The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ilana Mercer ArchiveBlogview
The Radical Republicans: The Antifa of 1865
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_238812670
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil,” said a sage reader. This applies in spades to anyone who would laud the Radical Republicans of 1865, as one TV GOP blonde has recently, and asininely, done.

The Radical Republicans, if you can believe it, considered Abraham Lincoln a moderate (a bad thing, in their book). Lincoln successor Andrew Johnson these fanatics branded a reactionary (punishable by obstruction and impeachment).

Praised these days by the blonde-ambition faction of the Republican Party, the Radicals were stars of America’s own Reign of Terror over the South, at the end of the War Between the States.

If the French Reign of Terror was led by the terrifying Robespierre and his Jacobins; its American equivalent was infused with the spirit of lunatics like John Brown. (His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords, in an act of biblical retribution gone mad.)

Thaddeus Stevens was another of their “inspirational” madmen, lauded in the annals of the Party of Reconstruction. In his biography of Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth Century Egalitarian, historian Hans Trefousse even makes a brief reference to the Jacobin Club, a term reserved for the most extreme Republicans in Congress (p. 168). Other club members: Henry Winter Davis, Benjamin Butler, Charles Sumner, Benjamin Wade, Zachariah Chandler.

Although Republicans shared “the drive toward revolution and national unification” (the words of historian Clyde Wilson, in The Yankee Problem, 2016), the Radicals distinguished themselves in their support for sadistic military occupation of the vanquished Rebel States, following the War Between the States.

While assorted GOP teletarts may find the rhetoric of Radical Republicans sexy; overall, these characters are villains of history, for helping to sunder the federal scheme bequeathed by the Founding Fathers. In their fanatical fealty to an almighty central government, Radical Republicans were as alien to the Jeffersonian tradition of self-government as it gets.

Today’s Republicans should know that the Radical Republicans were hardly heartbroken about the assassination of Lincoln, on April 14, 1865.

A mere month earlier (March 4, 1865)—and much to the chagrin of the Radicals—Lincoln had noodled, in his billowing prose, about the need to “bind up the nation’s wounds and proceed with “malice toward none … and charity for all.”

Radical Republicans were having none of that charity stuff. They promptly placed their evil aspirations in Andrew Johnson. A President Johnson, they had hoped, would be a suitable sockpuppet in socking it to the South some more.

Alas, Johnson, a poor, white tailor from North Carolina, turned out, in today’s political nomenclature, to be something of a populist. In going against the Radical Republicans, the 17th president of the United States was the Trump of his time, up against the Rubio-McCain-Graham Radical Republicans. (Marco Rubio, incidentally, has gone as far as to rationalize the Antifa ruffians’ violence, tweeting: “When [an] entire movement [is] built on anger and hatred towards people different than [sic] you, it justifies and ultimately leads to violence against them.”)

When Johnson failed to deliver the radical changes Radical Republicans demanded, our 1865 Antifans accused him of being “tainted by Lincolnism.”

Let’s unpack this:

To rational and righteous individuals, Lincoln did a radical thing in prosecuting a fratricidal war in 1861. Did not the ignoble institution of slavery dissolve relatively uneventfully in most slave societies, around that time? Indeed, it did. Alone in all nations did the U.S. and Haiti share the dubious distinction of shedding blood, where other options presented themselves.

But to Radical Republicans, the late Lincoln had not been radical enough and Johnson had disappointed.

While number 17 was a Southern Unionist, President Johnson was, nevertheless, still a Democrat. Then as now, the Republicans were the party of the crony capitalist centralized State. Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights.

And it was proving a little harder to take the old republic of radical decentralization out of President Johnson.

Consequently, Johnson allowed “each of the Rebel States to determine its suffrage.” Remember, only the rights to life, liberty and property are inviolable natural rights. Not so the right to vote. The franchise is a grant of government privilege, never a natural right.

And it was to field hands that the Radicals gave the vote and, subsequently, governorship of the South. “Nearly four million slaves had been freed overnight. Very few of these were equipped to meet the rudimentary responsibilities of citizenship.” (A Complete History of the United States, by Clement Wood, p. 342.) Confessed one freedman: “I can’t read, I can’t write. We go by the [Union League's] instructions. We don’t know nothing much.” (In their strong-arm, violent tactics, Union League members were most definitely the Antifa arm of Reconstruction-era Republicans.)

Is there any wonder that the South under Radical-Republican Reconstruction became a “howling Babylon of Corruption”? This was to be expected from the “riffraff of conquerors and conquered alike.” The planter class had been destroyed. “Many whites and Negroes of the new ruling class could not even sign their name,” attests historian William Miller.

In mitigation, the less-radical Lincoln had proposed that “the right to vote be given to the most capable [blacks].” Johnson’s advice was to give the vote to propertied blacks worth $250. (Wood, P. 349.)

Not unlike today’s Republicans and Democrats, the Radical Republicans of yore had sidelined a large segment of the white population in the South. Johnson had dared to flout congressional Radicals by showing some fairness to these vanquished Southerners.

“When the South came to elect its Senators and Representatives in 1865, it had but one class of men it would trust to turn to, and that was leading secessionists.” (Wood, P. 349.)

“Northerners were [being] asked by the Southern States to recognize, on terms of civic and official equality, confederate cabinets members, congressmen and brigadier generals.” (P. 346.) Radical Republicans set about preventing such charitable normalization.

ORDER IT NOW

During the lame-duck session of December 1865, the Radicals excluded “men elected in the rebel states.” Full-well did they know that the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional (A New History of the United States by William Miller, p. 220). Over Johnson’s veto and advice to the South to reject the rigged ratification process—the Radicals demanded the South ratify the 14th Amendments as a condition of representation in Congress.

Johnson’s riposte, bless him, was to accuse Republican Representative Thaddeus Stevens of “seeking to destroy the rights of Southern states” (Wood, p. 349). And with good reason:

The Supreme Court had ruled against the legality and constitutionality of martial law in the South. Against the SCOTUS’s ruling, the Radical Republicans went on to,

  • “Throw out the governments of all confederate states (but Tennessee) and bring the South under military rule.” “Military governors backed by national troops” replaced governments whose formation Johnson allowed in 1865.” Twenty thousand “troops were quartered in the South,” shades of the reason an earlier generation of Americans fought the War of Independence.
  • Radical Republicans next divested the SCOTUS of its constitutional role. They removed the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court over deciding—yea or nay—about martial rule over the South. Neither was the SCOTUS permitted to test the First Reconstruction Act.
  • Radical Republicans also made the ratification of the 14th Amendment subject to a quid pro quo: If the Rebel States ratified it, they’d be let into the Union again.
  • The Radicals “disqualified all trusted leaders of the Confederacy from holding either national or state office,” “branding them as criminals, depriving them of political rights at the same time that [they] gave civil rights” to all Africans.

In a word, white electors were largely disqualified.

“Having brushed aside the Court, the Radicals tried to subordinate the Executive.” These odious types turned to divesting the commander-in-chief of his constitutional authority and role.

These days, the Army ignores President Trump’s executive order as commander-in-chief, a precedent Radial Republicans may have helped cement, when they “forbade President Johnson to give the army orders except through [Generalissimo] Grant.”

The Radicals soon put in place new state constitutions which—wouldn’t you know it?—were liberal in the extreme, prescribing much of the publicly-funded miseducation that has propagandized America’s kids even since.

The nation’s schools soon became a conduit for the “dispensing of radical doctrine,” starting with the un-American Radical Republican orthodoxy.

So, Ms. Liz Wheeler, one can’t at once claim a commitment to the ideas of a decentralized constitution and regional autonomy yet twerk (politically) on TV for the Radical Republicans.

*My thanks to historian Dr. Boyd D. Cathey for useful comments and corrections.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and 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 & YouTube.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Blondes get all the comments, too.

    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/the-radical-republicans-the-antifa-of-1865/#comment-1996644
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. wayfarer says:

    ” Civil War Conspiracy – Rothschilds Funded Both Sides From Europe – North Had Just As Many Slaves Too.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Dakota
    These fake Jew Rothschild's are behind every modern war. Every banker scam, every nation subversion.
    Why are they still alive?
    US Special Forces could take them all out in one day and the lower bag men like Soros would dry up and blow away into the night.
  3. Binyamin says:

    The Jewish Ilana Mercer acknowledges approvingly ‘Dr’ Boyd D. Cathey, a holocaust denier- Cathey had a close association in the past with a holocaust denying organisation. Wow! No wonder even fringe on-line publications keep firing her. Trump can do at least some good during his miserable (and hopefully short) presidency by deporting all foreign born extremists and hate preachers. Perhaps he is deporting the wrong people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Spoken just like a (probably) Jewish Marxist or Anarchist.
    , @JustJeff
    Her father worked against apartheid and now she preaches how awful South Africa is now. I don't understand why anyone still publishes her dreck.
    , @Ace
    A trivial, inconsequential comment. Five seconds of my life utterly wasted.
  4. dearieme says:

    Whenever I have remarked on an American blog that John Brown was a terrorist I’ve garnered hysterical replies. Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    This has just recently been the case. I was born in the late 1960's and growing up, Brown was always referred to as a terrorist, even into the late 1980's when I graduated high school.

    But lead by immigrant and felon Dinesh Joseph D'Souza there has been a move to demonize the South and Southerners and make heroes out of terrorists like Brown.
  5. Logan says:

    “Praised these days by the blonde-ambition faction of the Republican Party, the Radicals were stars of America’s own Reign of Terror”

    The problem with all this is that Reconstruction was immensely less harsh than the aftermath of any other great civil war in history.

    The true Reign of Terror in France executed around 20,000 to 40,000 people. (To be fair, the R of T took place during a time of immense peril for the revolutionary government.)

    Reconstruction executed exactly two men. One of whom fully deserved it for specific war crimes, the other of whom probably did not.

    But calling Reconstruction a Reign of Terror is pretty clearly hyperbole.

    Read More
  6. CPH says:

    “Generalissimo” Grant, indeed. A snide comment from a partisan of the losing side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    "Drunken butcher" would be a better way to describe Grant.
  7. Just as interesting to me and easing any scepticism I might feel would be a bit more elaboration on those dot points and also *how* the Radical Republicans neutered the Supreme Court and also the President.

    Read More
  8. Jake says:

    Once again, Ilana Mercer nails it – and the ‘it’ is something extremely important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    (((Illana Mercer))) is doing her usual "conservative-libertarian schtick" routine. She and her rabbi father were kicked out of South Africa for their anti-apartheid work. http://www.ilanamercer.com/biographical. She's a negrophiliac.
  9. Jake says:
    @Binyamin
    The Jewish Ilana Mercer acknowledges approvingly 'Dr' Boyd D. Cathey, a holocaust denier- Cathey had a close association in the past with a holocaust denying organisation. Wow! No wonder even fringe on-line publications keep firing her. Trump can do at least some good during his miserable (and hopefully short) presidency by deporting all foreign born extremists and hate preachers. Perhaps he is deporting the wrong people?

    Spoken just like a (probably) Jewish Marxist or Anarchist.

    Read More
  10. When I saw the headline for this article, I was truly excited. Then I read it. It was obviously written by someone with a very recent acquaintance with the history of the era. No one else would make the cringe-worthy claim that Johnson was from NC, rather than TN. He became president because he was the VP when Lincoln was assassinated, and for no other reason. Otherwise the article is disjointed.
    When people claim a president can only be impeached for very sound reasons, I often point to Johnson, who avoided impeachment by a single vote for firing members of his own cabinet. Impeachment is more a political act than a legal one. Johnson was effectively neutered, and spent his remaining time in office approving pardon applications, personally signing thousands of them.
    Another point the author misses is that anyone who had served the Confederate military, government, or any of the participating state governments was disenfranchised by the Reconstruction Acts, and a presidential pardon was required to restore the right to vote. So basically the entire white South was disenfranchised for many years during reconstruction.
    4/5′s of the property in some Low Country counties of SC were taken from their owners for failure to pay the new property taxes to support the new public schools. Indeed, South Carolina didn’t pay off the last of the reconstruction era bonds until 1952, a few years before I was born.
    A lot of negative things, and very few good things, can be written about this time. It was mostly “stealing in the name of justice,” as the scoundrels doing the stealing waved the bloody shirt of the Union dead if the spotlight shone on their activities. While this can be compared to “violence in the name of peace,” that’s about as close as one can get when trying to compare the Radical Republicans to Antifa.

    Read More
  11. Che Guava says:

    Good and educational article, Iiana, thank you. I knew of the radical Reconstructionists and carpet-baggers, but you say several things I did not know.

    Also enjoyed your blog post that had a link, and the Fred Reed article from there (though had read that once before, worth reading it again).

    Nothing to add except that I spent two nights and a day ane a half lastt weekend walking and riding buses around the centre of the last major rising against the new government in Japan, not for the first time, it was not long after the American War of Northern Aggression, so about 15 years after the black ships..

    One place had a very beautiful screen from the nineteenth century, a real one, not a copy, of the black ships (USN Commodore Perry’s fleet), on a non-existant river, with landmarks on the shores, and feudal names and badges.

    Perry was a very heavy drunkard, died relatively young for it … and a pig, never to observing ‘when in Rome …’. We have our own saying for ‘when in Rome’, based on local behaviour. Trouble with our version, it is specific to within the place.

    Seeing the screen made me feel the connection with the war there. Arrogance on the part of the North. The unwelcome intrusion set up many wars and upheavals in Japan.

    Should be a lesson for today.

    Final, liked you attaching [sic.] to ‘than’ in ‘different than’.

    Also to me, not the English language I ever studied!

    Read More
  12. @dearieme
    Whenever I have remarked on an American blog that John Brown was a terrorist I've garnered hysterical replies. Why?

    This has just recently been the case. I was born in the late 1960′s and growing up, Brown was always referred to as a terrorist, even into the late 1980′s when I graduated high school.

    But lead by immigrant and felon Dinesh Joseph D’Souza there has been a move to demonize the South and Southerners and make heroes out of terrorists like Brown.

    Read More
  13. @CPH
    "Generalissimo" Grant, indeed. A snide comment from a partisan of the losing side.

    “Drunken butcher” would be a better way to describe Grant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Guess which Civil War soldier lost the highest proportion of his men to combat death?

    Lee, not Grant.

    Grant's reputation as a butcher seems to be based on the Overland Campaign, where he often attacked frontally for lack of alternatives. Sea on one side, mountains on the other of a relatively narrow front, with a highly competent enemy it was difficult to deceive.

    Grants earlier campaigns in the West, where he had more room to maneuver show a tendency to outmaneuver the enemy rather than attack headon.
  14. Something that always intrigues me as a European is why Americans spend so much time raking over old coals instead of solving today’s problems and looking to the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    It's a great way to keep the doltocracy divided & conquered. It may be more effective here because it also seems to play to the warped sense of exceptionalism/patriotism/militarism that is evident in camouflage baseball uniforms, etc.
    , @wayfarer
    At the recently fabricated Charlottesville Virginia cluster fu#k, what was there something like three confederate and two nazi flags? That's about 0.0000015% of all the 326,625,791 people in the U.S. Furthermore there's even evidence now that indicates these false-flag-bearers were nothing more than a bogus-bunch of frustrated minimum-wage c-list crisis-actors.

    Americans for the most part could give a rat's ass about their history. It's only when the self-serving alt-left social engineering “elite” intentionally try to rip open old wounds, that you begin to see Americans reacting to the dark parts of their bygone times.

    All people need to completely let go of the past, stop friggin' worrying about the future, and begin living simply within each sacred god given present moment.
    , @The Alarmist
    Given how anti-democratic and destructive of underlying societal values that prevailed for centuries in individual European nations the EU is, I'm surprised so many Europeans cling to the fantasy that there is a need for the EU. Seems they think it will help avoid re-living unpleasant aspects of their history.
    , @Ace
    That's rich given the European obsession with Nazis. Dead and gone as of 70 years ago but in European political discourse as fresh as the morning dew. Do tell me more about how Americans are unique in spending so much time raking over old coals.
  15. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Michael Kenny
    Something that always intrigues me as a European is why Americans spend so much time raking over old coals instead of solving today's problems and looking to the future.

    It’s a great way to keep the doltocracy divided & conquered. It may be more effective here because it also seems to play to the warped sense of exceptionalism/patriotism/militarism that is evident in camouflage baseball uniforms, etc.

    Read More
  16. Pandos says:

    John Wilkes Booth, the dumbest assassin in history. Kill Lincoln at the beginning to win, not after the loss when he was sending them all home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant were degenerate war criminals. The only thing I've got against John Wilkes Booth is that he was four years too late.
    , @Clark Westwood

    John Wilkes Booth, the dumbest assassin in history.
     
    The predecessor of today's Hollywood idiots who think they're somehow entitled to play leading roles in world events.
  17. Ilana Mercer begins this column with a quote from the comments of her previous column. Since it is now evident that she actually read those comments, she would be in a position to know that several of us pointed out how utterly devoid of substance was her claim that Adolf Hitler admired and emulated Abraham Lincoln, and that the primary sources she cited in support of that claim in fact provide no evidence for it whatsoever. Yet instead of issuing a retraction and an apology (to Adolf not to Lincoln; the latter really was a mass-murdering tyrant), in the present column she simply forges ahead with her agenda of whipping up Americans’ easily triggered emotions vis-a-vis the Civil War and twisting them to support her kooky libertarian philosophy.

    From first to last, every item in this pattern of atrocious scholarship—the bogus sources, the emotional manipulation, the personal agenda, the blithe refusal to even acknowledge much less atone for exposed error—is quite typical of female “intellectuals” throughout academia and the media. And lest anyone in his moment of weakness was tempted to take the female mind seriously, Ilana herself has provided the antidote in her opening paragraph by introducing an element of cat-fight, explicitly referring to the unforgivable blondness of her enemy!

    It’s important to keep this all in mind whenever some woman tries to lecture us about what to feel and believe. I am not being too harsh; I don’t take kindly to being lied to. I still hold to the quaint belief that scholarship should be the realm of actual scholars, not of emotion-driven harridans. It’s time to stop listening to all of them, no matter what side of the media wars they play for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yet instead of issuing a retraction and an apology (to Adolf not to Lincoln; the latter really was a mass-murdering tyrant)."

    Actually, for this insanely absurd comment, it is YOU who ought to be giving your sincerest "I am sorry".

    "From first to last, every item in this pattern of atrocious scholarship—the bogus sources, the emotional manipulation, the personal agenda, the blithe refusal to even acknowledge much less atone for exposed error—is quite typical of female “intellectuals” throughout academia and the media."

    No, it is typical of radical intellectuals regardless of gender.

    "And lest anyone in his moment of weakness was tempted to take the female mind seriously..."

    No wonder why you remain single.

    "I still hold to the quaint belief that scholarship should be the realm of actual scholars, not of emotion-driven harridans."

    Then hold yourself accountable to your own standards.
    , @Logan
    The problem is with her scholarship and honesty, not her sex.
  18. wayfarer says:
    @Michael Kenny
    Something that always intrigues me as a European is why Americans spend so much time raking over old coals instead of solving today's problems and looking to the future.

    At the recently fabricated Charlottesville Virginia cluster fu#k, what was there something like three confederate and two nazi flags? That’s about 0.0000015% of all the 326,625,791 people in the U.S. Furthermore there’s even evidence now that indicates these false-flag-bearers were nothing more than a bogus-bunch of frustrated minimum-wage c-list crisis-actors.

    Americans for the most part could give a rat’s ass about their history. It’s only when the self-serving alt-left social engineering “elite” intentionally try to rip open old wounds, that you begin to see Americans reacting to the dark parts of their bygone times.

    All people need to completely let go of the past, stop friggin’ worrying about the future, and begin living simply within each sacred god given present moment.

    Read More
  19. MarkinLA says:

    I can never figure out this constant attempt by “conservatives” to associate the Democrats with slavery or the Republicans with emancipation. How many times are these idiots going to beat their heads against the wall?

    Get it through your thick head. BLACKS DON”T CARE!!. There is an official black pisition and that is vote Democrat. Thinking about issues and logic do not apply here. If you want to be seen as authentically black then do as you are supposed to.

    Confessed one freedman: “I can’t read, I can’t write. We go by the [Union League's] instructions. We don’t know nothing much.”

    Nothing has changed except the Union League is the Democratic Party. Maybe at one time it was the Republican Party but not anymore.

    Read More
  20. Scooter1 says:

    I think the real reign of terror was what blacks had to endure in the south before the civil war. A bunch of aristocratic plantation owners who got rich stealing the labor of others should have been killed, not pardoned and reinstated to society, and former slaves and poor whites should have been given the plantations instead. John Brown was a hero. If someone is willing to steal and control the life of another person just to make money, why shouldn’t they be put down like the greedy uncivilized dog that they are?

    Read More
    • Troll: Intelligent Dasein
    • Replies: @Logan
    If a 21st century white American and his family were captured and enslaved, would he be morally justified to use violence to attempt to free his family? Of course he would.

    So why would a 19th century black American not be equally justified in doing the same thing?

    , @Jake
    Stalin and Mao could not have said it better.
  21. In going against the Radical Republicans, the 17th president of the United States was the Trump of his time, up against the Rubio-McCain-Graham Radical Republicans.

    Also like Trump, Johnson had a deep state secretly working to undermine him (most notably Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Stanton).

    If you really want to rip off the Band-Aid with one quick motion, read The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln, by Claude Bowers. Bowers (1878-1958) was an old-fashioned Democrat politician who wrote several highly readable books on U.S. political history. Given that The Tragic Era was written in 1929, it is refreshingly free of PC BS.

    https://www.amazon.com/Tragic-Era-Revolution-After-Lincoln-ebook/dp/B004SGJ9KO/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504800653&sr=1-2&keywords=the+tragic+era

    Read More
  22. The Radical Republicans, if you can believe it, considered Abraham Lincoln a moderate (a bad thing, in their book).

    It always cracks me up how modern liberal historians (but I repeat myself), in their worship of Lincoln the “Great Emancipator” and standard-bearer of federal oppression of local governments, try to downplay/ignore/distract from Lincoln’s post-war plans for speedy re-admission of the Confederate states, restoration of civil rights to former “Rebs,” and gradual enfranchisement of blacks. Historians also want to ignore the fact that many Northern states opposed complete enfranchisement of blacks–states that had a lot fewer blacks to worry about than those in the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    How has that "complete enfranchisement" dealy worked out for us? Ms. Mercer can be instructive on how it worked out in S. Africa.
  23. Not completely OT….

    Here’s something surprisingly chilling that Charles Darwin wrote about the U.S. in June 1861:

    Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. (Emphasis added.)

    WTF, Charles?

    That’s from a letter by Darwin to Asa Gray, June 5, 1861. It’s quoted in Vol. 3 of James Ford Rhodes’s History of the United States.

    Read More
  24. @Pandos
    John Wilkes Booth, the dumbest assassin in history. Kill Lincoln at the beginning to win, not after the loss when he was sending them all home.

    Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant were degenerate war criminals. The only thing I’ve got against John Wilkes Booth is that he was four years too late.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Agreed. Lincoln was a war mongering butcher. He didn't free any slaves and almost everything today's propaganda filled Americans know about him is a lie.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant were degenerate war criminals.
     
    As were FDR, Truman, and Curtis LeMay. All of whom got plentiful support from Dixie. Every Confederate state gave electors to at least two of those three.

    At least LeMay was man enough to admit it.
  25. Corvinus says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Ilana Mercer begins this column with a quote from the comments of her previous column. Since it is now evident that she actually read those comments, she would be in a position to know that several of us pointed out how utterly devoid of substance was her claim that Adolf Hitler admired and emulated Abraham Lincoln, and that the primary sources she cited in support of that claim in fact provide no evidence for it whatsoever. Yet instead of issuing a retraction and an apology (to Adolf not to Lincoln; the latter really was a mass-murdering tyrant), in the present column she simply forges ahead with her agenda of whipping up Americans' easily triggered emotions vis-a-vis the Civil War and twisting them to support her kooky libertarian philosophy.

    From first to last, every item in this pattern of atrocious scholarship---the bogus sources, the emotional manipulation, the personal agenda, the blithe refusal to even acknowledge much less atone for exposed error---is quite typical of female "intellectuals" throughout academia and the media. And lest anyone in his moment of weakness was tempted to take the female mind seriously, Ilana herself has provided the antidote in her opening paragraph by introducing an element of cat-fight, explicitly referring to the unforgivable blondness of her enemy!

    It's important to keep this all in mind whenever some woman tries to lecture us about what to feel and believe. I am not being too harsh; I don't take kindly to being lied to. I still hold to the quaint belief that scholarship should be the realm of actual scholars, not of emotion-driven harridans. It's time to stop listening to all of them, no matter what side of the media wars they play for.

    “Yet instead of issuing a retraction and an apology (to Adolf not to Lincoln; the latter really was a mass-murdering tyrant).”

    Actually, for this insanely absurd comment, it is YOU who ought to be giving your sincerest “I am sorry”.

    “From first to last, every item in this pattern of atrocious scholarship—the bogus sources, the emotional manipulation, the personal agenda, the blithe refusal to even acknowledge much less atone for exposed error—is quite typical of female “intellectuals” throughout academia and the media.”

    No, it is typical of radical intellectuals regardless of gender.

    “And lest anyone in his moment of weakness was tempted to take the female mind seriously…”

    No wonder why you remain single.

    “I still hold to the quaint belief that scholarship should be the realm of actual scholars, not of emotion-driven harridans.”

    Then hold yourself accountable to your own standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Cuck.
    , @Curle
    Exposed error, please.

    No war that claims to be based in legal right can be pursued without reference to that right and yet we had a war fought on the basis of home architecture poetics.

    All rights not otherwise gained through possession of guns is either present or not in the constitution. When looking for the proper interpretation of any legal record look first to the language of the document and secondly at contemporaneous records to see what was said at the time. Whereas the ground is littered with direct and indirect contemporaneous references to the loss of the unitary government position at the constitutional convention, not the least being Madison's direct report of the loss as well as acknowledgment of the secession right in state ratification ordinances not to mention Jefferson's many letters assuming existence secession, there is no contemporaneous record of the unitary proponents succeeding. The complete and total absence of a written record supporting one's preferred view of history is penultimate proof that the preferred view is wrong
  26. JustJeff says:
    @Binyamin
    The Jewish Ilana Mercer acknowledges approvingly 'Dr' Boyd D. Cathey, a holocaust denier- Cathey had a close association in the past with a holocaust denying organisation. Wow! No wonder even fringe on-line publications keep firing her. Trump can do at least some good during his miserable (and hopefully short) presidency by deporting all foreign born extremists and hate preachers. Perhaps he is deporting the wrong people?

    Her father worked against apartheid and now she preaches how awful South Africa is now. I don’t understand why anyone still publishes her dreck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    So you're saying that S. Africa isn't awful?
  27. @Pandos
    John Wilkes Booth, the dumbest assassin in history. Kill Lincoln at the beginning to win, not after the loss when he was sending them all home.

    John Wilkes Booth, the dumbest assassin in history.

    The predecessor of today’s Hollywood idiots who think they’re somehow entitled to play leading roles in world events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Booth was probably some patsy fall guy for the illuminati cabal that wanted to punish the South and could only do so over the dead body of Lincoln. The Kathy Griffin of his day.
  28. Mundi says:

    Abraham Lincoln decided not to borrow money from the bankers nor to create interest bearing money by creating a national bank that would loan the government the needed money by printing large quantities of paper money. Lincoln issued the “Greenback” in February, 1862.

    This money was not only unbacked by gold, but was debt free. Lincoln was playing a deadly game. He had crossed the international bankers. The war was being fought to force the United States into a position of having to create a national bank, run independently by the European bankers, and Lincoln had turned his back on them by issuing his own Fiat Money.

    Read More
  29. mercer says:

    “Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights.”

    Anyone familiar with the Fugitive Slave Act knows this is not an accurate description of antebellum Southern Dems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Quite right.

    The issue that split the Democratic Party and ensured the election of Lincoln was a demand by southerners that slavery be imposed on every territory by a federal slave code enforced by federal troops. For northern Democrats this was a bridge too far, and they refused.

    The South then seceded from the Party and soon after from the Union.

    Lincoln and many other northerners believed there was something like a conspiracy to impose slavery inside even free states. The principles outlined in Dred Scott wouldn't have need to be expanded much to accomplish this.

  30. @Michael Kenny
    Something that always intrigues me as a European is why Americans spend so much time raking over old coals instead of solving today's problems and looking to the future.

    Given how anti-democratic and destructive of underlying societal values that prevailed for centuries in individual European nations the EU is, I’m surprised so many Europeans cling to the fantasy that there is a need for the EU. Seems they think it will help avoid re-living unpleasant aspects of their history.

    Read More
  31. Logan says:
    @Chris Mallory
    "Drunken butcher" would be a better way to describe Grant.

    Guess which Civil War soldier lost the highest proportion of his men to combat death?

    Lee, not Grant.

    Grant’s reputation as a butcher seems to be based on the Overland Campaign, where he often attacked frontally for lack of alternatives. Sea on one side, mountains on the other of a relatively narrow front, with a highly competent enemy it was difficult to deceive.

    Grants earlier campaigns in the West, where he had more room to maneuver show a tendency to outmaneuver the enemy rather than attack headon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Grant had vastly more soldiers to suffer attrition with. Are you familiar with Lanchester's Square Law?

    I agree that e.g. the Vicksburg campaign was a campaign of maneuver. I don't know about "highest"-- do you mean "higher"? And I assume you're talking about the Overland campaign?
    , @anonymous

    Guess which Civil War soldier lost the highest proportion of his men to combat death?

    Lee, not Grant.
     
    proportion, yes. But in real numbers, no. Like the Russians in WWII, Grant could spend bodies wantonly.

    Lee had far smaller resources to draw upon --

    from Correspondence between Robert E Lee and David Lord Acton:
    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/08/acton-lee-conversation-liberty.html

    In regard to your inquiry as to my being engaged in preparing a narrative of the campaigns in Virginia, I regret to state that I progress slowly in the collection of the necessary documents for its completion. I particularly feel the loss of the official returns showing the small numbers with which the battles were fought.
     
  32. Logan says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Ilana Mercer begins this column with a quote from the comments of her previous column. Since it is now evident that she actually read those comments, she would be in a position to know that several of us pointed out how utterly devoid of substance was her claim that Adolf Hitler admired and emulated Abraham Lincoln, and that the primary sources she cited in support of that claim in fact provide no evidence for it whatsoever. Yet instead of issuing a retraction and an apology (to Adolf not to Lincoln; the latter really was a mass-murdering tyrant), in the present column she simply forges ahead with her agenda of whipping up Americans' easily triggered emotions vis-a-vis the Civil War and twisting them to support her kooky libertarian philosophy.

    From first to last, every item in this pattern of atrocious scholarship---the bogus sources, the emotional manipulation, the personal agenda, the blithe refusal to even acknowledge much less atone for exposed error---is quite typical of female "intellectuals" throughout academia and the media. And lest anyone in his moment of weakness was tempted to take the female mind seriously, Ilana herself has provided the antidote in her opening paragraph by introducing an element of cat-fight, explicitly referring to the unforgivable blondness of her enemy!

    It's important to keep this all in mind whenever some woman tries to lecture us about what to feel and believe. I am not being too harsh; I don't take kindly to being lied to. I still hold to the quaint belief that scholarship should be the realm of actual scholars, not of emotion-driven harridans. It's time to stop listening to all of them, no matter what side of the media wars they play for.

    The problem is with her scholarship and honesty, not her sex.

    Read More
  33. Logan says:
    @Scooter1
    I think the real reign of terror was what blacks had to endure in the south before the civil war. A bunch of aristocratic plantation owners who got rich stealing the labor of others should have been killed, not pardoned and reinstated to society, and former slaves and poor whites should have been given the plantations instead. John Brown was a hero. If someone is willing to steal and control the life of another person just to make money, why shouldn't they be put down like the greedy uncivilized dog that they are?

    If a 21st century white American and his family were captured and enslaved, would he be morally justified to use violence to attempt to free his family? Of course he would.

    So why would a 19th century black American not be equally justified in doing the same thing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    That's irrelevant. The issue was, given that a horrible crime had been committed in bringing African slaves to America, what was the most decent and speedy way of returning them to Africa so that America would not have to deal with bitter, eternal hatred on the part of the majority of Africans and the absolute impossibility of ever living with them in harmony under any circumstance?
  34. Logan says:
    @mercer
    "Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights."

    Anyone familiar with the Fugitive Slave Act knows this is not an accurate description of antebellum Southern Dems.

    Quite right.

    The issue that split the Democratic Party and ensured the election of Lincoln was a demand by southerners that slavery be imposed on every territory by a federal slave code enforced by federal troops. For northern Democrats this was a bridge too far, and they refused.

    The South then seceded from the Party and soon after from the Union.

    Lincoln and many other northerners believed there was something like a conspiracy to impose slavery inside even free states. The principles outlined in Dred Scott wouldn’t have need to be expanded much to accomplish this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curle
    The Union was a voluntary association of states. The Territories belonged to the states collectively not to the national government. If a northern state imagined itself aggrieved by a collective decision by the states as to the management of the Territories they could have easily salved their conscious by seceding; the remedy contemplated by the constitution. Instead the aggrieved North decided to wage war.
  35. woodNfish says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant were degenerate war criminals. The only thing I've got against John Wilkes Booth is that he was four years too late.

    Agreed. Lincoln was a war mongering butcher. He didn’t free any slaves and almost everything today’s propaganda filled Americans know about him is a lie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    You know, I have a vague feeling that we'll never receive the Lincoln Court Historians Seal of Approval!

    Piss on Lincoln. I shake the hand that pulled the trigger.
  36. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Logan
    Guess which Civil War soldier lost the highest proportion of his men to combat death?

    Lee, not Grant.

    Grant's reputation as a butcher seems to be based on the Overland Campaign, where he often attacked frontally for lack of alternatives. Sea on one side, mountains on the other of a relatively narrow front, with a highly competent enemy it was difficult to deceive.

    Grants earlier campaigns in the West, where he had more room to maneuver show a tendency to outmaneuver the enemy rather than attack headon.

    Grant had vastly more soldiers to suffer attrition with. Are you familiar with Lanchester’s Square Law?

    I agree that e.g. the Vicksburg campaign was a campaign of maneuver. I don’t know about “highest”– do you mean “higher”? And I assume you’re talking about the Overland campaign?

    Read More
  37. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Logan
    Guess which Civil War soldier lost the highest proportion of his men to combat death?

    Lee, not Grant.

    Grant's reputation as a butcher seems to be based on the Overland Campaign, where he often attacked frontally for lack of alternatives. Sea on one side, mountains on the other of a relatively narrow front, with a highly competent enemy it was difficult to deceive.

    Grants earlier campaigns in the West, where he had more room to maneuver show a tendency to outmaneuver the enemy rather than attack headon.

    Guess which Civil War soldier lost the highest proportion of his men to combat death?

    Lee, not Grant.

    proportion, yes. But in real numbers, no. Like the Russians in WWII, Grant could spend bodies wantonly.

    Lee had far smaller resources to draw upon —

    from Correspondence between Robert E Lee and David Lord Acton:

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/08/acton-lee-conversation-liberty.html

    In regard to your inquiry as to my being engaged in preparing a narrative of the campaigns in Virginia, I regret to state that I progress slowly in the collection of the necessary documents for its completion. I particularly feel the loss of the official returns showing the small numbers with which the battles were fought.

    Read More
  38. @Corvinus
    "Yet instead of issuing a retraction and an apology (to Adolf not to Lincoln; the latter really was a mass-murdering tyrant)."

    Actually, for this insanely absurd comment, it is YOU who ought to be giving your sincerest "I am sorry".

    "From first to last, every item in this pattern of atrocious scholarship—the bogus sources, the emotional manipulation, the personal agenda, the blithe refusal to even acknowledge much less atone for exposed error—is quite typical of female “intellectuals” throughout academia and the media."

    No, it is typical of radical intellectuals regardless of gender.

    "And lest anyone in his moment of weakness was tempted to take the female mind seriously..."

    No wonder why you remain single.

    "I still hold to the quaint belief that scholarship should be the realm of actual scholars, not of emotion-driven harridans."

    Then hold yourself accountable to your own standards.

    Cuck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    It's the only schtick you have. Sad, really sad.
  39. The five or six Kansans Brown slaughtered were actually ANTI-slavery. Brown was upset that the locals hadn’t done enough to defeat the pro-slavers entering the state.

    Read More
  40. TG says:

    “Did not the ignoble institution of slavery dissolve relatively uneventfully in most slave societies, around that time? Indeed, it did. Alone in all nations did the U.S. and Haiti share the dubious distinction of shedding blood, where other options presented themselves.”

    I’d like to comment on just this one issue. Slavery generally only exists when the natural value of labor is high. In the sparsely populated ante-bellum American South, a market economy would favor workers over landowners, and make plantation-style living difficult – the place would go more towards the owner-operator system of the midwest. So the Southern plantation owners needed slavery to keep their lifestyle, and would not have let it slip away.

    In other lands where slavery died out, that was not typically due to any generosity of spirit – but because population densities had increased enough (RELATIVE to developed resources and industrial capital) that the balance of supply and demand favored landowners over workers, and slavery was no longer necessary. There is no slave owner more brutal than the law of supply and demand, as the impoverished ‘free’ workers of modern Bangladesh know all too well…

    Ancient Rome kept a slave economy going for centuries, because they needed it. It took a while, but eventually the population increased enough that ‘free’ labor became cheaper than slave labor, and THEN slavery started to go away.

    Bottom line: There is no way that the sparsely populated ante-bellum South would have let slavery slip away for at least generations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    RE Rome, no. There is no way the population actually increased in the early Dark Ages to beyond the maximum Imperial level. Other circumstances were at issue.
    , @The Alarmist

    "It took a while, but eventually the population increased enough that ‘free’ labor became cheaper than slave labor, and THEN slavery started to go away."
     
    Wow, that is a highly distorted view of the history of Rome and Europe and slavery:

    The oligarch class of Rome did such an effective job of reducing freemen to penury while cranking up the debts of the state to themselves, much like we see in the modern western world, that they figuratively tied labor by law to the land on which it resided and worked so that it could not escape the work that was needed to be done to keep the oligarchs in the style to which they had become accustomed. It's not that slavery went away, rather the whole society was essentially reduced to slavery.

    This is what formed the basis for serfdom and the whole structure of feudal Europe in the Middle Ages. It was not until the Black Plague killed off enough serfs that the surviving serfs could literally walk away and bid their labor out to the highest bidder and thereby throw off the shackles of serfdom.

    This led to a resurgence of slavery to source the labor to do the dirty shit work freemen wouldn't do at the bid offered.

  41. Curle says:
    @Corvinus
    "Yet instead of issuing a retraction and an apology (to Adolf not to Lincoln; the latter really was a mass-murdering tyrant)."

    Actually, for this insanely absurd comment, it is YOU who ought to be giving your sincerest "I am sorry".

    "From first to last, every item in this pattern of atrocious scholarship—the bogus sources, the emotional manipulation, the personal agenda, the blithe refusal to even acknowledge much less atone for exposed error—is quite typical of female “intellectuals” throughout academia and the media."

    No, it is typical of radical intellectuals regardless of gender.

    "And lest anyone in his moment of weakness was tempted to take the female mind seriously..."

    No wonder why you remain single.

    "I still hold to the quaint belief that scholarship should be the realm of actual scholars, not of emotion-driven harridans."

    Then hold yourself accountable to your own standards.

    Exposed error, please.

    No war that claims to be based in legal right can be pursued without reference to that right and yet we had a war fought on the basis of home architecture poetics.

    All rights not otherwise gained through possession of guns is either present or not in the constitution. When looking for the proper interpretation of any legal record look first to the language of the document and secondly at contemporaneous records to see what was said at the time. Whereas the ground is littered with direct and indirect contemporaneous references to the loss of the unitary government position at the constitutional convention, not the least being Madison’s direct report of the loss as well as acknowledgment of the secession right in state ratification ordinances not to mention Jefferson’s many letters assuming existence secession, there is no contemporaneous record of the unitary proponents succeeding. The complete and total absence of a written record supporting one’s preferred view of history is penultimate proof that the preferred view is wrong

    Read More
  42. @Jake
    Once again, Ilana Mercer nails it - and the 'it' is something extremely important.

    (((Illana Mercer))) is doing her usual “conservative-libertarian schtick” routine. She and her rabbi father were kicked out of South Africa for their anti-apartheid work. http://www.ilanamercer.com/biographical. She’s a negrophiliac.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curle
    Reading your comment I gather you didn't read the article?
  43. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @TG
    "Did not the ignoble institution of slavery dissolve relatively uneventfully in most slave societies, around that time? Indeed, it did. Alone in all nations did the U.S. and Haiti share the dubious distinction of shedding blood, where other options presented themselves."

    I'd like to comment on just this one issue. Slavery generally only exists when the natural value of labor is high. In the sparsely populated ante-bellum American South, a market economy would favor workers over landowners, and make plantation-style living difficult - the place would go more towards the owner-operator system of the midwest. So the Southern plantation owners needed slavery to keep their lifestyle, and would not have let it slip away.

    In other lands where slavery died out, that was not typically due to any generosity of spirit - but because population densities had increased enough (RELATIVE to developed resources and industrial capital) that the balance of supply and demand favored landowners over workers, and slavery was no longer necessary. There is no slave owner more brutal than the law of supply and demand, as the impoverished 'free' workers of modern Bangladesh know all too well...

    Ancient Rome kept a slave economy going for centuries, because they needed it. It took a while, but eventually the population increased enough that 'free' labor became cheaper than slave labor, and THEN slavery started to go away.

    Bottom line: There is no way that the sparsely populated ante-bellum South would have let slavery slip away for at least generations.

    RE Rome, no. There is no way the population actually increased in the early Dark Ages to beyond the maximum Imperial level. Other circumstances were at issue.

    Read More
  44. Curle says:
    @attilathehen
    (((Illana Mercer))) is doing her usual "conservative-libertarian schtick" routine. She and her rabbi father were kicked out of South Africa for their anti-apartheid work. http://www.ilanamercer.com/biographical. She's a negrophiliac.

    Reading your comment I gather you didn’t read the article?

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    I've read many of her columns. I posted a historical fact about her and her father. It doesn't matter what she writes. It's what she did and will do that counts.
    , @Ace
    So what's your objection to her article other than your ad hominem nonsense?
  45. Curle says:
    @Logan
    Quite right.

    The issue that split the Democratic Party and ensured the election of Lincoln was a demand by southerners that slavery be imposed on every territory by a federal slave code enforced by federal troops. For northern Democrats this was a bridge too far, and they refused.

    The South then seceded from the Party and soon after from the Union.

    Lincoln and many other northerners believed there was something like a conspiracy to impose slavery inside even free states. The principles outlined in Dred Scott wouldn't have need to be expanded much to accomplish this.

    The Union was a voluntary association of states. The Territories belonged to the states collectively not to the national government. If a northern state imagined itself aggrieved by a collective decision by the states as to the management of the Territories they could have easily salved their conscious by seceding; the remedy contemplated by the constitution. Instead the aggrieved North decided to wage war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Trying to steal several bases here, are we?

    The Union was not a voluntary association of states. It was formed by "we the People of the United States," not by the states as such.

    The territories had never been considered to belong to the states, which had absolutely nothing to do with their management or control. As with the Union itself, they belonged to the People of the United States, not to the states themselves.

    There is nothing whatever in the Constitution that can be considered as "contemplating secession." To be fair, not explicitly prohibiting it either.

  46. Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights.

    The idea of states having rights, rather than people, makes me nervous. States all over the world exercised such “rights” throughout the 20th century, and we saw what happened.

    Not unlike today’s Republicans and Democrats, the Radical Republicans of yore had sidelined a large segment of the white population in the South.

    As did the planters themselves, by importing boatloads of Africans to do the jobs (white) Americans wouldn’t do.

    If the French Reign of Terror was led by the terrifying Robespierre and his Jacobins; its American equivalent was infused with the spirit of lunatics like John Brown.

    Wait, didn’t Adams and New Englanders oppose the French Revolution, while Virginians such as Jefferson praise it? I’m getting whiplash here.

    His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords…

    Those decapitated settlers were the Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services of the day, fighting for the importation of Africans into territories they never would have reached by themselves, or ever would have thought of or wanted to reach.

    Just about everyone on this forum, save Tiny Duck , Corvinus, and Truth, wouldn’t shed a tear should a broadsword split a CC or LSS resettlement bureaucrat’s cranium. So why should we care about the race traitors of 150 years ago?

    Yes, Brown was a criminal, but, as is so often the case today, good riddance to his victims as well.

    Thaddeus Stevens was another of their “inspirational” madmen, lauded in the annals of the Party of Reconstruction.

    Yeah, but Alexander Stephens was just as radical, if not more, than his homophonic northern [sic] counterpart:

    The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

    The only “proper status of the negro in our form of civilisation” is absent.

    Rather than obsessing about the differences between Lincoln and the Confederates, why not appreciate the fundamental thing they had in common– both were fighting to ensure that their country would be blacker than it would had they done nothing.

    In other words, both were race perverts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    States don't literally have rights, of course, but "States' Rights" is just a short-hand for federalism and strictly limited central government, no?
    , @Logan
    "His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords…"

    A classic example of a true but incomplete story. This was an incident in tit-for-tat violence in Bleeding Kansas. Lots of people were killed by both sides. Brown just took the conflict, as was his nature, to its logical conclusion. Something common to fanatics.
  47. @Curle
    Reading your comment I gather you didn't read the article?

    I’ve read many of her columns. I posted a historical fact about her and her father. It doesn’t matter what she writes. It’s what she did and will do that counts.

    Read More
  48. Jake says:
    @Scooter1
    I think the real reign of terror was what blacks had to endure in the south before the civil war. A bunch of aristocratic plantation owners who got rich stealing the labor of others should have been killed, not pardoned and reinstated to society, and former slaves and poor whites should have been given the plantations instead. John Brown was a hero. If someone is willing to steal and control the life of another person just to make money, why shouldn't they be put down like the greedy uncivilized dog that they are?

    Stalin and Mao could not have said it better.

    Read More
  49. @wayfarer
    " Civil War Conspiracy - Rothschilds Funded Both Sides From Europe - North Had Just As Many Slaves Too."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PAqjcjZCUE

    These fake Jew Rothschild’s are behind every modern war. Every banker scam, every nation subversion.
    Why are they still alive?
    US Special Forces could take them all out in one day and the lower bag men like Soros would dry up and blow away into the night.

    Read More
  50. @Reg Cæsar

    Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights.
     
    The idea of states having rights, rather than people, makes me nervous. States all over the world exercised such "rights" throughout the 20th century, and we saw what happened.


    Not unlike today’s Republicans and Democrats, the Radical Republicans of yore had sidelined a large segment of the white population in the South.
     
    As did the planters themselves, by importing boatloads of Africans to do the jobs (white) Americans wouldn't do.

    If the French Reign of Terror was led by the terrifying Robespierre and his Jacobins; its American equivalent was infused with the spirit of lunatics like John Brown.
     
    Wait, didn't Adams and New Englanders oppose the French Revolution, while Virginians such as Jefferson praise it? I'm getting whiplash here.

    His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords...
     
    Those decapitated settlers were the Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services of the day, fighting for the importation of Africans into territories they never would have reached by themselves, or ever would have thought of or wanted to reach.

    Just about everyone on this forum, save Tiny Duck , Corvinus, and Truth, wouldn't shed a tear should a broadsword split a CC or LSS resettlement bureaucrat's cranium. So why should we care about the race traitors of 150 years ago?

    Yes, Brown was a criminal, but, as is so often the case today, good riddance to his victims as well.


    Thaddeus Stevens was another of their “inspirational” madmen, lauded in the annals of the Party of Reconstruction.
     
    Yeah, but Alexander Stephens was just as radical, if not more, than his homophonic northern [sic] counterpart:

    The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

    The only "proper status of the negro in our form of civilisation" is absent.

    Rather than obsessing about the differences between Lincoln and the Confederates, why not appreciate the fundamental thing they had in common-- both were fighting to ensure that their country would be blacker than it would had they done nothing.

    In other words, both were race perverts.

    States don’t literally have rights, of course, but “States’ Rights” is just a short-hand for federalism and strictly limited central government, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I've often asked apologists for secession which rights of the southern states were being infringed. Never have gotten a straight answer.
  51. @Clark Westwood

    John Wilkes Booth, the dumbest assassin in history.
     
    The predecessor of today's Hollywood idiots who think they're somehow entitled to play leading roles in world events.

    Booth was probably some patsy fall guy for the illuminati cabal that wanted to punish the South and could only do so over the dead body of Lincoln. The Kathy Griffin of his day.

    Read More
  52. @TG
    "Did not the ignoble institution of slavery dissolve relatively uneventfully in most slave societies, around that time? Indeed, it did. Alone in all nations did the U.S. and Haiti share the dubious distinction of shedding blood, where other options presented themselves."

    I'd like to comment on just this one issue. Slavery generally only exists when the natural value of labor is high. In the sparsely populated ante-bellum American South, a market economy would favor workers over landowners, and make plantation-style living difficult - the place would go more towards the owner-operator system of the midwest. So the Southern plantation owners needed slavery to keep their lifestyle, and would not have let it slip away.

    In other lands where slavery died out, that was not typically due to any generosity of spirit - but because population densities had increased enough (RELATIVE to developed resources and industrial capital) that the balance of supply and demand favored landowners over workers, and slavery was no longer necessary. There is no slave owner more brutal than the law of supply and demand, as the impoverished 'free' workers of modern Bangladesh know all too well...

    Ancient Rome kept a slave economy going for centuries, because they needed it. It took a while, but eventually the population increased enough that 'free' labor became cheaper than slave labor, and THEN slavery started to go away.

    Bottom line: There is no way that the sparsely populated ante-bellum South would have let slavery slip away for at least generations.

    “It took a while, but eventually the population increased enough that ‘free’ labor became cheaper than slave labor, and THEN slavery started to go away.”

    Wow, that is a highly distorted view of the history of Rome and Europe and slavery:

    The oligarch class of Rome did such an effective job of reducing freemen to penury while cranking up the debts of the state to themselves, much like we see in the modern western world, that they figuratively tied labor by law to the land on which it resided and worked so that it could not escape the work that was needed to be done to keep the oligarchs in the style to which they had become accustomed. It’s not that slavery went away, rather the whole society was essentially reduced to slavery.

    This is what formed the basis for serfdom and the whole structure of feudal Europe in the Middle Ages. It was not until the Black Plague killed off enough serfs that the surviving serfs could literally walk away and bid their labor out to the highest bidder and thereby throw off the shackles of serfdom.

    This led to a resurgence of slavery to source the labor to do the dirty shit work freemen wouldn’t do at the bid offered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Not a bad summation. But would like to point out that the direct line of descent from the coloni of the late empire to the serfs of the Middle Ages is a pretty contentious point. It appears that over most of western Europe most farmers were freemen up through the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, with the associated intramural fighting and massive raiding by Saracens, Magyars and Vikings.

    There were of course slaves around, and it is probable slavery as such diminished as serfdom grew. It was probably mostly a local ad hoc way for local farmers to trade submission to the local head of the Brute Squad in return for protection.

    The colonus probably provided much of the legal precedent for the status, though.

  53. Logan says:
    @Curle
    The Union was a voluntary association of states. The Territories belonged to the states collectively not to the national government. If a northern state imagined itself aggrieved by a collective decision by the states as to the management of the Territories they could have easily salved their conscious by seceding; the remedy contemplated by the constitution. Instead the aggrieved North decided to wage war.

    Trying to steal several bases here, are we?

    The Union was not a voluntary association of states. It was formed by “we the People of the United States,” not by the states as such.

    The territories had never been considered to belong to the states, which had absolutely nothing to do with their management or control. As with the Union itself, they belonged to the People of the United States, not to the states themselves.

    There is nothing whatever in the Constitution that can be considered as “contemplating secession.” To be fair, not explicitly prohibiting it either.

    Read More
  54. Logan says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights.
     
    The idea of states having rights, rather than people, makes me nervous. States all over the world exercised such "rights" throughout the 20th century, and we saw what happened.


    Not unlike today’s Republicans and Democrats, the Radical Republicans of yore had sidelined a large segment of the white population in the South.
     
    As did the planters themselves, by importing boatloads of Africans to do the jobs (white) Americans wouldn't do.

    If the French Reign of Terror was led by the terrifying Robespierre and his Jacobins; its American equivalent was infused with the spirit of lunatics like John Brown.
     
    Wait, didn't Adams and New Englanders oppose the French Revolution, while Virginians such as Jefferson praise it? I'm getting whiplash here.

    His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords...
     
    Those decapitated settlers were the Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services of the day, fighting for the importation of Africans into territories they never would have reached by themselves, or ever would have thought of or wanted to reach.

    Just about everyone on this forum, save Tiny Duck , Corvinus, and Truth, wouldn't shed a tear should a broadsword split a CC or LSS resettlement bureaucrat's cranium. So why should we care about the race traitors of 150 years ago?

    Yes, Brown was a criminal, but, as is so often the case today, good riddance to his victims as well.


    Thaddeus Stevens was another of their “inspirational” madmen, lauded in the annals of the Party of Reconstruction.
     
    Yeah, but Alexander Stephens was just as radical, if not more, than his homophonic northern [sic] counterpart:

    The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

    The only "proper status of the negro in our form of civilisation" is absent.

    Rather than obsessing about the differences between Lincoln and the Confederates, why not appreciate the fundamental thing they had in common-- both were fighting to ensure that their country would be blacker than it would had they done nothing.

    In other words, both were race perverts.

    “His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords…”

    A classic example of a true but incomplete story. This was an incident in tit-for-tat violence in Bleeding Kansas. Lots of people were killed by both sides. Brown just took the conflict, as was his nature, to its logical conclusion. Something common to fanatics.

    Read More
  55. Logan says:
    @The Alarmist

    "It took a while, but eventually the population increased enough that ‘free’ labor became cheaper than slave labor, and THEN slavery started to go away."
     
    Wow, that is a highly distorted view of the history of Rome and Europe and slavery:

    The oligarch class of Rome did such an effective job of reducing freemen to penury while cranking up the debts of the state to themselves, much like we see in the modern western world, that they figuratively tied labor by law to the land on which it resided and worked so that it could not escape the work that was needed to be done to keep the oligarchs in the style to which they had become accustomed. It's not that slavery went away, rather the whole society was essentially reduced to slavery.

    This is what formed the basis for serfdom and the whole structure of feudal Europe in the Middle Ages. It was not until the Black Plague killed off enough serfs that the surviving serfs could literally walk away and bid their labor out to the highest bidder and thereby throw off the shackles of serfdom.

    This led to a resurgence of slavery to source the labor to do the dirty shit work freemen wouldn't do at the bid offered.

    Not a bad summation. But would like to point out that the direct line of descent from the coloni of the late empire to the serfs of the Middle Ages is a pretty contentious point. It appears that over most of western Europe most farmers were freemen up through the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, with the associated intramural fighting and massive raiding by Saracens, Magyars and Vikings.

    There were of course slaves around, and it is probable slavery as such diminished as serfdom grew. It was probably mostly a local ad hoc way for local farmers to trade submission to the local head of the Brute Squad in return for protection.

    The colonus probably provided much of the legal precedent for the status, though.

    Read More
  56. Logan says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    States don't literally have rights, of course, but "States' Rights" is just a short-hand for federalism and strictly limited central government, no?

    I’ve often asked apologists for secession which rights of the southern states were being infringed. Never have gotten a straight answer.

    Read More
  57. @Orville H. Larson
    Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant were degenerate war criminals. The only thing I've got against John Wilkes Booth is that he was four years too late.

    Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant were degenerate war criminals.

    As were FDR, Truman, and Curtis LeMay. All of whom got plentiful support from Dixie. Every Confederate state gave electors to at least two of those three.

    At least LeMay was man enough to admit it.

    Read More
  58. @Logan
    I've often asked apologists for secession which rights of the southern states were being infringed. Never have gotten a straight answer.

    No one cares.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    True enough. But it seems that if you're going to justify secession and war as a defense of states' rights, you ought to at least state which rights were being defended.
  59. Ivy Mike says:

    And when the Radical Republican repression of Southern Whites ended those Southern Whites immediately set about disenfranchising blacks and returning them to a condition almost as bad as servitude but with the advantage that blacks now had to pay rent and buy their own food. Anybody trying to feed you a meal of ‘ Old South be good’ is either ignorant or a racist. If Germany had had Antifa Hitler would probably have been clubbed down like a baby seal before he started on his way to # 3 on the mass murdering dictator charts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Germany did have antifa. They were the paramilitary wings of the Social Democrats and Communists. The SA and SS were originally founded to defend Nazi Party events from their attacks. For much of the Weimar Republic the police collaborated with these groups against the Nazis in many cities, notably Berlin.

    Interestingly, a great many of these opposition thugs moved into the SA and SS without breaking stride.
  60. Logan says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    No one cares.

    True enough. But it seems that if you’re going to justify secession and war as a defense of states’ rights, you ought to at least state which rights were being defended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    It's bad enough you're a cuck, must you also be boring?
  61. Logan says:
    @Ivy Mike
    And when the Radical Republican repression of Southern Whites ended those Southern Whites immediately set about disenfranchising blacks and returning them to a condition almost as bad as servitude but with the advantage that blacks now had to pay rent and buy their own food. Anybody trying to feed you a meal of ' Old South be good' is either ignorant or a racist. If Germany had had Antifa Hitler would probably have been clubbed down like a baby seal before he started on his way to # 3 on the mass murdering dictator charts.

    Germany did have antifa. They were the paramilitary wings of the Social Democrats and Communists. The SA and SS were originally founded to defend Nazi Party events from their attacks. For much of the Weimar Republic the police collaborated with these groups against the Nazis in many cities, notably Berlin.

    Interestingly, a great many of these opposition thugs moved into the SA and SS without breaking stride.

    Read More
  62. @Logan
    True enough. But it seems that if you're going to justify secession and war as a defense of states' rights, you ought to at least state which rights were being defended.

    It’s bad enough you’re a cuck, must you also be boring?

    Read More
  63. @Logan
    Germany did have antifa. They were the paramilitary wings of the Social Democrats and Communists. The SA and SS were originally founded to defend Nazi Party events from their attacks. For much of the Weimar Republic the police collaborated with these groups against the Nazis in many cities, notably Berlin.

    Interestingly, a great many of these opposition thugs moved into the SA and SS without breaking stride.

    Yes, that’s very interesting.

    Read More
  64. @Corvinus
    It's the only schtick you have. Sad, really sad.

    I just call them like I see them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    You are woefully off when you call it as you see it. Try actually engaging in discourse. You may actually learn something.
  65. @woodNfish
    Agreed. Lincoln was a war mongering butcher. He didn't free any slaves and almost everything today's propaganda filled Americans know about him is a lie.

    You know, I have a vague feeling that we’ll never receive the Lincoln Court Historians Seal of Approval!

    Piss on Lincoln. I shake the hand that pulled the trigger.

    Read More
  66. There is zero resemblance between Radical Republicans and Antifa.

    Antifa and BLM and other violent freaks of diversity promote special federal rights for special people.

    Radical Republicans DID NOT promote special federal rights for special people.

    Quite the opposite.

    Radical Republicans were very equality-of-rights minded in sharp contrast with Antifa.

    Radical Republicans of 1865 promoted true equality in terms of federal voting rights for all US citizens and total abolition of chattel slavery in the US.

    Radical Republicans enacted the 14th amendment which granted automatic US citizenship to practically all people in America including all ex-slaves, all state citizens. and all people born in the US.

    The 14th amendment also extended Bill of Rights enumerated immunities and privileges to the state governments.

    Antifa bigots not only promote special rights for special people, Antifa demonize and physically attack a small minority of US citizens that they hate and wish to disenfranchise, silence and destroy.

    Antifa bigots are closer to being a modern day Klan rather than to being Radical Republicans.

    Read More
  67. Corvinus says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    I just call them like I see them.

    You are woefully off when you call it as you see it. Try actually engaging in discourse. You may actually learn something.

    Read More
  68. Ace says:
    @Binyamin
    The Jewish Ilana Mercer acknowledges approvingly 'Dr' Boyd D. Cathey, a holocaust denier- Cathey had a close association in the past with a holocaust denying organisation. Wow! No wonder even fringe on-line publications keep firing her. Trump can do at least some good during his miserable (and hopefully short) presidency by deporting all foreign born extremists and hate preachers. Perhaps he is deporting the wrong people?

    A trivial, inconsequential comment. Five seconds of my life utterly wasted.

    Read More
  69. Ace says:
    @JustJeff
    Her father worked against apartheid and now she preaches how awful South Africa is now. I don't understand why anyone still publishes her dreck.

    So you’re saying that S. Africa isn’t awful?

    Read More
  70. Ace says:
    @Michael Kenny
    Something that always intrigues me as a European is why Americans spend so much time raking over old coals instead of solving today's problems and looking to the future.

    That’s rich given the European obsession with Nazis. Dead and gone as of 70 years ago but in European political discourse as fresh as the morning dew. Do tell me more about how Americans are unique in spending so much time raking over old coals.

    Read More
  71. this article is straight nonsense. Johnson totally gave in to the confederate demands, blacks in the south had no real rights, it was still pretty much slavery just with a different politically correct name. The southern states oppressed blacks during reconstruction and after it, which lead to the jim crow laws, blacks were second class citizens. Check out the new book ‘The Republic for which It Stands’ by Richard White its part of the Oxford History of the United States series and covers us history from 1865 to 1896

    Read More
  72. Ace says:
    @Clark Westwood

    The Radical Republicans, if you can believe it, considered Abraham Lincoln a moderate (a bad thing, in their book).
     
    It always cracks me up how modern liberal historians (but I repeat myself), in their worship of Lincoln the "Great Emancipator" and standard-bearer of federal oppression of local governments, try to downplay/ignore/distract from Lincoln's post-war plans for speedy re-admission of the Confederate states, restoration of civil rights to former "Rebs," and gradual enfranchisement of blacks. Historians also want to ignore the fact that many Northern states opposed complete enfranchisement of blacks--states that had a lot fewer blacks to worry about than those in the South.

    How has that “complete enfranchisement” dealy worked out for us? Ms. Mercer can be instructive on how it worked out in S. Africa.

    Read More
  73. Ace says:
    @Logan
    If a 21st century white American and his family were captured and enslaved, would he be morally justified to use violence to attempt to free his family? Of course he would.

    So why would a 19th century black American not be equally justified in doing the same thing?

    That’s irrelevant. The issue was, given that a horrible crime had been committed in bringing African slaves to America, what was the most decent and speedy way of returning them to Africa so that America would not have to deal with bitter, eternal hatred on the part of the majority of Africans and the absolute impossibility of ever living with them in harmony under any circumstance?

    Read More
  74. Ace says:
    @Curle
    Reading your comment I gather you didn't read the article?

    So what’s your objection to her article other than your ad hominem nonsense?

    Read More
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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
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 evidence is clear — but often ignored