The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Robert E. Lee, MLK, and Russell Kirk: No "House United"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

January 19 is the anniversary of the birth of General Robert E. Lee, perhaps the greatest military commander the United States (or the Confederate States) has ever produced, and certainly one of finest Christian gentleman in the two millennia history of our Western civilization. I was intending to write a piece commemorating that signal event—and the general’s continuing importance, despite the insanely ignorant, frenzied and vicious attacks on him in recent years.

But I have written on Lee previously, and others have done so expertly on his anniversary. And thinking about how far as a people we have descended, how we have allowed our history and traditions to be wrenched away from us, how we have allowed in a real sense actual traitors to our culture and our inheritance to poison and infect that heritage and denounce it as racist and bigoted, akin to the worse features of Naziism…thinking about that, I returned to the essay I published on January 13 of this year, titled “MLK, Russell Kirk, and the Ignominy of Modern Conservatism.” That column, part of the MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey series, has already had substantial exposure. It was picked up by THE UNZ REVIEW, THE ABBEVILLE INSTITUTE, VDare Twitter, Ilana Mercer’s “Barely-a-Blog,” and several other outlets, including several overseas. So, it’s not like readers need to read it once again.

But thinking about Lee, taken down now so criminally from atop his well-deserved monuments, while Martin Luther King is hoisted over and over again onto his pedestal of foul feculence, and how we are commanded to bow down to him like slaves to the god Baal, I could not help but recall that latest barbarity, the latest fanatical assault on the central core of our “permanent things.” For King represents in nearly every way not only the antithesis of Robert E. Lee, but also of Russell Kirk, and of those heroes we once held high as exemplars of the finest men of our history.

I recall a conversation I had with Kirk back when I was his assistant in Mecosta, Michigan, in the fall of 1971. Russell compared Lee to the noble “Chevalier sans peur et sans reproche” [“the knight without fear and without reproach”], the Knight Pierre de Bayard of the late 15th century. I had never heard of Bayard, but reading up a bit I came to see what Kirk was saying. Those noble characteristics that Bayard exhibited went far beyond knightly routine; they were, in a way, almost supernatural in quality. And Robert E. Lee, in Russell Kirk’s estimation, had filled a similar role in the difficult history of the American nation.

Now it is Kirk’s turn to have his legacy, his life, and his essential views emulsified into a smelly porridge, unrecognizable, undigestible, but oh-so-politically-correct, and thus, just maybe acceptable to some on the Left and to the self-congratulatory “modern conservative movement”: “Look, everyone, we aren’t racists! And old Russell who said all those nasty things back in the 1950s, ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, well, look at him now! We’ve tidied him up!”

That purification process has not yet been attempted on Lee, for he may well be outside the realm of “trans” possibilities. But for Lee admirers like Russell Kirk, by all means, due to his relative position in the history of American Conservatism, something had to be done.

Thus, in this column I discuss in particular and in a bit more detail the flagrant abuse of the legacy and beliefs of Dr. Kirk. Just recently (January 16) the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal—the organization established in his name to supposedly perpetuate his ideas and vision for Western civilization—forcibly conjoined “the Sage of Mecosta” with black activist, John Woods Jr. in a special Martin Luther King Day event co-sponsored by the Acton Institute of Grand Rapids. The object? To somehow combine “Kingian nonviolence with Kirkian Conservatism,” to somehow forge a “communitarian” consensus and bring “right and left” together.

Of course, and let’s sit down with Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton over a couple of beers and just compromise our “differences” away. My advice is not to invite partisans of Lucifer over to lunch (or visit them in their caves) and attempt to find consensus with them: you lose every time and end up their prisoner.

I recall a quote that Russell sometimes cited. It is by the 17th century writer Sir Thomas Browne, from his volume, Religio Medici. Although I do not have the exact citation, it goes something like this: “Not every man is a fit champion of Truth. Many there are who, reckless without wisdom and prudence, charge the enemies of Truth, but remain prisoners thereof.”

A mesalliance between Kirk and King is not just inconceivable, but is rather a direct and especially gross insult to both the memory and the philosophy of my former mentor and friend for twenty-seven years, for whom I spent a fruitful year as his assistant (1971-1972) in the wilds of central Michigan.

King is not worth the spittle spewed from the mouth of Kirk…or of Lee.

Here is my slightly revised essay:

• • •

The latest ideological outrage perpetrated within the “conservative movement” has been the “cleansing” inflicted on Russell Kirk, who is credited with founding the movement back in the early 1950s. And it arrives with the sponsorship and imprimatur of the institution heralding his name, The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, which hosted a joint conference with the Acton Center in Grand Rapids, on Monday, January 16, featuring black activist John Woods, Jr. Woods’ Web site, Braver Angels, declares that his own organization is dedicated to “healing the wounds between left and right…. At Braver Angels, our work is about building a house united.” (A photo of glassy-eyed Clinton and Trump supporters from 2016 decorates his site.)

Here is a portion of the invitation from the Kirk Center (signed by Jeff Nelson, the CEO of the Center):

Without King and Kirk, modern American Social Justice liberalism and modern American conservatism as we know them would not exist. And yet, for all of their differences, our modern politics suffer because contemporary liberalism and conservatism often lack the grounding in virtues, communitarian values and faith in an ordered universe to which both Kingian Nonviolence and Kirkian Conservatism held fast. Is it possible that by reacquainting ourselves with these lost traditions we could summon the better angels of left and right and restore a politics of virtue for the modern age?

This inanity is built on blatant intellectual legerdemain. How can my old friend Jeff write such words with a straight face and without blushing embarrassment?

Once individuals such as Kirk were thought too philosophically unwieldy to be incorporated into the budding pantheon of conservative political correctness. Although usual pro forma tributes regularly praised his earlier achievements, his unfavorable views of King, his opposition to civil rights legislation, his consistent arguments against egalitarianism, his opposition to the rabid anti-colonialism of the 1950s and 1960s, and his anger directed at George H. W. Bush (he was Pat Buchanan’s campaign chairman in Michigan in 1992 at the same time I headed the Buchanan effort in North Carolina) are significant markers which must be catalogued.

From fall 1967 for twenty-six years, I corresponded with Russell. As chairman of the Visiting Lecture Program at Pfeiffer University I managed to bring him down for a weekend. Then, after completing an MA in 1971 as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow at the University of Virginia, Kirk requested that I travel to Mecosta to serve as his assistant for 1971-1972. Editing Kirk’s little educational quarterly, The University Bookman, was one of my major responsibilities. In its pages he insisted on open debate on such topics as cognitive disparities between the races (he published a review of Dr. Audrey M. Shuey’s study, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, and other politically-incorrect volumes).

In the spring of 1972 one night we sat in his library as the results of the Michigan Democratic presidential primary came in. I had a radio, and at Russell’s urging I brought it down from my room on the second floor of the library building. Kirk applauded George Wallace’s upset victory, although I don’t think he desired that his wife find out!

While at the University of Virginia I completed a semester paper titled, “Robert Lewis Dabney and the New South Creed.” Russell knew little of Dabney, save for what he had read in Richard Weaver’s The Southern Tradition at Bay. But he read my essay, liked it very much, and suggested I send it to David Collier, then editor at Modern Age. I did just that, and Collier responded, tentatively accepting it for publication, but with a couple of minor editing suggestions.

Unfortunately, I never got around to those edits. Yet, since then I have gone back to work on the paper, and it has found outlets in several publications.

One particular passage that caught Kirk’s attention and interest was Dabney’s acute and prophetic description of American conservatism. Written as part of Dabney’s response against efforts to enact women’s suffrage, Kirk wrote to me in the early 1990s—the George Bush years—that he was especially delighted in this passage, marveling that Dabney could have been so prescient a full century earlier (1875):

This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its ‘bark is worse than its bite,’ and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent rôle of resistance.

The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it ‘in wind,’ and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position. [Dabney, “Women’s Rights Women,” The Southern Magazine, 1871.]

The present nugatory “conservative movement” has no room for the real Russell Kirk. His fundamental beliefs and views are now discreetly ignored, or simply redacted, and he emerges fully purified of his earlier inequities and stains of racism.

(Republished from My Corner by permission of author or representative)
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I am apt to suspect the negroes, and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences

    — David Hume. “Of National Characters”


    …To which Immanuel Kant replied:

    The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents, and asserts that among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who are transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of them have even been set free, still not a single one was ever found who presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality, even though among the whites some continually rise aloft from the lowest rabble, and through superior gifts earn respect in the world. So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color

    Kant, Immanuel. “Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime”. Trans. John T. Goldthwait. University of California Press

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  2. The Left has moved on. For them the color of a mans skin is now precisely the criteria by which he must be judged. The Left has abandoned MLK who falsely taught that all lives matter. You are no longer requird to worship him. You are now required to kneel at the alter of the Holy Martyr, the Sainted Fentanyl Floyd. Civil rights is out. Negrolatry is in. The right is beating a dead horse on this MLK day 2023. Try to keep up.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  3. @Vergissmeinnicht

    Which is stranger, that Hume apparently knew so little of the Orient, or that (also apparently) he hewed to Noah Webster’s spelling conventions?

    Frankly neither seems so likely to me.


    Incidentally, the point of the image I posted upthread is two-fold: one, that the editors saw fit to grant Lee twice the coverage of the others and two, that they probably can’t publish this set anymore. Rommel!

  4. p38ace says:

    The greatest military commander the USA has produced is Ulysses S. Grant. He show us how to win battles, campaigns and wars.

    • Disagree: A. Clifton
    • Replies: @Old Virginia
  5. @p38ace

    Grant took command of a magnificent army built by McClellan with overwhelming advantage in manpower, in every instance with the ability to replace his losses, unlimited supply of materiel and sustenance for the army, furnished by unmolested supply lines.

    He matched the president with single-minded resolve to win by any means necessary, never flinching at hurling troops into bloody combat. From the Wilderness to Petersburg he saw more casualties than his enemy had troops in their entire army. Grant himself said, “I don’t maneuver”.

    Grant won unconditional surrender at Appomattox, showing admirable magnanimity, again following Lincoln’s example. Nevertheless, did Grant do anything in Virginia or the west before that to convince you he would have been successful under other circumstances?

    He was successful with his army. Would he have been with the other guy’s army?

  6. Pretty bizarre to apply the title “greatest military commander” to the guy who lost the damned war. All the south had to do was protect its vast territory; instead, Lee’s aggressive instinct to attack, to always attack, cost the cause dearly, needlessly squandering its one irreplaceable resource, its manpower.

    If Lee had stayed loyal to the oath he swore as an officer in the United States Army it may well have been him rather than Grant who ended up in the White House. Had he been in command at that first Bull Run he might have used the US Army’s numerical advantage correctly. A decisive defeat in its first armed challenge to the elected government would have left the insurgents no choice but to return, properly humbled, to the negotiating table. Our history books would have just a paragraph about the “Skirmish of ‘61” and there would be none of the deep enduring hatred left from a terrible bloody war to scar our national identity.

    Lee’s glory, such as it is, rests in his response to failure. In his famed General Order No. 9, he acknowledged defeat and urged his men to return to their homes, obey the laws, and live peaceably. The rebel political leadership, out of touch with reality right to the end, howled for the fight to continue as a guerrilla war after Appomattox, but Lee said no: no more killing. Without Lee’s order, the Confederate Liberation Army might still be bombing airports and this nation would likely be a balkanized, full-fledged military dictatorship.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Boyd D. Cathey Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement