites in colonial times, lived in their wattle and daub shacks or similar hovels as they slaved, worked off their indenture or otherwise attempted to survive. Kids can read about such lives but there is a reason for the old saying “seeing is believing”. Looking at a dirt floor abode that had little heat and worse ventilation and seeing where you’d eat, sleep and survive would tend to make a kid complain a little less about not having the latest gadget, at least for a short while.

    Those few large houses on Duke of Gloucester Street in Colonial Wiliamsburg were occupied by the few members of that era’s 1%. I am grateful that more recent 1%er families, the Rockefellers and their relatives the Aldrichs, preserved that valuable piece of American history for subsequent generations to appreciate. I know, not fashionable, practically deplorable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Good good article. Met descendants of former slaves living in homes on a large plantation still owned by the same white family .in Virginia, the family of my godfather. No question of the closeness of the association or the treatment.

    This article sums up the truth adroitly after the writer succeeded in finding it and putting it on the record. Thank you. From someone with 1/2 the heritage from the deep south and planning to return there from …. Hawaii

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Experiential learning can be quite compelling when applied judiciously. One experience well worth a trip is to visit a place like the Carter's Grove Plantation (which used to be open, near Wiliamsburg, VA) or similar locales. See and feel and hear and imagine how slaves and poor whites, the overwhelming majority of the whites in colonial times, lived in their wattle and daub shacks or similar hovels as they slaved, worked off their indenture or otherwise attempted to survive. Kids can read about such lives but there is a reason for the old saying "seeing is believing". Looking at a dirt floor abode that had little heat and worse ventilation and seeing where you'd eat, sleep and survive would tend to make a kid complain a little less about not having the latest gadget, at least for a short while.

    Those few large houses on Duke of Gloucester Street in Colonial Wiliamsburg were occupied by the few members of that era's 1%. I am grateful that more recent 1%er families, the Rockefellers and their relatives the Aldrichs, preserved that valuable piece of American history for subsequent generations to appreciate. I know, not fashionable, practically deplorable.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Har, the US broke apart in the 1850′s over slavery, Lincoln decided to put it back together emancipation or no. History testifies that it was a Republican who decided the 10th Amendment didn’t protect the individual states from Federal Sovereignty. All you right wingers hollering willi willi over State’s Rights best un f yourselves and understand it was the GOP that created the Federal Monster. What a joke, almost as big a joke as the above mealy mouthed pseudo intellectual defense of ‘Southern Heritage.’ Dad gummit I’m from the South and I’ll GD guarantee you there was not one thing in Antebellum culture worth preserving. Yeah yeah, they fought heroically, bunch of traitors and losers…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Civil War was about slavery, not State’s Rights.

    The CSA offered to rejoin the Union if the Fed Govt used its power to overturn individual state laws restricting slavery and guarantee it in the new territories.

    The secession documents issued by CS as well as period literature newspapers etc etc are unequivocal on this point. Revisionist narratives to the contrary are intended to provide ethical wiggle room for those who want to glorify the Confederacy, and somehow separate it from this defining institution.

    To spread slavery to the new territories the political leadership of the slave states was willing to go to war, and they did. The Union had every right to take the fight, once begun, to the CSA, and to finish it decisively – which they did.

    The only question is whether the Union had any right to force the CSA back into the Union afterward, in my opinion they didn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Dakota
    The civil war was not about slavery or states rights it was about commerce.
    The north wanted control of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers plus New Orleans.
    It was about building railroads and funny Lincoln as a lawyer represented railroad companies before he was president. Go figure.
    The cotton gin made slavery obsolete anyway so it was time to go.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Reg Cæsar
    The Left hates the South for one reason alone: it ceased to support the Democratic Party. (And why would it, after being turned on?) Were white Southerners to turn back to their wayward child, all would be forgiven overnight! It would take the GOP granting US citizenship to the entire population of Mexico to bring that about, though.

    As I see it, Dixie has just two great sins on her record: importing Africans to live among white men-- an epic betrayal of their own race-- and ruining American, and eventually all Western, music. Funny, that's the only Southern accomplishment the Left will celebrate.

    I can see why planters would bitch about paying the bulk of the tariff, but I don't see why anyone else should feel sorry for them. It's not like that income came from the sweat of their brows. Southern senators didn't cry tears for that sliver of the population subject to the income tax they helped push through in 1913. And which their own native son, TWW, turned around and hit them with as well. Sending our sons to France is expensive.

    The authors of comments here who vituperate against “Southerners” are obviously despicably ignorant of history. Yes slavery was that “peculiar institution” which existed not only as a mainstay to the Southern economy but also to the economy in many places up North of Mason-Dixon. General Grant and other Yankee leaders as well possessed slaves. House slaves were even common in Northern cities, in New York for example. And if you want a good look at the racism of the Yankee troops, just peruse for example, the eyewitness testimony of both slave and freeman in Walter Brian Cisco’s “War Crimes against Southern Civilians.”

    Of course, Yankee hypocrisy and cynicism is nothing new.
    The old folks always had you all pretty well pegged.
    So these latter-day carpet-bagging and scalawag Liberators had better keep in mind, that they may just not be able to “bind up the wounds” this time around, replacement politics notwithstanding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?"

    There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

    We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

    "Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    "Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?

    You’re absolutely right, Corvinus.

    From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children

    There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.

    They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.

    Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.

    Nice knowing you Corvinus, even if just thru this Forum, but powers mightier than you think you should be obliterated; they think your children should cease to exist as well. They intend to go one better than merely salting the earth: they intend to pollute with DPU the land that had given you sustenance . Maybe you can do without food for a thousand years.

    btw —
    Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children"

    Just a Christian. Not evangelical.

    "There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated."

    And there are organizations who think people who are non-white, non-Christian should be obliterated.

    That's why both groups are considered radicals.

    "They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration."

    Yes, both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Fringe Left.

    "Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you."

    You are overgeneralizing, per usual.

    "Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?"

    Clearly your parents neglected to teach you that fundamental principle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @helena
    Good for them, those 'do it this way' bumper stickers are pretty annoying.

    I had tea with a 92yo lady yesterday who told me her husband was part of the raf bombing of Dresden. She said he cried bitterly over what he had done. His Lancaster just made it back but his co-navigator didn't survive. And he never spoke publically of being part of the operation.

    It was amusing in a way because we were sitting in a hotel lobby. In fact there were 2 92yo ladies and they were discussing the war. One was confused as to why Hess was shot and the other kept talking loudly about H. So I had to intervene. This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.

    This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.

    Maybe I’m dense, helena. It seems to me that if people cannot discuss events as momentous as WWII in reasoned and civil ways — or over a cup of tea — then they will do so in angry and violent ways. One way or another, people need to tell their stories and have their stories heard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    About ten years ago one could see this bumper sticker on Virginia cars up and down Rte. 29, especially around Stanardsville, where the first Scots-Irish to settle in the hills still live on their land:

    "We don't give a damn HOW you do it in New York."

    Good for them, those ‘do it this way’ bumper stickers are pretty annoying.

    I had tea with a 92yo lady yesterday who told me her husband was part of the raf bombing of Dresden. She said he cried bitterly over what he had done. His Lancaster just made it back but his co-navigator didn’t survive. And he never spoke publically of being part of the operation.

    It was amusing in a way because we were sitting in a hotel lobby. In fact there were 2 92yo ladies and they were discussing the war. One was confused as to why Hess was shot and the other kept talking loudly about H. So I had to intervene. This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.
     
    Maybe I'm dense, helena. It seems to me that if people cannot discuss events as momentous as WWII in reasoned and civil ways -- or over a cup of tea -- then they will do so in angry and violent ways. One way or another, people need to tell their stories and have their stories heard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Much is written about slavery and its aftermaths. A large part of this is frenetically modified history issuing from people both excited and poorly read, a comic-book version apparently intended to support agendas of the impenetrably adolescent Left. A few points: First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous, much worse in the Deep South than...
  • His family? Are you under the delusional impression that “his family” would not beat, torture, and otherwise maltreat the family slaves? You sound like a fool.

    The difference between a human “person” and “an animal” is that the human would not own slaves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [A major oration, previously unpublished, by Prof. Paul Gottfried] Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues...
  • @SolontoCroesus
    Yo, Corvie the normie,

    What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

    Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
    Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

    Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

    Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

    Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

    “What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    There are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored.

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

    We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

    “Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?”

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    “Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.”

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?
     
    You're absolutely right, Corvinus.

    From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children

    There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.

    They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.

    Nothing should stop them -- no "Just war theory" -- that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.

    Nice knowing you Corvinus, even if just thru this Forum, but powers mightier than you think you should be obliterated; they think your children should cease to exist as well. They intend to go one better than merely salting the earth: they intend to pollute with DPU the land that had given you sustenance . Maybe you can do without food for a thousand years.

    btw --
    Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely."

    Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

    "Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see."

    Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

    What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested.

    Yo, Corvie the normie,

    What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?

    Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
    Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

    Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago — waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity — (don’t you just love that term? moral clarity — Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

    Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

    Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?"

    There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

    We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

    "Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    "Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, I have learned something from you!

    Generally, if in the USA context, any person or group makes any claim about "rights," I assume that they must be talking about constitutional rights! But of course, the Ninth Amendment itself references limitless other rights, as follows:

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

    Is that a loophole to drive a Mack truck through, or what?

    So they really did have pretty solid legal or constitutional grounds for secession!

    On the other hand, advocates for the North (the USA) could have argued that some or many of the restrictions on the states enumerated in Art. I, Sect. 10,, still applied - even to the states that had seceded pursuant to their extra-constitutional right of secession. Of course, it would have taken more than a year just to decide exactly what is to be made of the phrase "others [rights] retained by the people" considering that it does not say "by the States." Beyond that, the Court could have said, well okay, you can secede but you cannot, without the consent of Congress, "engage in war, unless actually invaded." And maybe that was why Lincoln, early in the war, was very reluctant to avoid anything that might look like "actual" invasion.

    In that way, the case before the SCOTUS might have dragged on for years ... which could have been better than enduring the CW. As the Oracle of the I Ching says about the hexagram for Kung Fu: Thus the superior man "deliberates about cases of litigation and delays (the infliction of) death."

    You are of course very welcome!

    IMO the 9th Amendment isn’t particularly applicable to secession, as it references “the people,” which throughout the Constitution, from its very first sentence, refers to “the people of the United States,” not to the people of the individual states or to the states themselves.

    Your point would be much better justified by the 10th Amendment, which reads, “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.”

    Now, THERE’S a loophole!

    The problem is that, AFAIK, nobody knows what 10A means and it has seldom, I believe, been used to support any court decision. Probably less often than any other of the Bill of Rights with probable exceptions of the 3rd, which has never really been an issue, and of course the 9th, which is just as obscure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @carnac
    I am an unrepentant, unreconstructed Southerner. I have researched my ancestors and they go back to old Virginia in the 1700's. In all of that time our family never owned a slave and you can say that about 90% (or more) of Southern families. I am not denying there were slaves but they were not among the average folk. The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely. I know....slavery is wrong. That was a different era and time. Do you Yankees think that Southern boys left home to fight the Union army over owning slaves or for the rich man to own them?? You are believing your own wartime propaganda again. These Southerners were fighting over States Rights which they considered Lincoln to be eroding. The Southerners (even the poor) knew the constitution and still do. We follow it. We believe it is almost holy. The constitution lays out what a federal government is supposed to do and everything else is under the power of the individual states. To us....(especially back in 1860) each state was its own nation united for defense and other issues. Look at the power the government has now. Are you enjoying their idiotic dictates?? Do you like being ordered around by the likes of Obama (or anyone else). Southerners saw this day and time coming. We still want States Rights. We still want independence. Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see.

    “The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely.”

    Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will…and you claim they were treated “humanely” because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

    “Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see.”

    Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

    What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Yo, Corvie the normie,

    What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

    Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
    Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

    Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

    Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

    Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it's a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You'd be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

    Thank you, Logan, I have learned something from you!

    Generally, if in the USA context, any person or group makes any claim about “rights,” I assume that they must be talking about constitutional rights! But of course, the Ninth Amendment itself references limitless other rights, as follows:

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

    Is that a loophole to drive a Mack truck through, or what?

    So they really did have pretty solid legal or constitutional grounds for secession!

    On the other hand, advocates for the North (the USA) could have argued that some or many of the restrictions on the states enumerated in Art. I, Sect. 10,, still applied – even to the states that had seceded pursuant to their extra-constitutional right of secession. Of course, it would have taken more than a year just to decide exactly what is to be made of the phrase “others [rights] retained by the people” considering that it does not say “by the States.” Beyond that, the Court could have said, well okay, you can secede but you cannot, without the consent of Congress, “engage in war, unless actually invaded.” And maybe that was why Lincoln, early in the war, was very reluctant to avoid anything that might look like “actual” invasion.

    In that way, the case before the SCOTUS might have dragged on for years … which could have been better than enduring the CW. As the Oracle of the I Ching says about the hexagram for Kung Fu: Thus the superior man “deliberates about cases of litigation and delays (the infliction of) death.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    You are of course very welcome!

    IMO the 9th Amendment isn't particularly applicable to secession, as it references "the people," which throughout the Constitution, from its very first sentence, refers to "the people of the United States," not to the people of the individual states or to the states themselves.

    Your point would be much better justified by the 10th Amendment, which reads, "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."

    Now, THERE'S a loophole!

    The problem is that, AFAIK, nobody knows what 10A means and it has seldom, I believe, been used to support any court decision. Probably less often than any other of the Bill of Rights with probable exceptions of the 3rd, which has never really been an issue, and of course the 9th, which is just as obscure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Reg Cæsar
    They didn't leave "Europe", they left England. (The Pilgrims-- not Puritans-- technically did leave from Europe: Leiden.)

    They also didn’t come to a “country” full of red men. They came to a Continent that had a lot of red(ish) tribes, some more organized and cohesive than others, but nothing resembling a unified nation-state. It is fairly well known that many of the “Indians” in what is now the eastern seaboard of the U.S., were not that different in general racial phenotype, from Europeans. Because there haven’t been any full-blood eastern seaboard native Americans since the 1700s, we can’t know that exactly, but writers of the era, described native women as often attractive and resembling Euros, wanting only a “fair complexion” (well, they weren’t into suntans yet) but features otherwise similar. They wouldn’t have that impression of most natives further west. But the middle-American natives, and especially the Cherokee, showed evidence of non-native-American ancestry long before the English touched down, probably European and Middle Eastern. Their cultural artifacts (of some tribes, esp Cherokee) also showed similarity to middle eastern culture. I think the only tribe that already had some sort of writing are thought to have had middle eastern roots, though that’s still not proven.
    The Spanish brought Filipinos who jumped ship. Everybody was over here before Columbus, that’s no secret. The Atlantic was criss-crossed many times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Blue
    Racism is a southern phenom, yeh, right.

    Even a baseball fan knows that African-Americans were only allowed on baseball fields with "whites" some 80+ years after the Civil War; and all of these major league fields were in the North Eastern states, none in the south. Let's ban the original 16 MLB franchises for their past racism, and erase all MLB records prior to Jackie Roninson from the record book!

    I also remember the "race riots" in the 1960s in such southern bastions as Detroit. Needless to say, racism has violently upticked recently thanks to the Obama administration in places like St. Louis and Chicago. St. Louis is sort of south, I guess.

    Context of the times: Slavery was only banned in the British Empire some 28 years before the civil war started. It took Wilbur Wilberforce and the British Anti-Slavery Society 58 years of sponsoring anti-slavery legislation in parliament before abolition was successful.

    Just think, if "Americans" hadn't won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier, but of course racism and worker exploitation would have persisted as before. Maybe we should abolish the United States and return them to Britain and Spain.

    Why are you putting quotes around “whites?” If you say “blacks”, do you put quotes around that word? I rarely hear black people used the term African American except in some formal speech. Is it because the color is a metaphor? Do the SJWs tell you to use quotes? Genuinely curious. If whites are “whites”, are blacks, “blacks?” Are brown people “brown?” Call me “curious” or perhaps, “confused”; so kindly un-confuse me.
    Thanks (not “thanks”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Blue
    Racism is a southern phenom, yeh, right.

    Even a baseball fan knows that African-Americans were only allowed on baseball fields with "whites" some 80+ years after the Civil War; and all of these major league fields were in the North Eastern states, none in the south. Let's ban the original 16 MLB franchises for their past racism, and erase all MLB records prior to Jackie Roninson from the record book!

    I also remember the "race riots" in the 1960s in such southern bastions as Detroit. Needless to say, racism has violently upticked recently thanks to the Obama administration in places like St. Louis and Chicago. St. Louis is sort of south, I guess.

    Context of the times: Slavery was only banned in the British Empire some 28 years before the civil war started. It took Wilbur Wilberforce and the British Anti-Slavery Society 58 years of sponsoring anti-slavery legislation in parliament before abolition was successful.

    Just think, if "Americans" hadn't won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier, but of course racism and worker exploitation would have persisted as before. Maybe we should abolish the United States and return them to Britain and Spain.

    “Just think, if “Americans” hadn’t won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier”

    Not necessarily. 4M slaves embedded in a population of 6M determined to prevent their freeing is a very different matter from 800,000 slaves scattered widely, most of them on small islands where any owner resistance can be isolated and crushed in short order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, for calling out an entire paragraph of bogus claims referenced by Gottfried (third paragraph of his piece) - in particular the claim that I have so often heard repeated over the years by so many people who seem to believe it as though it were scripture, the claim that the states had a right to secede and form the CSA. These people (including Gottfried) have never read the Constitution!

    QUOTE
    Section 10

    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    UNQUOTE

    So, no state could enter into any "treaty, alliance or confederation" and could not "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." Maybe a single state could "secede" but there would be precious little it could do without the consent of Congress. Oh, sure, they could cut off the nose to spite the face by refusing to send anybody to represent them in Congress (and then Congress could appoint "representatives" for the seceding states) ... but really, all any state could ever do was like what happened in Canada a few years ago, when Quebec seceded from Canada ... and then the next day, it was business-as-usual and nobody noticed any change from the day before.

    The states never had a "right to secede" and the CSA was formed in violation of the Constitution.

    The pity is that the Court and the Congress and the Executive, all, have virtually repealed the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) such that there is no limit to Federal power.

    As Mr. Justice Thomas said in dissent to Gonzales v. Raich:

    QUOTE
    The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ ... to “commercial” and “economic” activity, ... and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” ... Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
    UNQUOTE
    and
    QUOTE
    In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. 514 U.S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.
    UNQUOTE

    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it’s a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You’d be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, I have learned something from you!

    Generally, if in the USA context, any person or group makes any claim about "rights," I assume that they must be talking about constitutional rights! But of course, the Ninth Amendment itself references limitless other rights, as follows:

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

    Is that a loophole to drive a Mack truck through, or what?

    So they really did have pretty solid legal or constitutional grounds for secession!

    On the other hand, advocates for the North (the USA) could have argued that some or many of the restrictions on the states enumerated in Art. I, Sect. 10,, still applied - even to the states that had seceded pursuant to their extra-constitutional right of secession. Of course, it would have taken more than a year just to decide exactly what is to be made of the phrase "others [rights] retained by the people" considering that it does not say "by the States." Beyond that, the Court could have said, well okay, you can secede but you cannot, without the consent of Congress, "engage in war, unless actually invaded." And maybe that was why Lincoln, early in the war, was very reluctant to avoid anything that might look like "actual" invasion.

    In that way, the case before the SCOTUS might have dragged on for years ... which could have been better than enduring the CW. As the Oracle of the I Ching says about the hexagram for Kung Fu: Thus the superior man "deliberates about cases of litigation and delays (the infliction of) death."
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.
     
    You're right that to secede you don't need anything in the constitution. But I don't think you need any theories either. It's just a matter of fait accompli. You declare independence, you form the government, you establish control over the territory - and voila, you seceded. Now, if you manage to defend it, you have a country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    "One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence."

    Sure, it contributed. But crushing is a pretty strong word. The entire federal budget for 1860 was $60M. Hard to do a lot of crushing with that amount of taxation.

    " One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control."

    Sure, on March 13, 1865. And the law they passed refused to free the slaves it enrolled, regardless of the fact that General Lee had requested they do so. A last-ditch desperate efforts less than one month before the end of the war is hardly "willingness."

    "And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union."

    I have seen this claim made several times, but never referenced. This guy addresses that it does not apply to VA, RI or NY, and that in fact VA and NY both considered and rejected such a conditional ratification.

    https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/did-the-states-reserve-a-right-to-secede/

    I have myself researched the claim for Texas, which would make sense as it was previously an independent nation. But Texas reserved no such right either.

    Thank you, Logan, for calling out an entire paragraph of bogus claims referenced by Gottfried (third paragraph of his piece) – in particular the claim that I have so often heard repeated over the years by so many people who seem to believe it as though it were scripture, the claim that the states had a right to secede and form the CSA. These people (including Gottfried) have never read the Constitution!

    QUOTE
    Section 10

    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    UNQUOTE

    So, no state could enter into any “treaty, alliance or confederation” and could not “enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” Maybe a single state could “secede” but there would be precious little it could do without the consent of Congress. Oh, sure, they could cut off the nose to spite the face by refusing to send anybody to represent them in Congress (and then Congress could appoint “representatives” for the seceding states) … but really, all any state could ever do was like what happened in Canada a few years ago, when Quebec seceded from Canada … and then the next day, it was business-as-usual and nobody noticed any change from the day before.

    The states never had a “right to secede” and the CSA was formed in violation of the Constitution.

    The pity is that the Court and the Congress and the Executive, all, have virtually repealed the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) such that there is no limit to Federal power.

    As Mr. Justice Thomas said in dissent to Gonzales v. Raich:

    QUOTE
    The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ … to “commercial” and “economic” activity, … and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” … Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
    UNQUOTE
    and
    QUOTE
    In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. 514 U.S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.
    UNQUOTE

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it's a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You'd be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SFG
    I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years. Even Woody Allen spent little time making fun of the South.

    When it comes to wars and politics, Jews do not choose sides based on ideological reasoning. They choose sides based on which affords the best opportunity for making large profits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @fnn
    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    You are correct. I’ve have never figured out why large numbers of individuals belonging to Southern heritage groups, eagerly wave the US government’s flag with the right hand, while waving the Confederate Battle flag with the left. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they fail to understand that the US flag represents the exact opposite of what the Confederate Battle flag represents, which is defiance of centralized authority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Racism is a southern phenom, yeh, right.

    Even a baseball fan knows that African-Americans were only allowed on baseball fields with “whites” some 80+ years after the Civil War; and all of these major league fields were in the North Eastern states, none in the south. Let’s ban the original 16 MLB franchises for their past racism, and erase all MLB records prior to Jackie Roninson from the record book!

    I also remember the “race riots” in the 1960s in such southern bastions as Detroit. Needless to say, racism has violently upticked recently thanks to the Obama administration in places like St. Louis and Chicago. St. Louis is sort of south, I guess.

    Context of the times: Slavery was only banned in the British Empire some 28 years before the civil war started. It took Wilbur Wilberforce and the British Anti-Slavery Society 58 years of sponsoring anti-slavery legislation in parliament before abolition was successful.

    Just think, if “Americans” hadn’t won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier, but of course racism and worker exploitation would have persisted as before. Maybe we should abolish the United States and return them to Britain and Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    "Just think, if “Americans” hadn’t won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier"

    Not necessarily. 4M slaves embedded in a population of 6M determined to prevent their freeing is a very different matter from 800,000 slaves scattered widely, most of them on small islands where any owner resistance can be isolated and crushed in short order.
    , @dcite
    Why are you putting quotes around "whites?" If you say "blacks", do you put quotes around that word? I rarely hear black people used the term African American except in some formal speech. Is it because the color is a metaphor? Do the SJWs tell you to use quotes? Genuinely curious. If whites are "whites", are blacks, "blacks?" Are brown people "brown?" Call me "curious" or perhaps, "confused"; so kindly un-confuse me.
    Thanks (not "thanks")
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The comparison of Southern slavery and the Holocaust had been made by Arnold Toynbee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Delmas DuBois
    Let's not forget a few facts which trouble the Northern Social Justice Warrior narrative: that General Ulysses S Grant of the Yankee forces was also a slaveowner.
    President Lincoln even authorized the return of runaway slaves to their owners.
    Pope Pius IX even sent a papal blessing to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy.

    grant banned jews from military zones, the south had a jewish secretary and the majority of jews in america supported the south (not to mention jews dominated the slave trade).

    the NYT east coast hatred of the south comes from:
    transferred fears: (cossacks=southerners)
    projection

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence.”

    Sure, it contributed. But crushing is a pretty strong word. The entire federal budget for 1860 was $60M. Hard to do a lot of crushing with that amount of taxation.

    ” One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control.”

    Sure, on March 13, 1865. And the law they passed refused to free the slaves it enrolled, regardless of the fact that General Lee had requested they do so. A last-ditch desperate efforts less than one month before the end of the war is hardly “willingness.”

    “And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union.”

    I have seen this claim made several times, but never referenced. This guy addresses that it does not apply to VA, RI or NY, and that in fact VA and NY both considered and rejected such a conditional ratification.

    https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/did-the-states-reserve-a-right-to-secede/

    I have myself researched the claim for Texas, which would make sense as it was previously an independent nation. But Texas reserved no such right either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, for calling out an entire paragraph of bogus claims referenced by Gottfried (third paragraph of his piece) - in particular the claim that I have so often heard repeated over the years by so many people who seem to believe it as though it were scripture, the claim that the states had a right to secede and form the CSA. These people (including Gottfried) have never read the Constitution!

    QUOTE
    Section 10

    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    UNQUOTE

    So, no state could enter into any "treaty, alliance or confederation" and could not "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." Maybe a single state could "secede" but there would be precious little it could do without the consent of Congress. Oh, sure, they could cut off the nose to spite the face by refusing to send anybody to represent them in Congress (and then Congress could appoint "representatives" for the seceding states) ... but really, all any state could ever do was like what happened in Canada a few years ago, when Quebec seceded from Canada ... and then the next day, it was business-as-usual and nobody noticed any change from the day before.

    The states never had a "right to secede" and the CSA was formed in violation of the Constitution.

    The pity is that the Court and the Congress and the Executive, all, have virtually repealed the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) such that there is no limit to Federal power.

    As Mr. Justice Thomas said in dissent to Gonzales v. Raich:

    QUOTE
    The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ ... to “commercial” and “economic” activity, ... and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” ... Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
    UNQUOTE
    and
    QUOTE
    In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. 514 U.S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.
    UNQUOTE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    The left hates the South and attacks it because it's trying to take over the South. New Englanders have been flooding into Virginia and North Carolina because they're fleeing high taxes, high housing prices, and lousy weather. Blacks are leaving places like Illinois and heading for Georgia to find jobs. But those three states are traditional Southern states. Therefore, the left wants to conquer them and turn them into little Californias.

    The left wants to flip these states. They want to claim their electorial votes, break them out of the southern bloc, and turn them into liberal states. They've been trying to do the same to Texas, but haven't gotten anywhere yet. By attacking everything conservative, the left wants to intimidate, convert, or force conservatives to move out. They're block-busting, except they're trying to do it with an entire state. Call it 'state-busting,' if you will.

    Also, the left takes it personally when they move into a conservative place and find it cheap, safe, and comfortable because of conservative values. This ticks leftists off, because it means that leftist social ideas are a lot of nonsense, and leftists are afraid their own offspring might grow up conservative if conservative values are allowed to dominate.

    About ten years ago one could see this bumper sticker on Virginia cars up and down Rte. 29, especially around Stanardsville, where the first Scots-Irish to settle in the hills still live on their land:

    “We don’t give a damn HOW you do it in New York.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Good for them, those 'do it this way' bumper stickers are pretty annoying.

    I had tea with a 92yo lady yesterday who told me her husband was part of the raf bombing of Dresden. She said he cried bitterly over what he had done. His Lancaster just made it back but his co-navigator didn't survive. And he never spoke publically of being part of the operation.

    It was amusing in a way because we were sitting in a hotel lobby. In fact there were 2 92yo ladies and they were discussing the war. One was confused as to why Hess was shot and the other kept talking loudly about H. So I had to intervene. This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CalDre

    Unlike the Nazis, these slave-owners were not out to exterminate a race of people;
     
    Will we never stop hearing this outrageous lie and libel against Germany?

    Germany did exactly what White Southerners did - they enslaved a group of people. Concentration camps were work camps. That's why the Auschwitz banner read: "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work Brings Freedom). And that's why Auschwitz had a football pitch, a theater, and a swimming pool - but no gas chambers, those were Stalin's post-war additions (as admitted by the Auschwitz librarian in an interview with a Jewish "holocaust denier", David Cole).

    And unlike Southerners, Germans actually did not want Jews as slaves - i.e., they did not pluck Jews from faraway lands to enslave them. The German plan was to re-settle Jews outside Europe as they surmised that "200 years together" (actually much longer) wasn't working out that well and a divorce was in order. The camps only became work camps when Germany was unable to settle Jews in Madagascar (first choice) or Palestine (second choice) due to Allied objections and it made no sense to have them sit idle, being housed and fed at State expense, while Germany was in this frantic war effort and faced a severe manpower shortage.

    I can understand wanting to correct Liberal lies about the South but why try to buttress your case by repeating their hateful lies against Germany?

    footnote:

    Ernst Zündel has died.

    RIP Ernst Zündel, hounded throughout his adult life, for thought crimes.

    In Memoriam Ernst Zündel Christof Friedrich Zündel
    April 24, 1939 August 5, 2017

    By David Merlin

    “It was his dedication to Truth and Folk which caused his woes. He was unable to silently standby as a sewer of ugly, impossible anti-German propaganda flowed across Canadian society. Ernst seemed amazed that people could believe absurd Holocaust stories and was horrified that the politicians would try to force these stories on society. Ernst educated himself and took action. But, as he spoke out with cogent scientific arguments, the Establishment reacted with a vengeance: attacking him with criminal charges for “spreading false news,” mob violence, deportation, jailing, smears in the media, inaction of the Toronto police when Ernst’s house was firebombed. Such things should not happen in a free society but they did and very few people spoke out against the persecution of Ernst Zundel. In fact, all decent citizens should be worried by what happened to Ernst.”

    http://codoh.com/library/document/4842/?lang=en


    In the introduction to one of my favorite books, Joseph Campbell recounted an anecdote about a young boy who refuted his mother’s claims about creation with the statement, “We have the bones!”
    Campbell praises the young lad, then summarizes:

    “Lies are what the world lives on. Those who seek the truth and lives their lives in accord are, finally, not the many but the few.”

    Ernst Zündel was one of those “few.”
    (So was Robert E. Lee)

    Requiescant in Pace

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Not surprisingly, those who claim that the Holocaust was unique and that comparing it to any other mass murders, particularly those committed by the Communists, is an impermissible outrage have never to my knowledge protested the likening of American slavery or segregation to the ghastliness of Auschwitz.

    That’s one.

    Second is:

    The corruption of the historians you mentioned, Mr. Gottfried, who give in to such parallels.
    Those historians don’t manage to point out/explain, that human history is never anything else than that: Human. Which necessarily means: Not perfect. They therefor give in to an expectation, that is in itself unfullfillable and deeply inhuman: That human affairs should be without faults.

    To understand history can not mean: To find bygone perfectness. Such might be the wish of an uneducated person – for others it’s clear, that such thinking has nothing to offer than frustration, at times even rage and despair.

    A flash of cold water (=irony) from Goethe’s “Maxims and Refelctions” against such unreflected idealism by this man of absolutely True Grit (The Coen brothers) :

    To write hisory is a way, to get rid of the past.

    PS

    Goethes sentence could be understood in many ways – I think about it this way: Don’t you bother too much with this thing, the past, since there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it! – and that’s the most importatnt thing: To try and act here and now – in s sound an sober and responsible and productive way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Introduction Most Americans who know anything of Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) know him only as the stern chaplain of General “Stonewall” Jackson and the author of a classic biography of the general. Yet, after the War Between the States Dabney became one of the most intransigent and impressive American critics of industrial capitalism of the...
  • Thank you for posting this article. Dabney is one of my favorite authors, and maybe the most prophetic. No writings more than his need to be read today when the South is being dismantled, even to the point of erasing its history by removing its Confederate monuments (in 2017.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [A major oration, previously unpublished, by Prof. Paul Gottfried] Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues...
  • @Jeff Davis
    (First, let me say that my name has no connection to the subject of the article. It's just a coincidence, it's just my name.)

    Humans are tribal. They will seek and find a tribal identity, and then everyone else becomes "the other". It's human behavior at its most primitive, compelling, and unavoidable.

    Then, predictably, those who seek to manipulate and dominate --the political class and the "elites" --will use this fact of human behavior to their advantage: divide and conquer. All the way to the bank. The larger and more diverse the population is, the more available and effective is the divide and conquer strategy. Hate is highly profitable.

    "Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
    And the black folks hate the white folks.
    To hate all but the right folks
    Is an old established rule.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    Lena horne and sheriff clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
    It's fun to eulogize
    The people you despise,
    As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

    Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
    And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
    All of my folks hate all of your folks,
    It's american as apple pie.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    New yorkers love the puerto ricans 'cause it's very chic.
    Step up and shake the hand
    Of someone you can't stand.
    You can tolerate him if you try.

    Oh, the protestants hate the catholics,
    And the catholics hate the protestants,
    And the hindus hate the moslems,
    And everybody hates the jews.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    It's national everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood week.
    Be nice to people who
    Are inferior to you.
    It's only for a week, so have no fear.
    Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

    Tom Lehrer - "National Brotherhood Week"

    Its all just part of the great game of control, get rid of identities / tribes and then some can rule unopposed. The South is one of the great identities of the USA, once it is gone the traditional USA is gone. Some want the traditional USA gone, just like they want the traditional France, England, Germany, etc, gone. They want the world to be one big country ruled by one big government, them.

    A tribe is able to do much more than an individual, a tribe can go to war, can build a road, a bridge, a church, a town, etc. The South forms the last remaining white tribe in the US, once it is gone the US is gone, all that remains will be a land owned by the rich, with no “tribes” left being able to provide any backbone of resistance to their objectives, one of which is increased immigration to further breakdown the traditional US identity.

    There is a famous line in Nigerian author Chinua Achebe’s book Things fall Apart. The line is “He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart.” A knife has been put to the symbols of the South so that it can fall apart. Those racist, gun crazy Redneck cousin screwing bastards with bad dental hygiene pose a grave risk to the elite, much better to make them fall apart now by getting rid of their symbols and their identity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @psuedohandle
    ' [T]he South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. [ That's exactly what it was. ]

    ' Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities [ because the Southern planters shipped vast amounts of slave grown cotton to England and vast amounts of manufactured/luxury goods back ?] that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ], as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery ... [ "even if" ... and you don't, obviously ... hope the Old South will rise again? In the lands the USA's military is devastating, laying waste to and making ripe for exploitation? Southerners have always been over-represented in the Imperial expeditionary/occupational armies of the USA. ] '

    Americans who live in Dixie are just like all other Americans. And all Americans hate slavery and the slave culture that flourished in the Old South ... and is flourishing again in the guise of low-wage slavery throughout the globalized neo-liberal empire and has now rolled back home. The only difference is that they are constantly called to the side of the Old South, by the political wedge driven by paleo- and neo-conservatives, as though the southerners of today had anything at all in common with the slave-holding oligarchs pre-Civil War.

    The Old South, reincarnated, is attempting to rise again. Globally. It was the Stars and Bars the neo-Nazis flew in Kiev along with their swastikas at the Maiden.

    I hate what those #@$&% Southerners did in Kiev. Is there no end to their perfidy?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    Define “forward.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    Your comment reveals that you are not a literate person. Ever read a novel?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Make a Venn diagram.

    Label the first circle “physically brave”

    Label the second circle “physically cowardly”

    Then start plotting Yankees and Southerners.

    And that will show why Yankees hate us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The left hates the South and attacks it because it’s trying to take over the South. New Englanders have been flooding into Virginia and North Carolina because they’re fleeing high taxes, high housing prices, and lousy weather. Blacks are leaving places like Illinois and heading for Georgia to find jobs. But those three states are traditional Southern states. Therefore, the left wants to conquer them and turn them into little Californias.

    The left wants to flip these states. They want to claim their electorial votes, break them out of the southern bloc, and turn them into liberal states. They’ve been trying to do the same to Texas, but haven’t gotten anywhere yet. By attacking everything conservative, the left wants to intimidate, convert, or force conservatives to move out. They’re block-busting, except they’re trying to do it with an entire state. Call it ‘state-busting,’ if you will.

    Also, the left takes it personally when they move into a conservative place and find it cheap, safe, and comfortable because of conservative values. This ticks leftists off, because it means that leftist social ideas are a lot of nonsense, and leftists are afraid their own offspring might grow up conservative if conservative values are allowed to dominate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    About ten years ago one could see this bumper sticker on Virginia cars up and down Rte. 29, especially around Stanardsville, where the first Scots-Irish to settle in the hills still live on their land:

    "We don't give a damn HOW you do it in New York."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Unlike the Nazis, these slave-owners were not out to exterminate a race of people;

    Will we never stop hearing this outrageous lie and libel against Germany?

    Germany did exactly what White Southerners did – they enslaved a group of people. Concentration camps were work camps. That’s why the Auschwitz banner read: “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Brings Freedom). And that’s why Auschwitz had a football pitch, a theater, and a swimming pool – but no gas chambers, those were Stalin’s post-war additions (as admitted by the Auschwitz librarian in an interview with a Jewish “holocaust denier”, David Cole).

    And unlike Southerners, Germans actually did not want Jews as slaves – i.e., they did not pluck Jews from faraway lands to enslave them. The German plan was to re-settle Jews outside Europe as they surmised that “200 years together” (actually much longer) wasn’t working out that well and a divorce was in order. The camps only became work camps when Germany was unable to settle Jews in Madagascar (first choice) or Palestine (second choice) due to Allied objections and it made no sense to have them sit idle, being housed and fed at State expense, while Germany was in this frantic war effort and faced a severe manpower shortage.

    I can understand wanting to correct Liberal lies about the South but why try to buttress your case by repeating their hateful lies against Germany?

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    footnote:

    Ernst Zündel has died.

    RIP Ernst Zündel, hounded throughout his adult life, for thought crimes.


    In Memoriam Ernst Zündel Christof Friedrich Zündel
    April 24, 1939 August 5, 2017


    By David Merlin

    "It was his dedication to Truth and Folk which caused his woes. He was unable to silently standby as a sewer of ugly, impossible anti-German propaganda flowed across Canadian society. Ernst seemed amazed that people could believe absurd Holocaust stories and was horrified that the politicians would try to force these stories on society. Ernst educated himself and took action. But, as he spoke out with cogent scientific arguments, the Establishment reacted with a vengeance: attacking him with criminal charges for "spreading false news," mob violence, deportation, jailing, smears in the media, inaction of the Toronto police when Ernst's house was firebombed. Such things should not happen in a free society but they did and very few people spoke out against the persecution of Ernst Zundel. In fact, all decent citizens should be worried by what happened to Ernst."

    http://codoh.com/library/document/4842/?lang=en
     

    ---
    In the introduction to one of my favorite books, Joseph Campbell recounted an anecdote about a young boy who refuted his mother's claims about creation with the statement, "We have the bones!"
    Campbell praises the young lad, then summarizes:

    "Lies are what the world lives on. Those who seek the truth and lives their lives in accord are, finally, not the many but the few."

    Ernst Zündel was one of those "few."
    (So was Robert E. Lee)

    Requiescant in Pace

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Traitor South was and always will be an apt description of the Confederacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Leslie Garrett
    The primary problem here is failure to properly identify who the "they" are in the title. It is, of course, forbidden to talk about the small minority group who own almost all of America's media, that is a forbidden move, but it is they who have quite methodically decided and moved against the Conservative South and the world of Islam. The sleepy world of the South and the Muslims were until rather recently amazingly similar in many many ways, and both places will be far safer, healthier places to be living when this latest and greatest usury bubble breaks than the urban wildernesses of New Jerk and Hell A.

    So trie, except that Southern evangelism has been twisted and taught to hate Islam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rich
    You are obviously unfamiliar with the American South and its many contributions to American and, therefore, Western Civilization. In literature alone names like Faulkner, Twain, Williams and Mencken to name a few. Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Jackson might have had a little influence on Western Civilization. Richard Gatling probably had a pretty big influence on what became of the West, too. Anyway the list of Southern contribution is very long and if you open a book, maybe you can enlighten yourself a bit.

    Ezra Pound and Truman Capote also come to mind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    "I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years."

    Not so. First off, Abolitionists were not the dominant force in the North. Rather, Lincoln and the ruling North elites used Abolitionist rhetoric to justify their war on the South.
    It's like US had no interest in liberating Asia from Japan during WWII. Rather, US sought supremacy over the Pacific and defeated Japan for that reason. The stuff about US liberating Asia from Japan was just a useful moral excuse. (Same thing with the Iraq War. It was essentially a War for Israel but it was promoted as spreading democracy in the Middle East.) After all, if US cared so much about Asia, why did FDR ask Stalin to swallow up North Asia and hand it over to Mao... who then took all of China?

    Northern ruling elites weren't so enlightened on race themselves. They supported the westward expansion that took lands from Indians who were forced into reservations.
    Furthermore, the last thing that most Northern whites wanted to see was white southerners raped and murdered en masse by blacks... no more than Chinese government enjoyed watching boatloads of Vietnamese-Chinese sent to near-certain death in the seas in the late 70s. During the Boat People fiasco, China was communist and Vietnam was communist, but Chinese were angry with the Vietnamese treatment of Vietnamese-Chinese capitalist population who were dispossessed and pushed into the seas(in an event that was not unlike what Turks did to Armenians).

    True, there were lots of self-righteous Northerners who'd read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN and saw the Negro as some saint and felt white loathing and all that, but the real power and most sentiments in the North was not particularly anti-south after the war. If anything, there was far more anti-north sentiment in the south because (1) resentment of having lost the war (2) sense of betrayal that northern whites killed fellow whites in the south for the sake of blacks.

    For the most part, North and South buried the hatchet. Also, as the Democratic Party traditionally depended on both urban northern whites---especially Catholic Irish---and rural southern white voters, it wouldn't have made much sense for American Progressives to especially vilify the South. Indeed, Wilson, FDR, and Truman all relied on the South. Kennedy chose LBJ to carry Texas. And before the final political realignment in the 1994 Congressional election, there were still some vestiges of southern Democratic power. Since then, the Deep South has become totally Republican while the Northeast has become almost totally Democratic. So, it's politically much safer for Northern/Western Democrats to attack the South wholesale. They no longer have any political allies there.

    The North/South enmity in the past need not be exaggerated. Especially as masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into the Northeast Coast, even many white Anglo-Americans in the North began to sympathize with whites in the South. With so many swarthy foreign-looking people---even thought to be non-white by some Northern Europeans---cramming into big cities, especially New York, Northern whites thought they finally better understood the problem that Southern whites were having with blacks.

    But as it turned out, European immigrants---even from southern and eastern Europe---turned out to be pretty solid civilizational material and they assimilated and made the social climb and became like any other Americans. So, the North lost its fears about the 'other', at least in regards to European immigrants.
    In contrast, blacks in the South remained the dangerous 'other'. Some progressive types blamed this on the discriminatory attitudes in the South, but blacks turned out to be as or even more problematic in the North in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and etc. Of course, as there were discriminatory policies in the North as well, black failings in the North could be blamed on white 'racism' too, but in truth, black problems owed really to the fact that black character/personality had been forged for 100,000 yrs in hot Africa with lots of nasty diseases and monstrous wildlife that chased Negroes all around and drove them crazy.

    Anyway, since Southern blacks moved to the North, the North could always blame the South for having turned the blacks crazy---though one wonders why a whole bunch of blacks in France and England are also crazy even though they came directly from Edenic Africa.

    North and South seemed to be getting more or less fine, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened. Initially, the North felt smugly sanctimonious about racial discrimination in the South, especially as such sentiments were egged on Jews in Hollywood and media.
    It was as if the North was so advanced whereas the South was still stuck in the 19th century.

    But there were few reasons why the North/South divide became stalled n the 60s and 70s. One reason was US was still far from the blue state/red state political divide that has become so iconic in our politics.
    Back then, there were forces in both the Republican and Democratic Parties that were for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace was a Democrat before he was an Independent. And there were Northern Republicans who were for the Civil Rights Movement and Western Republicans who saw it as an encroachment of the Federal government on states rights--not only against the South but against the West as well.

    Another huge factor was the wild 6os. As blacks began to burn down cities, riot, and act crazy, many in the North had second thoughts about the Civil Rights Movement. Also, black crime began to climb precipitously at this period. So, even in a city like NY, there was a lot of fear of black crime, finally culminating in the undreamt of triumph of Giuliani in the 90s.
    Of course, the hardened white working class was never much with the blacks in the North. But prior to the Civil Rights Movement, whites mostly had their own communities and blacks had theirs. So, they could tolerate one another. Also, prior to the rise of civil liberties, the police had been much tougher on black crime, and that kept the black community in line. But in the 60s, with the triumphal march of blacks, rise of youth culture, rise of Jewish radicalism, the rise of new optimism with the Kennedy presidency, the popularity of black music, the cult of Muhammad Ali, and etc., Northern white youth became more idealistic/naive/optimistic and northern blacks got rowdier, more aggressive, more demanding, and etc. Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey.

    Prior to the 60s, because white power seemed so monolithic and dominant, even tough blacks in the North and South thought the best way would be mind their manners somewhat, but in the new era when the heavyweight champion of the world was a loud-mouthed Negro who taunted his opponents, made fun of whitey, and acted the thug-loon, blacks began to show their true nature. With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    So, the North vs South narrative was broken. Many Northern whites in 1968 came to see eye-to-eye with Southern Whites about the race problem: blacks are indeed dangerous and crazy. And when MLK marched through some Northern towns, he was met with even more hostility than in the South. Northern whites began to see MLK's Trojan Horse bulljive for what it was. After all, MLK was no saintly Negro but a loutish thug who'd cheated his way through college, led a life of debauchery, and even beat up a woman unconscious and laughed/joked about it. But he had a boom box voice and a penchant for bellowing cliches that naive white folks couldn't resist. He was the Oprah of his day. MLK's assassination is now remembered as some great national tragedy. But in 1968, it meant burning cities and more Negro mayhem, and so, if anything, it helped Nixon and drove many more Northern whites to the anti-black camp.

    At this time, many Northern whites fled to the suburbs and voted Republican. And they loathed blacks more than they loathed Southern Whites. And even ultra-liberals in big cities began to have second thoughts about the preponderance of black crime and violence. Also, no matter what policies were tried on blacks, too many of them seem to be getting only crazier. And the Great Society was a massive failure.

    When we look at Nixon's second election, Reagan's victory, and Bush I's victory, it was obvious how so many Northern Whites and Southern whites saw eye to eye on lots of things. Though MLK was elevated to iconic status and Civil Rights Movement came to be sacralized, there were too many race problems in the North for white Northerners to get too rosy about that stuff. They were mainly concerned about black crime and violence, and as such, sort of understood why the South hadn't been too keen on blacks either.

    Even so, history is controlled by the elites, and as the moral narrative sacralized the black struggle, and lionized MLK; and with PC censoring and blacklisting all competing views, the black issue went from a political and social(or even moral) one to a spiritual one. It's like MLK wasn't just a great man but the greatest man of all time, maybe a messiah. Thus, it became taboo to even question the sacred narrative of the civil rights movement that came to be mythologized in Manichean terms.
    Also, as American Conservatism caved into this mythology, it went on the defensive, and the policy of the GOP became one of seeking the approval of Jews and blacks.
    Also, as Jews became very powerful and as Neocons were insistent on stamping out white 'racism' in the GOP, American Conservatism became increasingly intolerant of any dissenting views that might be deemed 'offensive'. But for some reason, the GOP under Neocons became more 'racist' against Arabs and Palestinians. I guess you gotta win moral credits in one area to use it to cover up moral lapses in another area. If GOP is with the MLK cult, I guess it can help Israel bash Palestinians with a clearer conscience. 'With MLK on our side' is the new 'With God on our side'.
    Jews especially love MLK since MLK gave his full blessing to the Zionist war on Palestinians.

    Of course, the rise of rap music also had an effect. Before rise of rap, white kids listen to white rock mostly and blacks had their own music, but with rap as the big musical act among all kids in America, white kids became more worshipful toward blacks.

    And then, there is the Jewish factor. It's not surprising that Jews view the Civil War through the prism of WWII. After all, even though Germany was defeated and crushed, US had gone relatively easy on Germany soon after the war. This angered a lot of Jews who thought Germany should pretty much have been wiped off the map.
    As USSR was the new enemy, Germany was allowed to rebuild quickly. And it wasn't until the 1960s that Germans really began to face all the horrors they committed during WWII. Also, with the Cold War, many Jews in America came under suspicion as subversives, and many Jews panicked that McCarthyism is New Nazism in America.

    So, the way Jews see the postwar era, white Americans and white Germans patched up their differences rather too quickly and white Americans set their eyes on Jews as the enemy. Philip Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA dramatizes this very Jewish fear.

    Indeed, what if Churchill had sided with Hitler as Hitler wished him too? What if US had come to a peaceful solution with Japan and there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no great war among white nations. And all three might have ganged up on the Jews. It was because UK fought Germany and because US got embroiled in the war thanks to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor that Nazi Germany was finally defeated. It wasn't so much the result of 'good guys' prevailing over the 'bad guys' because history always chooses the good but a matter of an accident of history. So, there was nothing assured about what happened during WWII. There were plenty of American whites who didn't want to fight Germany. What gave the Jews a crucial opening in their survival and eventual chance at supremacist power was cracks/divisions among white nation and groups. Jews lucked out because UK chose to fight Germany, because Hitler decided to fight white Russia, because white American fought white Germany. And during the Cold War, it was the white America/Western Europe vs white Russia/Eastern Europe. Because of the Cold War, white America came under moral pressure to open up its society and make it more tolerant to win the propaganda battle with the white Soviets who inspired and aided people of color all over the Third World to take up arms against white nations/imperialists.
    So, it is in the interest of Jews to make white people hate and fight other white people. Similarly, Jewish-controlled US government employs a foreign policy that seeks to maximize and exploit the differences among various Muslim sects and groups. Jews love to see Muslims/Arabs slaughter one another.

    The last thing Jews want is any kind of united white consciousness in the US or around the globe. Indeed, what is all this business with Russia and Putin about. Cold War is long over. Russia wants closer economic and political ties with the West. He wants peace and brotherhood. But Jews don't want Russian whites to become chummy Western European whites, especially as Putin's brand of nascent nationalism and respect/revitalization of tradition might rub off on Western Europeans who've been injected with the New Normal culture of homomania. Jews especially dislike Russians because it's impossible for Jews to morally browbeat Russians about the Holocaust and WWII. Russians lost more lives in WWII than any other people and did most to defeat Germany.
    So, Jews have used their financial and media power to vilify and isolate Russia, and since most of global media are owned by Jews and since most elites in US and EU are slavish to Jews, Russia has been hit with all kinds of sanctions. And of course, the homomania cult is very useful in making Russia out to be the bad guy. Jews, in having sacralized homosexuality and transvestism in the West, have persuaded a whole bunch of Western morons that it's evil to ban 'gay marriage' or 'gay poo-ride' parade. Since Russia won't allow homos to parade down Red Square, a lot of idiot Americans see Russia as 'new Nazi nation'. This is how dumb Americans have become. Of course, Jews are ecstatic with hideous glee as nothing makes them happier than seeing goy hate goy. Jews are also working in Asia to increase tensions among China, Japan, Vietnam, India, and other nations. A truly nasty and vicious people.

    So, just like Jews want to divide Western Europe from Russia, Jews wanna divide 'blue state whites' from 'red state whites'. Though most of the racial violence in the South has been black-on-white, Jews who run the media have suppressed the truth and perpetrated the myth of permanent black victimhood and nobility through fantasy movies like GREEN MILE, THE HELP, MISSISSIPPI BE BURNING, DJANGO UNCHAINED, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, and etc. And of course, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is like a required reading bible for young ones.

    As for all the white folks robbed, beaten, raped, bullied, terrorized, and murdered by black thugs since the 1960s, forget it. Jews in the media don't care and don't want us to care either. Let us worry about some mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse as the new messiah.

    Furthermore, new tough policies in the North have made it safer for white liberal elites in cities. Today, the posh parts of NY, Chicago, San Fran, Washington DC, and etc are nicer and richer than ever. It is in those areas that the urban elites work, and they feel safe. And as they feel safe, they feel holier-than-thou in pointing fingers of blame at other whites, especially white southerners.
    If downtown areas of cities were run down and filled with crime--as in the 1970s--these liberal elites wouldn't be so glib and conceited.
    Also, generations of PC-brainwashing has stamped out much of honest talk that used to prevail even up to the 1980s. The kinds of columns Mike Royko wrote back then---hard-nosed, tough, cynical, politically incorrect, personal, etc---wouldn't be allowed today. And if older folks spoke candidly, young ones(as pod people) would shout them down as 'racist'. We don't have people like Jim Traficant anymore. Sure, he was a nut but he was also a straight talker---even when he was full of shit. Today, all white folks have to be so mindful of what they say. Indeed, we now live in a world where if someone says he thinks a male fecal hole isn't a proper sex organ, he will be censured, fired, and blacklisted forever in elite community. So, forget about honest talk about race.

    But if we were to have an honest talk about race, I'd argue that the Confederate flag is a useful, indeed necessary, symbol. The meaning of symbols change. Statue of Liberty wasn't originally a symbol of immigration that it came to be.
    Whatever the Confederate Flag used to symbolize, it should now symbolize the need for white unity, the need for white interests, the need for white sympathy for whites suffering at the hands of non-whites, the need to defy Jewish power, and the rightness of a people to prevent biological slavery of their own people at the hands of another race.

    Indeed, the South only had two choices in the past: social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks. Whites and blacks are not the same, i.e. whites are not blacks with white skin, and blacks are not whites with black skin. We can sort of make the case that Asian-Indians(the Hindus)are something like whites with brown/black skin. If indeed whites had brought Asian-Indians as slaves in the American South, then, maybe upon the end of slavery, both groups could have worked to live peacefully side by side or intermingle. But it was different with blacks since evolution had made blacks stronger, more aggressive, wilder, more dangerous, bigger, and more fearsome. Unless whites held social control over blacks, blacks would whup the white man's ass and conquer white women. Or white women would voluntarily ditch the white male as loser dork and go off with the Negro deemed to be sexually/physically/racially superior.
    Of course, Libs will denounce such talk as 'racial or sexual paranoia', but look at rap culture. Much of it's about muscled black thugs howling about how badass they be, how they gonna whup punkass white boys, how white girls are all gonna be their sex slave cattle. And Jewish-run music industry promotes this sort of stuff. Look at TV advertising during the superbowl that feature white women throwing themselves at big muscled Negroes. Look at rape statistics along racial lines, and the sexual violence is overwhelmingly black on white, black on brown, and black on yellow. And the man-to-man violence is black whupping white boys, blacks whupping brown boys, blacks whupping yellow boys, and etc. Black guys used to have fun whupping wimpy Jewish boys too, but as Jews ar so rich, most of them live in safe neighborhoods and use their political muscle to push dangerous blacks to other places.

    While social slavery of blacks was wrong--Lincoln was right to want to free the slaves and send them back to Africa or set up a separate black nation--, it was also wrong to force whites to live under biological slavery of blacks. Every race should live in safety, with male pride, with self-respect, and its own autonomy. This was impossible with blacks in the South since too many blacks are too mean and strong and aggressive. So, it wasn't simply an issue of freedom vs slavery in the south. It was an issue of social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks.

    Though white libs and Jews will deny it, actions speak louder than words. If you look at the social, economic, and behavioral patterns of urban white libs, they also wanna segregate themselves from mostly black areas. This doesn't mean they are 'racist' against blacks, but they too sense a problem with blacks insofar as blacks cause the most mayhem and trouble all across America. Is black violence due to the legacy of slavery? No, it is the legacy of blacks realizing during the Civil Rights Movement that whites have lost it, are vulnerable, and no longer have the guts to stand against black thuggery. After all, when blacks began to attack whites in the 60s, most whites ran, hid, or cowered and didn't dare fight back because they were afraid of bigger and stronger blacks.

    Also, Jews need to shut up since, when faced with the same problem, they've done the same thing in Israel and Occupied Territories. As Palestinians hate Zionists and have used violence against Jews, Jews have used ultra-violence and ultra-segregation to teach Palestinians a lesson not to mess with Jews. And it appears even most Liberal American Jews are pretty much with the program of Jews in Israel and West Bank using harsh measures to keep the Palestinians in their place and teach them a tough lesson. If indeed Jews act this way for their own security --- and Jews in America work tirelessly to force all politicians to sign a pledge to AIPAC --- , who the hell are they to be lecturing white southerners about the Confed flag? Isn't the Zionist flag associated with ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the killing of innocent women and children, gangsterism, terrorism, and the attack on USS Liberty? And of course, long before Jews sought to stamp out the Confederate Flag, they(as Bolsheviks) tried to blow up every Church in Russia. And today, Jews fund garbage like Pussy Riot to desecrate Russian Churches. There is simply no limit to the foul hypocrisy of the Jew.

    Jews and glib Northern white liberals would us believe that slavery was the 'original sin' of America, as if slavery had been invented in America. Furthermore, Brazil brought over 10x the number of blacks to the New World than the US, and lots of Jews were involved in the Brazilian slave trade and plantation. So, Jews need to shut the F up.

    But if we must talk of America's 'original sin', why is it black slavery and not the conquest of America and the 'genocide' of the Indians? After all, something like 300,000 blacks w were brought to the US whereas something like 5 million native Americans might have been wiped out by diseases and then guns brought by white folks. Furthermore, this was the ancestral land of Indians who were pushed out, rubbed out, and forced into reservations? Sounds to me worse than slavery. And this process began before a single black dude was brought over as a slave.

    So, why isn't this Narrative used as the original sin of American? Is it because what whites did to Indians sounds a bit too much like what Jews did to the Palestinians?

    “… Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey…”

    I don’t think this is true at all. Pound for pound Whites, who have any experience at fighting, can beat Blacks. Whites are stronger and have more stamina. It is true that Whites want to get into fights less as they don’t want to go to a jail filled with Blacks. Most of the time Blacks attack in packs or the greatly outsize the Whits they attack.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thank you for writing this. This article describes EXACTLY what has been happening to southerners. Really, thank you for paying attention and thank you for publishing this article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Much is written about slavery and its aftermaths. A large part of this is frenetically modified history issuing from people both excited and poorly read, a comic-book version apparently intended to support agendas of the impenetrably adolescent Left. A few points: First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous, much worse in the Deep South than...
  • @Logan
    Depending on how you figure it, blacks are 12% to 14% of the population. They were about 20% at the Founding. Where they probably would have remained if not for the massive (white) immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which brought them down to about 10% by 1940. They've since rebounded a bit, probably due mainly to low white fertility.

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/african-american-population

    Found an interesting graph on historical fertility rates by race.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    "Native Americans" are just about as low as South Koreans!

    thanx for the correction, logan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Okay cutting away all of the non-sequitur BS and getting down to the basis issue which is:

    In persuit of “Reparations” for blacks the leftist crazies are pushing the gigantic lie maintaining that only blacks have a monopoly on the historical experience of slavery.

    They are deliberately withholding , within the edumacation system, and political discussion, the fact that Europeans were subjected to horrid, cruel slave-like circumstances before their departure to distant shores, so as to portray the blacks as the only victims of this manifestation.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.

    Would seem like that would be 19th-century German liberal dogma, not the English variety.

    I presume you’re Catholic and resent anything that you see as anti-Catholic.

    But I am curious if you think the Papal Church of the Middle Ages was indeed compatible with “an energetic, independent search after this .” Doesn’t seem so to me. That a particular Church is the Truth does not change the fact that if that Church enforces its belief system by force it is by definition preventing such an independent search. Which of course makes perfect sense, assuming you accept the Church’s assumptions, as going beyond what the Church teaches cannot be other than Error.

    The way he words it is of course largely self-congratulation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lawrence Fitton
    let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it's the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Sorry, one of my responses was obviously intended for someone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lawrence Fitton
    let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it's the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Depending on how you figure it, blacks are 12% to 14% of the population. They were about 20% at the Founding. Where they probably would have remained if not for the massive (white) immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which brought them down to about 10% by 1940. They’ve since rebounded a bit, probably due mainly to low white fertility.

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/african-american-population

    Found an interesting graph on historical fertility rates by race.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    “Native Americans” are just about as low as South Koreans!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
    thanx for the correction, logan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lawrence Fitton
    let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it's the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Well, then you would have had to know all this stuff when you were 16!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.

    Addendum: I know Freytag was Prussian (or Silesian, but same thing really).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it’s the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Well, then you would have had to know all this stuff when you were 16!
    , @Logan
    Depending on how you figure it, blacks are 12% to 14% of the population. They were about 20% at the Founding. Where they probably would have remained if not for the massive (white) immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which brought them down to about 10% by 1940. They've since rebounded a bit, probably due mainly to low white fertility.

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/african-american-population

    Found an interesting graph on historical fertility rates by race.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    "Native Americans" are just about as low as South Koreans!
    , @Logan
    Sorry, one of my responses was obviously intended for someone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    In case you're interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm

    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Addendum: I know Freytag was Prussian (or Silesian, but same thing really).
    , @Logan
    Would seem like that would be 19th-century German liberal dogma, not the English variety.

    I presume you're Catholic and resent anything that you see as anti-Catholic.

    But I am curious if you think the Papal Church of the Middle Ages was indeed compatible with "an energetic, independent search after this ." Doesn't seem so to me. That a particular Church is the Truth does not change the fact that if that Church enforces its belief system by force it is by definition preventing such an independent search. Which of course makes perfect sense, assuming you accept the Church's assumptions, as going beyond what the Church teaches cannot be other than Error.

    The way he words it is of course largely self-congratulation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    In case you're interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm

    Jeez I just don’t know how to get the point across that I know German society and history, okay sounds arrogant, but anyway, better than you or anyone else here could possibly imagine.
    I lived in Germany for over forty years, was married to various upper-class women, one “Von”, one medical doctor, and my current wife a retired Gymnasium teacher, and no “Gymnasium” in Germany is not the venue where people chase balls around in a sweat-filled hall.
    I attended university in Germany, and resided in a university town, while hob-nobbing with the vain self congratulatory upper-crust thereof.
    I read tomes upon tomes of history writings, and I am exausted from studying to the point at which I will never crack another book again period.
    Look what I am trying to say is : I know WTF I am talking about, otherwise I would not be talking about it, period.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” Society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    PS : I’ll be seventy-seven in Oct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Authenticjazzman
    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a "United" nation at the time of "Leibeigenschaft", and the rest of your "details" have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these "Details" to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization "Laws" which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    In case you’re interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Jeez I just don't know how to get the point across that I know German society and history, okay sounds arrogant, but anyway, better than you or anyone else here could possibly imagine.
    I lived in Germany for over forty years, was married to various upper-class women, one "Von", one medical doctor, and my current wife a retired Gymnasium teacher, and no "Gymnasium" in Germany is not the venue where people chase balls around in a sweat-filled hall.
    I attended university in Germany, and resided in a university town, while hob-nobbing with the vain self congratulatory upper-crust thereof.
    I read tomes upon tomes of history writings, and I am exausted from studying to the point at which I will never crack another book again period.
    Look what I am trying to say is : I know WTF I am talking about, otherwise I would not be talking about it, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" Society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    PS : I'll be seventy-seven in Oct.
    , @Anon
    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One possible issue about emancipation in the North that I’ve never seen discussed is that in almost all northern states the law did not free individual slaves, it merely ended the legal status of the institution, usually at a date a number of years in the future.

    This would of course give owners a strong incentive to sell their property South before it was in effect confiscated. It seems likely many did, and also likely that the laws were intentionally written as they were to allow them to do so.

    But I’ve never seen a scholarly investigation of the subject, possibly because it would make northern emancipation look a good deal less noble.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.
     
    Yes, I find this utterly inane and it completely glosses over the fact that slavery was alive and well among the natives in America and the South American empires well before it was brought over as an institution by Europeans.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.
     
    Indeed - the famous West African emperors used to even employ Turkish slaves as imperial guards. Timbuktu was a very famous center of learning for centuries...and a major slave market. And there was plenty White-on-White slavery historically. The Vikings/Varangians used to be slave-raiders par excellence and would sell their "wares" in the darker-skinned Abbasid and Byzantine Empires.

    Peace.

    Correct. As you are probably aware, the word for “slave” in almost all European languages is derived from Slav. The Slavs of eastern Europe were regularly raided for slaves for almost a millenium by the surrounding more powerful peoples: Germans, Magyars, Norse and Varangians, Byzantines, Khazars, Turks, Tatars, etc.

    The Tatars turned it into almost a formal process, with massive sweeps across the plains they called “harvesting the steppe.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Authenticjazzman
    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a "United" nation at the time of "Leibeigenschaft", and the rest of your "details" have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these "Details" to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization "Laws" which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    IOW, the accuracy of your original claims is not relevant, since they were made to illustrate the “real truth,” which is apparently that the upper classes in all areas of Europe held power of life and death over the lower classes well up into the 19th century.

    I made the mistake of assuming you were interested in discussing actual facts, not in tossing out random assertions to support a predetermined position. Won’t happen again.

    I did get interested in the subject, though, and would be glad to read a book or other material on what the actual condition of German peasants was from, say, 1700 to 1848. I found lots on England and quite a bit on Ireland, France and even Poland. Not much on Germany.

    I did find that German peasants did not rebel much between the Revolt of Luther’s time and the 19th century. This could be because they were reasonably content, or because the oppression was so ferocious they were unable to revolt.

    BTW, if you knew all this stuff before I was born, you must be pretty darn old!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ThreeCranes
    Good article Fred. I would only like to add that the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations.

    They had this firebrand politician whose name I forget who spoke out eloquently in the Southern Congress on the machinations of the rich plantation owners whose political interests ran directly counter to that of the majority of poor, southern-white tradesman and small farmers.

    So, ignorant northerners who condemn all southerners by painting them with the same "slaveowners" brush are, well, mule-headed and ignorant, I suppose.

    “the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations.”

    Untrue. These areas were majority Unionist throughout the war, and would have perhaps seceded as WV did were it not for the problem posed by location. Interestingly, those who complain loudly about violation of civil rights by the Union in suppressing Maryland oppositionists carefully avoid discussing similar suppression by the CSA in eastern Tennessee and other mountain areas, which was much harsher.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Thanks for your response.

    Before replying I took the time to do some research.

    The notion that "Germany" is part of western Europe seems to be quite a recent one, probably based on the Iron Curtain. From what I can read, normally the Rhine was considered the boundary between Western and Central Europe, so Germany was squarely in the latter. Central Europe was generally defined as extending from the Rhine to the eastern edge of Latin and Catholic, as opposed to Byzantine and Greek cultural influence.

    Also, till the later 19th century there was no "Germany." It was a geographical, cultural and linguistic expression only. Condition were very different in the Rhineland and East Prussia.

    The institution we have been referring to as serfdom never really existed, as it is used to somewhat inaccurately lump together various conditions of unfree status that existed over all of Europe at various times over more than 1000 years. They varied greatly, both de facto and de jure, over both time and space.

    In particular, it appears that there was a major distinction in many if not most areas between serfdom of the person and servile tenure of the land, with the former being far more oppressive and in most areas disappearing much sooner.

    Here's an article from the famous 1902 Britannica, so it can hardly be accused of PC;

    http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-12.html

    According to it, serfdom in France had almost entirely disappeared by 1318, though some residue hung on in some areas till the Revolution.

    In England it was said that in the early 14th century the serfs were only in form unfree. As in France, it appears it hung on till the 1500s and even later 1700s in some very rare cases.

    Serfdom never existed in Scandinavia.

    By the early 15th serfdom was described as extinct in Italy.

    In Germany the situation is much more complex, it not being at the time "a country" in the same sense as were England and France. The condition of Leibeigenschaft you describe was by no means a universal institution, with entire provinces being free of it. Apparently it in many areas became a dead letter considerably before it was formally abolished. However, I will cheerfully agree that I overstated the case with regard to Germany, though I suggest Germany isn't really part of Western Europe.

    As far as the prima notte, I could find no credible historian that believes it ever existed in law. It appears to be a conflation of fines paid by the groom for permission to marry with later spectacular elaboration by anti-aristo writers during the Enlightenment. It thus has something in common with claims made by these writers that nobles had used their droit de prélassement (right of lounging), a right of a lord to use one of his subject’s entrails, freshly ripped from the body, to warm the noble’s feet.

    We have voluminous, though obviously not complete, records of legal proceedings from all over the medieval world. In all those records there is apparently not one single case involving the supposed legal right of prima notte. We have not one single documented case or name of a victim. If the practice ever existed, it has left no trace in the historical record.

    Obviously, lords probably often raped serfs and peasants, and they probably got away with it most or all of the time. But it does not appear they ever had a legal right to do so.

    This ties in with something I've been reading about recently, which is the history of the long struggle of the Church to impose Christian marital norms, at least in theory, on the Germanic kings and nobles who erected succcessor states on the ruins of the western empire. The Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Lombards, etc.

    These kings and nobles had been in the habit of marrying several wives at the same time, divorcing and remarrying at will, including with close kin, etc. The Church rejected these German tribal customs and fought a long battle to get them to at least pretend to obey Church teaching. There is extensive documentation involving church councils, court cases, etc. dealing with this issue.

    Seems highly unlikely to me that if the legal right of prima notte existed the Church would have ignored it. They were, after all, willing to tangle with the most powerful men of their time in the interests of Christian marriage.

    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a “United” nation at the time of “Leibeigenschaft”, and the rest of your “details” have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these “Details” to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization “Laws” which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    IOW, the accuracy of your original claims is not relevant, since they were made to illustrate the "real truth," which is apparently that the upper classes in all areas of Europe held power of life and death over the lower classes well up into the 19th century.

    I made the mistake of assuming you were interested in discussing actual facts, not in tossing out random assertions to support a predetermined position. Won't happen again.

    I did get interested in the subject, though, and would be glad to read a book or other material on what the actual condition of German peasants was from, say, 1700 to 1848. I found lots on England and quite a bit on Ireland, France and even Poland. Not much on Germany.

    I did find that German peasants did not rebel much between the Revolt of Luther's time and the 19th century. This could be because they were reasonably content, or because the oppression was so ferocious they were unable to revolt.

    BTW, if you knew all this stuff before I was born, you must be pretty darn old!
    , @Logan
    In case you're interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Authenticjazzman
    " Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started"

    Nonsense : "Leibeigenschaft" : Ownership of serfs, continued in Germany, which is most certainly a part of "Western europe", until the early eighteen hundreds, and the conditions of existance for German, French, Italian, Polish, etc, Peasants was nothing short of "Slavery", which continued well into the mid-nineteenth century, as they were subjected to total control of their daily lives and forced to work seven days a week and up to sixteen hours daily.

    The horrid practice of "Prima Notte", which many appologist historians claim to have never existed was continued well into the eighteenth century.

    You are ill-informed and unread my friend, and by the way I spent four decades in Europe, Germany, France Italy, England, and attended university in Germany.

    Was married twice in Europe, first wife having been a German "von", second a Surgeon, which means nothing other than I have been exposed to European society at levels which usually are unattainable for Americans.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician

    Thanks for your response.

    Before replying I took the time to do some research.

    The notion that “Germany” is part of western Europe seems to be quite a recent one, probably based on the Iron Curtain. From what I can read, normally the Rhine was considered the boundary between Western and Central Europe, so Germany was squarely in the latter. Central Europe was generally defined as extending from the Rhine to the eastern edge of Latin and Catholic, as opposed to Byzantine and Greek cultural influence.

    Also, till the later 19th century there was no “Germany.” It was a geographical, cultural and linguistic expression only. Condition were very different in the Rhineland and East Prussia.

    The institution we have been referring to as serfdom never really existed, as it is used to somewhat inaccurately lump together various conditions of unfree status that existed over all of Europe at various times over more than 1000 years. They varied greatly, both de facto and de jure, over both time and space.

    In particular, it appears that there was a major distinction in many if not most areas between serfdom of the person and servile tenure of the land, with the former being far more oppressive and in most areas disappearing much sooner.

    Here’s an article from the famous 1902 Britannica, so it can hardly be accused of PC;

    http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-12.html

    According to it, serfdom in France had almost entirely disappeared by 1318, though some residue hung on in some areas till the Revolution.

    In England it was said that in the early 14th century the serfs were only in form unfree. As in France, it appears it hung on till the 1500s and even later 1700s in some very rare cases.

    Serfdom never existed in Scandinavia.

    By the early 15th serfdom was described as extinct in Italy.

    In Germany the situation is much more complex, it not being at the time “a country” in the same sense as were England and France. The condition of Leibeigenschaft you describe was by no means a universal institution, with entire provinces being free of it. Apparently it in many areas became a dead letter considerably before it was formally abolished. However, I will cheerfully agree that I overstated the case with regard to Germany, though I suggest Germany isn’t really part of Western Europe.

    As far as the prima notte, I could find no credible historian that believes it ever existed in law. It appears to be a conflation of fines paid by the groom for permission to marry with later spectacular elaboration by anti-aristo writers during the Enlightenment. It thus has something in common with claims made by these writers that nobles had used their droit de prélassement (right of lounging), a right of a lord to use one of his subject’s entrails, freshly ripped from the body, to warm the noble’s feet.

    We have voluminous, though obviously not complete, records of legal proceedings from all over the medieval world. In all those records there is apparently not one single case involving the supposed legal right of prima notte. We have not one single documented case or name of a victim. If the practice ever existed, it has left no trace in the historical record.

    Obviously, lords probably often raped serfs and peasants, and they probably got away with it most or all of the time. But it does not appear they ever had a legal right to do so.

    This ties in with something I’ve been reading about recently, which is the history of the long struggle of the Church to impose Christian marital norms, at least in theory, on the Germanic kings and nobles who erected succcessor states on the ruins of the western empire. The Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Lombards, etc.

    These kings and nobles had been in the habit of marrying several wives at the same time, divorcing and remarrying at will, including with close kin, etc. The Church rejected these German tribal customs and fought a long battle to get them to at least pretend to obey Church teaching. There is extensive documentation involving church councils, court cases, etc. dealing with this issue.

    Seems highly unlikely to me that if the legal right of prima notte existed the Church would have ignored it. They were, after all, willing to tangle with the most powerful men of their time in the interests of Christian marriage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a "United" nation at the time of "Leibeigenschaft", and the rest of your "details" have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these "Details" to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization "Laws" which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wally
    You're really talking about the Palestinians.

    No, but it fits rather well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Astuteobservor II
    hell, if I were forced into war, I would shoot my commanding officer the first chance I get.

    Doubtfull. You would commit suicide so easily?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill Jones
    " life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore"

    Not today.

    Ain’t that the truth, and that’s not even counting folks who didn’t survive the nickel ride.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Miller
    In some cases you might even be striking out at your privileged half siblings. Mulatto births were 1 in 8 in 1850, by 1860 they were 1 in 5.

    Any slave getting the upper hand needn't be too concerned about legalities or minimal harm ethics toward folks who beat, raped, sold your siblings, parents, children. No mercy shown, none given. IDK if I could kill the lot, but certainly every adult from adolescent to elderly unless they had specifically shown some profound kindness.

    IIRC Fredric Douglas recounts how the threat of being sent to the deep South was the ultimate boogyman for an uppity slave, life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore. Contemporary accounts trump modern musings - being enslaved for many was an experience most born free individuals might trade for a quick suicide.

    Even with all the rape/interbreeding and natural and deliberate "breeding", birth rates weren't keeping up with death rates and were projected to go negative by 1880. The South seceding came about because if slavery were not allowed to expand to the new territories it would eventually become untenable (back to FD, he observed if no fresh stocks were brought in, slavery would be bred out of existence before too long). Virtually every secession declaration states this in plain language as one of the primary reasons, second to legislative attacks and limits on slavery at the State level and anticipated soon at the Federal level as well.

    Lincoln didn't start out intending to free the slaves but simply to keep the Union together while limiting slavery to the South. To do more would amount to a "John Brown raid on a massive scale". As it dragged on Lincoln could not justify to the citizens of the North all the carnage and loss for political reasons, and so "freeing the slaves" did indeed become the rationale to finish it.

    Then as now - it is much easier to break things with violence and much harder to fix them. In hindsight, most of the slaves probably should have been repatriated at the time or transported to some other holdings (Liberia anybody?), and the South should not have been forced back into the Union.

    ” life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore”

    Not today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miller
    @Bill Jones

    Ain't that the truth, and that's not even counting folks who didn't survive the nickel ride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Northern troops figured out pretty quickly that cotton was one of the few exports the Confederate government--and planter class--could make money off of. Therefore, every time you invaded the south it made sense to strip every plantation of its slaves. No slaves, no cotton raised, and the southern economy would collapse.

    I imagine that every Canadian thanks God every day that the country was too cold to raise cotton in.

    My favorite lefty, Chris Floyd wrote a piece a few years back about why Haiti has been kept in appalling poverty for centuries: It’s deliberate vengence for their insolence in rising up against the French slave-masters.
    Gotta love the idiot left.

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/home/articles/eternal-punishment-obama-leads-third-century-of-imperial-revenge-on-haiti-02042011.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Thanks for the link to the Davis article. As you say, a brilliant summation of an incredibly complicated topic. One of the biggest problems in discussing slavery is that it has been "culturally appropriated" by black Americans, as if they are the only people in history who were ever enslaved. Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it's much more interesting.

    This is somewhat similar to the way that (many) Jews have appropriated the idea of genocide, as if Jews are the only people ever subjected to it.

    Hey Logan,

    Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    Yes, I find this utterly inane and it completely glosses over the fact that slavery was alive and well among the natives in America and the South American empires well before it was brought over as an institution by Europeans.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.

    Indeed – the famous West African emperors used to even employ Turkish slaves as imperial guards. Timbuktu was a very famous center of learning for centuries…and a major slave market. And there was plenty White-on-White slavery historically. The Vikings/Varangians used to be slave-raiders par excellence and would sell their “wares” in the darker-skinned Abbasid and Byzantine Empires.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Correct. As you are probably aware, the word for "slave" in almost all European languages is derived from Slav. The Slavs of eastern Europe were regularly raided for slaves for almost a millenium by the surrounding more powerful peoples: Germans, Magyars, Norse and Varangians, Byzantines, Khazars, Turks, Tatars, etc.

    The Tatars turned it into almost a formal process, with massive sweeps across the plains they called "harvesting the steppe."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    This is a breath of fresh air for me - this is a very balanced approach which will likely get you the following:

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater.
     
    People will want to pigeon-hole you for virtue-signalling points and due to their lack of knowledge on the subject.

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult.
     
    This seems to be the best way to approach things - try to stick to the facts. When one does a deep-dive into the subject one comes out realizing how huge this subject really is and how absolutely complex. Slavery spans everything from peasants selling themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, concubines, slave soldiers that became kings (while still slaves), castrated galley slaves that lived horrible lives barely seeing sunlight, etc.

    David Brion Davis (who is an exceptionally gifted and knowledgeable expert on the subject) stated:
    "The more we learn about slavery, the more difficulty we have defining it."

    If you have the time, this is a brilliant essay on the subject, entitled "Slavery and the Idea of Progress":
    http://jsreligion.org/issues/vol14/davis.pdf

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.
     
    Absolutely - we can either be mired in the past or look to learn from the lessons of past generations and chart a way forward. I often see people act as if they are so morally superior to the people of the past because, well, they were just a bunch of slave owners, right? But the fact is, it takes zero moral fortitude to condemn slavery in this day and age - it's a reflexive reaction. It would have been something to condemn or reform it when it was alive and well - one would be going against the grain and challenging powerful interests. Otherwise one's disgust with the institution is a bit like one's disgust with eating cats - maybe if you were raised among a people who eat cats regularly, you'd think nothing of going to the market and picking a cat out of the cage for dinner, just as one wouldn't mind picking out a slave from the market.

    Peace.

    Thanks for the link to the Davis article. As you say, a brilliant summation of an incredibly complicated topic. One of the biggest problems in discussing slavery is that it has been “culturally appropriated” by black Americans, as if they are the only people in history who were ever enslaved. Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.

    This is somewhat similar to the way that (many) Jews have appropriated the idea of genocide, as if Jews are the only people ever subjected to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.
     
    Yes, I find this utterly inane and it completely glosses over the fact that slavery was alive and well among the natives in America and the South American empires well before it was brought over as an institution by Europeans.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.
     
    Indeed - the famous West African emperors used to even employ Turkish slaves as imperial guards. Timbuktu was a very famous center of learning for centuries...and a major slave market. And there was plenty White-on-White slavery historically. The Vikings/Varangians used to be slave-raiders par excellence and would sell their "wares" in the darker-skinned Abbasid and Byzantine Empires.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Morality aside, logistics were the rub.

    4,000,000 people are no cinch to ship across the world, even today. Much, much more difficult and expensive at the time, especially if it was forced, so you'd have to catch them first.

    All the many attempts to "repatriate" blacks foundered on the problem of simple math: number of people x cost per person.

    What would it have cost, per capita, to "repatriate" them? $500??

    That would add up to $2B, at a time when the entire federal budget in 1860 had been $60M.

    Does anyone seriously think American taxpayers would have been up for footing such an enormous bill, especially when they just incurred enormous debts fighting a long war?

    Poked around a little. Found that the promoters of the Haiti off-shore island settlement project for freedmen were paid $50 per head to ship blacks off to the settlement. A lot less than my $500 per capita assumption.

    However, that scheme was an utter failure, and it seem probable that any massive settlement of freed slaves to Africa would have cost a LOT more than $50 each. It would also, by definition, have entangled Americans in Africa, as we’d have been obliged to defend the settlements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started. Though to be sure Irish conditions were pretty bad, and rural and urban poor had it rough everywhere. But they simply weren't serfs or slaves.

    Russian serfs were freed very late, as were those in some other areas of eastern Europe.

    ” Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started”

    Nonsense : “Leibeigenschaft” : Ownership of serfs, continued in Germany, which is most certainly a part of “Western europe”, until the early eighteen hundreds, and the conditions of existance for German, French, Italian, Polish, etc, Peasants was nothing short of “Slavery”, which continued well into the mid-nineteenth century, as they were subjected to total control of their daily lives and forced to work seven days a week and up to sixteen hours daily.

    The horrid practice of “Prima Notte”, which many appologist historians claim to have never existed was continued well into the eighteenth century.

    You are ill-informed and unread my friend, and by the way I spent four decades in Europe, Germany, France Italy, England, and attended university in Germany.

    Was married twice in Europe, first wife having been a German “von”, second a Surgeon, which means nothing other than I have been exposed to European society at levels which usually are unattainable for Americans.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Thanks for your response.

    Before replying I took the time to do some research.

    The notion that "Germany" is part of western Europe seems to be quite a recent one, probably based on the Iron Curtain. From what I can read, normally the Rhine was considered the boundary between Western and Central Europe, so Germany was squarely in the latter. Central Europe was generally defined as extending from the Rhine to the eastern edge of Latin and Catholic, as opposed to Byzantine and Greek cultural influence.

    Also, till the later 19th century there was no "Germany." It was a geographical, cultural and linguistic expression only. Condition were very different in the Rhineland and East Prussia.

    The institution we have been referring to as serfdom never really existed, as it is used to somewhat inaccurately lump together various conditions of unfree status that existed over all of Europe at various times over more than 1000 years. They varied greatly, both de facto and de jure, over both time and space.

    In particular, it appears that there was a major distinction in many if not most areas between serfdom of the person and servile tenure of the land, with the former being far more oppressive and in most areas disappearing much sooner.

    Here's an article from the famous 1902 Britannica, so it can hardly be accused of PC;

    http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-12.html

    According to it, serfdom in France had almost entirely disappeared by 1318, though some residue hung on in some areas till the Revolution.

    In England it was said that in the early 14th century the serfs were only in form unfree. As in France, it appears it hung on till the 1500s and even later 1700s in some very rare cases.

    Serfdom never existed in Scandinavia.

    By the early 15th serfdom was described as extinct in Italy.

    In Germany the situation is much more complex, it not being at the time "a country" in the same sense as were England and France. The condition of Leibeigenschaft you describe was by no means a universal institution, with entire provinces being free of it. Apparently it in many areas became a dead letter considerably before it was formally abolished. However, I will cheerfully agree that I overstated the case with regard to Germany, though I suggest Germany isn't really part of Western Europe.

    As far as the prima notte, I could find no credible historian that believes it ever existed in law. It appears to be a conflation of fines paid by the groom for permission to marry with later spectacular elaboration by anti-aristo writers during the Enlightenment. It thus has something in common with claims made by these writers that nobles had used their droit de prélassement (right of lounging), a right of a lord to use one of his subject’s entrails, freshly ripped from the body, to warm the noble’s feet.

    We have voluminous, though obviously not complete, records of legal proceedings from all over the medieval world. In all those records there is apparently not one single case involving the supposed legal right of prima notte. We have not one single documented case or name of a victim. If the practice ever existed, it has left no trace in the historical record.

    Obviously, lords probably often raped serfs and peasants, and they probably got away with it most or all of the time. But it does not appear they ever had a legal right to do so.

    This ties in with something I've been reading about recently, which is the history of the long struggle of the Church to impose Christian marital norms, at least in theory, on the Germanic kings and nobles who erected succcessor states on the ruins of the western empire. The Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Lombards, etc.

    These kings and nobles had been in the habit of marrying several wives at the same time, divorcing and remarrying at will, including with close kin, etc. The Church rejected these German tribal customs and fought a long battle to get them to at least pretend to obey Church teaching. There is extensive documentation involving church councils, court cases, etc. dealing with this issue.

    Seems highly unlikely to me that if the legal right of prima notte existed the Church would have ignored it. They were, after all, willing to tangle with the most powerful men of their time in the interests of Christian marriage.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Why thank you, kind sir!

    A period about which I've read a great deal and find very interesting. Also one about which an enormous amount of inaccurate information is peddled by both sides. Often, to be fair, by people who are sincerely misinformed.

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater. By different people, of course!

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult. As a Christian, for instance, I find the Old Testament support for slavery and genocide difficult to reconcile with my own belief system. Even the New Testament simply accepts slavery as a fact of life, making no attempt to express the slightest disapproval of the system.

    But the past is what it is, and we can't (or shouldn't try to) change it.

    Hey Logan,

    This is a breath of fresh air for me – this is a very balanced approach which will likely get you the following:

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater.

    People will want to pigeon-hole you for virtue-signalling points and due to their lack of knowledge on the subject.

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult.

    This seems to be the best way to approach things – try to stick to the facts. When one does a deep-dive into the subject one comes out realizing how huge this subject really is and how absolutely complex. Slavery spans everything from peasants selling themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, concubines, slave soldiers that became kings (while still slaves), castrated galley slaves that lived horrible lives barely seeing sunlight, etc.

    David Brion Davis (who is an exceptionally gifted and knowledgeable expert on the subject) stated:
    “The more we learn about slavery, the more difficulty we have defining it.”

    If you have the time, this is a brilliant essay on the subject, entitled “Slavery and the Idea of Progress”:

    http://jsreligion.org/issues/vol14/davis.pdf

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.

    Absolutely – we can either be mired in the past or look to learn from the lessons of past generations and chart a way forward. I often see people act as if they are so morally superior to the people of the past because, well, they were just a bunch of slave owners, right? But the fact is, it takes zero moral fortitude to condemn slavery in this day and age – it’s a reflexive reaction. It would have been something to condemn or reform it when it was alive and well – one would be going against the grain and challenging powerful interests. Otherwise one’s disgust with the institution is a bit like one’s disgust with eating cats – maybe if you were raised among a people who eat cats regularly, you’d think nothing of going to the market and picking a cat out of the cage for dinner, just as one wouldn’t mind picking out a slave from the market.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Thanks for the link to the Davis article. As you say, a brilliant summation of an incredibly complicated topic. One of the biggest problems in discussing slavery is that it has been "culturally appropriated" by black Americans, as if they are the only people in history who were ever enslaved. Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it's much more interesting.

    This is somewhat similar to the way that (many) Jews have appropriated the idea of genocide, as if Jews are the only people ever subjected to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Been enjoying your informative comments - please keep it up.

    Peace.

    Why thank you, kind sir!

    A period about which I’ve read a great deal and find very interesting. Also one about which an enormous amount of inaccurate information is peddled by both sides. Often, to be fair, by people who are sincerely misinformed.

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater. By different people, of course!

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult. As a Christian, for instance, I find the Old Testament support for slavery and genocide difficult to reconcile with my own belief system. Even the New Testament simply accepts slavery as a fact of life, making no attempt to express the slightest disapproval of the system.

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    This is a breath of fresh air for me - this is a very balanced approach which will likely get you the following:

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater.
     
    People will want to pigeon-hole you for virtue-signalling points and due to their lack of knowledge on the subject.

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult.
     
    This seems to be the best way to approach things - try to stick to the facts. When one does a deep-dive into the subject one comes out realizing how huge this subject really is and how absolutely complex. Slavery spans everything from peasants selling themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, concubines, slave soldiers that became kings (while still slaves), castrated galley slaves that lived horrible lives barely seeing sunlight, etc.

    David Brion Davis (who is an exceptionally gifted and knowledgeable expert on the subject) stated:
    "The more we learn about slavery, the more difficulty we have defining it."

    If you have the time, this is a brilliant essay on the subject, entitled "Slavery and the Idea of Progress":
    http://jsreligion.org/issues/vol14/davis.pdf

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.
     
    Absolutely - we can either be mired in the past or look to learn from the lessons of past generations and chart a way forward. I often see people act as if they are so morally superior to the people of the past because, well, they were just a bunch of slave owners, right? But the fact is, it takes zero moral fortitude to condemn slavery in this day and age - it's a reflexive reaction. It would have been something to condemn or reform it when it was alive and well - one would be going against the grain and challenging powerful interests. Otherwise one's disgust with the institution is a bit like one's disgust with eating cats - maybe if you were raised among a people who eat cats regularly, you'd think nothing of going to the market and picking a cat out of the cage for dinner, just as one wouldn't mind picking out a slave from the market.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Morality aside, logistics were the rub.

    4,000,000 people are no cinch to ship across the world, even today. Much, much more difficult and expensive at the time, especially if it was forced, so you'd have to catch them first.

    All the many attempts to "repatriate" blacks foundered on the problem of simple math: number of people x cost per person.

    What would it have cost, per capita, to "repatriate" them? $500??

    That would add up to $2B, at a time when the entire federal budget in 1860 had been $60M.

    Does anyone seriously think American taxpayers would have been up for footing such an enormous bill, especially when they just incurred enormous debts fighting a long war?

    Hey Logan,

    Been enjoying your informative comments – please keep it up.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Why thank you, kind sir!

    A period about which I've read a great deal and find very interesting. Also one about which an enormous amount of inaccurate information is peddled by both sides. Often, to be fair, by people who are sincerely misinformed.

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater. By different people, of course!

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult. As a Christian, for instance, I find the Old Testament support for slavery and genocide difficult to reconcile with my own belief system. Even the New Testament simply accepts slavery as a fact of life, making no attempt to express the slightest disapproval of the system.

    But the past is what it is, and we can't (or shouldn't try to) change it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Yancey
    Blacks should have been sent back to Africa after the war of Northern aggression. They could also have been sold off to Brazil which was still a slave owning nation.

    They should never have been allowed to be citizens. Their presence here in the United States is a disaster.

    Morality aside, logistics were the rub.

    4,000,000 people are no cinch to ship across the world, even today. Much, much more difficult and expensive at the time, especially if it was forced, so you’d have to catch them first.

    All the many attempts to “repatriate” blacks foundered on the problem of simple math: number of people x cost per person.

    What would it have cost, per capita, to “repatriate” them? $500??

    That would add up to $2B, at a time when the entire federal budget in 1860 had been $60M.

    Does anyone seriously think American taxpayers would have been up for footing such an enormous bill, especially when they just incurred enormous debts fighting a long war?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Been enjoying your informative comments - please keep it up.

    Peace.
    , @Logan
    Poked around a little. Found that the promoters of the Haiti off-shore island settlement project for freedmen were paid $50 per head to ship blacks off to the settlement. A lot less than my $500 per capita assumption.

    However, that scheme was an utter failure, and it seem probable that any massive settlement of freed slaves to Africa would have cost a LOT more than $50 each. It would also, by definition, have entangled Americans in Africa, as we'd have been obliged to defend the settlements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @woodNfish
    "We drift in a sea of historical fraud." Fred Reed

    Yes, as I have stated many times. However, you also contribute to the fraud by calling the war of secession the "civil war". It was not a civil war, Fred. The South never tried to overthrow the US government. The southern states had a constitutional right to secede. The lying hypocrite Lincoln also started the war, not the South.

    “A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology,[1] is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.[2] The term is a calque of the Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.”

    A civil war need not be for control of the entire polity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.