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
Forgotten Historian, Forgotten History
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

David E. Johnson, Douglas Southall Freeman, Pelican Publishing: 2002, 280 pp., \$25.45 (hardcover), \$9.99 (Kindle)

Defeated political figures often hope that history will redeem their cause. The Confederacy’s motto, Deo vindici, means “God will vindicate.” For a while, it seemed, He did.

The conquered South honored men such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Perhaps the man who did the most to enshrine their memory was Douglas Southall Freeman, a Virginia journalist, military historian, and political commentator who achieved professional success. His Pulitzer Prize-winning biographies of George Washington and Robert E. Lee were huge successes, but his best known book is Lee’s Lieutenants: A Study in Command.

This was a favorite of his friend of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who also admired General Lee. Freeman knew and was friends with Winston Churchill. His historical work was only part of a heavy work schedule that included editing The Richmond News Leader and making twice-daily radio broadcasts.

It’s fitting that Freeman should be all but forgotten today; he wrote for a state and a country that no longer exist. Freeman was a Confederate veteran’s son. He was a patriotic Virginian and patriotic American; he saw no contradiction.

Freeman nearly went into the ministry, but instead became a writer, building his reputation by working with primary sources, such as the letters between Lee and Jefferson Davis. He remained a firm Christian throughout his life — a respectable, devout, mainline Protestant of the kind that once defined this country and has now all but vanished. He married Inez Virginia Goddin and the couple had two daughters and a son.

It’s hard to think of two journalists more different in literary style and cultural views than Freeman and H. L. Mencken. However, both were successful partially because of their attachments to place and routine. For Mencken, it was Baltimore; for Freeman, it was Richmond, where he would salute the General Lee statue before work each morning.

Westbourne, Freeman’s Richmond home from 1938–1953. Photo credit: Calder Loth, 2021
Westbourne, Freeman’s Richmond home from 1938–1953. Photo credit: Calder Loth, 2021

Freeman planned out his days in a relentless quest for self-improvement. Well into his professional life, this was Freeman’s schedule — which began at 2:30 a.m:

Freeman was an ardent Southerner. When speaking to a Confederate memorial organization about his work on historical papers, he said:

They say it was a lost cause: Perhaps it was; but it still lives in the hearts of the Southern people. Its career of arms ended these forty years ago, we only live for its justification. And this is not to be done in any other way than through the careful collection and statement of calm historical fact.

Freeman’s biography of Robert E. Lee was not hero-worship. While he admired Lee, his intent was to check the “extravagances of rhetorical apostrophe on all that pertained to the Confederacy,” saying that purple prose was “actually lowering our Southern leaders.” He wanted to write “in plain terms,” not ignoring the general’s mistakes.

In his study of Washington, Freeman found a man of powerful emotions behind the marble edifice. He said the young Washington was defined by ambition. However, he also showed that Washington deliberately built his character through sheer will, subordinating his emotions to his judgment.

Among the admirers of Freeman’s biography of Lee was Carl Sandberg, who wrote an influential biography of Abraham Lincoln. The two eventually met. Sandberg told Freeman about a Kentucky man who had lost two sons in the War Between the States, one fighting for the Union, the other for the Confederacy. On the stone of their double grave, the father wrote, “God knows which was right.” Freeman’s response to the tale, which deeply moved Sandberg, was, “Both sides were right.”

Freeman did not believe the Civil War was about slavery. “Slavery played a small part in the attitude and decision of 1861,” he wrote about Southern leaders. If he had to reduce the Civil War’s cause to a single word, he protested he could not do it. However, if pressed, he said it would be “politicians.”

“The War Between the States had its origin between old ideals and new,” he said. “It was fundamentally a struggle between the rural society of the old colonies and the urban society in New England, which had the full support of the white new states of the Middle West. New England wanted a protective tariff. The South did not.”

Freeman said that the slavery issue had been “exaggerated” by politicians, concealing the deeper struggle about two different ways of life. Freeman said that “two different peoples” who shared “common blood” and both owned slaves had developed different values and traditions. It was a battle between peoples, not policies.

Author David Johnson writes that Freeman “did not equate the Confederate cause to racist beliefs.” “I think there is no nobler tradition in the world than that of the Confederacy,” Freeman wrote. Today, the Confederate flag is used for many purposes, including to show white pride or rebelliousness. Freeman wouldn’t approve: “It is not pleasant to see the symbol of a country’s war, intimate to the hearts of us all, used lightly as a mere ornament or symbol of defiance. To many of us the flag represents much that we hold sacred in the ideals of self-government.”

Douglas Southall Freeman in his study.
Douglas Southall Freeman in his study.

Freeman is best known for his biographies, but he was also a journalist. He called journalism “writing in the sand,” but it reflected his beliefs. Conservatives may be disappointed.

Freeman supported Woodrow Wilson, partially from Southern loyalty to the Democratic party. Unlike Mencken, Freeman cheered American entry into The Great War, writing that German attacks on American ships risked making the Second Reich “the enemy not only of the allies, but of the entire world.” He thanked God when the Allies won. His support for Wilson, who dramatically expanded the power of the federal government, is at odds with his support for “self-government.”

However, Freeman opposed much of the New Deal. He called Social Security the replacement of “security by thrift” with “security by taxation.” In a speech delivered before an openly hostile Fiorello LaGuardia, Freeman said that political liberalism “does not [or should not] mean to be liberal with other people’s money.” He argued that Virginia was “ready now to do battle on the floors of Congress for states’ rights just as on the battlefields in times past.” The Democrat Party was an unwieldy coalition, uniting Northern party bosses, Southern segregationists, and urban workers.

Freeman called himself a liberal, even on race. By the standards of his time, he was. He opposed the Ku Klux Klan, calling it an “organization that stinks to high heaven.” In 1917, he championed the cause of a black teenager whom a judge had sentenced to death for murder. Freeman argued that Aubrey Barrett hadn’t received legal counsel. He attacked the judge in print so ferociously that he was cited for contempt of court. The citation was dropped and Barrett was spared the death penalty. Freeman said that “neither the details of the murder” nor “the guilt or innocence” mattered to him “in the slightest.” The case was about an American citizen getting his legal rights. Today, this is a quaint idea.

The Freeman family at dinner.
The Freeman family at dinner.

Freeman had paternalistic views of blacks. He supported better conditions for them, called “the Virginia Negro” the “blueblood of his race,” and praised the way blacks had “advanced splendidly in many ways.” However, he had no illusions about equality.

Sounding much like Booker T. Washington, Freeman wrote that blacks and whites can work together on economic matters but “biologically and therefore socially we are different; we are not going to amalgamate.” He said blacks who sought a white wife were seeking “the unattainable,” and instead urged blacks to “stay apart, build your own society, improve it, strengthen your family life, combat innate promiscuity, and build up race pride.” “We do not believe it fair to pretend to equality we have no intention of recognizing,” he wrote. “Separation is better than deception.”

Freeman said he saw no reason why women shouldn’t have the right to vote but that it would be disaster if black women voted and white women didn’t. He wrote that “on the control of the election by suffrage majorities in all districts, white government in the South depends.” “No chances can be taken!” he warned.

Today, the federal government requires not just equality for blacks, but pervasive racial preferences, and the black family collapsed and became heavily dependent on welfare. Freeman’s beloved Richmond is now, in many ways, another failed black city. Many whites fled Richmond after desegregation. As it does everywhere, the federal government has chosen deception about “equality,” but still gets separation.

Graffiti in Richmond, VA. Photo credit: Bill Dickinson via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Graffiti in Richmond, VA. Photo credit: Bill Dickinson via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

After initial misgivings, Freeman backed American entry into World War II. Like most Southerners, he championed the federal government’s cause against enemies overseas. He even defended Stalin’s alliance with Hitler because the Russians had to prepare “for the inevitable conflict, the decisive conflict, of the war.”

Freeman urged his friend Eisenhower to run for president and celebrated his victory. It was a different time, in which a spokesman for the Confederacy cheered a Republican victory — and a Yankee president admired Lee.

Freeman died in 1953 at age 67, no doubt partly because of his punishing schedule and lack of sleep. Thus, he missed the so-called “Civil Rights Movement” as well as the sight of his friend integrating schools at bayonet point. We don’t know if he would have supported Virginia’s “massive resistance” to desegregation or whether he would have backed George Wallace.

Now, Douglas Southall Freeman’s Virginia has turned on him and the men he wrote about. Students and faculty at the University of Richmond, where Freeman was a trustee, demanded in 2021 that the school remove his name from a building. The school duly changed the name of “Freeman Hall” to “Mitchell-Freeman Hall,” adding a black journalist, John Mitchell Jr., who accused Freeman of racism. It is now “Residence Hall #3.” The university said the change was necessary because Freeman’s work “advances the discredited ‘Lost Cause’ view of the Confederacy.”

George Will, who insists on calling himself a conservative, wrote in 2021 that America is “wiser and better” than it was when President Franklin Roosevelt called Lee “one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.” Mr. Will called Lee a traitor, praised a biography that belittles Lee, and called for his name to be taken down from “public buildings and places.”

In the ways that matter, the campus radicals of the University of Richmond are just like the self-styled conservative George Will. They are also right. Lee and Freeman were traitors to what America is today. Modern America is an explicit repudiation of the country built by the Founders and the compact between the states defended by the Confederacy. There is no way to reconcile George Washington, let alone Robert E. Lee, with the country of Ibram Kendi and George Floyd. To defend the America of the Founders is to betray “Our Democracy.”

For his time, Freeman was progressive. To today’s progressives, he’s just another racist. This should be a lesson for white liberals who think — because of their politics — they can’t be called “racists.” Freeman supported historical figures and forces that ultimately unmade everything he treasured. He was a great historian but had poor political judgment. He was naïve. Like so many hard-working, Christian, white men, he assumed others shared his sense of fair play. They don’t. Whites are the exception.

Douglas Southall Freeman was a historian in an era when Americans appreciated what their ancestors built. They wanted to improve it. Today, we live with millions who hate what our ancestors built. They want to consume it. There’s no place for Freeman or his heroes, but there is an honored place for him among white advocates who want a different future.

Freeman should be in any homeschool curriculum and on any serious reading program. We must look to the past to learn of what we are capable. Today, Freeman is buried in Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond, alongside many of the men he chronicled. In his own way, he fought his war. We must fight ours.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Academia, Civil War, Political Correctness, The South 
Hide 133 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Franz says:

    Fine short introduction to a great man.

    Freeman was indeed lucky to miss Ike’s total repudiation of the Great Compromise and the whole point of the American Nation. The fact that Ike was the supreme allied commander during WWII is not irrelevant — it’s no longer possible to miss the fact that 1945 was the year the USA died. Since then it’s been a matter of societal decomposition.

    • Replies: @mike99588
    , @anonymous
  2. In his study of Washington, Freeman found a man of powerful emotions behind the marble edifice. He said the young Washington was defined by ambition. However, he also showed that Washington deliberately built his character through sheer will, subordinating his emotions to his judgment.

    I say:

    George Washington was an Anglo-Norman Virginian aristocrat with some balls and maybe when Washington was younger he couldn’t use his brains to keep his balls from causing unnecessary trouble.

    Young George Washington decided to blast the French at the 1754 Battle of Jumonville Glen in Western Pennsylvania. As I remember it from a book, the French were in some kind of rocky low area and Washington, being young and full of beans, attacked the French. The leader of the French, Jumonville, was killed. Later, Washington surrendered to French troops sent out from Fort Duquesne.

    All about the trans-Appalachian rivers and their strategic value to the British Empire and the French Empire.

    Now the American Empire is all about a debt-based fiat currency system electronically conjured up out of thin air. The American Empire’s military and intelligence wings operate globally as muscle to maintain the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. A new young Washington is going to set things in motion that causes a disruption to the global financial system.

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING

    Tweets from 2014 and 2015:

  3. fnn says:

    It’s likely he would have reacted with self-righteous indignation to anyone who pointed out the self-defeating nature of his adherence to an ideology that consisted of liberalism, racial separatism and Anglo-American imperialism.

    • Agree: Durruti
  4. Kirt says:

    A very interesting article about an interesting man. Thank you. My late uncle, a WWII veteran who was a Civil War buff, was an avid reader of Lee’s Lieutenants. I kind of wonder if Freeman, in his support of Wilson and FDR and US involvement in WWI and WWII, might be an illustration of the tendency of the losing side in internal conflicts to be fanatical supporters of the winning side in external conflicts. The South, and especially Southern men, having failed to throw off Yankee tyranny themselves, have done more than their share in imposing it on much of the rest of the world.

    • Agree: HdC, Durruti, USGrant
    • Replies: @JM
    , @follyofwar
  5. Phibbs says:

    George Will is married to a Jewess, who no doubt has Jewish “values” that have infected her husband.

    • Agree: USGrant
    • Replies: @Bert
    , @anon
  6. @Charles Pewitt

    Have you read Freeman’s biography of Washington? There is an excellent one-volume abridgment (still running to 750 pages!) of the seven-volume original by a historian called Richard Harwell. Softcover copies of this abridgment, first published in the early nineties, can be got from Amazon and other vendors for ten bucks or so. The same is true for Harwell’s similar abridgment of Freeman’s Lee biography. Both are on my own shelves, and I recommend them wholeheartedly.

    Few historians since Thucydides have been as honest or as easy to read as Freeman.

  7. Mr. Hood:

    Among the admirers of Freeman’s biography of Lee was Carl Sandberg [1878–1967], who wrote an influential biography of Abraham Lincoln.

    The celebrated poet and biographer was indeed born Carl Sandberg, but he had already altered the spelling of his surname to Sandburg by 1890, and Sandburg it remained for the rest of his life.

  8. Freeman’s a hagiographer rather than a historian. He is as consulted today as an authority on the Confederacy about as much as William Shirer is esteemed for his once-canonical inventions about the Third Reich. Freeman’s motivation seems to put the kind of spin on his Confederate dad that was in popular fashion at the time he was writing. That was the era when the Lost Cause myth came under scrutiny by professional historians as never before. His primary failure is not providing an accurate assessment of why the war was fought. It is the rather Shakespearean epic of an arrogant, nouveau riche anti-democratic elite, mired in the Old Testament and 17th century English customs, that was undone by its own corruption. The reality is that the institution of slavery tended inherently to impoverish the three quarters of the southern white population who did not own slaves. The evil process accelerated in the “Hard Times” economic depression of the 1830s. Thousands of small farmers lost their land to foreclosure when the price of cotton crashed. They had in any event been unable to sell their produce as cheaply as the crops harvested by slave labor on the huge estates (nor could white artisans and craftsmen compete for work with hired-out slaves trained in these skills). Owners of the great plantations bought up bankrupt farms at bargain prices. Former landowners drifted into poverty everywhere as the rich became shockingly richer. This remarkably parallels what happened in the final decades of the Roman Republic (and in the US as a whole in recent years), which also led to civil war and that republic’s downfall. The new class of greedy men who ruled the south lacked the sense of noblesse oblige of the old aristocracy toward the less fortunate, ruthlessly seizing everything they could for themselves. Despite the myth, with the connivance of northern Democrats, they controlled the federal government, thwarting the will of the people again and again. After they lost the White House, they started a war as much, perhaps, to suppress mounting domestic dissent as to save their “rights” from the perfidious Yankees – who insisted on obeying the will of the electorate, as it was expressed in the vote to keep the race problem contained in the south. This, not the abolition of slavery, was the decisive issue in the election of 1860.

    • Disagree: Wade Hampton
    • Thanks: 36 ulster, fnn, Event Horizon, Cking
    • Troll: Pierre de Craon
  9. Bert says:
    @Phibbs

    George Will was infected by Jewish “values” of the wider world. Otherwise, he never would have married a Jewess.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @TheTrumanShow
  10. @Pierre de Craon

    Have you read Freeman’s biography of Washington? There is an excellent one-volume abridgment (still running to 750 pages!) of the seven-volume original by a historian called Richard Harwell. Softcover copies of this abridgment, first published in the early nineties, can be got from Amazon and other vendors for ten bucks or so. The same is true for Harwell’s similar abridgment of Freeman’s Lee biography. Both are on my own shelves, and I recommend them wholeheartedly.

    I say:

    I read James Thomas Flexner’s book on Washington and a few other books on General George Washington.

  11. KenR says:

    It looks like he spent too much time as a propagandist, at the cost of his historical plumbings. Look at that schedule of his — current affairs, newsprint editorials and radio broadcasts were the true rulers of his time. To chase such goals is to trap a will-o-wisp. It’s got to have an effect on you, too. The odd thing is that the man knew it. “Journalism is writing in the sand,” he proclaimed. That is wise, and it demonstrates his awareness of his own predicament. Yet he made the choice to let it dominate him anyway.

    • Agree: Event Horizon
    • Replies: @Event Horizon
    , @GenFranco
  12. KenR says:
    @Observator

    That’s a great story, but I believe none of it. In Virginia, at least, which is Freeman’s stomping ground, the great plantations came first, before the small stakeholders. The plantations claimed all of the most fertile, arable and productive land right off the bat. Already in Washington’s time you can find George himself complaining about this — about how all the land suitable for plantation operations had already been hoovered up by his own day.

    My family’s old homestead is very near an old Harrison plantation — a “First Family” of Virginia. Like all such small-stakeholder properties, it’s on the periphery beyond the desirable land. Almost every small farm in Virginia lies on poor soil, in uneven and problematic terrain, and also — critically — constrained in the types of profitable cash crops which are profitable. They are *NOT* places where cotton was ever a good idea. Tobacco was always king for the Virginia small farmer.

    Your narrative makes little sense for two main reasons, then. One, the large landowners weren’t much interested in the lands of the small farms. Two, the crisis of cotton’s collapsing price may have indeed been a problem for the large plantations, but not for the small farmers who, simply, never had a profitable experience with that crop, ever.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    , @G. Poulin
    , @JM
    , @Rich
  13. friend of Zion-stooge Winston Churchill,

    cosy with WWI bankster-stooge Woodrow Wilson.

    paycheck conservatives have always been

    rotten to the core. Which is why

    they never conserve anything of civilizational value.

    • Agree: Event Horizon, Durruti
  14. @KenR

    Tobacco was always king for the Virginia small farmer.

    Kinda makes you wonder what must be the death toll from tobacco industry – both domestically and related to exports from the US to the rest of the world.

    10 million? 100 million? In the US alone it’s up around half a million deaths a year (480k) and that’s with declining rates of tobacco consumption over the last 30 years.

    Tobacco companies were the Pfizers of their day – sitting in front of Congressional panels declaring their products were “SAFE AND EFFECTIVE“.

    And Congress had the chutzpah to make weed illegal – such utter unbridled cuntery deserves a machete to the face and neck, given that it happened 30 years after German researchers proved the tobacco-cancer link (which is why there was such an anti-smoking push during the Third Reich).

    • Replies: @Catdompanj
    , @KenR
    , @InnerCynic
  15. Hitmarck says:

    Strange forms of fairplay the Anglos have.

    , he assumed others shared his sense of fair play. They don’t. Whites are the exception.

    The ball of diverse colours was very fair played to the next generations.
    Since Angloids see themseves as sciency, wouldnt be a mayor part of fairplay be to check out there’s no downsides for future Generations?

    Who knows, maybe that Fraud Dumbface Arschgeige’s “Moral Foundations” are underlying here.

    • Replies: @profnasty
  16. G. Poulin says:
    @KenR

    My biggest problem with his analysis is his statement that the South “started the war”. No it didn’t. The South seceded legally, democratically, and peacefully. Lincoln started the war all by himself, by his decision to invade all of the seceded states on the idiotic pretense of Fort Sumter. Not the last time a U.S. president would whip up war fever over a manufactured crisis.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Gruffy
  17. Ole_ed says:

    Freeman belonged to another era. I drive by a high school in Henrico County named for him almost weekly; I expect the name will be changed soon. I assume that readers of this post already know that Lee’s statue in Richmond was taken down at the request of Negroes.

    Good review, but you should at least have mentioned Freeman’s biographer’s name.

    Please come soon, Vlad.

  18. @Kratoklastes

    How is this remotely relevant Cheech?

    • LOL: JM
  19. KenR says:
    @Kratoklastes

    There’s no need to single out tobacco. The entire British Empire was all about drugs. Ditto for the most profitable and most influential and largest corporation that ever existed: the Dutch East India Company. It was all about the spices, man. Tobacco, sugar, molasses, rum, tea and spices. It was only after the Industrial Revolution that cotton became a thing (but then they tapped into opium where the real money was).

    First came the piracy, then the drug running, then the slavery. Welcome to the Caribbean, lad!

    • Replies: @atp
    , @JM
  20. Some say the Civil War was not about slavery.

    So why didn’t the Confederacy emancipate the slaves? They would have immediately won the war.

    Lincoln could not have motivated the North to provide young men for the meat grinder had the slaves been freed in the South.

    I’ve never found ANY mention of a Confederate politician advocating emancipation in order to win the war and secure secession.

    Thus it’s obvious, the Civil War WAS about slavery.

    • Replies: @Old Virginia
    , @mike99588
  21. @WingsofADove

    While you were looking did you notice no mention of the Lincoln administration advocating emancipation in inaugurating war to oppose secession? It wasn’t until two years from the beginning that they changed the rules in fear that the CSA would be recognized by England.

    The only contemporary calls from the North to end slavery came from a few newspaper editors and poets with borrowed melodies. Even in the event there is little evidence of concern for humanity rather than simple politics.

    If Southern states hadn’t seceded slavery would have simply continued, wouldn’t it? We have the answer from no less an authority than President Lincoln, himself.

    • Agree: InnerCynic
  22. mike99588 says:
    @Franz

    the US has been dying in steps
    1861, 1913 and 1933 are far bigger years to me

    • Replies: @Franz
    , @Wade Hampton
  23. mike99588 says:
    @WingsofADove

    Lincoln actually cited (southern) port revenue.

    Slavery was certainly on the mind of most the South, especially the planter elite.
    1859’s Harper’s Ferry raid by the crazed traitor John Brown to arm and revolt blacks, along with many Northern medias’ partisan support of Brown, made black liberation a 5 alarm existential issue to the Deep South, a la Haiti’s white genocide before then, and post colonial Africa today.

    Economic tax abuse and states rights were long standing sores.
    In 1861 revenue was repeatedly cited by Lincoln. Some cite 87% of federal taxes came from the South but 80% spent in the North. No mystery about “Union” there.

    • Replies: @InnerCynic
    , @Reg Cæsar
  24. If Southern states hadn’t seceded slavery would have simply continued, wouldn’t it?

    – …continued for how long?

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  25. @René Fries

    Until the slaves became obsolete farm equipment. Maybe until about when Brazil did away with slavery– about 20 years after Appomattox–without laying waste to their land and people with war and war crimes.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  26. “My biggest problem with his analysis is his statement that the South “started the war”. No it didn’t. The South seceded legally, democratically, and peacefully.”

    I am unclear why its your biggest problem. It isn’t accurate. The south did not press their case in Congress or before the Supreme both steps in my view would be legal. And as to democratic — well, there were a good many dissenters, who chose to sit out the conflict, which seriously damaged the Southern effort.

    When they fire on Fort Sumpter . . . the dies was cast, a toss Pres Lincoln attempted to ignore in the hopes of averting the choice by the south to war.

    —————–

    “– …continued for how long?”

    Free labor at minimal cost . . . it would still be around, but there would fewer illegal immigrants, maybe.

    • Replies: @InnerCynic
    , @G. Poulin
  27. I deeply appreciate southern history and i do think they have certainly made it clear — despite the rebellion — they are staunchly — pro-US and have demonstrated that with no small vigor.

    However, any attempt to dance around the core issue of slavery as cause on their end is simply disputed by a mountain load of history.

    Here’s the tax argument. 75% of the nation’s exports and wealth are from the south, largely obtained from the use of free labor. 80% of the tax revenue went to the feds based on the tax law written largely by southern states. Since the federal revenue was just about 2% that tac revenue was worth the profit from the slavery. The idea that the southern states would go to war over 2% of their revenue is a stretch — given what they stood to lose. N o it was n ot taxes, it was the profits from slavery — which beyond all reason they assumed would end with the e election of Pres. Lincoln. One is left with the singular conclusion that the war was about slavery (constraining blacks period) for the south and union for the north though they would borrow heavily from sothern expectations and practices to contain them as well).

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

    And I will add that for both sides the issue would always be about containing the black population.

    • Disagree: Bro43rd
    • Thanks: 36 ulster
  28. Freeman’s accomplishments may have been impressive, but what really impresses me is the combination bookcase/typewriter stand he is sitting next to in this picture:

    Can someone please tell me the proper name of this article of furniture?

    • Replies: @Durruti
  29. “Freeman said he saw no reason why women shouldn’t have the right to vote but that it would be disaster if black women voted and white women didn’t” – With all due respect to Douglas Freeman, this was a gravely wrong idea. The decline and eventual insanity of this once great nation only increased when women were given the right to vote. The women’s suffrage movement began as an attempt for ‘equality’ (however conceived), but it wasn’t long before it was hijacked by Jews who changed it into modern feminism and eventually into the screeching blue haired ham-beasts that we see today.

    All of this, of course, placed the health and future of the American republic in the hands of generally gullible women who are more inclined to think from their hearts instead of their heads. Is it any wonder why so many women today comprise the first ranks of every radical Marxist group? Our women are emotional creatures. They are natural ‘helpers’ and do-gooders. These are not bad qualities per se, but they must be kept in check lest our women morph into the rabid ‘pussy-hats’ that we see today.

    Even advertising companies recognize that women must be appealed to differently than men – namely, on an emotional heart-string level. They know instinctively the gullible nature of women, and they make sure to exploit it for all it’s worth. They will never admit to it, of course.

    No sane nation allows women to lead its most important and vital institutions such as the military – that is, unless it’s determined to commit national suicide.

    • Agree: Hitch
    • Replies: @CSFurious
  30. Part of the problem with southern slavery is that plantation owners thought they could get something for nothing. They thought they could force negroes to work for them on their plantations and not pay them. They imagined there would be no racial, cultural, and economic consequences for it. Wrong they were!

    Whites in the U.S. are now stuck with massive numbers of Blacks, most who are dependent on welfare and who possess the worst criminal proclivities imaginable. They are utterly dysfunctional and are largely a plague on our society. Blacks have virtually destroyed our grandest cities, and anyone with even an ounce of common-sense doesn’t feel safe around them (especially in large numbers). They will not assimilate, and they despise us in spite of bending over backwards to make racial corrections over past history.

    All this because we couldn’t or wouldn’t pick our own cotton?!

    This same notion of wanting to get something for nothing is seen in that Whites will gladly tolerate a Mexican invasion of our land so we can have cheap labor and services. But, again, there is a price to pay for it all. The Mexicans now largely outnumber us, and they are imposing their culture on our cities and states. They are mixing with our White sons and daughters. We are becoming aliens in the very country our White ancestors founded. And now those same Mexicans are not ashamed to tell us this land belongs to them and was stolen by the evil White man. They demand that the White man returns to Europe.

    And for what?! So that we could have someone else raise our kids while we lived the good life and wrapped ourselves with material goods. So that we didn’t have to mow our own lawns.

    We get everything we deserve – and it’s coming fast.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Replies: @HdC
    , @Mike Tre
  31. Franz says:
    @mike99588

    If I could pick the earliest year that the American Revolution was betrayed, no contest. 1794.

    The Whiskey Rebellion was put down by Washington and Hamilton with methods very similar to the ones the KGB adopted years later. No good came from the success of Hamilton’s methods.

    ALSO THAT YEAR — Anthony Wayne defeated the Shawnee alliance at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, signalling the start of the US as an Imperial Power. No good came from that either.

  32. atp says:
    @KenR

    Cotton became king when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin!

  33. 36 ulster says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    “Slowly,” heading toward “gradually” and “suddenly.”

  34. Race, The Lost Cause, & The Social Influence of Douglas Southall Freeman
    https://equity.richmond.edu/inclusive-history/freeman/report/Douglas-Southall-Freeman-Final-Report-20210216.pdf

    The link will give an alternate view of this old guy. My take on Freeman is that he was a snooty better-than-you racist who enjoyed posing as a “moderate”.

    Yesterday I was reading a book which introduced me to the meaning of “The Yellow Rose Of Texas” for the first time. The story goes that a “high yellow” mulatto was shacked up with Mexican General Santa Anna and distracted him so much that he neglected his troops and this led to the loss of a decisive battle to the Texans.

    If Mr. Freeman was around, I’d ask him how all those millions of mixed-race people came into existence. The old man clearly approved of the hundreds of millions of rapes by Superior Whites, but could not handle relationships which involved caring and loving.

    Forgotten Historian? That’s ok with me, and good riddance.

  35. Freeman knew and was friends with Winston Churchill ….. [and] ….Freeman supported Woodrow Wilson … Freeman cheered American entry into The Great War …. He thanked God when the Allies won.
    His support for Wilson, who dramatically expanded the power of the federal government, is at odds with his support for “self-government.”

    This Freeman fellow was evidently an atrocious judge of character and geopolitically naive.

    All of the above was only fractionally compensated for by the fact that:
    ‘Freeman opposed much of the New Deal.’

    All in all, not surprising that he’s been forgotten.

    • Replies: @GenFranco
  36. @G. Poulin

    The South seceded legally, democratically, and peacefully.

    Like Brexit, in strict adherence to the explicit steps laid out by James Madison in the Constitution. Unfortunately, these have been redacted so thoroughly that nobody seems able to find them today. Where is our predecessor to the EU’s Article 50?

    Without it, a person is forced into Freeman’s position, both sides were right.

    (Actually, nobody but the American Colonization Society was right.)

    If he had to reduce the Civil War’s cause to a single word, he protested he could not do it. However, if pressed, he said it would be “politicians.”

    He is dead right on this point. True of almost all our wars.

    It was fundamentally a struggle between the rural society of the old colonies and the urban society in New England, which had the full support of the white new states of the Middle West.

    This is key. The new states were white. Hordes of Europeans and Britons and Irish paupers couldn’t wait to get there to homestead, or just slave in the factories and on the docks. Even hobbled by the grotesque vote inflation of the three-fifths rule, the whiter Union states were bound to dominate by their increasing size. Dixie was cooked, and knew it.

  37. @Kratoklastes

    such utter unbridled cuntery deserves a machete to the face and neck,

    Now THAT’S an image I can’t get out of my mind. But I like the “unbridled cuntery” part. That’s as true then as it is today.

  38. @EliteCommInc.

    The south did not press their case in Congress or before the Supreme both steps in my view would be legal.

    Must one always crawl before a body to beg for permission to do something? If that were the case then we owe Britain an apology for not getting permission to separate ourselves from them.

  39. @mike99588

    John Brown. The Antifa of his day

    • Agree: littlewing
  40. @mike99588

    Some cite 87% of federal taxes came from the South but 80% spent in the North [sic]. No mystery about “Union” there.

    About 80% of white Americans lived in this “North” (much of which was west), so this seems perfectly equitable. Tariffs are the “voluntary” tax, which one only pays if one buys abroad. Buy domestic, make, or make do, and you don’t pay them. Southern whites were grossly and unfairly overrepresented in Congress, anyway. No tears for them.

    The real objection to tariffs was that the foreign customers didn’t like them. They limited what buyers could trade.

    • Replies: @Wade Hampton
  41. Karl1906 says:

    Freeman really is kinda “inevitable” as a historian and biographer when it comes to the US civil war. Not so much when it comes to his personal opinions in regards to WW1 and Wilson. We know the exact results after 100+ years well enough. I’ll take Mencken over Freeman any day of the week.

    And, please, don’t read the poisonous and massively biased wikipedia-entries about the two! The same kinda tripe you have to read about the likes of Shelby Foote is bad enough.

  42. GMC says:

    Divide, Conquer, Loot, Extort, Assassinate, Terrorize – is used in every segment of the current governments – Federal, State or Municipal, , including but not limited to the society/populace. It is used against our history, religions, educational institutions, financial structures, employment markets, and the list could go on and on . The One World Order is set on destroying all of the past and present day lives of the people in the West – just to reform our World to their Likings. It could be stopped in a month, by the people of the US – and it’s only a day or three drive to Washington. I think someday, the OWO will be stopped. But will the people bring back their past history , in order to learn from it ?

  43. Why would anyone have a schedule that fixed? I don’t know how and why anyone does it….down to the minute. I want to have a routine but it’s so hard to even implement and carry it out day in day out. And like the article mentions….he did die an early death probably down to his hectic schedule.

    • Replies: @Nervous in Stalingrad
  44. JM says:
    @Kirt

    …the tendency of the losing side in internal conflicts to be fanatical supporters of the winning side in external conflicts.

    A pretty smart generalization. The Scots after Culloden and the Germans after WWII, followed suit.

    • Agree: Durruti
  45. JM says:
    @KenR

    The entire British Empire was all about drugs.

    I doubt that. Do you have any figures to prove it? I’d put my money on food & industrial inputs: grains, meat, tea, cotton, wool, ores. That provided much of the basis for British industry and associated demand for food. And it was all bought at (then) current market prices.

  46. JM says:
    @KenR

    Your narrative makes little sense for two main reasons, then. One, the large landowners weren’t much interested in the lands of the small farms. Two, the crisis of cotton’s collapsing price may have indeed been a problem for the large plantations, but not for the small farmers who, simply, never had a profitable experience with that crop, ever.

    What of the stated rapid decline of the smallholders? Perhaps, with the decline in cotton prices, the more efficient plantations introduced the kind of cropping hitherto dominated by the small holdings?

  47. G. Poulin says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    As sovereign entities, states do not need the permission of the Supreme Court in order to secede; the decision of their state legislatures is sufficient legal process. And that there were dissenters is irrelevant; dissenters don’t have a veto over the decisions of legislatures. As for Fort Sumter, it was the excuse, not the reason, for Lincoln’s invasion; if the Federal government wanted the fort they could have taken it, without a full-scale invasion of every seceded state. What Lincoln did was a crime, plain and simple, and until we as a nation are willing to admit that it was a criminal act, we will continue our long slide into lawlessness and tyranny. The official cartoon version of our history won’t help.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  48. @mike99588

    The election of the tyrant in 1860 was the fatal blow.

    • Agree: Curle
  49. “Must one always crawl before a body to beg for permission to do something? If that were the case then we owe Britain an apology for not getting permission to separate ourselves from them.”

    Well, I love and hate the US as most involved citizens do. Overall love, but there’s plenty to get one’s goat. in fact, it’s for that love that one’s goat gets got.

    But my position is solid in opposition to the revolutionary war. The US would have become a nation minus the needless rebellion. Which on its face — born to a deep hypocrisy — even through the lens of the time in question.

    They joined the union to ve one nation. The federation failed, so they opted for a national establishment — hence the Supremacy Clause . . . . and laws and practices establishing a federal authority. To engage in a violent rebellion against it – would be treason. Due process mattered. Their case poses an unanswered question — the method by which a state can sever from the union — is unsettled, except by war, in which case the answer is

    no they cannot.

    Note: had the federals government frustrated that legal means of remedy by obfuscation, collusion, te use technical hurdles, or out and out deception, I might have a more supportive disposition. But the rebellion like the revolutiuon was rash and premature — and not very well founded. In the revolution, the colonists got saved by the French.

    We owe Britain more than that . . . God save the queen (even we don’t agree on some issues)
    we her ungrateful children

  50. “As sovereign entities, states do not need the permission of the Supreme Court in order to secede; the decision of their state legislatures is sufficient legal process.”

    The state’s gave up sovereignty to federalism when they voted the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. They accepted that practice, used that practiced and endorsed t5hat practice in law, in policy and in fact, one complaint is that some northern states were vi8olating the federal law regarding returning slaves. They made cases before the supreme court.

    As for dissenters , , , there’s a reason why the Continental Congress demanded everyone’s agreement on this question, no small matter the dissenters.

    Uhhh excuse me, Pres Lincoln exercised restraint in a very serious and sincere effort to avoid war — reinsure the south there was no future plans to end slavery by his hand in any wat whatsoever. By firing on Fort Sumter, the matter of where Pres Lincoln could fight to maintain the US was a moot matter.

  51. Rich says:
    @KenR

    You make a great point, and the descendants (whether by blood or station) of those extremely wealthy plantation and slave owners are the ones responsible for affirmative action and unbridled illegal and legal immigration. Many of them, the majority of them, feel no kinship to their fellow Whites and anxiously pay their politicians to pass laws that hurt the majority population. There was a short time in the US, and especially in the South, when solid men stood up for the rights of their fellows. Segregation, strict law and order and fellowship made the South, and America, a better place. That’s lost now and Whitey is looked on in the same way rich slave owners looked on the poor and small landowners of their time.

  52. @RJ Macready

    And like the article mentions….he did die an early death probably down to his hectic schedule.

    I don’t know. Isn’t age 67 a pretty fair age for someone born in the 1880s to attain?

  53. Anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Of the four Jewesses (yes, Nancy D’Alesandro is a product of cryto Jews, just like that Puerto Rican cow Sonia Sotomayor), but only Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew it’ll all implode in the coming years for her people’s excesses and it shows it in the old lady’s face.

  54. Jimmy1969 says:

    One minor side comment. George Will is no Conservative; that claim is a joke. He is a pompous hypocrite. A Poindexter caricature. Now the kicker…I was taught that History is nothing but past Politics and that Politics is nothing but present History. Historians today who are at Universities are subjected to the same pressure and mobilization of bias as any woke CEO or professional sports owner, or Politician or Journalist.. Take the case of the Historian Arnold Toynbee, one of the greatest Historians of the 20th Century who wrote massive gigantic books on the rise and fall of civilizations. He was a very respected darling of everyone most of his life…BUT…in the late 60s and early 70s he started to question the tactics of Israel, saying that Israel was doing to the Palestinians what the Germans did to the Jews…not literally but in many marginalized ways. He said that Israel was a de facto racist and apartheid State….even back then. It did not take long for the New York and Worlds Jews to discredit everything Toynbee ever said or wrote about hundreds of other subjects and Countries and civilizations.

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  55. @Zachary Smith

    Spoken like a true Yankee Judeo-Puritan™…the World’s Best People.

    • Agree: lavoisier
  56. Durruti says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Until the slaves became obsolete farm equipment. Maybe until about when Brazil did away with slavery– about 20 years after Appomattox–without laying waste to their land and people with war and war crimes.

    Good guess. The Civil War was unnecessary, & utterly ruinous (mostly for the South). One million dead & wounded soldiers & many burned cities.

    Confederate General James Longstreet, has been quoted as advocating the Emancipation of the slaves, followed by the declaration of Southern independence.

    Now, in 2022, we are all SLAVES.

  57. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Phibbs

    George Will has the most punchable face this side of Max Boot.

  58. anon[216] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bert

    Thank you: exactly my thought on reading Phibbs’ comment. I would add that George Will was ‘infectable’ from the moment of his conception: like all of us, he has certain, surprisingly basic, genetic traits that contribute greatly to eventual character and life outcomes, and can only be overcome with great effort.

    I would also add that this ‘Biological Calvinism’, still so vastly denied 165 years after Darwin, was on my mind as soon as I encountered this in Gregory Hood’s article:

    [Freeman] said blacks who sought a white wife were seeking “the unattainable,” and instead urged blacks to “stay apart, build your own society, improve it, strengthen your family life, combat innate promiscuity, and build up race pride.”

    Here, Freeman clearly recognizes the problem by use of “innate promiscuity”, but he appears to believe exhortations like his could be sufficiently absorbed by black men, who would then add it to whatever other powers of will they might possess, that they would thereby achieve the impossible: en masse become responsible, white-presenting Negroes.

    Fair to say, almost all non-troll followers of unz.com recognize that’s impossible. But I don’t think Jared Taylor does: he seems to me to be much in the model of Freeman and all the other Southern gentlemen cheerleaders of black bootstrapping.

    However, events have corrected Freeman: natural selection doesn’t care whether blacks ‘attain a white wife’ but only whether they impregnate white women. And compared to Freeman’s day, they are, by dint of social change he could scarcely have imagined, like white female promiscuity. By lowering of white standards and birthrates and by importing the world, whites are being diluted out of existence.

    I’m very old school dissident right, and go back to a time well before Mr. Hood took on his nom-de-plume and appeared before us as one of our most promising writers. I was very disappointed when he settled on American Renaissance, among the various outlets he used to write for. Like George Will, his choice can be presumed to reflect factors that were already well-entrenched. He’s still an excellent writer, but now his skills are constrained by what’s acceptable to Gentleman Jared.

    BTW, I see the original of this article on AR has only half the number of comments as here, and some are typical of their many low-info readers. Still, I suppose AR remains a useful gateway.

  59. @Bert

    In the case of it being George Will, “Was it ‘married to, or married by, a Jewess?”

  60. Carl Sandburg, not Carl Sandberg.

  61. Pindos says:

    He’s weird. Glad he’s forgotten.

  62. Durruti says:
    @Nervous in Stalingrad

    what really impresses me is the combination bookcase/typewriter stand he is sitting next to in this picture:

    Can someone please tell me the proper name of this article of furniture?

    My first solid employment was working with Cabinetmaker father. Having established my field of expertise, (certainly not History – later Professorship might bear that out), I will attempt to answer your question.

    The piece of furniture you are referring to is not a bookcase. It appears to be a table with storage underneath for almost any tall item. You may view a book shelves by the rear wall. There is a bookcase/book shelves of sorts – in front of Freeman.

    It appears a platform was added to the table (possibly with hinges – or small angle support (one visible on left side).

    Built in storage – to the right rear, is where he hides his Slaves.

    History of Furniture deserves its own column.

    Then there is the Revisionist History of Furniture, followed by a Marxist History of furniture, and a Scandinavian School of Furniture.

    Must be hot in that Attic converted to office-room (see the fan?). Wonder where he has stored his computer?

    • Replies: @Nervous in Stalingrad
  63. @Nervous in Stalingrad

    Could be. But many back then lived well into their 80s. I guess whatever works for you but to be that confined, to the minute is perhaps being too stern.

    Hey, I’m a nobody and he’s an intelligent, well read author so it means nothing obviously.

  64. Seneca44 says:
    @Zachary Smith

    I lived in Richmond in the ’70’s and early 80’s; even married a girl from the west end who attended Freeman High School. I was very surprised to see that it has not been re-named, though a peek at the building on its website showed it looking well beyond its prime.

    My take on the white society in Richmond is that it was (and probably still is) very classist bordering on a caste system. Blacks and White trash were largely excluded. Mr. Freeman, of course, would have been at the apex of this class system. There were a large clique of First Families of Virginia (FFV’s) whose ancestors were at Jamestown and the early Virginia colonial settlements. My wife had a close friend who was FFV on both sides of his parentage as they tend to intermarry. This guy was gay during the beginning of the AIDS crisis and, as it turned out, there was a not insignificant number of gay FFV descendants in Richmond. This made for an interesting dynamic at that time since gays were somewhat ostracized–not lionized as they are today. I was actually glad to leave that town behind, but most people who have lived there remember it fondly.

  65. Agent76 says:

    May 28, 2019 Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow

    In Stony the Road, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., offers a new rendering of the struggle by African Americans for equality after the Civil War and the violent counter-revolution that subjugated them. Journalist A’Lelia Bundles will moderate the discussion.

    “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell

  66. @Nervous in Stalingrad

    Chuffing a pipe probably didn’t enhance his longevity potential.

  67. E_Perez says:

    Just another biased historian who ended in the trash bin of history – and rightfully so.

    …Freeman cheered American entry into The Great War, writing that German attacks on American ships risked making the Second Reich “the enemy not only of the allies, but of the entire world.” He thanked God when the Allies won

    How can a political historian, knowing that his “neutral” US was delivering arms to Britain, condemn German sea warfare? And cheer US entry in two world wars?

    “I think there is no nobler tradition in the world than that of the Confederacy,”

    How can anyone as self-righteous as Freeman ignore the Rheinwiesen atrocities of his ‘noble’ buddy Eisenhower and urge him to run for president?

    As much as I admire your articles, Mr. Hood, let Freeman rest in peace, in the dust bin of history, where he belongs: a bigot zealot, not an objective historian.

  68. @Anonymous

    Read somewhere years ago, likely in a comment section such as this, that Madam Nancy was conversant in Yiddish.
    Did some internet research for confirmation, but found nothing.

  69. HdC says:
    @RockaBoatus

    I typed “agree” because I agree with the thrust of your article.
    However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that slave labour was free.
    As a matter of fact, my hackles rise whenever someone expounds that this or that is “free”.
    Let me lead you into this slowly.
    We are constantly inundated about the benefits of free wind and solar energy. Agreed that the FUEL for this energy conversion is free; but the very expensive equipment required to make use of this free fuel is complex in the case of solar energy, and expensive in both cases. So expensive, in fact that the Ontario government of the day had to offer CDN \$ 0.80 for each KW-Hr of energy thus produced. This at a time when the retail price per KW-Hr of electric power was around CDN \$ 0.10.
    Then there is the ‘free’ medical care we supposedly have in Canada. Certain media types still assert this today, even when it was discussed at some length what the cost of this “free” medicare was to the taxpayer through income taxes and special levies.
    That brings us to “free labour” by slaves. In the first instance, slaves had to be purchased. When I asked the curator at one of the museum plantations I visited in South Carolina, she advised me that the cost of 1 slave was about the same as 1 new pick-up truck today. Pick-up trucks require fuel and maintenance; and from what I can observe, most owners take good care of their truck.
    Thus, the would-be slave owner had to purchase his slaves on the open market. He had to house and feed them. Supply a modicum of medical care. Furnish the same care to slave children before they became productive. All this at what cost to the owner? I really don’t know, but I draw this comparison.
    From the main street media I gather that a very large portion of the American worker lives hand-to mouth, ie. after the monthly bills are paid there is little or no discretionary money left for out-of-the-ordinary expenses. (I don’t like the term unexpected or unforeseen in this context).
    The obvious question to me is: How is this so different from slavery? The slaves had all their earthly needs attended to by their owners, he did, after all, have expensive investments to protect. Whereas with the working poor, no one really cares if they live or die.
    The obvious argument is that the paid worker is free to go and work where he pleases. With his very limited funds available, and very likely a very limited skill set, I believe this to be a specious argument.
    I therefore conclude that there is not much difference, if any at all, in the actual cost of slave workers and free workers.
    This gives much credence to the opinions I have read on this, that slave workers were on the way out due to economic forces that showed, at that time, that free workers were actually less costly than slave workers.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Thanks: GMC, mark green
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @RockaBoatus
  70. @Observator

    Sir

    I’d wager you’ve had your head in a whale of a lot of good history books.
    Perhaps the growth of the huge Virginia plantations began when soils started failing from mono-cropping tobacco and erosion from careless farming. The worst would have been abandoned, and neighbors could have bought them for a song at tax sales or some such. Most of the failures would have headed West in search of fresh new lands to trash, but some would have hung around for one reason or another.

    The surviving landowners had the same degraded soil as before, and gradually hit upon a scheme to use it to grow wealthy. Instead of trying to raise tobacco or wheat, they got into the “livestock” business of raising and selling black slaves. They’d go through the motions of farming crops to both train the livestock and keep them busy, but the real money was in breeding and selling humans as others would market cows or pigs.

    One book surprised me by telling how the modern lawyer practice of trashing rape victims began. The poor “white trash” had at the time zero status – a white Slaver described them as being at the “mud sill” level of society. When black slaves raped a poor white female, the Slavers hired the best lawyers to destroy the reputation of the victim. This was because the loss from executing a prime-age black slave could not be endured, and anyhow, who cared about a white trash woman? This changed later when managing the post-war white trash changed to coddling them and enlisting them into terrorizing the dirty stupid and dangerous “N*ggers” who no longer had any financial value to the Rich Folks. Quite a change of propaganda from the docile, dim-witted but contented people they’d been pitching before the War.

    After they lost the White House, they started a war as much, perhaps, to suppress mounting domestic dissent as to save their “rights” from the perfidious Yankees – who insisted on obeying the will of the electorate, as it was expressed in the vote to keep the race problem contained in the south. This, not the abolition of slavery, was the decisive issue in the election of 1860.

    For a very long time I didn’t understand this was the strategy, and for a longer time after that doubted it would work.

    “Containment” was the slaver’s worst fear, and they had a Supreme Court which was on the verge of “fixing” the problem forever. Taney’s Dred Scott decision was step #1, and Taney was already looking for another case to use so as to totally nullify Northern laws against Slavery.

    Guessing now, but I suspect slavery was a sort of gigantic economic “Bubble” which had to keep growing to survive. Otherwise the human cattle market would collapse. An independent South would have undoubtedly immediately expanded into Cuba as well as Central and South America.

  71. @Jimmy1969

    Even if Toynbee had grovelled doing the best asanas he could before that shitty little country, he would have gained even less respect. Even if he had married a Jewess and taken heavy-duty courses in kabbalistic philosophy. First of all in order to be accepted by the American University ruling Jewry as an assistant teacher of some sort you had then to be either an Austrian Marxist either an Austrian Monetarist either an Austrian neocon of the Leo-Strauss kind. He had to be an assistant teacher and vulgarizer of either Marcuse, either Friedman, either Kissinger. You had to be a functionalist of some sort. To be a British aristocratic eccentric was a major disqualification : the purpose of a non-jew, especially in the world of academia and intelligentsia, is to serve the Jewish interests and if your lifestyle is too leisurely and too sovereign you are already an antisemite suspect before having opened your mouth or held your pen or even your beer. The simple fact that Toynbee valued great civilizations as having a value in themselves is already an antisemitic thesis : the Jews are there in the world to terminate them all by all means, incremental or violent. Humans should serve Jews not build civilizations and the more simplistic and interchangeable with any other a way of life is the better.

    • Replies: @Jimmy1969
  72. CSFurious says:
    @RockaBoatus

    I do agree with most of your post but I think that we could just make it so only landowners have the right to vote. If some of those happen to be women, we will just have to deal with it.

    • Replies: @Zachary Smith
  73. @Kirt

    In pondering the failed war for secession, I often wonder why Lee has become a deity to the South in the same as Lincoln became a deity for the North.

    My suspicions were confirmed to my satisfaction from a tip from another Unz commenter, who suggested “How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War,” by Edward Bonekemper. Per Bonekemper, Lee, with a much smaller army, lost far too many casualties with his aggressive tactics, rather than fight a winnable defensive war. Lee only cared about keeping his Army of Northern Virginia well-stocked with troops and cannibalized them from fronts where they were more needed. Lee personally lost the Battle of Gettysburg by not taking the high ground on day one, when the bulk of the Union army was still on its way. Lee got thousands of men needlessly slaughtered by ordering his futile Pickett’s Charge. Etc., etc… Bonekemper’s analysis against Lee is devastating.

    Why are the worst always turned into heroes? Tyrant Lincoln, if he had lived, might have thanked Lee for winning the war for him.

    • Replies: @Old Virginia
    , @TJ62
  74. @EliteCommInc.

    80% of the tax revenue went to the feds based on the tax law written largely by southern states.

    Thanks for the reminder that the South had basically controlled the Federal Government for generations. This is a point which I tend to forget. That 3/5s provision of the Constitution had served them well for a very long time.

  75. Who is the ghost place at the Freeman family dinner? Jesus? Robert E. Lee?

  76. @Durruti

    I will attempt to answer your question.

    I am grateful for your taking a look at this.

    It appears a platform was added to the table (possibly with hinges – or small angle support (one visible on left side).

    Yes, that is the specific feature that fascinates me.

    In its position in the picture relative to Freeman’s hips, the platform appears to be too low to use. My guess is that it could be raised to a somewhat more useful height.

    Anyway, based on your description, it sounds like the entire thing was a custom-made piece of furniture without a ready-made modern equivalent. I suppose I was intrigued by such a relatively modern and useful feature (I can easily imagine a computer keyboard on that platform) being featured on a relatively elderly piece of furniture.

    (I shouldn’t be, I know. Our ancestors could be clever enough when they felt the need.)

    In any event, thank you for taking the time to reply. It appears that, if I want a modern equivalent, I had better be prepared to show up at a cabinetmakers with a photograph and an explanation of what I would like them to build.

    Must be hot in that Attic converted to office-room (see the fan?). Wonder where he has stored his computer?

    That’s an easy one: it is filling up the entire house next door.

  77. Charles says:

    I do not remember when or from what source I read this, but it was stated that among the personal possessions of one of the WW II Japanese naval commanders was the full set of Freeman’s “Lee’s Lieutenants”. Whether the volumes were rendered into Japanese or not I do not know.

  78. HT says:

    Eisenhower was no friend of America or Western civilization. Ike conducted his own personal holocaust on German POW’s killing nearly a million of them after the war. It is detailed in “Other Losses”. Then there was Ike sending the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to kill as many whites as necessary to force them to take blacks into their good safe schools. What a wretched man.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Zachary Smith
  79. GenFranco says:
    @Observator

    “Freeman’s a hagiographer rather than a historian.”

    This is stupid and marks you out as a troll and a simpleton. Anyone who actually reads Freeman’s historical works knows that (like the article mentions) Freeman sought to move beyond hagiography to a serious (and lengthy) analysis of the South’s great leaders.

    I’ll let you get back to reading Chernow’s Hamilton before you attend the musical.

    • Replies: @Zachary Smith
  80. GenFranco says:
    @KenR

    Freeman wrote an acclaimed four-volume biography of Lee, a three-volume study of Lee’s Lieutenants, and an eight-volume biography of George Washington, among many other works, before dying in his 60s.

    So yeah, he was obviously over-concerned with journalism and had little time for “historical plumbings.”

  81. GenFranco says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    “All in all, not surprising that he’s been forgotten.”

    The people who do the “forgetting” are the same people who love Churchill and Wilson.

    Re-read before you post.

  82. @HT

    Chanting slogans don’t make them true. Eisennower was (by US standards) an above average General who got along well with the British. Maybe too much so. I suspect he survived his screwups in North Africa because there was nobody else available certain to be any better.

    Eisenhower had a very easy presidency, for the US was truly top-dog in the world at the time. In fact, he had way too much time on his hands and meddled in foreign affairs using the CIA as his tool. IMO Freeman liked Eisenhower for the same reason he liked Wilson – both presidents were racists. I’d wager a person wouldn’t have to take off his shoes to count the number of Blacks in Eisenhower’s administration.

    Little Rock happened because the laid-back Eisenhower had no choice at all. Either allow the likes of Wallace were going to run the nation, or they were not.

    A former neighbor of mine was in the 101st at Little Rock. The man was a foul-mouthed elderly racist and a full time drunk when I knew him, but back in the day he was a member of an elite Division and wasn’t going to take any crap from anybody, not even fellow racists.

    By the way, I’ve never heard of any of the dead whites you allude to. Only a couple with some bayonet wounds on their white asses.

    • Troll: HT
    • Replies: @HT
  83. The rancid treasonous scum in the McConnell/McCarthy/Trump Republican Party will not defend the honor and memory of George Washington and Andrew Jackson and Robert E. Lee.

    The donor-controlled Republican Party must be abolished and replaced with the new political party called WHITE CORE AMERICA.

    We have political parties within political parties just like we have nations within the nation of the USA.

    The first-past-the-post electoral system in the USA guarantees the creation of a two-party system.

    Alternative political parties in the USA are important because these alternative political parties have had a big impact in politically volatile times like before the Civil War. We are in the beginnings of Civil War II and the only thing holding the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire in power is the monetary extremism — zero or low interest rates, balance sheet expansion, quantitative easing, asset purchases, dollar swaps…etc. — put in place by the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.

    My fast description of 5 parties within GOP:

    1) Sam Francis Founding Father political party that explicitly recognizes the United States as a British Protestant or European Christian nation and features Buchananite economic patriotism. White Core American Patriots would take over the electronic currency(money) and the electronic propaganda and the electronic command and control of the various weapons systems of the US military and the US signals intelligence apparatus. America First in all matters, especially foreign policy.

    2) George W Bush GOP of rich WASP turds who only have money-grubbing and national dissolution on their minds. Israel First foreign policy.

    3) John Kasich GOP globalizer and mass legal immigration and monetary extremism and upper middle class greed covered up by fake concern for lower middle class and working class. Israel First foreign policy.

    4) John McCain and Mitt Romney GOP of American Empire and mass legal immigration and trade deal scams and nostalgia for 50 years ago. Israel First foreign policy.

    5) Trump GOP of slavish devotion to Jew donors such as Mim Adelson and Paul Singer and mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens and keeping the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate pumped up by monetary extremism. Israel First foreign policy.

  84. @GenFranco

    A few weeks ago I found a copy of Chernow’s book and scanned it. It’s a “keeper” in my library despite being a suck-up/cover-up for Hamilton. The historical materials surrounding the “hagiography” are too good to discard.

    People write lousy books for many reason. Maybe for money, maybe because they’re bad authors, and maybe because they’re some kind of True Believer.

    I’m downloading Freeman’s Lee biography from the Internet Archive site, and in volume one I examined the incident describing Lee’s whipping of some escaped slaves. Since extreme violence was the only way to control slaves, what else might Lee have done? The tale rings true, but Freeman just denies it happened.

    The fellow was an academic dope who didn’t understand the realities of the Slave South, so he created the super-heroic Marble Man. A person who didn’t exist.

    I’ve seen the same thing with figures like Douglas MacArthur and Montgomery, among many others.

    Yes, the Lee biography by Freeman was a Hagiography.

  85. HT says:
    @Zachary Smith

    You have been successfully propagandized and turned into a blithering idiot.

  86. It’s fitting that Freeman should be all but forgotten today; he wrote for a state and a country that no longer exist. Freeman was a Confederate veteran’s son. He was a patriotic Virginian and patriotic American; he saw no contradiction.

    I say:

    I have colonial American ancestry from Virginia through a Thomas Prewitt who came to the Virginia Colony in the 1630s. I have ancestors who fought for the Confederate States of America.

    The new political party called White Core America will devise a political campaign that says George Washington was a Norman American colonial aristocrat from the Virginia Company and say matter of factly that the Virginia Company was a neo-Viking raid on what was beyond the Atlantic Ocean from England and state that the Normans in England still own huge chunks of land in England and that what is needed in the USA is a political company devoted to dislodging from power the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    EXPLICIT WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS is on the march and nothing will stop it but total victory over the treasonous filth in the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    William the Conqueror was part Saxon and he felt he was the rightful inheritor of the English crown and George Washington was part Saxon too and plenty of Americans with Southern ancestry have both Norman and Saxon ancestry and they may have heard enough of all the worship of that rodentine scumbag shyster boy corporate lawyer named Abraham Lincoln.

    AMERICAN NATIONAL IDENTITY

    The current Republican Party Ruling Class will do anything to avoid campaigning on simple matters of national identity and the European Christian ancestral core of the USA is getting restless and they are banging on the hollow log and the fire in the clearing of the German forest that created this nation is burning bright and the ale is flowing and the JEW/WASP Ruling Class is using monetary extremism to retain power.

    New England Harvard goon Sam Huntington had it right. Huntington question time is here.

    Who are we as a nation and what are we fighting for as a nation?

    EXPLICIT WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS NOW!

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING

  87. @Reg Cæsar

    This is absurd.

    Let’s grant for argument sake that that 87% of the Federal taxes were paid by the South which comprised only 20% of the white population and 80% of the Federal spending went to pork-barrel politics which only benefitted the North (fiascos like the Erie Canal).

    How could any sane person consider this fair? Take tax revenue from a minority population and spend it primarily to benefit the majority? This is classical exploitation of an agricultural colony.

    These tariffs were imposed at absurdly high rates (40-50%) on manufactured goods (shoes, tools, machinery). These were products that the South needed and didn’t manufacture itself. This allowed Northern manufacturers to raise prices on their goods, doubling the damage done to the South. Tariff revenue went to the North (for products purchased overseas) and was spent on Northern pork-barrel projects and the cost of goods purchased from the North was increased by 40-50%.

    What’s more, the foreign buyers did not have the cash they would have otherwise earned from trade with the South without the tariff “protection” so they were less able to buy agricultural products from the South, further damaging the region.

    The War of Northern Aggression was solely about Northern tariffs. I’ll quote directly from the tyrant’s first inaugural address to prove my point, but essentially he said the North has no interest in freeing the slaves (which was certainly true, he just didn’t want them moving out of the South), but if the South refused to pay the punitive tariffs, then there the tyrant would unilaterally wage war (and he did so contra the Constitution without consent of Congress).

    The tyrant was completely committed to Central power, crony capitalism, using the power of the Central government to enrich himself and his fellow Republicans. And the Republican Party has remained true to those principles to this very day.

    [MORE]

    Quotes from Lincoln’s First Inaugural, the fourth paragraph:

    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    And from the twenty-first paragraph. In this context, “imposts” means tariff revenue.

    In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Thanks: Pierre de Craon
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  88. @Götterdamn-it-all

    Thank you for posting this link. I am familiar with the Audible unabridged volumes, but other potentially interested people won’t be, and with any luck, at least a few of them will take advantage of your generosity. The books themselves, in whichever form they are encountered, will demonstrate to anyone who isn’t a doctrinaire fool that Gregory Hood’s admiration for Freeman is well founded, that Observator is, at the very least, a fully conscious prevaricator as well as a pathological Christophobe, and that Zachary Smith, who repeats Observator’s lies with perverted delight, is a shameless brown-nose.

    • Agree: Wade Hampton
  89. @Observator

    Lots of flowery words. Not a lot of truth.

    “…That was the era when the Lost Cause myth came under scrutiny by professional historians as never before…”

    Historians like Kenneth Stampp who wrote before the 1960s attributed that War of Northern Aggression to multiple causes, but the most important was the economic exploitation of the agricultural South by the mercantilist North via punitive tariffs. After the 1960s, the history academy decided that blaming the War solely on slavery would help justify LBJs Great Society and racial preferences for blacks generally, so actual history like what Freeman wrote was tossed aside in favor of progressive apologetics such as those written by Jaffa and Foner.

    You say the war was driven by an “anti-democratic elite”? Nonsense. The principle driver of the war was the punitive tariff regime which was the principal goal of Whigs and Republicans. Tax the agricultural colony the South and transfer the cash to the crony capitalists in the North. Lincoln was the anti-democratic elitist, not the Southerners.

    After they lost the White House, they started a war… Yankees – who insisted on obeying the will of the electorate

    Which electorate? Lincoln got 39.8% of the popular vote in the 1860 election. Seeing a future of economic exploitation by the North, the CSA exercised its right to secede. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural, he did not intend a war with the South to free slaves but would invade if they interfered with his tariff tax revenue. It was generally understood by the original States that they would have the right to secede if they were oppressed by the Federal Leviathan. The Hartford Convention was a discussion by Northern States about whether or not to secede.

    There was no question that States had a right to secede, at least prior to the War of Northern Aggression. Several of the original States included statements to that effect in their documents from their conventions ratifying the Constitution. North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution for a full year. The other States did not contemplate invading and murdering a quarter of its male population for this hesitancy.

    Certainly Lincoln’s party was committed to keeping blacks out of the rest of the country. Lincoln himself was deeply involved in deporting blacks to Liberia. But the primary motivation of Lincoln and his fellow Republicans was the transfer of tariff revenue out of the South to be spent by the Federal Leviathan on pork-barrel project and political grift, a Republican tradition to this very day.

    • Replies: @TJ62
  90. PolPhil says:

    Sounds like a liberal that helped create the liberalism of today. An establishment type that pushed an agenda and supported the bigger globalist narrative/agenda. He just got washed over in the constant shifting to the left. Another good Shabbos Goy even if he didn’t know he was one.

  91. @follyofwar

    Robert E. Lee could never had fought a defensive war with any hope of winning. The precedents cited are usually George Washington and Nathanael Greene during the Revolutionary War, both of whom, while commanding smaller armies, also faced smaller British armies. Lee faced a resolute adversary separated only by the Potomac, not weeks and an ocean away as the Continentals did. Among advantages it afforded Lincoln’s armies were reinforcement and re-supply almost as needed.

    The war was near an end at Richmond when Lee took command of the CSA’s largest army in spring, 1862, in front of possibly the best outfitted and trained army ever assembled. His intention to destroy the Federal army wasn’t realized, yet a month later the narrative had flipped. Some like to say Lee often fought with numerical superiority then didn’t follow up victories. In nearly every case his Army of Northern Virginia expended tremendous effort in maneuver and battle with corresponding casualties because they didn’t have the luxury of waiting as the Federals had another army within a day’s march.

    Lee’s alternative was retreat, retreat, assuredly ending with being besieged and having supply lines cut. The numerous examples of the strategy and it’s result include Petersburg two years after Lee took command. Lee knew the people in the North as well as the South and thought he could destroy Lincoln’s largest army, thereby weakening the will of Northern people and causing their politicians to sue for peace. He and his army fought a great defensive campaign starting with the Wilderness, spring, 1864, warding off many blows through Col Harbor, to inevitably end in encirclement in Petersburg.

    General Lee’s only mistake at Gettysburg was the third day. The ANV had chances the first two days for great victories and he had such confidence in his army he was convinced one more battle would bring victory. His mistake was operating with the expectation of having his plans carried out as he’d had for the previous year with General Jackson. The disappointments of the first two days could have dampened his expectations but didn’t.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  92. TJ62 says:
    @follyofwar

    Why do you believe Bonekemper ‘s opinions are more valid than others who have a differing view.
    Bonekemper was a Lincoln and Grant idolizer who let is partisan views interpret his history.

    Lee definitely made his share of mistakes and he acknowledged that on many occasions, but to say he cost the South victory is going way to far. Incidentally he did give orders for the taking the high ground on the first day of Gettysburg although his orders left some room for Ewell to hesitate.
    Ewell took over Jackson’s corp’s after his death and I think he thought Ewell would operate like Jackson and get it done, but that was never going to happen for Ewell was no Jackson.

    • Replies: @Old Virginia
  93. Anonymous[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @HdC

    Your argument is one used by the South in the run-up to the Civil War.

    The Northern unskilled laborors were called “wage slaves” and it was pointed out that Northern unskilled wages were less than it took to support Southern slaves on a per-capita basis, taking into account the families that the Northern unskilled labor supported. Southern plantation owners spent little time in the fields, and Northern factory owners spent little time on the factory floor. Slave labor planted in Spring and harvested in Autumn. It had little to do for much of the year, but slaves had to be maintained year around. Southern slaves were as little use in industrial or handicraft production as are contemporary urban Blacks. Northern labor could be an was laid off when it was not needed, free to get another job or to starve, laborer’s choice.

    We’re seeing the re-emergency of wage slavery today. Wage slavery is worst when there are so many people that low skill jobs predominate and can be filled for little more than the cost of feeding the worker. Many of today’s “homeless” have jobs (variations on the “gig economy”) that need no skills and pay just enough that, when added to governmental assistance, they provide food/clothing but not housing. When you have a population larger than your economy needs to provide basics, the need to prevent a revolution/famine/starvation by providing “wage slave”/”gig economy” jobs makes automation unprofitable. Automate, and the starving multitude overthrows society. Where then are the high profits from automation?

    New England and England avoided this “Malthusian trap” by limiting family size and emphasizing work as valued for Protestant religious reasons. Catholic countries had Jansenism, a similar series of beliefs founded after the Protestant Reformation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism )

    Slavery was anything but free, and was the reason that slave states lost their competition with New England, and their later (1960s) competition with the US Northeast.

    The trouble with slavery is that the masters can’t be much smarter than the slaves (within 1 standard deviation (SD), roughly, maybe 2 SDs for the leading masters. Running a plantation wasn’t about whipping everybody when you weren’t yelling “Off with their heads!”. The old plantation in the mid-Southern states was a functioning social order ( one duplicated by later slaves in Liberia right down to duplicate manor houses ), and had to be led by somebody the slaves could understand well enough to respect. Slavery “down the river”, in Louisiana, was more like the slavery of the Caribbean, where slave life expectancy after arrival was about 5 years on average.

    Which meant that the Southern leadership, while highly respectable, was consistently outplayed by the smarter Northern leadership.

    And meant that the slaves, who had driven out mass Southern industry through their very existence and inability to perform industrial work, indirectly ensured that the agricultural South would face a North with much more military materiel and a nearly unlimited supply of immigrant (largely Irish) infantry.

    A ruthless slave owning class would have drafted the slaves, used them for defensive purposes, especially building defensive works, and expended them like water against the Union. Surviving slaves would be kept in the Army, supported by Union reparations, until they were too old to be a threat, or sent to Mexico or wherever to conquer the Slave Empire that some Southerners thought would be a good idea or, perhaps, to die in the attempt. Either way, the most important goal would have been to prevent the slave army from simply taking the South over.

    No such brains. The Southern ruling class had to fight itself, lest its slaves learn how to fight (forgetting that the Spartan army had several times the number of auxiliary troops than it had of full Companions .
    This alone shows that the Southern ruling class were limited in IQ by the IQ of their slaves. Hell, the successful planters (North of Louisiana) were those that kept their slaves happy, and were happy themselves. Such treachery as I’ve described above was unthinkable to them, because they were not and could not be very smart.

    So Southern slaves were not cost free to their owners, in fact the slaves destroyed their owners, and Northern wage-slaves were not made well off by their legal freedom.

    Isn’t life strange? And isn’t the current propaganda idiotic?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  94. Jimmy1969 says:
    @Francis Miville

    But you said nothing about the monumental accomplishments of Toynbee…not a single word…that says something about you…and your bitter nothing existence…did you write a book like he did? He wrote dozens

  95. @HdC

    Thanks for your comments. Just by way of clarification, I was not intending to suggest that the slave owners did not incur some costs. It was not “free” in the way most people might think. In reality, it cost them and the entire nation dearly in terms of consequences.

    But they wrongly thought they could get ahead by importing African slaves and by not paying them a fair wage for their work that would produce no long-term effects. It proved to be a complete disaster and one very similar today in which Whites allow Mexicans to settle in our land and do the menial labor all the while assuming this will have no racial and cultural consequences.

  96. TJ62 says:
    @Wade Hampton

    Lincoln and his idol Henry Clay the champions of mercantilism.

  97. Gruffy says:
    @G. Poulin

    There’s no such thing as “lawful secession”, breaking the interstate Treaty of constitutional America was an act of War against the northern States. All of the federal forts were seized by Rebels,and half the Mississippi was detained. No power in the union was going to allow a foreign power to emerge in that soft underbelly, much less one founded on hostility.

    Keep the peace or bring the war, this is the fundamental law. It was too nakedly obvious that Union armies would form and defend the capital in DC, holding the line against further intrusion. The next step is march down the Mississippi River and into the border states because you can, and therefore it will. Considering there are ongoing hostilities, the ports are getting blockaded.

    Pretty soon all that’s left is Virginia itself, the heart of the military Confederacy. The south is not a viable Union and it cannot form a separate hostile power: nobody would allow it then, and they wouldn’t allow it now. This is why very deep wisdom is needed to understand statecraft and the relationship between nations,
    nobody lives in a vacuum.

    Southern Rebels fired on federal installations and made war on the North, following a generation of internecine attacks against abolitionists and slave raids into free territory. The myth of Southern victimhood is steth another excuse from a shitty crappy part of the United States.

    Three-quarters of all white men were Unionist, and that should tell you something. Many Southern whites knew that the Confederacy had nothing good for them, it was just an alliance of elite plantation owners.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  98. Mike Tre says:
    @RockaBoatus

    “Part of the problem with southern slavery is that plantation owners thought they could get something for nothing. They thought they could force negroes to work for them on their plantations and not pay them. They imagined there would be no racial, cultural, and economic consequences for it. Wrong they were! ”

    This is of course nonsense. You’re projecting 2022 false morality onto 1860 Southern economic norms. This is the typical dishonest crap progressives engage in. You don’t know what 1860 southerners thought. Further – slaves were paid in the form of housing, clothing, food, and medical treatment.

    What southerners didn’t think, was that future white Americans would fall for the massive guilt trip laid upon them and concede unthinkable amounts of political power to a race of humanoids with no independent ability to function in a modern Western society.

    • Replies: @RockaBoatus
    , @Franz
  99. “This is of course nonsense. You’re projecting 2022 false morality onto 1860 Southern economic norms. This is the typical dishonest crap progressives engage in. You don’t know what 1860 southerners thought. Further – slaves were paid in the form of housing, clothing, food, and medical treatment.”

    Then i am afraid you are unaware of the morality of the period. Slavery was not a settled question. In fact, the Continental Congress nearly fractured on the issue. You are correct that the economics and the desire for a nation overrode the moral issues. The morality of slavery was a hotly contested issue, even in that period. And this

    “slaves were paid in the form of housing, clothing, food, and medical treatment.”

    You are of course kidding. Your comments suggests that livestock is paid because they have access to a fenced yard and get fed every day. What you ignore is the matter of choice. Which would be essential in any meaningful economic relationship. Slaves were in some circumstances less valuable than livestock, especially when the colonies began their own breeding programs, that included the sale of any slave they so chose.

    They could not quit. They could not run away. There was little to no practical recourse to mistreatment and abuse.

    Most slave populations treated themselves medically.

    ——————

    but your room and board contend is brave.

  100. @Wade Hampton

    he said the North has no interest in freeing the slaves (which was certainly true, he just didn’t want them moving out of the South)

    Simple common sense. They belong(ed) in Africa and nowhere else. The Colonization Society had it right.

    These were products that the South needed and didn’t manufacture itself.

    If you need them, manufacture them yourself. The so-called “North” did. If you need workers, import them from Europe, where people actually work. Not the jungle, where they don’t.

    How could any sane person consider this fair?

    That’s the argument that eventually replaced tariffs with the income tax. Enjoy your April 15th.

    …and 80% of the Federal spending went to pork-barrel politics which only benefitted the North (fiascos like the Erie Canal).

    The Canal was funded entirely by bonds within the state of New York. It was not a fiasco– the city leap-frogged over several other ports to become the largest on the continent.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2020/01/28/800025377/the-erie-canal-as-a-model-of-how-to-build-big-projects-again

  101. Gregory Hood: “Freeman did not believe the Civil War was about slavery. “Slavery played a small part in the attitude and decision of 1861,” he wrote about Southern leaders. ”

    The South lost the war, and so it shouldn’t really be a surprise that in its aftermath, it became filled with Southerners who, confronted by the fanatical abolitionist victors, were shrugging their shoulders and crying “Who, me? I was never in favor of slavery! Yes, sir, I absolutely believe negroes should vote and have equal rights, including the right to intermarry with whites!” This was being forced on them anyway, so they had to make the best of it. But only an idiot would be fooled by such protestations.

    After the war a lot of writers tried to sanitize the South’s lost cause by claiming the war had nothing to do with slavery. Among them were Jefferson Davis and Alexander H. Stephens, President and Vice-President of the Confederate States of America, respectively. But before the war was lost, they were singing quite a different tune. They understood very well that the negro equality being pushed by the North would absolutely destroy their way of life, and the prospect horrified them. Nor were they afraid to say so. One example should suffice.

    Alexander H. Stephens in 1861: “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”

    Alexander H. Stephens in 1868: “There could be no greater violence … done to the truth of History than to refer to the Southern opponents of Northern “Consolidationists” as a “Pro-Slavery Party.” ”

    Telling lies about the cause of the war began a long time ago, and even today there are a lot of people still peddling the load of horse manure that it had nothing to do with slavery. In propounding such nonsense, a guy like Freeman was only an early version of today’s white cuck; a prototype. In the current year it’s even more difficult to defend a racist cause than it was in Freeman’s day, so the cucks are several orders of magnitude more numerous. Nowadays even on the so-called racist right we almost never meet anyone who will frankly state the obvious: The South fought to preserve white supremacy, and it was right to do so.

  102. @Gruffy

    There’s no such thing as “lawful secession”

    …or unlawful, either. That ambiguity was– and still is– the biggest flaw in the Constitution.

    We laugh at the EU, but they have their Article 50. Thus, Brexit was peaceful.

  103. anonymous[423] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    After more than 5yrs of college of American History I never heard of Dr. Freeman. I never study Sam Francis, Lincoln Rockwell, and other Conservative (wasp) Historians. why not? I believe that in todays America We are in the midst of a Civil War (cold) Dem Blue Rinocrats WOKE vrs American Nationalists factions..(MAGA?.). What is INexplicabke to me is the adamant authoritarian facists reach of the WOKE Dem Empire..what is so difficult to understand that many RED deplorables states want to be left to their own local state rights as prescribed in the USA Constitution. Many RED states dont want CRT.White gencodie/drag queen schools/abortions/lgbt sex mutilataions…and what is wrong with that? Thats DEMOCRACY..? It seems that Bidens Moloch Philly Speech was a declaration of WAR against Trumps MAGA…which means: eletoral frauds, partisan ideological use of the state military/police apparatus?..IRS Troops? While WOKE left forces demand individual FREEDOMS to express their personal usually perverse sexual habits they seem unable to let OTHERS Red states practice their own FREEDOMS also.

    • Replies: @Franz
  104. @Mike Tre

    Wrong. Anyone – regardless of the era they live in – who thinks that importing Africans as slaves in a White country who they don’t have to pay (other than their most basic necessities) is trying to get something for nothing (or something for very little). The slave/plantation owners were wrong on this, especially when many of them were professing Christians and knew well the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.”

    Moreover, these plantation owners knew good-and-well what they were doing. Perhaps they didn’t quite see slavery the way we do in the 21st century, but they could never claim innocence of not knowing there was something morally wrong and unjust about the entire enterprise. But as it so often is when greed sets in, it’s easy to ignore the broader moral issues involved and even the consequences when there is great profit at hand.

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  105. “While WOKE left forces demand individual FREEDOMS to express their personal usually perverse sexual habits they seem unable to let OTHERS Red states practice their own FREEDOMS also.”

    The south was permitted to practice its own brand of individual freedoms and it did so by denying the freedoms of others. Whether you see the black citizen as friend or foe. He or she is in fact a citizen. And that cannot be abridged. The fact that the south was not alone does not change the fact that they in fact did so. And they did so blatantly without consequence until the 1970’s, some would say even later. And that is the fault line , the inability to simply acknowledge that separate was not equal.

    And more telling, for all the complaints about quotas, the south did not reject quotas for government contracts and work during the war years as long as those they went to whites. The south has not bemoaned the use of military bases to prop up their economies, or turned down tax dollars for commercial projects . . . and good grief, stop pretending that same relational conduct was invented in the North.

    https://face2faceafrica.com/article/did-you-know-white-slave-owners-raped-enslaved-african-males-heres-why

    before the supreme court

    abortion was pressed from the state of Texas a southern state.

    paying for illegal immigrant education pressed from Texas a southern state

    Texas is building homestead for illegal immigrant labor

    southern psychiatric community uttered not a word about the APA 1973 conference

    goodness me ohh my

    ——————————————-

    “…or unlawful, either. That ambiguity was– and still is– the biggest flaw in the Constitution.”

    There is nothing ambiguous about nationhood – nothing. Minus a case brought about by the redress means available — a state cannot on its own leave the country — national identity/membership of the a states’ population overrides a states demand to depart minus a process from the constitution. There is no flaw, want an out clause — propose an amendment and see it through.

    ————————

    Before it starts I am not an advocate nor a practitioner of same relational conduct.

  106. Franz says:
    @anonymous

    Agree… we all have to find these thinkers on our own. The garbage they shovel at us we have to unlearn. Thanks to the lousiness of US education, it seems to be getting easier.

  107. @EliteCommInc.

    Elite Communist wrote:

    The idea that the southern states would go to war over 2% of their revenue is a stretch — given what they stood to lose.
    No it was not taxes, it was the profits from slavery — which beyond all reason they assumed would end with the election of Pres. Lincoln.

    One is left with the singular conclusion that the war was about slavery (constraining blacks period) for the south and union for the north

    Your knowledge about the ‘War of Northern Aggression’ is quite poor, as indeed it is on most matters judging from the low quality of your commentary that I’ve observed over many months.

    Of course the Confederacy never went to war over profits derived from slavery. They fought the war for their INDEPENDENCE from the authoritarian North.

    Lincoln used ‘preservation of the Union’ as a pretext for his real agenda. ie: preservation of the enormous income stream to Washington via tariffs levied on the South. Concurrent with that was the shielding from foreign competition of the Northern industrialists who could overcharge for their products knowing all the while that their government would put crushing tariffs on foreign made goods to make them uncompetitive.

    For those fools who still believe Lincoln fought this war for the noble pursuit of emancipating the black slaves, this excerpt from the 1858 fourth debate Lincoln had with StephenDouglas should dispel that myth:

    ‘I will say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

    And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and and political equality.

    And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior.
    And I as much as any other man am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race.’

    This view expressed above is observed throughout Lincoln’s political career, as evidenced by this snippet taken from ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History’ by Tom Woods Phd:

    ‘While serving in the Illinois legislature Lincoln never challenged the anti-black legislation of his state, voting against black suffrage and refusing to sign a petition allowing black testimony in court.

    Lincoln was also a strong supporter of colonising freed blacks, convinced that they could never be assimilated into American society.
    As president he favoured a constitutional amendment authorising the purchase and deportation of slaves, and he urged the State Department to look into possible areas of settlement in such places as Haiti, Honduras, Liberia (where a U.S colony for freedmen already existed), Ecuador and the Amazon.’

  108. “Of course the Confederacy never went to war over profits derived from slavery. They fought the war for their INDEPENDENCE from the authoritarian North.”

    Hardly. they fought the war because in their minds, inexplicably, they believed that the election of Pres Lincoln meant the end of slavery and of course the supposed way of life which included the healthy profits from slavery.

    I could challenge the numbers but the matter is moot to the issue.

    ——————————–

    My monicker has nothing to do with communism, I am not a communist, and nothing in my comments past or present would suggest that my monicker has communist or socialist leaning or any other polity. As a courtesy my economic and political disposition:

    capitalist as spelled out by Dr. Adam Smith (key principle – honest and fair dealings)

    i think the US principles and methodology for exercising democracy generally sound – in practice is a tougher question

    hold fast to a conservatives a priori view of living — integrity matters, despite it difficulties (kantian view)

    and I think scripture has value even to this day

    all the above regarding my monicker and your allusion to some political or economic meaning is completely irrelevant to the issues on the table.

  109. @EliteCommInc.

    And there is this conclusion that has taken me some time to reconcile. Of all the US po[pulation, there is none more

    “american”

    than black US citizens descended from slaves. because in terms of national heritage it all they have known — their roots are solidly US citizens and they know no other, unlike every other immigrant to this country from the Viking rovers, Mayflower forward.

    It was and remains a tragic mistake not to have embraced that manpower and hone it to operate as full citizens — tragic and costly.

    Does not make blacks better, holier, but clearly our socialization process regarding african americans was ill advised and ill implemented.

  110. @EliteCommInc.

    My monicker has nothing to do with communism, I am not a communist, and nothing in my comments past or present would suggest that my monicker has communist or socialist leaning

    You are a consistent apologist for Zionist malfeasance, so it stands to reason that you’d politically align yourself with Judeo-Bolshevism and the extreme left fanaticism of your Marxist small hat brethren.

    Your protestations to the contrary can be dismissed in light of the plethora of proof archived in UR that you are not an honest broker.

  111. @Old Virginia

    When I speak of winning a defensive war, I don’t think that Bonekemper means that the South could have won on the battlefield. As in other battles for secession, the South might have won by forcing the North to just keep on fighting and losing troops, as the NVA did in Vietnam by breaking the Empire’s will to fight.

    In 1864, Lincoln faced a serious challenge by George McClellan, once his commanding general, who ran as a peace candidate and wanted to end the war. He had support from the Copperheads in Congress. There were violent draft riots in NYC in 1863, in which several were killed, and city blocks burned down. Lincoln had to send in troops to quell the riots. Dishonest Abe, who threw hundreds of opposition journalists in jail, survived re-election by only a ten-point margin, even though the North had all but won the war at that point.

    So, if a defensive guerilla war was perceived as a stalemate by Northern voters in 1864, with no end in sight, McClellan might have won, and the South given its freedom. We might still be two separate countries today, instead of a rapacious world-devouring empire, which would be a very good thing.

    • Replies: @Old Virginia
  112. “You are a consistent apologist for Zionist malfeasance, so it stands to reason that you’d politically align yourself with Judeo-Bolshevism and the extreme left fanaticism of your Marxist small hat brethren.

    Your protestations to the contrary can be dismissed in light of the plethora of proof archived in UR that you are not an honest broker.”

    You do realize thee descripors are meaningless. Laugh . . . others polirtical affiliations are their own to bare.

    You are certainly invited to provide said proof. I make no apologies for supporting Israel’s right to exist. I make no apologies for the right of otherss= in palestine as they have a right to exist as well. No retreat and no apologies for that position.

  113. “In 1864, Lincoln faced a serious challenge by George McClellan, once his commanding general, who ran as a peace candidate and wanted to end the war”

    Not even close

  114. Franz says:
    @Mike Tre

    What southerners didn’t think, was that future white Americans would fall for the massive guilt trip laid upon them and concede unthinkable amounts of political power to a race of humanoids with no independent ability to function in a modern Western society.

    Right, nobody really thought of the consequences of their behavior in the 19th century.

    Garibaldi and Bismarck, like Lincoln, consolidated “great nations” from regions that were doing just fine on their own. They had no clue that in latter days their imperial products would lead to world wars, human misery and all sorts of perverted ideas from Bolshevism to Critical Theory to racial egalitarianism.

    Imperialism’s blowback. The conquistadors had the party and we, their descendants, get the bill.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  115. Mike Tre says:
    @Franz

    “Right, nobody really thought of the consequences of their behavior in the 19th century.”

    Wrong, but keep wearing obtuse; it’s a good color on you.

    “Imperialism’s blowback. The conquistadors had the party and we, their descendants, get the bill. ”

    Wrong again. My ancestors didn’t arrive until after slavery ended. In fact the Irish were treated as bad or worse as negroes, and Ireland never practiced Imperialism but they get to be invaded by subcons anyway. I’ll keep waiting for my reparations check, too.

    • Replies: @Franz
  116. @TJ62

    You are spot on with your perspective of Gettysburg. I made the almost identical observation above, minutes before. “[Lee’s] mistake was operating with the expectation of having his plans carried out as he’d had for the previous year with General Jackson. The disappointments of the first two days could have dampened his expectations but didn’t”, leading to the disaster of Pickett’s charge.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone attribute Lee’s aggressiveness and failures at Gettysburg to his faithful assumption that the ANV would continue as if Jackson was still there. It made sense they would maintain aggressiveness but it seems Lee neither considered completely what they had lost a Chancellorsville, nor his own frame of mind.

    I think it explains more about the results of Gettysburg in two paragraphs than a century and a thousand volumes from academics and lecturers.

  117. Franz says:
    @Mike Tre

    My ancestors didn’t arrive until after slavery ended.

    Mine also but when you become a citizen of a nation all of it belongs to you. All of American history, good and bad, is our patrimony. Picking and choosing is what whiny minorities do. You don’t want to be that.

  118. “Wrong again. My ancestors didn’t arrive until after slavery ended. In fact the Irish were treated as bad or worse as negroes, and Ireland never practiced Imperialism but they get to be invaded by subcons anyway.”

    If one looks at Irish history, one might conclude as much. But that conclusion would be incorrect. Certainly, every immigrants, well most have a tough time on arrival. But there is is one thing most other populations have that blacks did not.

    The false narratives about their humanity exemplified by color. That is the hiccup so to speak. An african american could change their hairstyle, their manner of dress, their speech, their walk, and all aspects that reflect upon one’s being to be acceptable in any new cultural or national system. But they could not change their color. Their color was the thing — that made them less than human. I would hazard good bet that Mr. Frederick Douglas, self educated and well read could spin circles around most of the whites he had contact with. But his skin color, colored all things negative about his being.

    And nothing was going to change. In his naivete’ he made a rather obvious conclusion, that black people left to their own would either sink or swim. He utterly negated, that the blacks operated in a hostile environment and whether they could swim better than some white person next to them . . . the hurdles to first place or any place would be constant, persistent and intense. And would be in place in every walk of life.

    And in my view — given those hurdles the african american population has faired quite well, unless one is constantly filling their head space with the negatives of a small number and equating it to the whole. The game of statistical analysis and the policies that followed — still bandied about today as if accurate. Really, come now, white farmer Joe living in Rural Wyoming is not 6 times more likely to assaulted, much less killed by an african american, but those stats are played out endlessly.

    Millions of nurses and medical professionals have been trained that african americans expressing pain are doing so to get attention — based on what . . . some interpretative analysis unsubstantiated by data and worse – could not be substantiated. But it explains why african americans in emergency rooms get poor treatment. Tat’s not 1950’s, 1970’s . . . 2014, that is right now.

    The New Deal programs . . . work quotas program after program . . . even immigrants were granted first choice as opposed to the african americans here for 100 years or more. I have to say, its hard to look at the stats and the policies and then pretend they simply don’t bare on anything today. It has nothing to do with coddling criminals, or blacks, or excusing anything . . . well, no more than whites have made excuses for themselves.

    Let’s face it black skin can be a hurdle no matter how good you are.

    Some telling me that some guy shaking like a leaf in an emergency room for more than two hours — is faking his injury to get attention. Oy veh, that is not 1950’s water fountain — that 2019.

  119. @follyofwar

    I won’t argue with Bonekemper. He had Credentials. He had the one point on his side that I can’t argue with: Lee lost.

    In actuality, it leaves him with polemics. The Federal War Dept. had the South almost surrounded by the end of 1862, with armies occupying much of, or marching throughout, the Confederate states. Lee was certainly the wrong man to lead a guerrilla war – he said so to Gen. Alexander at Appomattox – but the Southern people wouldn’t have supported it anyway; the Northern people wouldn’t have even known of it, nor cared. Whether defensive strategy or defeat in battle led to the loss of life, land and property, the result would be the same. Lincoln’s government wasn’t letting go. Lee thought forcing the surrender of Lincoln’s Host would convince the North otherwise.

    I think Lee’s reasoning was sound, if not successful in the end. The whole thing was tragic but I think what the Confederate nation and it’s armies achieved is remarkable, starting with nothing and coming close at a few points of reaching it’s goal. It only seems contradictory to say “they never had a chance and yet…” .

    Lee was right about something else: “…one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin.” He hated politics but he knew the resolve of the politicians he faced.

    That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

  120. @RockaBoatus

    With regard to slavery, I believe that you misunderstand both what Christians know and what they ought to know on the basis of orthodox Christian doctrinal formation.

    The fact is that nowhere in the Gospels or Epistles is slavery (intrinsically considered) criticized formally or even in passing. Unaided memory alone quickly supplies passages from Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Corinthians wherein Paul calls upon slaves to be obedient and submissive to their master.

    The strongest evidence, however, is to be found in 1 Timothy—where Paul speaks very plainly about the relations of slave and master—and, most notable of all, in 1 Peter 2:18 et seq., where the sacred author writes, “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing” (RSV). (This passage was read at the Mass for the Third Sunday after Easter for roughly 1,500 years before the post–Vatican II church gave it the boot in the late sixties. Traditional Catholics, of course, still hear it read on that Sunday.) If Peter had been speaking of servants in the sense of “hired hands,” the passage would make no sense. A hired hand is, of course, free to quit if he dislikes the treatment he gets.

    Nor is there much to be gained by pointing to the many deprecating references in the New Testament to “slavery to sin,” which is a metaphorical slavery men impose upon themselves. Its “chains” are subject to being broken by the very same will that forged them in the first place.

    As far as actual Christian practice through the centuries is concerned, the essential point to draw attention to is that had slavery as such been considered immoral, it is hardly likely that it would have gone uncondemned—as indeed it has gone—by Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Aquinas. Even the heroic efforts of the two priestly orders, the Trinitarians and the Mercedarians, which were founded in 13th-century Spain for the express purpose of ransoming Christian slaves from their Muslim captors, were not undertaken with the assumption that slavery was intrinsically immoral.

    While it is certainly true that there were a few notable individuals alive in the late eighteenth century (i.e., at the period of the Revolution and Constitution) who had concluded, for reasons that had little to do with Christian doctrine per se, that slavery was immoral (i.e., rather than simply economically unsound or socially undesirable), to insist that they represented the overwhelming mass of right-thinking humanity is to be guilty of wishful thinking—at the very least.

    By the middle of the nineteenth century, of course, much had changed with the growth, especially in England, of interest in and support for abolitionism. Yet it is hardly irrelevant that when Wilberforce berated his opponents and the general public for their allegedly un-Christian attitudes, his Biblical citations were almost invariably drawn from the Old Testament. (What was true of Wilberforce was also true of many, indeed most, of his abolitionist colleagues.) In short, most abolitionists argued, not from genuinely Christian principles, but rather from an only dubiously legitimate generalization to the whole of mankind from the hardly surprising dislike that the ancient Hebrews had for their own occasionally enslaved condition.

  121. @Pierre de Craon

    I meant to conclude my previous comment with the following sentence:

    As anyone who is familiar with the sermons of John Brown, let alone his frequently murderous activities, can attest, what was true of Wilberforce was doubly true of Brown.

  122. “Unaided memory alone quickly supplies passages from Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Corinthians wherein Paul calls upon slaves to be obedient and submissive to their master.”

    I was curious why you did not include the referenc3e to slaves who are believers seeking their freedom, they should do so. now suppose a human owner of a slave demanded that said slave never seek his freedom by any means. The notion that scripture supports not seeking said freedom because of the reference to obedience to one’s master. i think some common application of sense matters here — abuse of scripture against one’s supposed slaves and here the term really referes to one’s charge or servant. This obedience has to do with the carrying out pf one’s duties. A slave who accepts christ is not honor bound to obey abusing another in obedience to one’s “master”. There is no duty to be allow oneself to be raped or to be a participant in the rape of another, this business of breeding slaves, selling off family members.

    Further trying to apply the bible to slaves whose faith was more or less coerced, violates the very principle of choosing the faith. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles as I understand the matter — countenance coercion to faith. it has been an oft repeated ploy to use the faith and practice of christian to justify slavery, but the new testament is about the faithful followers of Christ. It is a twisted and hypocritical use of the scripture as was the use of “Cain killing Able” and relegating blacks to the lineage of Cain – as if slavery was god’s stamp of approval.

    i have to be careful with faith and practice here . . . but it is hard to imagine any faithful person maintaining the slavery in the manner as practiced in the US.

    Again in this issue as it relates to the new testament, i tread very lightly, laugh, I guess as one should tread with scripture

    And the use of cain — totally off the wall.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  123. @EliteCommInc.

    Correction: But the use of cain — totally off the wall.

    And suing, petitioning search of one’s freedom, including running away cannot be ruled out if the press of the matter is to some legal or literal test. one is forced to reconsider Nat turner’s rebellion.

  124. IreneAthena says: • Website
    @Pierre de Craon

    Hello, Pierre de Craon — After eavesdropping on the back-and-forth between you and RockaBoatus about slavery, I was motivated to examine more closely exactly what Biblical support William Wilberforce did claim for his abolitionist views.

    At that this point, I’m thinking that RockaBoatus was perhaps, a bit too harsh in his broad-brush condemnation of slave owners in the Southern U.S., but not at all too harsh in his condemnation of the cruel trans-Atlantic slave trade that brought their slaves, or the ancestors of their slaves anyway, to American shores. That slave trade could not have existed without the kidnapping that is explicitly forbidden in the New Testament.

    I’m also thinking that you, Pierre de Craon, were too harsh in your criticism of William Wilberforce and the purity/sincerity of the Christian faith that fueled his abolitionism. I would, however, hold up to Wilberforce (and perhaps you might, too, Pierre de Craon) Paul’s epistle to Philemon as a model, preferable to enacting more laws, for promoting the kind of respect between the races that Wilberforce hoped to achieve, each seeing and respecting in the other, the Imago Dei. In his letter to Philemon, Paul does not condemn Philemon for owning slaves, but rather encourages him to accept his imprisoned run-away-slave, Onesimus, back into his household, not just as a slave, but as a beloved brother in the Lord.

    William Wilberforce became committed to living out his faith in Jesus through the example of his pastor, John Newton, whose name you might recognize as the author of the words to the song “Amazing Grace.” Before coming to faith himself, John Newton had been involved in the slave trade, and whilst witnessing the brutality of it first-hand, his blind spiritual eyes began to see, and by grace he was delivered into a life of service to a new Master of his own, Jesus Christ. John Newton was right to encourage William Wilberforce to work to enact laws that would abolish the slave trade.

    But what about abolition of slavery in every household? What about the households — and there were plenty of them — where “massah’s” family members worked in the fields next to the great grandchildren of the men and women who had been purchased generations ago by “massah’s” great grandparents, the families intertwined ever since. No, I’m not defending the slave owners who “sold their slaves down the river,” babies ripped from mama’s arms on the auction block! I’m talking about the Steven Foster scenarios, which weren’t entirely what slavery was all about in America, but they weren’t a complete fiction either.

    That’s right. (sarcastic) One starts a stupid, bloody Civil War, instead of doing things the way Paul recommended to Philemon, changing hearts to accept a model of mutual respect between boss and servant that works in any economic system, be it bond-servanthood that has existed in all cultures since ancient times, or the employer-employee relationship of modern day capitalism.

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  125. “That’s right. (sarcastic) One starts a stupid, bloody Civil War, instead of doing things the way Paul recommended to Philemon, changing hearts to accept a model of mutual respect between boss and servant that works in any economic system, be it bond-servanthood that has existed in all cultures since ancient times, or the employer-employee relationship of modern day capitalism.”

    Here the understanding of bondservant, or even slave requires some nuance. Because in the biblical sense, one becomes a bondservant by choice. By submitting oneself . . .

    And while, the majority might challenge the notion, I would hazard that a bondservant is one who by choice commits to the service or the ownership of another.

    ——————————-

    But the system in which this service be it bond service or slave is not tendered by the economics. It is governed by the principles underwhich the founders claimed were custom of of all human beings

    “certain inalienable rights” life, liberty and the pursuit . . .”

    Therein is where slavery in our system falls apart. And no dancing the dance of scripture changes that fact. It is that hypocrisy.

    As for Sir Wilberforce, he had to rely on the philosophy and laws – especially common law – that would undermined the very principles of enslavement

    ———————————

    Stepping away from scripture, it would do well to remember that slavery was universally rejected, in that in nearly every society that owned slaves also experienced slavery revolts and backlash. And in nearly all of these societies, there existed a means by which one could gain their freedom.

    It remains a neat hat trick to justify the wrongness of slavery by pointing out it was universal. There is no universal practice of slavery. Societies practiced and understood slavery in the context of their societies, which engaged in the practice differently among various cultures.

    While slavery was universally practiced, and even that is probably not entirely accurate. It was also universally abhored.

    _______________

    https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/historical-context-myths-and-misconceptions-slavery-and-slave#:~:text=Fact%3A%20Slavery%20is%20virtually%20a%20universal%20institution.%20Myth%3A,subject%20to%20torture%2C%20sexual%20exploitation%2C%20and%20arbitrary%20death.

    1. Some of this of course nonsense, no the slaves from Africa could not practice their customs, there were derived from so any civilizations, it would suspect that they even spoke the same language muchless, have a common practice among them.

    2. 1619 project does not say that there were not slaves before 1619. It contends that the foundations of economics for slavery in the country have their foundations in that period, different argument entirely.

    Slavery like the term “racism” is losing all meaning, which many prefer so as to bleed and soften its meaning then and now.

    No women working in sweat shops, mines, steel mills, were not slaves.

  126. @IreneAthena

    Thank you for your comment, IreneAthena.

    If you look again at the last paragraph of my earlier comment, you should see that I question neither Wilberforce’s integrity nor the sincerity of his faith. Instead, I question the legitimacy of his argumentation—that alone. Nor did I take issue with abolitionism as such, although I certainly think that it was infected with an unhealthy amount of what would now be called virtue-signaling. Nor was John Brown the only abolitionist who would have done the world a service by dying in his crib.

    Blaming the white man, especially the Christian white man, for the Atlantic slave trade has been a very popular form of intellectual and moral posturing for a century and a half. Yet surely no one compelled the black Africans to enslave their fellow black Africans and sell them to Arab slave traders, who in turn sold them to the most daring (and well-heeled) entrepreneurs of the immediate post-Columbian era, the transoceanic slave traders. Roughly two-thirds of this last group were Jews—did you know that? The New York Times didn’t include that bit of data in its influential 1619 fairy tale!

    To conclude, I find it extraordinary and not a little distasteful that anyone in this day and age should talk about slavery as if being opposed to it makes the speaker stand out and above the crowd! One needn’t condemn slavery as a world-class inherent evil, one whose wickedness people less “enlightened” than we are—well, than some of us are, anyway—failed to understand until the day before yesterday, in order to be delighted that it no longer has a constituency that sings its praises to the skies, at least in public. As for self-congratulation, that ought to wait till every Jew on the planet has been stripped of his wealth, relocated to Madagascar, and denied the right to own a president, a senator, a governor, a movie studio, or a media enterprise of any sort.

  127. “Blaming the white man, especially the Christian white man, for the Atlantic slave trade has been a very popular form of intellectual and moral posturing for a century and a half. Yet surely no one compelled the black Africans to enslave their fellow black Africans and sell them to Arab slave traders”

    You are as ever nonsensical. No one is blaming whites for universal slavery, whites and not all whites are responsible for slavery as they pract6iced it – period. And for whites especially christians to engage in slavery based on skin color and then used scripture to justify it — that is the indictment.

    That little hopscotch about cain and abel . . . total unsupported christian ethos to justify why blacks uniquely were slaves. And white Christians are entirely responsible for that. No one compels anyone to have slaves save the people’s themselves. However once in the salvers control, the slave owner becomes responsible for what that slave does to other slaves or others. property after all has no agency, cannot be blamed for anything as slave controls nothing.

    But your comment misses the profound european ethic of the white man’s burden to civilize and christianize all others . . .

    https://www.litcharts.com/poetry/rudyard-kipling/the-white-man-s-burden

    [MORE]

    Take up the White man’s burden —
    Send forth the best ye breed —
    Go bind your sons to exile
    To serve your captives’ need;
    To wait in heavy harness
    On fluttered folk and wild —
    Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
    Half devil and half child.

    Take up the White Man’s burden —
    In patience to abide,
    To veil the threat of terror
    And check the show of pride;
    By open speech and simple,
    An hundred times mad plain.
    To seek another’s profit,
    And work another’s gain.

    Take up the White Man’s burden —
    The savage wars of peace —
    Fill full the mouth of Famine
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    The end for others sought,
    Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
    Bring all your hope to nought.

    Take up the White Man’s burden —
    No tawdry rule of kings,
    But toil of serf and sweeper —
    The tale of common things.
    The ports ye shall not enter,
    The roads ye shall not tread,
    Go make them with your living,
    And mark them with your dead!

    Take up the White man’s burden —
    And reap his old reward:
    The blame of those ye better,
    The hate of those ye guard —
    The cry of hosts ye humour
    (Ah, slowly!) toward the light: —
    “Why brought ye us from bondage,
    “Our loved Egyptian night?”

    Take up the White Man’s burden —
    Ye dare not stoop to less —
    Nor call too loud on freedom
    To cloak your weariness;
    By all ye cry or whisper,
    By all ye leave or do,
    The silent, sullen peoples
    Shall weigh your Gods and you.

    Take up the White Man’s burden —
    Have done with childish days —
    The lightly proffered laurel,
    The easy, ungrudged praise.
    Comes now, to search your manhood
    Through all the thankless years,
    Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
    The judgment of your peers!

    by Sir Rudyard Kipling

    OU think Dr. Josiah’s Royce explains it well.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments 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
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV