The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsGregory Hood Archive
Conservative Praise for Black Communist W.E.B. Du Bois
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

W.E.B. Du Bois was one of America’s most important leftist intellectuals. The Souls of Black Folk and Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept were the precursors to today’s racial politics. Black Reconstruction in America anticipated the contemporary doctrine that Reconstruction didn’t go far enough. (Eric Foner’s Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 is the key text.) Du Bois helped start the NAACP. A pro-Japanese polemicist early in World War II, a Communist Party member, and a Pan-Africanist who returned to the Mother Continent and died in Ghana, there’s no way he could be considered a conservative or an American patriot. But National Review’s editor trots him out as the moral authority so he can insult Robert E. Lee. “Conservatives” love to find blacks onto whom they can hang their ideas — any ideas, conservative or liberal — so they can bask in the moral glow of melanin.

Du Bois said that the South “cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery.” However, Abraham Lincoln thought preserving the Union was more important than ending slavery. The pro-Union slaveholders in the Border States felt the same. Southern secessionism first emerged with the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” not from slavery. I agree with Du Bois’s charge that people “do not go to war for abstract theories of government,” but “property and privilege” is by no means their only motive. People make war for monarch, nation, family, and tribe as much as for plunder. In making this argument, Du Bois sounds much like James Burnham and the Machiavellian political school. But he’s wrong that defending slavery was the South’s only political concern.

Southern states could have stayed in the Union and kept their slaves. They could have accepted Abraham Lincoln’s February 3, 1865 peace offer, which kept slavery as an option provided there was peace and reunification. During the last months of the war, General Lee favored arming blacks to fight for Southern independence. Independence and sovereignty became more important than the “peculiar institution.” Du Bois is right that the South was nationalist in 1812 but embraced “particularism” in 1861. He fails to recognize that the South’s interests changed. John Calhoun himself favored a high tariff in 1816 but shifted his position because he came to believe the South benefitted from free trade. The South didn’t want to be reduced to a permanent, powerless minority in the American political system, subservient in a Northern-dominated economic system.

It’s striking that Du Bois recognizes that politics is about interests, not ideology, but he reverts to hokum about “human progress and Christian democracy” and General Lee’s failure to champion it. He even calls Lee a traitor to “humanity’s God,” but Du Bois was no Christian. His faith was communism, which is why we get lazy talk about “progress.” Du Bois praised the Soviet Union for the “dethronement of the clergy and the refusal to let religion be taught in the public schools.” Much like Martin Luther King’s faux-Christianity, Du Bois’ invocation of “Christian democracy” and “humanity’s God” is bait for rubes like National Review editors .

W.E.B. Du Bois (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)
W.E.B. Du Bois (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)

Du Bois faults Lee for not having the courage to “stand against his family and his clan.” Standing against one’s family and clan has traditionally been one of the worst things you can do. Standing for your family and clan is the essence of real conservatism. Of course, while Du Bois insults Lee for not being an ethnomasochist, Du Bois himself was a thoroughgoing black nationalist. He spent his life fighting for his race. He had the moral courage to leave this country and go back to Africa. He’s better than those “black nationalists” who survive on liberal white patronage.

We can’t expect Rich Lowry to understand fighting for one’s “family” and “clan.” It’s not surprising that today’s National Review takes the side of a Communist who called Stalin a “great man” and not that of Dwight Eisenhower, who said Lee was a “great American” whom “present-day American youth [should] strive to emulate.” National Review’s egalitarianism can’t help but lead to these positions.

Robert E. Lee (Credit Image: © JT Vintage/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)
Robert E. Lee (Credit Image: © JT Vintage/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)

Still, the case for why Robert E. Lee was a coward — written by W.E.B. Du Bois — is just too much for any conservative to stomach. It’s especially absurd when it’s promoted by a guy claiming to make The Case for Nationalism. We’ve had our fun, Mr. Lowry, but we can all see through this farce now. Take the chance to rebrand as an edgy centrist before you discredit conservatism altogether.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Dannyboy says:

    The thought of peeling Rich Lowery’s face back off his head ( and those of his ilk ) while he’s still alive, is one of the things that keeps me going in these trying times.

  2. Looks like another product of a race-mixer. All these white women having sex with black men and giving birth to mulatto kids who identify as black and hate whites. A low-rent Kaepernick?

    Video Link

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Alden
  3. Jake says:

    If you will take WEB DuBois over Robert E. Lee, then either you are too stupid to be allowed to vote or else you are evil. Even William F. Buckley at his most cringingly craven before the NYC Elites was not that revolting.

    Of course, ‘mainstream’ ‘conservatives’ also claim to love MLK, who was a socialist who worked proudly with Marxists and homosexuals and who spent a lifetime as a serial adulterer (more than a few times underage girls) and plagiarist.

  4. Jake says:
    @Priss Factor

    DuBois was much less black than Kaepernick and more upscale than even Kaepernick.

    DuBois was an atheist who despised everything to do with Christianity. I have taught DuBois to black students, focusing on his hatred f9r Christianity, and failed to get a single black student to admit understanding what DuBois was saying about Christianity and blacks who claim to be Christian.

    DuBois also was very much anti-Jewish. I think that means that RichLowry is an anti-Semite.

    • Replies: @Happy Tapir
    , @Wyatt
  5. Exile says:

    Lowry has never been a conservative – he’s another Paul Ryan libertarian who wears the conservative flag for camouflage. The open contempt National Review has displayed for kin, country and tribe (other than that Other Tribe) in the Goldberg/Lowry era marks them as bugmen, not convervatives, and certainly not “of the Right” in any meaningful sense. Their loyalties are entirely Progressive and they’re the embodiment of all Robert Lewis Dabney had to say about “Northern Conservatism” many years ago – no less true today than then.

    I’ve said this for a long time – when National Review finally publishes “The Conservative Case for Abortion,” there will be only one issue left on which they have not cucked and never will – the cause of Israel and the Jews who’ve kept National Review around since Buckley cucked to the neo-cons decades ago.

  6. I think it’s amazing how 110-130 IQ Blacks receive praise that Kant, Schopenhauer, Hobbes et al. could only dream about!

    The other day, I was reading the bio for this Black academic on Wikipedia: – it’s all about how he refuted Race & IQ correlations… Meanwhile, if you look at the Wikipedia pages for academics whose works, too, are about Race & IQ topics (but under a ‘hereditarian’ viewpoint), all you see is how they received money from very bad guys™ (the Pioneer Fund, for instance) or whose works were published under the auspices of very bad guys™ as well (e.g., the Mankind Quarterly).

  7. Rich says:

    The only reason to fight is for one’s family and clan. That being said, had Lee accepted Lincoln’s offer to lead the Union Army, the War Between the States may have ended earlier and without so much bloodshed. Lee should have realized that the smaller, more agrarian South never stood a chance against the Industrial North with it’s much larger population and worked within the Lincoln government to prevent that horrible war. Because Lee stood by the decision of his State legislators, and managed a few early victories in the War, we are cursed with the social problems that the descendants of those freed Southern slaves plague us with.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  8. anon[118] • Disclaimer says:

    This is what happens when some Liberty U. Fi Bayda Kappa googles Du Bois instead of reading him. Hood trots out some quotes from people who are still scared of commies to show Du Bois was a commie. Eek! Q.E.D. Like every somewhat bright American scholar, Hood is brainwashed to think that everybody’s left or right. But Du Bois floats up above Hood’s 1-D statist Flatland out on an orthogonal axis Hood cannot perceive.

    Du Bois didn’t get in trouble for being a commie. He got indicted for something much more subversive. He was an internationalist. Du Bois was the guy who brought human rights home to the US, including, most notoriously, the jus cogens law of genocide.

    Problem is, you conservatives don’t know your rights from a bar o soap, so everything Du Bois says goes over your head. It’s like listening to internet guys who can’t solve a first-order linear diffyq disproving the GISS-AOM that they never heard of anyway. Isn’t there something simpler you can talk about?

    • Replies: @Rich
  9. Rich says:

    DuBois was a communist. If you’re unaware of this, you have no idea what you’re writing about. If you don’t understand opposition to communism, you’re a dolt.

  10. @Jake

    Please elaborate or reference the anti Semitism of du Bois. I do admire his pro Japanese stance during WW2.

    • Replies: @Jake
  11. Wyatt says:

    You didn’t get blacks to understand something? That doesn’t sound like your fault, my man.

  12. anon[361] • Disclaimer says:

    Hey Rich, 9 sure yeah fine but I am trying to imagine an alternative universe in which any normal human gives a shit.

    How do you spell the pot in potato? Right! P-O-T! How do you spell the let in lettuce? Right!! L-E-T!

    How do you spell the fuck in communists? Right again, Gold Star up on the token board for you!!! There’s no fuckin communists!!! Why are you opposing ancient dead people? Do you also oppose Hittites? Or Ghibellines? Or Ghost dancers? Or initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries?

    As Chavez said, this is not communism, wish it was. And he too is dead.

    Anyway, Du Bois was a Communist like you are a Republican – they don’t represent you, and you are an embarrassment to them. In fact, as you clearly didn’t know, Du Bois never joined the party. He was a soi-disant Bolshevik. But he never became a subversive until he switched revolutionary movements, to the real one.

    So your fixation is impeding your comprehension, which we’re not too sure of in the first place. You can’t understand him cause you don’t know your rights.

    • Replies: @Rich
  13. During the last months of the war, General Lee favored arming blacks to fight for Southern independence.

    Rather late, don’t you think?

    As a descendent of militiamen who fought for the Union, I was horrified to learn of its conscription law that exempted blacks. Perhaps that’s what the Draft Riots were about, not the \$300 bounties.

    However ugly this law may have been, it was hardly original. The Confederacy had passed the same exemption even earlier. Makes you wonder just who the authorities viewed as expendable and who was not. Race treason all around.

    The CSA had its/her/their own version of the \$300 ticket home: the Twenty Negro Law. Look that up should you need an emetic.

  14. @Rich

    the Industrial North with it’s much larger population

    the [i]ndustrial [n]orth with [its/her] much larger [and even whiter] population

    I do like what you said, so please pardon the friendly corrections!

    • Replies: @Rich
  15. Robert Lees and Jefferson Davises will always be tall, handsome and well-born

    . . . in stark contrast to the W.E.B. DuBoises and Rich Lowries.

  16. Rich says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    If my third grade teacher saw those mistakes, she’d have lost it. No offense taken. Sometimes I rush it a bit and don’t bother to preview what I’ve written.

  17. Rich says:

    DuBois, of whom I’m no expert, apparently came out of the closet and joined the Party in 1961, according to several somewhat reputable sources on the net. He also supported several communist organizations, wrote lovingly of both Stalin and Mao and associated with known commies his whole life. You may have some childish notion of what communism is, the old “real communism has never been tried!”, but every group that’s called itself “communist” and gained any power at all, has left a trail of death and despair behind it.

    Your fixation on what you believe is “real communism” is impeding your comprehension. You have no comprehension of whether or not I know my “rights” and seem to be arguing with a straw-man in your head. But, it takes all kinds, go with God and be at peace.

  18. Dannyboy says:

    The only reason to fight is for one’s family and clan. That being said, had Lee accepted Lincoln’s offer to lead the Union Army, the War Between the States may have ended earlier and without so much bloodshed.

    Love how you contradict yourself a split second later as it concerns Robert E Lee…lol

    That’s the sort of mental gymnastics required of Yankees to justify Mr Lincoln’s unnecessary and unjust war.

    Anyway, I thought the party line from “historians” nowadays is that Lee was a lousy commander and Grant, Sherman, Meade and that bunch were military geniuses? How was it that Lee was Winfield Scott and Lincoln’s first choice to lead the Union Army?

    Quite the conundrum indeed.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Reg Cæsar
  19. Rich says:

    Not really ‘Yankee mental gymnastics’ at all. Lee could have chosen to stand with those in the western part of his state who chose not to secede. It’s now called ‘West Virginia’. He could have stood with his family and clan and helped prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and had he been commanding the Union Army, I don’t think Atlanta is burned, or the many other atrocities inflicted on the South occur.

    Judging Lee by his results, his state defeated, his nation beaten, his way of life destroyed, maybe he wasn’t the best general out there. Of course, there were many factors that caused the South to lose, I believe, however, his incursion into Pennsylvania was a mistake. Hindsight is what it is and had his plan worked out, we’d probably all be out of work because all those brilliant slaves would be running things. That’s not how it ended, though. Nothing he tried worked, and if you remember, Lincoln went through a lot of very highly thought of generals until he got to Grant. Who, if memory serves, won the War.

    No conundrum there. Grant beat him fair and square.

  20. Anon[363] • Disclaimer says:

    Once again Reg, you’re totally off the mark.

    The Confederacy, having plenty of blacks to press into military service, did not do so. Despite already being greatly outnumbered by the Union.

    On the other hand, your Yankee elites had no qualms whatsoever about using black troops against the South. They even used them as enforcers during the Occupation Era.

    Most USCT were in fact substandard and ineffective, but they had immense value for the Union propaganda machine.

    See Ft Pillow for more information.

    One of the most comical incidents occurred at the Battle of the Crater in Petersburg, where white Union troops bayoneted their own retreating Colored troops, for fear of reprisal by Confederates…lol

  21. Anon[363] • Disclaimer says:

    Not really ‘Yankee mental gymnastics’ at all. Lee could have chosen to stand with those in the western part of his state who chose not to secede.

    More Yankee mental gymnastics.

    You mean where your boys just kinda annexed an entire part of Virginia at the “Wheeling Conventions”?

    Glad everything was “above board” there, yessir.

    And let’s not forget how the pro Union Governor of Maryland decided to move the General Assembly from the State Capitol in Annapolis to Frederick for the vote on Secession.

    You people are a trip.

    As far as Lee’s military greatness is concerned, I really do think a part of the reason you folks still get peevish about the war, despite your victory, is that you understand you basically took a four year ass whooping from a bunch of farmboys. A good portion of whom were barefoot…lol

    Despite having a GDP nearly five times the Confederacy, a population of military age men two and a half times as large, plus a Navy…it took you people four years, eight successive Commanders and 430,000 dead to subdue the South.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Reg Cæsar
  22. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    Rich, Rich, Rich. He did indeed. And if you too, when you’re so old you fart dust, should choose to give a final Fuck You to the police state that has screwed you all your life by joining the Rainbow Coalition or something equally irritating and irrelevant, nobody will hold it against you.

    All the time that Du Bois was defending human rights, the commie USSR was resisting them – almost as much as the USA was. There’s the standard statist 1-D left-to-right continuum, and there’s a whole orthogonal dimension you can’t see. Du Bois was opposed to both totalitarian twins, USSR and USSA, along this axis.

    And, as for I don’t know that you don’t know your rights… Surprise me!

    1. Do you know where all your rights are set out?
    2. Where exactly is your right to privacy set out?
    3. Where exactly is your right to freedom of expression set out?
    4. If your government abrogates your rights, do you know how to go over its head to the outside world?
    5. What is the definition of a democratic society in common law?
    6. What part of the supreme law of the land protects you from the coerced confessions of plea bargaining?
    7. Where exactly is your right to seek and obtain information set out?
    8. What rights did Congress amend its War Crimes Act to eliminate?
    9. Speaking of peace, Do you know the specific protections of your right to peace?

    We’ll wait.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Rich
  23. Anon[363] • Disclaimer says:


    Coming from some fucking douchebag Marxist who rejects objective truth, natural law and the moral law.

    “Democracy” is a fucking Jewish Masonic scam.

    STFU faggot.

  24. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:

    Not home on break from the Ivy League, are we, lil fella? Why don’t you explain objective truth, natural law and the moral law to us, as taught at Valley Forge Christian College or whatever it was? Don’t feel bad that you went 0 for 9 up there -lots of smart people do too!

    • Replies: @Anon
  25. Anon[386] • Disclaimer says:

    Oooh…The Ivy League. That’s pretty intimidating, sweetheart.

    I’ll do my best.

    Objective Truth.

    What we assert is:

    •that such and such a thing exists, and
    •that it has a certain objective quality, which we call green, or loud, or sweet, or hard, or hot, to distinguish it from other qualities — red, or soft, or bitter, or cold — with which it is not identical; while
    •our statement further implies that the same quality will similarly appear to any normally constituted man, i.e. will affect his senses in the same way that it affects our own.

    Natural Law.

    It would seem that the natural law is a habit. Because, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5), “there are three things in the soul: power, habit, and passion.”

    the conscience or “synderesis” is the “law of our mind”; which can only apply to the natural law. But the “synderesis” is a habit, as was shown in the I:79:12. Therefore the natural law is a habit.

    The Moral Law.

    “Love God as the end and everything on account of Him”; “Live conformably to human nature considered in all its essential respects”; “Observe the rational order established and sanctioned by God”

    Nothing about “rights”, in there, dipshit.

    Your kind worship power, and use the pursuit of egalitarianism and “human rights” as a solvent to break down and destroy Christian civilization.

    Fuck you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  26. Rich says:

    It’s very sad that you believe your rights spring from a government or commission or treaty. Our rights are inalienable and come from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” If you believe your rights are given to you by a government that means that same government can take them away as easily as they give them. Anyway, that’s where I believe “rights” come from. Reality tells us that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

    Communists, like your hero DuBois, want to live above everyone else as they force “equality” on us. His worship of the tyrant and ‘President for Life’ Nkrumah, boot-licking of Stalin and Mao, shows where his heart was.

  27. Anon[386] • Disclaimer says:

    Raphael Semmes

    During the American Civil War, Semmes was captain of the cruiser CSS Alabama, the most successful commerce raider in maritime history, taking 65 prizes.

    Catholic boy from Southern Maryland.

  28. anon[272] • Disclaimer says:

    Rich. Tsk, tsk. You put words in my mouth and tell me they’re wrong. Who said your rights come from those places? Who said your government gives you rights? What a dumb idea you thought up and attributed to me. Set out means written down. Since you don’t know where your rights are set out, or by whom, Question 1, you don’t know that you get your rights from your recourse to rebellion. Not from nature, which is indifferent to you, or from your imaginary friend in the sky. Your problem is, you let your government tell you that shit. That’s why you’re so downtrodden, with sad half assed weak tit constitutional rights you’re scared to use. As for the strong do what they can, the weak do what they must, reality doesn’t tell you that, Thucydides tells you that. In the Melian Dialogues (You haven’t read him, have you?)

    Who taught you to think? You don’t know your rights.

    Anon. Yes, try your best, that’s the main thing. So You think your rights are bullshit and you don’t want those icky old rights anyway. You’re an inspiration to us all, Braveheart. No wonder you live under an arbitrary police state that kneels on your face when they want. No wonder you have to kiss every cop’s ass and ingratiate them in such a painfully abject manner, Mmyes, officer, no, officer, yes your honor no your honor. You poor submissive worm. It comes from that lifelong social pressure to knuckle under to an invisible daddy who flies around in the sky and watches you wank. When’s the last time you told an authority figure Fuck you?

    You can’t. You’re politically gelded because you don’t know your rights.

  29. Jake says:
    @Happy Tapir

    In The Souls of Black Folk (1903), DuBois sees Jews as the arch-exploiters of blacks. Over the decades, as DuBois became more fully a Marxist and more interested in using Jewish money, he ‘corrected the text’ to make it much less offensive to Jews.

    That is the pattern that the Nation of Islam is always highlighting: blacks tell the truth about Jews, and then get bribed and/or terrified into singing Jewish praises.

  30. Jake says:

    It also took massive immigration. The Union encouraged immigration of males so they could join the Army and then afterwards be given citizenship.

    That thing the Colonists hated about the British Empire and Hessians – that is what the Union did.

    The Unionists/Yankees were analogous to the British Empire/Brit Empire Loyalists, and the Confederates/Southerners were analogous to the American Patriots.

  31. @Dannyboy

    That’s the sort of mental gymnastics required of Yankees to justify Mr Lincoln’s unnecessary and unjust war.

    That’s the sort of mental gymnastics required of [Southern negromaniacs] to justify [Presidents Fillmore and Pierce’s] unnecessary and unjust [invasion of white states’ sovereignty and freedom of association].

    Two can play at this game!

    We went to bed one night old-fashioned, conservative, compromise Union Whigs & waked up stark mad Abolitionists. — Amos Adams Lawrence

  32. @Anon

    You mean where your boys just kinda annexed an entire part of Virginia at the “Wheeling Conventions”?

    The white part of Virginia. Never forget that. West Virginia should have been the model.

    The smart thing for the Unionists to do was to suspend the statehood of the diverse states, under Article IV, Section 4, perhaps recognizing only the white counties, as they did in northwest Virginia. The rest of the counties and states would be readmitted, one at a time, once their white populations had reached at least 90% of their total.

    We’d be a lot healthier country today.

    But no, your gentry just had to send white farmboys out to die, while they and their colored stayed home and played whist. Disgusting race treason.

    And who was supposed to grow the food during all this?

    The Twenty Negro Law, October 11, 1862

    “Twenty-Negro,” or Overseer Law: A Reconsideration

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
  33. Let’s not forget DuBois’s odious support of the monstrous scumbucket Woodrow Wilson’s involvement in deadly European squabbles:

    (1918) W.E.B. Du Bois, “Close Ranks,” Editorial from The Crisis

    At least he expected his fellow blacks to fight. Not like several Southern senators who wanted, yet again, to exempt them from conscription. As in 1862, white boys die in mud, black boys stay home and play.

    Hot sun and humidity shut down the Caucasian brain, it seems.

  34. Dannyboy says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    We’d be a lot healthier country today.

    We’d be a much healthier country today if your Yankee ancestors had not started, legalized and profited immensely from the slave trade to America.

    A decidedly inconvenient fact for you, Reg…lol

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  35. @Dannyboy

    We’d be a much healthier country today if your Yankee ancestors had not started, legalized and profited immensely from the slave trade to America.

    Blame the pusher, never the junkie. The junkie has no agency, does he?

    My Mumford ancestor was only distantly related to that slave-trading clan. He learned his lesson the hard way– hire white men:

    One event stands out conspicuously in his life,
    uneventful as it was in most ways : a great family
    tragedy took place, — so far as I know, the only
    murder in our annals. Slave-holding was com-
    mon among the wealthy planters of the time,
    the negroes so employed being mostly house
    or personal servants, few in number, not un-
    kindly treated, we are told, and having a very
    different position from those human cattle who
    at a later period became the opprobrium of our
    Gulf States.

    There were but three or four of these blacks in
    the family of Thomas — among them two men.
    It was in May, 1707, while Thomas was absent
    in Newport, that his wife, Abigail, then a vigorous
    matron of thirty-seven, had some words
    with one of these slaves and caused him to be
    whipped. He struck her down and brutally murdered
    her. The amazement, fury, and excitement
    of the whole province were long remembered,
    and the shame thereof dwelt in the land.

    The wretched homicide for a short time eluded
    his pursuers, but his case must soon have be-
    come hopeless, for in the end he threw himself
    into the sea and was drowned. Here is an
    abstract from the Colonial Records of the twenty-
    eighth of May, 1 707. Even its stilted phraseology
    becomes somewhat luminous with the human
    thought it contains. ” Whereas the body of a
    negro, which was the late slave of Mr. Thomas
    Mumford of Kingstown, and who had com-
    mitted the horrid and barbarous murder upon
    the wife of the said Mumford, about two weeks
    since, as is justly concluded, was found upon the
    shore of Little Compton, in the Province of
    Massachusetts Bay, which said negro, it is believed
    and judged, after he had committed said
    murder, then threw himself into the sea and
    drowned himself, by reason he would not be
    taken alive ; and the said negro’s body being
    brought into the harbour of Newport, it is or-
    dained by the Assembly that his head, legs, and
    arms be cut from his body and hung up in some
    public place, near the town, to public view ; and
    his body be burned to ashes, that it may, if it
    please God, be something of a terror to others
    from perpetrating of the like barbarity for the
    future.” So ended the life of this worthy lady,
    known to us, her descendants, as Abigail only.

    She comes upon our scene as a prolific matron
    — the mother of giant sons, she leaves it the
    murdered victim of a brutal slave ; and history
    tells us no more — her very name forgotten and
    her place soon filled.

    It is a curious commentary upon the times that
    this Abigail was already a grandmother at thirty-

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  36. Anon[863] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Let’s get something straight, Reg.

    I couldn’t care less about slavery. Be it in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Africa, China, Brazil or the United States of America.

    It’s over. Long gone. And what little of it that was done in the US has long since been paid for, IMO.

    The main reason I have anything to say about it, is because the Left continues to use it as a weapon to beat white people in the West ( and most especially white Southerners ) with, to reinforce what they call “white guilt”.

    I’m working class. As was father and my grandfather etc…etc… I don’t suffer at all from white guilt.

    I’m proud of my ancestors, including the ones who fought for the Confederacy.

    All this stuff was settled many years ago until the (((usual suspects))) chose to dig it up again.

    People like you play right into the little divide and conquer game of the Left.

    You have no qualms about pissing on Southern history to kiss the ass of the current crop of “conservatives”, and to deflect the charge of “racism”.

    If your kind wishes to dig this shit up again, I’m more than willing to return the favor.

  37. Anon[863] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Why are we arguing about slavery more than a century and a half after it was abolished?

    Who purposely reopened all these old wounds in the 60’s and for what purpose?

    Frankly, I couldn’t care less about slavery. It’s long over and well paid for, as far as I’m concerned.

    All this stuff was settled years ago, until the (((usual suspects))) decided to stir the shit again.

    People like you play right into their hands by virtue signaling/pissing on Southern history, as if it will save any of your own from The Red Brigades…lol

    Really Reg, if Columbus is fair game, how do you suppose your revered ancestors will fare any better?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Reg Cæsar
  38. Ragno says:

    Open wide and say ahhhh, Rich.

    The central question that emerges- and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal- is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?

    The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race . It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists . The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage . The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere ; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own .

    NATIONAL REVIEW believes that the South’s premises are correct. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

    “Why The South Must Prevail”, William F Buckley, NATIONAL REVIEW, 1957

  39. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    Fuck you.

    You too, guy.

    This “I’m the dominant male because I’m mindlessly aggressive, a force of nature that can’t be stopped, dumb as a retarded rock, and there are millions, billions of us, a tidal wave that will crush you while you are thinking rather than acting” — this stuff is getting old. The only part that gets through is “dumb as a retarded rock”, and as far as “crush you”, your only talent is to burn the cities that provide your political cover.

    So, sure, curse, preen, whatever. We will wait until your political power is gone, and let you starve in the street. Starve, because you’ve sold the cities’ assets, societal and physical, whoever would buy them (at a poor price, I might add) and there just won’t be enough to feed you — or quite a few other people, who will want the food for themselves.

    And I seriously doubt that anybody will note your passing. The SJW jobs you are padding your resume for won’t exist. You’ve failed that badly.

  40. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    You ancestor wasn’t the only one. Here’s a later case in which the same sort of thing worked out badly:

    To be fair, apparently Wright wasn’t easy to work for. Still, the Taliesin fire/murders seem a bit excessive.

    And there’s the Black maid who threatened me with a knife when I was about 5 years old, not much, but not nothing.

    Point is, things haven’t changed that much, not really.

  41. @Anon

    People like you play right into their hands by virtue signaling…

    Tell me how my assertions “blacks never worked at any time in our history” and “but they did spit in your food” constitutes “virtue signalling”? Antifa would shoot me for speaking these truths out loud!

    pissing on Southern history

    Did you go to a public school? I’m pissing on Southern multiracialism. As I do on almost all multiracialism. The bizarre idea that they a) belonged on this continent in the first place, and b) they merited congressional representation.

    Why don’t you explain to me why Mr Hooff is offering almost \$700 (in today’s money) chasing after someone who only pretends to work, but leaves her bodily fluids in the food?

    If that isn’t affirmative action, what is? If that isn’t demented, what is?

  42. Anon[305] • Disclaimer says:

    See, this is another example…lol

    How many fucking times do I have to produce clear facts that show YOUR people thought it was a grand and very lucrative idea to begin importing African slaves to America???

    Trying to blame slavery and it’s many evils ENTIRELY on the South is a losing proposition, Reg. We’ve already established that.

    Once again, stop playing into to the Leftist White Guilt Blame Game. It’s bad for America, regardless of your virtue signaling.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  43. @Anon

    Why are we arguing about slavery more than a century and a half after it was abolished?

    I only ever bring it up to defend my kin from the frequent Yankee-bashing that appears here. It’s a natural glass-house reaction.

    We’re told to celebrate diversity, and slavery was built upon it. Democrats haven’t changed at all in the past 200 years. They just wave a different flag.

  44. @Anon

    Trying to blame slavery and it’s many evils ENTIRELY on the South is a losing proposition, Reg. We’ve already established that.

    I’m not. You and others are blaming it entirely on New England. Those nasty Puritan Yankees forced you to buy these inferior goods, against your will, just like the Man forces black junkies to buy crack, and Britain forced Chinamen to suck opium and Irishmen to plant diseased potatoes.

    It’s always the other guy’s fault, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @Anon
  45. Anon[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    You and others are blaming it entirely on New England.

    I’m afraid I don’t possess nearly enough magic Juju to pull off that feat, Reg.

    I’m simply trying to bring some semblance of balance to the discussion.

    Do people like Rich Lowry, his NR chums and the various “court historians” EVER discuss slavery in America in any other aspect other than the Southern variety? Perhaps you could find me an instance of this rare occurrence. I don’t ever recall seeing it.

    We’re having this exchange precisely because Lowry and his ilk can’t seem to just leave defeated people be.

    You see, for the ideologue, crushing defeat is not nearly enough. The names of their “enemies” must be forever blackened. Their monuments and flags must be torn down, their graves desecrated and all succeeding generations must be made sufficiently ASHAMED as well.

  46. “Du Bois faults Lee for not having the courage to “stand against his family and his clan.” Standing against one’s family and clan has traditionally been one of the worst things you can do. Standing for your family and clan is the essence of real conservatism.”

    Mr. Dubois assessment here is spot on.

    You attention the tariff is interesting, but the matter there was cotton prices and exchange trade with Europe. Slave produced cotton. But leaving that aside. The argument that Mr. Dubois makes is not that there had not been other issues for which the South entertained separation.. He acknowledges the obvious. The reasons for which Gen Lee broke is where he objects.

    As for family, certainly a wonderful thing family, however, sometimes family i wrong an one must break from them.

  47. Alden says:
    @Priss Factor

    In the 18th and 19th century south it was White men having sex with a black slave woman, her brown daughter, her dark caramel grand daughter, her light caramel great great grand daughter; thus producing the butter scotch colored great great great grandson Du Bois.

    If White men had kept their pants on, there’d be about 50 percent fewer blacks around to cause most of the problems in this country.

  48. Anon[360] • Disclaimer says:

    General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

    From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

    Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.


    Dwight D. Eisenhower

  49. Wyatt says:

    God bless Robert E. Lee.

Current Commenter

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

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments 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 Gregory Hood Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV