The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ilana Mercer ArchiveBlogview
Sanctuary City Mayor Trashes An AMERICAN Hero
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Mayor Mike Signer—who had declared his intention to make Charlottesville, Virginia, the “capital of the resistance” to President Trump and a sanctuary city “to protect immigrants and refugees”—is refusing to protect a symbol saluting one of America’s greatest men.

Yes, Robert E. Lee was a great American.

If Signer knew the first thing about human valor, he’d know that there was no man more valorous and courageous than Robert E. Lee, whose “two uncles signed the Declaration of Independence and [whose] father was a notable cavalry officer in the War for Independence.”

The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia—known as “Lee’s Army”—is not to be conflated with the “Stars and Bars,” which “became the official national flag of the Confederacy.” According to Sons of the South, the “first official use of the ‘Stars and Bars’ was at the inauguration of Jefferson Davis on March 4, 1861.” But because it resembled the “Stars and Stripes” flown by the Union, the “Stars and Bars” proved a liability during the Battle of Bull Run.

The confusion caused by the similarity in the flags was of great concern to Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard. He suggested that the Confederate national flag be changed to something completely different, to avoid confusion in battle in the future. This idea was rejected by the Confederate government. Beauregard then suggested that there should be two flags. One, the national flag, and the second one a battle flag, with the battle flag being completely different from the United States flag.

Originally, the flag whose history is trampled these days was a red square, not a rectangle. Atop it was the blue Southern Cross. In the cross were—still are—13 stars representing the 13 states in the Confederacy.

Wars are generally a rich man’s affair and a poor man’s fight. Yankees are fond of citing Confederacy officials in support of slavery and a war for slavery. Most Southerners, however, were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a “War for Southern Independence.” They rejected central coercion, the kind we readily submit to these days. Southerners believed a union that was entered voluntarily could be exited in the same way. As even establishment historian Paul Johnson concedes, “The South was protesting not only against the North’s interference in its ‘peculiar institution,’ but against the growth of government generally.”

Lincoln grew government, markedly, in size and in predatory boldness.

ORDER IT NOW

“Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil,” wrote the South’s greatest hero, Gen. Lee. He did not go to war for that repugnant institution. To this American, local was truly beautiful. “In 1861 he was offered command of all the armies of the United States, the height of a soldier’s ambition,” chronicles Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina. “But the path of honor commanded him to choose to defend his own people from invasion rather than do the bidding of the politicians who controlled the federal machinery in Washington.”

Lord Acton, the British historian of liberty, wrote to Lee in praise. The general, surmised Lord Acton, was fighting to preserve “the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will”: states’ rights and secession.

Lee’s inspired reply to Lord Acton:

“… I believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people … are the safeguard to the continuance of a free government … whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

Another extraordinary Southerner was James Johnston Pettigrew. He gave his life for Southern independence, not for slavery. Quoting Pettigrew, Professor Wilson likens the forbearance of his own Confederate forebears to “the small Greek city-states who stood against the mighty Persian Empire in the 5th century B.C.”

“The U.S. government had quadruple the South’s resources.” Yet “it took 22 million Northerners four years of the bloodiest warfare in American history to conquer five million Southerners,” who “mobilized 90 percent of their men and lost nearly a fourth.”

Shades of Leonidas’ 300 Spartans, at Thermopylae.

When they hoist the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, it is these soldiers Southerners honor, not slavery.

Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children, black and white.

With their battle flag, Southerners commemorate these innocents. With its statue, Charlottesville salutes Gen. Lee, who, in a letter to his sister, expressed unhectoring clarity as to where his loyalties lay:

“With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.”

Lee, you see, was first and foremost a Virginian, the state that gave America its greatest presidents and the Constitution itself.

Born in New York (confirmation of which Sergey Brin’s Google search is reluctant to cough up), steeped in Berkeley and Princeton—Mayor Mike Signer is nothing but a carpetbagger.

* * *

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Check out Ilana’s YouTube channel.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Mayor Mike Signer is nothing but a carpetbagger.

    Carpetbagger is accurate. Piss ant is more descriptive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /imercer/sanctuary-city-mayor-trashes-an-american-hero/#comment-1875272
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Yes, pissant is appropriate. Ask this arrogant prick to have his Number One Employer in
    his oh-so-enlightened city to disown it’s slaveowning founder who wrote several times regarding the inferiority of a certain race. Tear down the Statue of The Racist in front of The Rotunda!!!

    Read More
  3. First Robert E Lee, eventually they’ll be tearing down statues of George Washinton, Jefferson…and who knows? Maybe Bill Clinton? He is a white male after all…

    Read More
  4. OutWest says:
    @aceofspades
    First Robert E Lee, eventually they'll be tearing down statues of George Washinton, Jefferson...and who knows? Maybe Bill Clinton? He is a white male after all...

    Bill Clinton has a statue?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Bill Clinton has a statue?
     
    Sure he does, thanks to our allies to the north.
    , @aceofspades
    Haha, not that I know of, although in his case it would be more destroying his reputation in the history books rather than destroying a physical statue
  5. Corvinus says:

    Robert E. Lee was an American. He was a hero to Virginia for sticking up for his state. He was a hero for opposing slavery as a moral evil. But he ended up being a traitor to his nation, the United States, as the Confederacy lost.

    “Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children, black and white.”

    Fake News Story. The South chose to leave to defend slavery and their way of life. There was nothing “terroristic” in nature for the federal government to preserve the Union.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    The traitor was Lincoln. Traitor to the Constitution which, sans federalism, was already not the Constitution. And enemy of the American people North and South as it was he who could have avoided the war.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    You can't write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee's nation.

    What is the meaning of "state", as in "The State, it is me" translated from French? The State of Virginia was Robert E. Lee's nation, as back then, it was still understood that the Constitution was written to form a common defense for the various STATES, which would then be united.

    The confederation was called "These United States" by people through the middle of last century. You are confusing "states" with "provinces" or "prefectures", which is the way the Feral Gov't treats them now. Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in "The United States", singular.

    That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave.

    , @TomSchmidt
    Sorry, my comment to Achmed was meant for you. Oops, and all that.

    Frankly, I wish the South HAD succeeded and taken all the slave-owning Union states with them. The mind boggles at the "peculiar institution."

  6. @Corvinus
    Robert E. Lee was an American. He was a hero to Virginia for sticking up for his state. He was a hero for opposing slavery as a moral evil. But he ended up being a traitor to his nation, the United States, as the Confederacy lost.

    "Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children, black and white."

    Fake News Story. The South chose to leave to defend slavery and their way of life. There was nothing "terroristic" in nature for the federal government to preserve the Union.

    The traitor was Lincoln. Traitor to the Constitution which, sans federalism, was already not the Constitution. And enemy of the American people North and South as it was he who could have avoided the war.

    Read More
  7. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a “War for Southern Independence.” They rejected central coercion, the kind we readily submit to these days…

    As even establishment historian Paul Johnson concedes, “The South was protesting not only against the North’s interference in its ‘peculiar institution,’ but against the growth of government generally.”

    Though they sure didn’t mind the growth of government when their livestock got loose and headed for Canada. They respected British sovereignty there, but not Ohio’s, Michigan’s, New York’s, etc.

    Read More
  8. Corvinus says:

    “The traitor was Lincoln. Traitor to the Constitution which, sans federalism, was already not the Constitution. And enemy of the American people North and South as it was he who could have avoided the war.”

    More Fake News. Slavery had to go. Period. As Colonel Kratman would say, “Secession was either legal and constitutional, or it was illegal and unconstitutional. In the latter case it would obviously be proper for the rebellion to be put down. In the former case, the Confederacy was within its rights to secede and form a separate nation, and the Union was within its right to attack and crush that foreign nation. Indeed, given that the South had pressed the country to do just that to Mexico, and wanted to do the same to Spain in Cuba, their moral position to object to being attacked is, shall we say, weak. In any case, that’s why I don’t really worry about it, because in the real world it makes no difference.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Colonel Krautman is a nutcase from Boston (I repeat myself) who belongs in a mental institution.

    Secession was legal and constitutional, since the Constitution did not give the Federal government any authority to prevent the party states from leaving the compact.


    And no, the US did not have any right to conqueror the Confederate States of America. It was a blatant war crime and all of Lincoln's administration and generals should have hanged.
  9. @OutWest
    Bill Clinton has a statue?

    Haha, not that I know of, although in his case it would be more destroying his reputation in the history books rather than destroying a physical statue

    Read More
  10. @Corvinus
    Robert E. Lee was an American. He was a hero to Virginia for sticking up for his state. He was a hero for opposing slavery as a moral evil. But he ended up being a traitor to his nation, the United States, as the Confederacy lost.

    "Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children, black and white."

    Fake News Story. The South chose to leave to defend slavery and their way of life. There was nothing "terroristic" in nature for the federal government to preserve the Union.

    You can’t write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee’s nation.

    What is the meaning of “state”, as in “The State, it is me” translated from French? The State of Virginia was Robert E. Lee’s nation, as back then, it was still understood that the Constitution was written to form a common defense for the various STATES, which would then be united.

    The confederation was called “These United States” by people through the middle of last century. You are confusing “states” with “provinces” or “prefectures”, which is the way the Feral Gov’t treats them now. Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in “The United States”, singular.

    That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You can’t write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee’s nation."

    No, he had devotion to Virginia, one of our states in our Union.

    "Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in “The United States”, singular."

    Speed limits are set by the federal government for interstates. Otherwise, the states have jurisdiction. The minimum purchase and drinking ages is a state law.

    "That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave."

    In 1861, no law existed in terms of prohibiting OR enabling secession, just multiple interpretations of the Constitution regarding IF states could secede. The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.

    , @TomSchmidt
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    When Lee invaded Pennsylvania, he was committing treason. So did every US soldier who invaded the South, and of course the man who commanded the Union armies. One wonders if attacking D.C. Would be treason need this clear definition.

    What is your interpretation of the Constitution on this matter?

    Btw, since you put the word "terrorism" in quotes, as if the US government conduct during the southern rebellion wasn't terrorism, I quote the US government and its definitions of what WOULD constitute terrorism:

    (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
     
    Fortunately for Lincoln, Posse Comitatus was not yet law, so I think he is OK on part A. Part B?

    What think you?
  11. Oh, and great article, Miss Mercer! For an immigrant you sure know more about American history than one would expect – more than 99% of Americans, I would guess.

    Read More
  12. Corvinus says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    You can't write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee's nation.

    What is the meaning of "state", as in "The State, it is me" translated from French? The State of Virginia was Robert E. Lee's nation, as back then, it was still understood that the Constitution was written to form a common defense for the various STATES, which would then be united.

    The confederation was called "These United States" by people through the middle of last century. You are confusing "states" with "provinces" or "prefectures", which is the way the Feral Gov't treats them now. Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in "The United States", singular.

    That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave.

    “You can’t write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee’s nation.”

    No, he had devotion to Virginia, one of our states in our Union.

    “Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in “The United States”, singular.”

    Speed limits are set by the federal government for interstates. Otherwise, the states have jurisdiction. The minimum purchase and drinking ages is a state law.

    “That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave.”

    In 1861, no law existed in terms of prohibiting OR enabling secession, just multiple interpretations of the Constitution regarding IF states could secede. The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    “Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in “The United States”, singular.”
     
    You'd best observe the speed limit on U.S. Route 29 between Charlottesville and Ruckersville - Stanardsville, especially if you have an out-of-state license tag. The locals consider the terrain their front yard, and, as the bumper stickers says, "We don't give a damn how you do it in NY."
    , @Quartermaster

    The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.
     
    Lincoln's war decided no such thing. It simply forced the south back into the raw deal Lincoln's depravity supported.
  13. J1234 says:

    Another sign of the war on culture. Contrary to what you might presume, it isn’t a war on a particular or specific culture, but on the very concept of culture itself.

    Read More
  14. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "You can’t write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee’s nation."

    No, he had devotion to Virginia, one of our states in our Union.

    "Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in “The United States”, singular."

    Speed limits are set by the federal government for interstates. Otherwise, the states have jurisdiction. The minimum purchase and drinking ages is a state law.

    "That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave."

    In 1861, no law existed in terms of prohibiting OR enabling secession, just multiple interpretations of the Constitution regarding IF states could secede. The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.

    “Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in “The United States”, singular.”

    You’d best observe the speed limit on U.S. Route 29 between Charlottesville and Ruckersville – Stanardsville, especially if you have an out-of-state license tag. The locals consider the terrain their front yard, and, as the bumper stickers says, “We don’t give a damn how you do it in NY.”

    Read More
  15. Speed limits are set by the federal government for interstates. Otherwise, the states have jurisdiction. The minimum purchase and drinking ages is a state law.

    Also a lie.. I was there, so you can’t just go making stuff up. The Feral Gov. DEMANDED 55 mph max on ANY highway in the whole country starting in the mid 1970′s!

    The minimum drinking age was changed in all states during the mid/late 1980′s due to Feral Gov. DEMANDS! Stop lying – you’re giving the Hildabeast a run for her money in this department. It is unseemly and a disgrace to this otherwise great website.

    The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.

    Yes, in the same way that Cortez decided that it was illegal for the Incas to own gold – he closed the “Inca Gold Window”, if you will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Also a lie.. I was there, so you can’t just go making stuff up. The Feral Gov. DEMANDED 55 mph max on ANY highway in the whole country starting in the mid 1970′s!"

    Congress repealed the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the states. That law had been passed in response to the oil crisis of the 1970's, so there is context you need to include.

    "The minimum drinking age was changed in all states during the mid/late 1980′s due to Feral Gov. DEMANDS!"

    Not, it was demands made by citizens. Legislation on this issue is traced back to the days of Prohibition. Several studies conducted in the 1970's showed there had been an increase in drunk driving and alcohol-related fatalities. Why? States had moved to lower the drinking age in response to voting age and draft-eligible age being 18.

    The law was upheld by the Supreme Court.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

    "Yes, in the same way that Cortez decided that it was illegal for the Incas to own gold – he closed the “Inca Gold Window”, if you will."

    In what specific way is your example even remotely related to what was the result of the Civil War? Details please.

  16. Corvinus says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Speed limits are set by the federal government for interstates. Otherwise, the states have jurisdiction. The minimum purchase and drinking ages is a state law.
     
    Also a lie.. I was there, so you can't just go making stuff up. The Feral Gov. DEMANDED 55 mph max on ANY highway in the whole country starting in the mid 1970's!

    The minimum drinking age was changed in all states during the mid/late 1980's due to Feral Gov. DEMANDS! Stop lying - you're giving the Hildabeast a run for her money in this department. It is unseemly and a disgrace to this otherwise great website.

    The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.
     
    Yes, in the same way that Cortez decided that it was illegal for the Incas to own gold - he closed the "Inca Gold Window", if you will.

    “Also a lie.. I was there, so you can’t just go making stuff up. The Feral Gov. DEMANDED 55 mph max on ANY highway in the whole country starting in the mid 1970′s!”

    Congress repealed the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the states. That law had been passed in response to the oil crisis of the 1970′s, so there is context you need to include.

    “The minimum drinking age was changed in all states during the mid/late 1980′s due to Feral Gov. DEMANDS!”

    Not, it was demands made by citizens. Legislation on this issue is traced back to the days of Prohibition. Several studies conducted in the 1970′s showed there had been an increase in drunk driving and alcohol-related fatalities. Why? States had moved to lower the drinking age in response to voting age and draft-eligible age being 18.

    The law was upheld by the Supreme Court.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

    “Yes, in the same way that Cortez decided that it was illegal for the Incas to own gold – he closed the “Inca Gold Window”, if you will.”

    In what specific way is your example even remotely related to what was the result of the Civil War? Details please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You argue in a good circle there. The people "demanded" that the Fed Gov. raise the drinking age? That doesn't matter one bit. What if the people "demand" that the Fed Gov. make nose rings and tattoos illegal? Is that just fine too.

    For the speed limits, I know damn well when they were repealed, as it saved me a lot of money. Nobody can go 55 mph across the entire state of Texas from the Sabine River to El Paso. It is mathematically impossible, OK, psychologically impossible.! I don't care about freakin' context; I can read the Constitution - apparently you haven't made any effort to do so.

    Read Amendment X, the last, but not least of the Bill of Rights instead of writing back to me. At least you won't be wasting the Founders' time like you are mine.

    The law was upheld by the Supreme Court.
     
    Who cares? I can read the US Constitution better than 9 old men and broads; it was written in plain English.


    Lastly, my point is that the result of a war does not equal resolution of arguments over the law. Cortez and his men ransomed the God-King of the Incas for all the gold in the kingdom. It was a lot of gold, probably the only time a big enough amount was added to the real money supply so quickly as to decrease it's value in goods. Then, after the Incas forked over the gold, Cortez or his men killed the God-King anyway. My point again is might does not make right.
  17. @Corvinus
    "The traitor was Lincoln. Traitor to the Constitution which, sans federalism, was already not the Constitution. And enemy of the American people North and South as it was he who could have avoided the war."

    More Fake News. Slavery had to go. Period. As Colonel Kratman would say, "Secession was either legal and constitutional, or it was illegal and unconstitutional. In the latter case it would obviously be proper for the rebellion to be put down. In the former case, the Confederacy was within its rights to secede and form a separate nation, and the Union was within its right to attack and crush that foreign nation. Indeed, given that the South had pressed the country to do just that to Mexico, and wanted to do the same to Spain in Cuba, their moral position to object to being attacked is, shall we say, weak. In any case, that's why I don't really worry about it, because in the real world it makes no difference."

    Colonel Krautman is a nutcase from Boston (I repeat myself) who belongs in a mental institution.

    Secession was legal and constitutional, since the Constitution did not give the Federal government any authority to prevent the party states from leaving the compact.

    And no, the US did not have any right to conqueror the Confederate States of America. It was a blatant war crime and all of Lincoln’s administration and generals should have hanged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Colonel Krautman is a nutcase from Boston (I repeat myself) who belongs in a mental institution."

    On regular occasion on VD's blog he put you in your place. I get why you are upset.

    "Secession was legal and constitutional, since the Constitution did not give the Federal government any authority to prevent the party states from leaving the compact."

    It was legal and constitutional only in the eyes of those who supported such action. Which is why there was a civil war that resulted in a clear answer to the question--secession is illegal.

    "And no, the US did not have any right to conqueror the Confederate States of America. It was a blatant war crime and all of Lincoln’s administration and generals should have hanged."

    It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who imported Africans and used them as slave labor against their will. It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who had sex with Africans and had mixed children. You are White Knighting for your ancestors.
  18. @Corvinus
    "You can’t write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee’s nation."

    No, he had devotion to Virginia, one of our states in our Union.

    "Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in “The United States”, singular."

    Speed limits are set by the federal government for interstates. Otherwise, the states have jurisdiction. The minimum purchase and drinking ages is a state law.

    "That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave."

    In 1861, no law existed in terms of prohibiting OR enabling secession, just multiple interpretations of the Constitution regarding IF states could secede. The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.

    The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.

    Lincoln’s war decided no such thing. It simply forced the south back into the raw deal Lincoln’s depravity supported.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Lincoln’s war decided no such thing. It simply forced the south back into the raw deal Lincoln’s depravity supported."

    It wasn't Lincoln's war, it was a war between two sides for a host of reasons. And those Southrons who supported slavery and black inferiority, along with those Northerners who opposed liberties for the freedmen, need not this "raw deal" to continue their depravity toward the human race and God Himself.

  19. Corvinus says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Colonel Krautman is a nutcase from Boston (I repeat myself) who belongs in a mental institution.

    Secession was legal and constitutional, since the Constitution did not give the Federal government any authority to prevent the party states from leaving the compact.


    And no, the US did not have any right to conqueror the Confederate States of America. It was a blatant war crime and all of Lincoln's administration and generals should have hanged.

    “Colonel Krautman is a nutcase from Boston (I repeat myself) who belongs in a mental institution.”

    On regular occasion on VD’s blog he put you in your place. I get why you are upset.

    “Secession was legal and constitutional, since the Constitution did not give the Federal government any authority to prevent the party states from leaving the compact.”

    It was legal and constitutional only in the eyes of those who supported such action. Which is why there was a civil war that resulted in a clear answer to the question–secession is illegal.

    “And no, the US did not have any right to conqueror the Confederate States of America. It was a blatant war crime and all of Lincoln’s administration and generals should have hanged.”

    It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who imported Africans and used them as slave labor against their will. It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who had sex with Africans and had mixed children. You are White Knighting for your ancestors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who imported Africans and used them as slave labor against their will. It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who had sex with Africans and had mixed children. You are White Knighting for your ancestors."

    In the US, most of the importing of slaves was done by Northerners- the start and the center of US slavery business for the majority of its existence was Massachusetts, and many 'great' Northerners had personal slaves.

    I say in the US, because the vast majority of slaves imported into the New World was by the Spanish, into the Caribbean and S. America.

    As far as having sex with Africans goes, that seems to have largely been after the slavery days, probably also more due to the North. People of the time remarked at how black the slaves were, still African, and it's largely during and after the period where they started migrating to Northern cities that the mixing really started up in earnest and you start finding significant numbers of mulattos.

    There were of course some isolated instances popping up of blacks and whites mating, but largely it was viewed with revulsion and even illegal in most of the South. You tended to only have it of any real significance in places like Cajun Louisiana, which was really more French in culture than Southern.

    Up until perhaps the mid-1990s, people in the South still tended to look disfavorably upon racial mixing and few white women thought it would be anything but degrading themselves to have sex with blacks.

  20. @Achmed E. Newman
    You can't write a single comment without a series of lies in it, can you? Virginia WAS Robert E Lee's nation.

    What is the meaning of "state", as in "The State, it is me" translated from French? The State of Virginia was Robert E. Lee's nation, as back then, it was still understood that the Constitution was written to form a common defense for the various STATES, which would then be united.

    The confederation was called "These United States" by people through the middle of last century. You are confusing "states" with "provinces" or "prefectures", which is the way the Feral Gov't treats them now. Just something as small as speed limits or drinking age is now dictated from on-high, in "The United States", singular.

    That war was indeed an invasion of a group of nations that decided to get out of this agreement they had signed up for 71 years earlier. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    When Lee invaded Pennsylvania, he was committing treason. So did every US soldier who invaded the South, and of course the man who commanded the Union armies. One wonders if attacking D.C. Would be treason need this clear definition.

    What is your interpretation of the Constitution on this matter?

    Btw, since you put the word “terrorism” in quotes, as if the US government conduct during the southern rebellion wasn’t terrorism, I quote the US government and its definitions of what WOULD constitute terrorism:

    (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

    Fortunately for Lincoln, Posse Comitatus was not yet law, so I think he is OK on part A. Part B?

    What think you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey Tom, sorry for the lengthy delay in replying (plus 5 more minutes refuting the idiocy of a guy name Corvinus).

    I don't think most people would define any actions taken against the other side in the middle of a war "treason". I am referring to your reference to General Lee's moving north into Pennsylvania (it was a last ditch effort at an offense, to try to encircle Washington FS*). I mean, was the Battle of the Bulge treason, or any invasion of enemy territory?

    I do agree that the invasion started by Lincoln was indeed, treasonous against the US Constitution, as these states had every right to back out of the 1789 contract, as nothing in there specified duration of the union.

    Btw, since you put the word “terrorism” in quotes, as if the US government conduct during the southern rebellion wasn’t terrorism, ...
     

    I didn't put" terrorism" in quotes, except for just now, in my post, as I didn't use that word. Perhaps you meant to write this comment to the other guy, Corvinus.


    * Federal Shithole

  21. Corvinus says:
    @Quartermaster

    The Civil War ultimately decided that secession is illegal.
     
    Lincoln's war decided no such thing. It simply forced the south back into the raw deal Lincoln's depravity supported.

    “Lincoln’s war decided no such thing. It simply forced the south back into the raw deal Lincoln’s depravity supported.”

    It wasn’t Lincoln’s war, it was a war between two sides for a host of reasons. And those Southrons who supported slavery and black inferiority, along with those Northerners who opposed liberties for the freedmen, need not this “raw deal” to continue their depravity toward the human race and God Himself.

    Read More
  22. @Corvinus
    Robert E. Lee was an American. He was a hero to Virginia for sticking up for his state. He was a hero for opposing slavery as a moral evil. But he ended up being a traitor to his nation, the United States, as the Confederacy lost.

    "Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children, black and white."

    Fake News Story. The South chose to leave to defend slavery and their way of life. There was nothing "terroristic" in nature for the federal government to preserve the Union.

    Sorry, my comment to Achmed was meant for you. Oops, and all that.

    Frankly, I wish the South HAD succeeded and taken all the slave-owning Union states with them. The mind boggles at the “peculiar institution.”

    Read More
  23. Corvinus says:

    “When Lee invaded Pennsylvania, he was committing treason.”

    In the eyes of those defending the union, absolutely.

    “So did every US soldier who invaded the South, and of course the man who commanded the Union armies. One wonders if attacking D.C. Would be treason need this clear definition.”

    In the eyes of those defending the union, absolutely not.

    “What is your interpretation of the Constitution on this matter?”

    It’s messy. It depends upon one’s perspective. The North believed the South committed treason by breaking away from the Union. The South believed the North committed treason by refusing to acknowledge their independence. The sticking point was ultimately slavery. A war resulted, with victory achieved by the North. The issue then became settled. Had the South won, they would have established a new country, and the issue would have been settled–unless the South sought to “rejoin” under certain stipulations or the North tried to put things back together again through another war. It doesn’t matter anymore–secession is illegal.

    “Frankly, I wish the South HAD succeeded and taken all the slave-owning Union states with them. The mind boggles at the “peculiar institution.””

    This institution is an affront to God and morality. Remember, there had been Southern Unionists who believed secession was contrary to the intentions of our Founding Fathers.

    Unfortunately, slavery remains a scourge in modern society.

    http://www.humantraffickingsearch.net/?gclid=CMuZqLDt-dMCFUiewAod_JADyw

    Read More
  24. oscarlong says:

    ” Cortez decided that it was illegal for the Incas to own gold ”

    Francisco Pizarro conquered the Incas.

    Hernan Cortes conquered the Aztecs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Aztecs, Incas, let's call the whole thing off!

    OK, thanks for the correction then, now it's twice, as I replied to Corvinus also. Sorry, you guys, I meant Pizzaro then, the Inca conquistador.
  25. The Jewess conveniently leaves out the fact that the Mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia is Jewish not unlike the Sergey Brin of Google, who isn’t providing her with meaningful information about the former. And as to the 300 Spartans affair, she is being disingenuous just as the fellow Hollywood travelers, to create dissension between the Greeks (West) and the Persians notwithstanding their Indo-European kinship and thus creating an opening for fellow Semites, the Arabs, to take advantage… Quid pro quo vis-a-vis Jerusalem comes to mind… Caveat Emptor!

    Read More
  26. JohnDough says:

    What’s going on is very similar to Mao’s Cultural Revolution in character and just as evil. People at large have put their minds on the shelf and parrot the ideas of Cultural Marxists in place of their own critical thinking and culture. Never thought freedom would turn into freedumb!

    Read More
  27. @Corvinus
    "Also a lie.. I was there, so you can’t just go making stuff up. The Feral Gov. DEMANDED 55 mph max on ANY highway in the whole country starting in the mid 1970′s!"

    Congress repealed the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the states. That law had been passed in response to the oil crisis of the 1970's, so there is context you need to include.

    "The minimum drinking age was changed in all states during the mid/late 1980′s due to Feral Gov. DEMANDS!"

    Not, it was demands made by citizens. Legislation on this issue is traced back to the days of Prohibition. Several studies conducted in the 1970's showed there had been an increase in drunk driving and alcohol-related fatalities. Why? States had moved to lower the drinking age in response to voting age and draft-eligible age being 18.

    The law was upheld by the Supreme Court.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

    "Yes, in the same way that Cortez decided that it was illegal for the Incas to own gold – he closed the “Inca Gold Window”, if you will."

    In what specific way is your example even remotely related to what was the result of the Civil War? Details please.

    You argue in a good circle there. The people “demanded” that the Fed Gov. raise the drinking age? That doesn’t matter one bit. What if the people “demand” that the Fed Gov. make nose rings and tattoos illegal? Is that just fine too.

    For the speed limits, I know damn well when they were repealed, as it saved me a lot of money. Nobody can go 55 mph across the entire state of Texas from the Sabine River to El Paso. It is mathematically impossible, OK, psychologically impossible.! I don’t care about freakin’ context; I can read the Constitution – apparently you haven’t made any effort to do so.

    Read Amendment X, the last, but not least of the Bill of Rights instead of writing back to me. At least you won’t be wasting the Founders’ time like you are mine.

    The law was upheld by the Supreme Court.

    Who cares? I can read the US Constitution better than 9 old men and broads; it was written in plain English.

    Lastly, my point is that the result of a war does not equal resolution of arguments over the law. Cortez and his men ransomed the God-King of the Incas for all the gold in the kingdom. It was a lot of gold, probably the only time a big enough amount was added to the real money supply so quickly as to decrease it’s value in goods. Then, after the Incas forked over the gold, Cortez or his men killed the God-King anyway. My point again is might does not make right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You argue in a good circle there. The people “demanded” that the Fed Gov. raise the drinking age? That doesn’t matter one bit."

    The federal government responds to the will of the people. They place "demands" to officials as far as what ought to be done. The federal government is not an entity in and of itself; it consists of individuals who were elected and/or appointed to meet the needs of the body politic. So, of course it matters. Did you not learn this process in Civics?

    "What if the people “demand” that the Fed Gov. make nose rings and tattoos illegal? Is that just fine too."

    You're being silly here.

    "For the speed limits, I know damn well when they were repealed, as it saved me a lot of money. Nobody can go 55 mph across the entire state of Texas from the Sabine River to El Paso. It is mathematically impossible, OK, psychologically impossible."

    Seriously? You really believe it is"mathematically AND pyschologically impossible" to travel from one end to the other end of Texas going 55 MPH? How much are you willing to wager that someone is able to perform this task?

    "I don’t care about freakin’ context; I can read the Constitution – apparently you haven’t made any effort to do so."

    Context is key. Please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation#Basis_for_judicial_interpretation

    "Read Amendment X, the last, but not least of the Bill of Rights instead of writing back to me. At least you won’t be wasting the Founders’ time like you are mine."

    "Who cares? I can read the US Constitution better than 9 old men and broads; it was written in plain English."

    It's other than reading the Constitution, it's about interpreting its meaning in light of 1) competing rights and 2) laws that may violate its intent and meaning.
  28. @TomSchmidt
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    When Lee invaded Pennsylvania, he was committing treason. So did every US soldier who invaded the South, and of course the man who commanded the Union armies. One wonders if attacking D.C. Would be treason need this clear definition.

    What is your interpretation of the Constitution on this matter?

    Btw, since you put the word "terrorism" in quotes, as if the US government conduct during the southern rebellion wasn't terrorism, I quote the US government and its definitions of what WOULD constitute terrorism:

    (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
     
    Fortunately for Lincoln, Posse Comitatus was not yet law, so I think he is OK on part A. Part B?

    What think you?

    Hey Tom, sorry for the lengthy delay in replying (plus 5 more minutes refuting the idiocy of a guy name Corvinus).

    I don’t think most people would define any actions taken against the other side in the middle of a war “treason”. I am referring to your reference to General Lee’s moving north into Pennsylvania (it was a last ditch effort at an offense, to try to encircle Washington FS*). I mean, was the Battle of the Bulge treason, or any invasion of enemy territory?

    I do agree that the invasion started by Lincoln was indeed, treasonous against the US Constitution, as these states had every right to back out of the 1789 contract, as nothing in there specified duration of the union.

    Btw, since you put the word “terrorism” in quotes, as if the US government conduct during the southern rebellion wasn’t terrorism, …

    I didn’t put” terrorism” in quotes, except for just now, in my post, as I didn’t use that word. Perhaps you meant to write this comment to the other guy, Corvinus.

    * Federal Shithole

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Yeah, commented on the wrong comment. SOrry about that.

    I do like to quote the Constitution on treason. Lee, fighting Federals in VA, was not a traitor. But "making war on" Pennsylvania does fit under that definition.

    Of course, articles like this one:
    http://www.futurity.org/civil-war-union-rebels-treason-725752/
    Completely lie about treason: "The US Constitution defines treason as levying war against the government and aiding and abetting its enemies. "

    federal actions in the South might also be terrorism, per later definitions.
  29. @oscarlong
    " Cortez decided that it was illegal for the Incas to own gold "

    Francisco Pizarro conquered the Incas.

    Hernan Cortes conquered the Aztecs.

    Aztecs, Incas, let’s call the whole thing off!

    OK, thanks for the correction then, now it’s twice, as I replied to Corvinus also. Sorry, you guys, I meant Pizzaro then, the Inca conquistador.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oscarlong
    Pizarro - conquistador

    Pizzaro - a new pizza brand?

    (Sorry, could not stop myself.)
  30. Corvinus says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    You argue in a good circle there. The people "demanded" that the Fed Gov. raise the drinking age? That doesn't matter one bit. What if the people "demand" that the Fed Gov. make nose rings and tattoos illegal? Is that just fine too.

    For the speed limits, I know damn well when they were repealed, as it saved me a lot of money. Nobody can go 55 mph across the entire state of Texas from the Sabine River to El Paso. It is mathematically impossible, OK, psychologically impossible.! I don't care about freakin' context; I can read the Constitution - apparently you haven't made any effort to do so.

    Read Amendment X, the last, but not least of the Bill of Rights instead of writing back to me. At least you won't be wasting the Founders' time like you are mine.

    The law was upheld by the Supreme Court.
     
    Who cares? I can read the US Constitution better than 9 old men and broads; it was written in plain English.


    Lastly, my point is that the result of a war does not equal resolution of arguments over the law. Cortez and his men ransomed the God-King of the Incas for all the gold in the kingdom. It was a lot of gold, probably the only time a big enough amount was added to the real money supply so quickly as to decrease it's value in goods. Then, after the Incas forked over the gold, Cortez or his men killed the God-King anyway. My point again is might does not make right.

    “You argue in a good circle there. The people “demanded” that the Fed Gov. raise the drinking age? That doesn’t matter one bit.”

    The federal government responds to the will of the people. They place “demands” to officials as far as what ought to be done. The federal government is not an entity in and of itself; it consists of individuals who were elected and/or appointed to meet the needs of the body politic. So, of course it matters. Did you not learn this process in Civics?

    “What if the people “demand” that the Fed Gov. make nose rings and tattoos illegal? Is that just fine too.”

    You’re being silly here.

    “For the speed limits, I know damn well when they were repealed, as it saved me a lot of money. Nobody can go 55 mph across the entire state of Texas from the Sabine River to El Paso. It is mathematically impossible, OK, psychologically impossible.”

    Seriously? You really believe it is”mathematically AND pyschologically impossible” to travel from one end to the other end of Texas going 55 MPH? How much are you willing to wager that someone is able to perform this task?

    “I don’t care about freakin’ context; I can read the Constitution – apparently you haven’t made any effort to do so.”

    Context is key. Please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation#Basis_for_judicial_interpretation

    “Read Amendment X, the last, but not least of the Bill of Rights instead of writing back to me. At least you won’t be wasting the Founders’ time like you are mine.”

    “Who cares? I can read the US Constitution better than 9 old men and broads; it was written in plain English.”

    It’s other than reading the Constitution, it’s about interpreting its meaning in light of 1) competing rights and 2) laws that may violate its intent and meaning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Your reply is nothing but a self-rebuttle. You saved me some time this morning.
  31. oscarlong says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Aztecs, Incas, let's call the whole thing off!

    OK, thanks for the correction then, now it's twice, as I replied to Corvinus also. Sorry, you guys, I meant Pizzaro then, the Inca conquistador.

    Pizarro – conquistador

    Pizzaro – a new pizza brand?

    (Sorry, could not stop myself.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Good morning, Oscar. As an Incan-American myself I WILL NOT patronize any of the chain of Pizzaros pizza parlors! (Well to be honest, it's just because their crust is overdone, there's too much cheese, and they skimp on the pepperoni.). But it's time to speak truth to power pizza!
  32. @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey Tom, sorry for the lengthy delay in replying (plus 5 more minutes refuting the idiocy of a guy name Corvinus).

    I don't think most people would define any actions taken against the other side in the middle of a war "treason". I am referring to your reference to General Lee's moving north into Pennsylvania (it was a last ditch effort at an offense, to try to encircle Washington FS*). I mean, was the Battle of the Bulge treason, or any invasion of enemy territory?

    I do agree that the invasion started by Lincoln was indeed, treasonous against the US Constitution, as these states had every right to back out of the 1789 contract, as nothing in there specified duration of the union.

    Btw, since you put the word “terrorism” in quotes, as if the US government conduct during the southern rebellion wasn’t terrorism, ...
     

    I didn't put" terrorism" in quotes, except for just now, in my post, as I didn't use that word. Perhaps you meant to write this comment to the other guy, Corvinus.


    * Federal Shithole

    Yeah, commented on the wrong comment. SOrry about that.

    I do like to quote the Constitution on treason. Lee, fighting Federals in VA, was not a traitor. But “making war on” Pennsylvania does fit under that definition.

    Of course, articles like this one:

    http://www.futurity.org/civil-war-union-rebels-treason-725752/

    Completely lie about treason: “The US Constitution defines treason as levying war against the government and aiding and abetting its enemies. ”

    federal actions in the South might also be terrorism, per later definitions.

    Read More
  33. @oscarlong
    Pizarro - conquistador

    Pizzaro - a new pizza brand?

    (Sorry, could not stop myself.)

    Good morning, Oscar. As an Incan-American myself I WILL NOT patronize any of the chain of Pizzaros pizza parlors! (Well to be honest, it’s just because their crust is overdone, there’s too much cheese, and they skimp on the pepperoni.). But it’s time to speak truth to power pizza!

    Read More
  34. @Corvinus
    "You argue in a good circle there. The people “demanded” that the Fed Gov. raise the drinking age? That doesn’t matter one bit."

    The federal government responds to the will of the people. They place "demands" to officials as far as what ought to be done. The federal government is not an entity in and of itself; it consists of individuals who were elected and/or appointed to meet the needs of the body politic. So, of course it matters. Did you not learn this process in Civics?

    "What if the people “demand” that the Fed Gov. make nose rings and tattoos illegal? Is that just fine too."

    You're being silly here.

    "For the speed limits, I know damn well when they were repealed, as it saved me a lot of money. Nobody can go 55 mph across the entire state of Texas from the Sabine River to El Paso. It is mathematically impossible, OK, psychologically impossible."

    Seriously? You really believe it is"mathematically AND pyschologically impossible" to travel from one end to the other end of Texas going 55 MPH? How much are you willing to wager that someone is able to perform this task?

    "I don’t care about freakin’ context; I can read the Constitution – apparently you haven’t made any effort to do so."

    Context is key. Please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation#Basis_for_judicial_interpretation

    "Read Amendment X, the last, but not least of the Bill of Rights instead of writing back to me. At least you won’t be wasting the Founders’ time like you are mine."

    "Who cares? I can read the US Constitution better than 9 old men and broads; it was written in plain English."

    It's other than reading the Constitution, it's about interpreting its meaning in light of 1) competing rights and 2) laws that may violate its intent and meaning.

    Your reply is nothing but a self-rebuttle. You saved me some time this morning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Your reply is nothing but a self-rebuttle. You saved me some time this morning."

    Exactly what I thought. When pressed to defend your line of thinking, you run away from discourse.

    I do understand why you are embarrassed, considering you believed that it is ”mathematically AND pyschologically impossible” to travel from one end to the other end of Texas going 55 MPH.

    Again, how much are you willing to wager that someone is able to perform this task?
  35. Corvinus says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Your reply is nothing but a self-rebuttle. You saved me some time this morning.

    “Your reply is nothing but a self-rebuttle. You saved me some time this morning.”

    Exactly what I thought. When pressed to defend your line of thinking, you run away from discourse.

    I do understand why you are embarrassed, considering you believed that it is ”mathematically AND pyschologically impossible” to travel from one end to the other end of Texas going 55 MPH.

    Again, how much are you willing to wager that someone is able to perform this task?

    Read More
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "Colonel Krautman is a nutcase from Boston (I repeat myself) who belongs in a mental institution."

    On regular occasion on VD's blog he put you in your place. I get why you are upset.

    "Secession was legal and constitutional, since the Constitution did not give the Federal government any authority to prevent the party states from leaving the compact."

    It was legal and constitutional only in the eyes of those who supported such action. Which is why there was a civil war that resulted in a clear answer to the question--secession is illegal.

    "And no, the US did not have any right to conqueror the Confederate States of America. It was a blatant war crime and all of Lincoln’s administration and generals should have hanged."

    It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who imported Africans and used them as slave labor against their will. It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who had sex with Africans and had mixed children. You are White Knighting for your ancestors.

    “It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who imported Africans and used them as slave labor against their will. It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who had sex with Africans and had mixed children. You are White Knighting for your ancestors.”

    In the US, most of the importing of slaves was done by Northerners- the start and the center of US slavery business for the majority of its existence was Massachusetts, and many ‘great’ Northerners had personal slaves.

    I say in the US, because the vast majority of slaves imported into the New World was by the Spanish, into the Caribbean and S. America.

    As far as having sex with Africans goes, that seems to have largely been after the slavery days, probably also more due to the North. People of the time remarked at how black the slaves were, still African, and it’s largely during and after the period where they started migrating to Northern cities that the mixing really started up in earnest and you start finding significant numbers of mulattos.

    There were of course some isolated instances popping up of blacks and whites mating, but largely it was viewed with revulsion and even illegal in most of the South. You tended to only have it of any real significance in places like Cajun Louisiana, which was really more French in culture than Southern.

    Up until perhaps the mid-1990s, people in the South still tended to look disfavorably upon racial mixing and few white women thought it would be anything but degrading themselves to have sex with blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "In the US, most of the importing of slaves was done by Northerners- the start and the center of US slavery business for the majority of its existence was Massachusetts, and many ‘great’ Northerners had personal slaves."

    Indeed, the North is culpable in this enterprise. But they were offering up their services for plantation owners, where the bulk of the slaves resided.

    "I say in the US, because the vast majority of slaves imported into the New World was by the Spanish, into the Caribbean and S. America."

    Regardless, the South had a conducive climate suitable for a wide range of cash crops to be grown.

    "As far as having sex with Africans goes, that seems to have largely been after the slavery days, probably also more due to the North."

    No. Southern white males who owned slaves generally ventured onto "slave row" with the intention of enjoying their property.

    "People of the time remarked at how black the slaves were, still African, and it’s largely during and after the period where they started migrating to Northern cities that the mixing really started up in earnest and you start finding significant numbers of mulattos."

    Please educate yourself on this matter.

    http://www.etymonline.com/cw/mulatto.htm
  37. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous
    "It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who imported Africans and used them as slave labor against their will. It was a blatant war crime for those southrons who had sex with Africans and had mixed children. You are White Knighting for your ancestors."

    In the US, most of the importing of slaves was done by Northerners- the start and the center of US slavery business for the majority of its existence was Massachusetts, and many 'great' Northerners had personal slaves.

    I say in the US, because the vast majority of slaves imported into the New World was by the Spanish, into the Caribbean and S. America.

    As far as having sex with Africans goes, that seems to have largely been after the slavery days, probably also more due to the North. People of the time remarked at how black the slaves were, still African, and it's largely during and after the period where they started migrating to Northern cities that the mixing really started up in earnest and you start finding significant numbers of mulattos.

    There were of course some isolated instances popping up of blacks and whites mating, but largely it was viewed with revulsion and even illegal in most of the South. You tended to only have it of any real significance in places like Cajun Louisiana, which was really more French in culture than Southern.

    Up until perhaps the mid-1990s, people in the South still tended to look disfavorably upon racial mixing and few white women thought it would be anything but degrading themselves to have sex with blacks.

    “In the US, most of the importing of slaves was done by Northerners- the start and the center of US slavery business for the majority of its existence was Massachusetts, and many ‘great’ Northerners had personal slaves.”

    Indeed, the North is culpable in this enterprise. But they were offering up their services for plantation owners, where the bulk of the slaves resided.

    “I say in the US, because the vast majority of slaves imported into the New World was by the Spanish, into the Caribbean and S. America.”

    Regardless, the South had a conducive climate suitable for a wide range of cash crops to be grown.

    “As far as having sex with Africans goes, that seems to have largely been after the slavery days, probably also more due to the North.”

    No. Southern white males who owned slaves generally ventured onto “slave row” with the intention of enjoying their property.

    “People of the time remarked at how black the slaves were, still African, and it’s largely during and after the period where they started migrating to Northern cities that the mixing really started up in earnest and you start finding significant numbers of mulattos.”

    Please educate yourself on this matter.

    http://www.etymonline.com/cw/mulatto.htm

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored