The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Guess Which Surrender Monkey Won the Battle of the Monuments?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow 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

Steve Hilton is a Briton who anchors a current-affairs show on Fox News.

Mr. Hilton made the following feeble, snowflake’s case for the removal of the nation’s historically offensive statues:

It’s offensive to our Africa-American neighbors to maintain statues in public places that cause not only offense, but real distress. And it is disrespectful to our native-American neighbors to glorify a man who they see as having committed genocide against their ancestors. None of this is to erase history. Put it all in a museum. Let’s remember it and learn from it.

“What’s wrong with Camp Ulysses Grant,” Hilton further intoned sanctimoniously. He was, presumably, plumping for the renaming of army installations like Fort Bragg, called after a Confederate major general, Braxton Bragg.

Sons of the South—men and women, young and old—see their forebear as having died “in defense of the soil,” and not for slavery. Most Southerners were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a War for Southern Independence.

Hilton, it goes without saying, is a follower of the State-run Church of Lincoln. To the average TV dingbat, this means that Southern history comes courtesy of the likes of Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln idolater and the consummate court historian.

“Doris Kearns Goodwin,” explains professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, the country’s chief Lincoln slayer, “is a museum quality specimen of a court historian, a pseudo-intellectual who is devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by portraying even the most immoral, corrupt and sleazy politicians as great, wise, and altruistic men.”

When Doris does the TV circuit, evangelizing for power, she never mentions, say, the close connection between her great Ulysses Grant and Hilton’s “native-American neighbors.”

Yes, Doris, Steve: who exactly exterminated the Plains Indians?

Indian-Americans will likely be hip to the fact that the Republicans, led by General Sherman himself, supervised the genocide of some 60,000 Plains Indians from 1865 to 1890. The Plains Indians endured land dispossession that culminated “in the late 1880s, with the surviving tribes of the West being herded onto reservations,” writes DiLorenzo, in “The Feds versus The Indians.”

Primary sources notwithstanding, to make his case in this tract alone, DiLorenzo galvanizes sources such as L.A. Marshall’s Crimsoned Prairie: The Indian Wars (1972), John F. Marszalek’s Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order (1993) and Sheridan: The Life and War of General Phil Sheridan (1992), by Roy Morris, Jr.

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant (commanding general of the federal army) in 1866, ‘even to their extermination, men, women and children.’ The Sioux must ‘feel the superior power of the Government.’ Sherman vowed to remain in the West ‘till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched.’”

“‘During an assault,’ he instructed his troops, ‘the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.’ He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as ‘the final solution to the Indian problem,’ a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later.”

Hilton, who believes in the Republican Party’s moral supremacy, can’t be expected to know that, in “eradicating the Indians of the West,” Sherman was delivering good old “veiled corporate welfare” to “a segment of the railroad industry, which heavily bankrolled the Republican party.”

Some things never change.

More so than The Other Worthies mentioned, “our native-American neighbors” have a tendency to harken back to a once-proud history. If they retain any historic memory, then, America’s First Nations should balk at serving on Camp Ulysses Grant, or at Fort William Tecumseh Sherman.

The folks Hilton dubs “our Africa-American neighbors,” on the other hand, are more vested in breaking and burning stuff to get what they want, which is, invariably, other people’s stuff, sometimes called “reparations.”

It follows that Conservatism Inc. usually uses American Indians as its perennial piñata, while generally acceding to the aggressive demands of African-Americans for permanent victim status. It’s to Hilton’s credit that he even mentioned Native-Americans, who have little political clout and even less of an extractive approach to politics.

Given the state of his knowledge, Steve Hilton can’t be expected to be familiar with Lord Acton’s nuanced thinking on the Confederacy. According to another good, English thing, Encyclopedia Britannica, Acton was “the first great modern philosopher of resistance to the state, whether its form be authoritarian, democratic, or socialist.” And this enlightened British thinker favored the Confederacy.

Lord Acton certainly supported, even admired, Robert E. Lee, and saw secession and states’ rights as a check on the sovereign will.

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

Lee’s inspired reply to Lord Acton:

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

“Lee,” argues Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina, “was the product of a pre-ideological society, whereas the ‘treason’ shouters [Lincoln and his accomplices] were [modern statists] products of post-French Revolution nationalism. [To them], the Union meant the machinery of the federal government, under the control of their party, to be used for their agenda.”

“But as the Southern poet Allen Tate put it, the original Union was a gentleman’s agreement, not a group of buildings in Washington from which sacred commandments were issued.”

The acolytes of the French Revolution have carried the day, in their nihilistic Jacobinism. Still, for its radicalism, America circa 2020, makes the philosophical descendants of the original Jacobins look positively clingy about their symbols and statues.

President Emmanuel Macron evinced the resolve the Anglo-American surrender monkeys are too feeble to feel, much less display:

Said Macron, “The [French] republic will not erase any trace, or any name, from its history … it will not take down any statue.”

Bravo, Monsieur Macron.

ORDER IT NOW

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. New on YouTube

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Confederacy, Political Correctness 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Kerry C says:

    I couldn’t agree with this column more, especially this bit:

    “Sons of the South—men and women, young and old—see their forebear as having died “in defense of the soil,” and not for slavery. Most Southerners were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a War for Southern Independence.”

    I’m not a Southerner, in fact my family originally comes from the northeast, but I was lucky enough to have one really great History teacher who taught the truth about the Civil War and the greatness of men like Robert E. Lee.

    Mercer is one of the few columnists that gets it. Most on the Right when defending the statues will begin with a caveat -“Although we deplore the Confederacy,” etc., and it always makes my skin crawl.

    • Agree: ruralguy, mark green, kikz
    • Thanks: ILANA Mercer
  2. SafeNow says:

    Even if one assumes that Lincoln began the war to abolish slavery, that motive would be absurd. Slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world. It would have lasted two, or at the most, three more decades. 750,000 died in the civil war. (That’s the revised estimate, replacing 618,222, which had been gospel for many years.) 750,000 unnecessary deaths! And, resentments linger in the South to this day. Lincoln: The worst president?

    • Agree: ruralguy
    • Replies: @animalogic
  3. anon[238] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kerry C

    Conservatives lose because they concede defeat and offer terms even before the battle starts. That’s really what American conservatism is all about: getting out of the way so no one will come after their precious tax cuts for the rich. Over on TAC, they’ve got a column basically conceding that some European statues need to be torn down, but desperately hoping to sate the woke mob of racists they summoned through decades of apathy, immigration, and indoctrination by making some of them off limits. No, won’t work. All will fall in time. Envious racists aren’t amenable to reason. They hate you and they want you to know it; they hate you because you are better than them, and short of them destroying you there is no way to ever make up for that. Conquer the enemy or you are conquered yourselves.

    • Replies: @botazefa
  4. Bravo, Monsieur Macron.

    I definitely don’t like the current French president, but his attitude on this issue is in stark contrast to the weaselly behaviour and words of Boris Johnson.

  5. @Kerry C

    Most on the Right when defending the statues will begin with a caveat -“Although we deplore the Confederacy,” etc., and it always makes my skin crawl.

    I feel the same.

    And I am half Southerner. When my Californian father met my mother, her family was literally living in a tin-roof shack, next to railroad tracks in a rural Georgia town. When he met her father, the man was at his job, sharpening saws in a tool shed.

    My maternal grandfather and grandmother are buried in that town, in a cemetery next to a black neighborhood. I buried my mother’s ashes next to them. She played with black children when she was a child. No one in my entire family history ever owned slaves.

    I was told the black people in that neighborhood steal the flowers that are left on the graves.

    White Southerners got a raw deal (just as the Germans did, Ilana) and the victors have written the history.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    , @Reg Cæsar
  6. @SafeNow

    “Even if one assumes that Lincoln began the war to abolish slavery”
    I guess there are people sufficiently stupid to still believe that ….

  7. BuelahMan says:

    I finally agree with the jewess. So, I need to understand why?

    Could it be that as a percentage of the population, jewish families were far more likely to own slaves than whites?

    Could it be that she knows that the slave ships and trading posts were mainly owned by jews?

    Its another ‘jews hiding within whites’ self protection, even though she is correct about white people. Many white Southern people were opposed to slavery (as was my family, due to the artificial wage lowering slavery caused among working poor whites).

    Jews (fake whites in hiding) were all about it.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  8. Steve Hilton is a Briton who anchors a current-affairs show on Fox News.

    He is actually Hungarian. His views aren’t surprising, being a former aide to David Cameron. Conservatives in the UK essentially means a country club for progressives and Zionists who want to safeguard corporate interests.

    Buchanan recently covered the same topic. People are missing the bigger picture – pulling down symbols of white men who shaped America effectively signifies conquest of sorts.

    In nature for challengers to take over a pride of lions they must either banish or kill the resident male or males then murder their offspring (legacy) to breed with lionesses.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  9. Jake says:

    What a hoot – even the effeminate Frenchman Macron is more of a decent man with sound common sense and a spine than virtually all mainstream ‘conservatives’ in the Anglosphere.

  10. botazefa says:
    @anon

    Envious racists aren’t amenable to reason.

    Hence, they make absurd demands and banal assertions such as ‘Defund the Police’ and ‘Black Lives Matter.’

  11. Pat Boyle says:

    One pattern you see here and in other articles about race is the commenter will go to some pains to show that while he may agree or disagree with some point or other, he is not a racist or the son of a racist. Or has any connection with that nasty racism stuff. Well I can’t do that. I’m told I’m the direct (but distant) descendant of Abraham Piersay – the man who first brought black slaves to Jamestown. I suppose some BLM fanatic will try to tear me down if they hear of this.

    My aunt once showed me the pictures of our family slaves. They were remarkably dark – they didn’t look at all like the lighter skinned mixed blacks we call African-Americans. Of course they weren’t really slaves they were share croppers who worked for my great aunt and uncle. They were probably the children of slaves or former slaves. They were still living an antebellum lifestyle in rural Virginia – no electricity, no running water, no cars or tractors (horses). From what I understand our ‘slaves’ were always well treated. It was not like the diabolical sadists that Quentin Tarantino imagines define slave owners. It was more a familial relationship out there struggling together on a very primitive nineteenth century style farm. I visited the family farm many times as a kid. The sharecroppers (slaves) were next door living in a shack.

    So in a sense I had slaves. But I must be a bad person because I have no guilt.

  12. sonofman says:

    Another important factor to consider is the timing of the efforts to indoctrinate a new global collective consciousness concerning the perception of political right leaning ideals. Anything conservative, nationalist or patriotic is now considered racist. The Covid-19 propaganda has reduced examination of the narrative, in this, the year of the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, a narrative that is controversial and not accepted by many on the right. Interesting is that, in Europe, Nationalism is feared as a hindrance to the aspired European unity, and in the United States, the Confederacy, its legacy and their nationalist supporters are negatively defined as right, racist supremacists, and are being used to agitate legitimate grievances in the Black community and promote division, vilification and sentiments of culpability, all blamed on President Trump. What is astonishing, is the fact that the people and organizations using these tactics don’t realize that they are shooting themselves in their own foot.

  13. Quebecer says:

    Excellent, interesting work. Ms.Mercer would make a captivating (and attractive) history teacher.

    A word about ‘surrender monkeys’ from one of their Canadian cousins.

    In every city, town or village in France, you will find a monument to the fallen, most of them having died in defense of their country.
    French soil is drenched in the blood of its sons.
    If they have lost appetite for war, it’s because they had so much of it. Look up French military history in Wiki.

    • Replies: @Piglet
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    , @Anon
  14. Mayron says:

    Since Ulysses S. Grant was, himself, a slaveowner, Mr. Hilton might want to re-think the idea of naming a military base after him.

  15. Truth3 says:

    He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as ‘the final solution to the Indian problem,’ a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later.”

    Oh, screw you bitch.

  16. Cowboy says:

    Imagine what Lincoln would have done during a pandemic he would have been Ilanas BFF

  17. Thanks for this excellent article. I had forgotten about Acton’s favoring the confederacy.

    A tangential point: To say that Indians were dispossessed of lands means what they owned was taken away. But to know whether or not “Indians” owned particular lands first requires that the term be properly defined.

    In many cases, nomadic Indians were hunter gatherer people; in other cases they were subsistence farmers. To establish ownership through beneficial use requires more than hunting and roaming over several million acres of landscape by a few thousand people. On the other hand, to deny ownership of tilled acres and huts, for example, is also wrong. The Nez Perce tribe summered its horses and cattle in the same valley in the Northwest, rimmed by rocks on both ridges, for decades. They owned that valley, which was a beautiful productive place. Predictably that desirable stretch of real estate was taken from them.

    But the Blackfeet tribe, to name one, lived by hunting and making war on its rivals for liebestraum and horses. They roamed and warred over two thirds of what is now the state of Montana, a few thousand of them. They drove out prior inhabitants of the region. Those people never settled anywhere to develop property ownership through beneficial appropriation.

    The Indian wars were bloody and tragic because neither the army or Indians (for the most part) viewed the issues through the framework of individual rights.

  18. G. Poulin says:
    @Kerry C

    “Although we deplore the Confederacy” is the required virtue signal. No one may enter the conversation who does not know the secret handshake.

  19. Trinity says:

    Oh but General Sherman is celebrated because the people who that psychopathic demon was responsible for raping, killing and abusing were White and White Southerners to boot. Sherman was a POS nobody how you look at it.

    Oh and then we have the statue in Seattle of Vladimir Lenin, the mass murderer of MILLIONS of White Christians. Vlad was AT LEAST part Jewish, ( sources range from 1/4 Jewish to entirely Jewish.) And btw, what the hell is a statue of a Russian Bolshevik Jew doing in a major American city. Oh that’s right, American Jewish “capitalist” like NYC bankster financed the Jewish Revolution in the Soviet Union. Sorry, my bad, one man’s “capitalist” is another man’s (((communist.)))

    Oh and then we have statues of drunkards like Winston Churchill ( haha, his statues are being vandalized and who really gives a shit. I don’t for sure.) who slaughtered and incinerated tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilian German women and children. Eisenhower and FDR? WAR CRIMINALS AS WELL.

    These “racist” Confederate soldiers and generals look like angels compared to Lenin, Churchill, Sherman, FDR, and Eisenhower.

    • Agree: kikz
  20. Trinity says:

    Oops. Forgot Saint Michael aka Martin Luther King or should I say the “reverend” Martin Luther King because to call him Dr. King is bullshit since he plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree. So I guess I should just refer to MLK by his real name, Michael King, because it would be a LIE to call him a “reverend”, Dr King or even Martin Luther King. Calling someone a “reverend” who allegedly frequented the services of white prostitutes and had even been alleged to beat them is a bit far fetch, I don’t care if they have read the Bible cover to cover numerous times. It is also alleged that Michael had an orgy with several professional ladies the night before he was assassinated. I think St. Martin’s statues should be brought down if we are going to start America from scratch and be a little more “discriminating” about who we choose as “our” heroes.

  21. AceDeuce says:

    And where does the slaughter of Injuns back then leave the “Buffalo Soldiers”? Those are the negro units, many of whose members back then were freed slaves, supposedly, who, in the late 1800s, participated in the wholesale slaughter of indians out West.

    The white soldiers who did the same (Custer, etc. ) are widely reviled, but whatever YT did/does, as far as liberals think “Well, that’s what they do” kind of like GEICO.

    But the blacks? The Buffalo Soldiers, by the standard liberal yardstick, were oppressed people who voluntarily sided with the hated oppressors and massacred other oppressed peoples and took their land.

    How is that any different from what Nazi collaborators did in WWII France, Holland, Hungary, Poland…..?

    So why are the Buffalo Soldiers lionized as heroes? A big monument to them was put up at West Point not long ago.

  22. Piglet says:
    @Quebecer

    I found the same thing in countless German villages I visited when I lived there in the 1970s and 1980s. Often village memorials listed the names of those killed in both world wars and one had to wonder if any men had been left alive, or if all of the fathers and sons from those towns had been killed, leaving only women and children. At that time Germany was often seen as being insufficiently motivated to take part in any future wars we had in mind, and the reality was that they’d had plenty of direct experience already and the survivors of the previous ones didn’t want to go through it all again.

  23. @Mark Humphrey

    So glad you raised this important point, Mark, which I addressed in “Everyone Has Property Rights, Whether They Know it or Not.” “To libertarians, Lockean—or, rather Hoppean—homesteading is sacrosanct.” Indians homesteaded the land over hundreds of years:

    https://mises.org/wire/everyone-has-property-rights-whether-they-know-it-or-not

    The Indian tribesman’s claim to his ancient stomping grounds can’t be reduced to a title search at the deeds office. That’s the stuff of the positive law. And this was the point I took away from a conversation, circa 2000, with Mr. Property Rights himself, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
    Dr. Hoppe argued unassailably—does he argue any other way?—that if Amerindians had repeatedly traversed, for their livelihood, the same hunting, fishing and foraging grounds, they would have, in effect, homesteaded these, making them their own.

    MORE in “Everyone Has Property Rights, Whether They Know it or Not”:

    https://mises.org/wire/everyone-has-property-rights-whether-they-know-it-or-not

  24. @Amerimutt Golems

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hilton

    “Hilton talked of the need to “replace” the traditionally minded grassroots membership of the Conservative Party, which he saw as preventing the party from embracing a more metropolitan attitude on social issues.”

    Another rootless cosmopolitan ingrate.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/by/gary-gibbon/blogs/tory-mp-threatens-cameron-with-water-clock-torture

    “Steve Hilton, his closest adviser for a period and a close family friend of the Camerons, used to talk about how the party needed to “replace the membership”.

    One who heard these riffs said Mr Hilton made it sound like a blood transfusion. He wasn’t “sneering” in any class sense but he wanted David Cameron to be seen as embracing metropolitan thinking on issues like acceptance of the gay community and he saw the older, more traditionally minded membership as an obstacle to that.”

    At that time the Tories were bigging up a gay financial adviser called Ivan Massow, another rootless chap. He’s since jumped ship.

    His relationships with his father and subsequently his stepfather were poor; as a boy he ended up being cared for by social services, before being adopted as a pre-teenager by John Massow. Commenting on his life prior to his adoption, Massow has stated that “My life up to then is a bit of a blur. I had four different families, my name changed from Field to Mitchell to Massow, I was moved around for various reasons.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Massow

    When homosexual marriage was made legal by the Tory-led coalition in 2013, Massow said this:

    “Those same shire people didn’t agree that a man and a man should live together. They are always one step behind the curve unfortunately. But there aren’t many more reforms for them to tolerate. There’s just nothing left after this. When we can get this last thing through the gate I can’t see anything else, any other slights on their lifestyle or their beliefs that they have to tolerate.

    LOL

  25. @Quebecer

    In a lot of Normandy towns the old buildings are still bullet-pocked (tbf, the same applies in Britain. Doesn’t Canada and the US have such memorials? Lots of Canucks in both world wars, from Vimy Ridge to Dieppe).

    • Replies: @Quebecer
    , @FPD72
  26. Trinity says:

    Traveling on I-75 just outside of Tampa, Florida you notice a HUGE Confederate Flag off in the distance. Must be some dude with a lot of money because it is on private property. I called my friend in Cigar City and he said the Stars And Bars is still flying proudly for all to see.

    LMAO. That must really piss off all the Jews, Blacks, and white traitor trash behind the Bolshevik/Jewish complete takeover of America that the biggest Confederate flag in the nation still flies proudly. ZOG has already taken over but the removal of Honest Abe, George Washington, Tommy Jefferson and others makes it official

    • Replies: @Undocumented Shopper
  27. Quebecer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The memorial in Vimy is a particularly impressive one. Good luck to those trying to tear down the statuary there.

  28. FPD72 says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    In a lot of Normandy towns the old buildings are still bullet-pocked (tbf, the same applies in Britain. Doesn’t Canada and the US have such memorials?

    The hanger at Pearl Harbor that houses the Air Museum of the Pacific still has the bullet holes created by strafing by Japanese aircraft on December 7, 1941.

  29. @Truth3

    Don’t be rude.

    Hitler made possible the Samson option.

  30. Circa 1994, Sam Francis introduced me to the dichotomy of “secessionism vs. consolidationism,” via one of his Chronicles, “Prinicipalities and Powers,” columns. As I was raised an Orthodox Democrat, for most of my life I was a devout consolidationist. Not so much, anymore.

  31. KenH says:
    @Kerry C

    Most on the Right when defending the statues will begin with a caveat -“Although we deplore the Confederacy,

    And Tucker Carlson did just that two weeks back when he opposed the destruction of confederate monuments. Except that he said he “abhorred” the confederacy and what it stood for. But if he applies that logic to the founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson then he would have to “abhor” them as well.

    Apparently owning slaves in centuries past is unforgivable and Tucker unwittingly lended credence to leftist claims and talking points.

    • Agree: kikz
  32. Paul Gottfried recently opined, on the Cotto-Gottfried Youtube channel, that the current generation of southerners, who show zero interest in defending the South’s past, is despicable; I , who have lived most of my life near Richmond, agree whole-heartedly. Just a collection of cucks.

  33. Ilana makes a good argument for tearing down the fictions country of Amerika
    where all political parties have only been for their greedy selves, others be dammed .

  34. Anon[108] • Disclaimer says:
    @Quebecer

    There was a documentary on a war memorial in Russia on Saturday on RT, a beautiful and moving tribute to those who fell, when one talks of having too much of war, there wasn’t a single family in Russia who did not lose a family member. The official death toll is between 20 and 25 million yet Americans were led by their noses to believe that Russia wished to be the aggressor in a worse war.

  35. @Trinity

    I called my friend in Cigar City and he said the Stars And Bars is still flying proudly for all to see.

    It was taken down
    https://www.tampabay.com/news/hillsborough/2020/06/01/giant-confederate-flag-lowered-after-threats-to-set-it-on-fire/

    • Thanks: Trinity
  36. @Kerry C

    Sons of the South—men and women, young and old—see their forebear as having died “in defense of the soil,” and not for slavery. Most Southerners were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a War for Southern Independence.

    The corollary to this is that North fought the war to retain sovereignty over the South against its will, and not to eliminate slavery.

    For example, if the South had emancipated all its slaves but still seceded, the North would still have invaded. If the South had kept slavery but did not secede (i.e., maintained the status quo), the North also would not have fought. In this sense, you can conclusively say the Civil War was fought by both sides “over sovereignty” and not “over slavery.” *

    *(Of course, the South’s biggest motivation in seceding was to protect the long-term viability of slavery as an institution. But still . . . ).

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  37. @Mark Humphrey

    But the Blackfeet tribe, to name one, lived by hunting and making war on its rivals for liebestraum and horses. They roamed and warred over two thirds of what is now the state of Montana, a few thousand of them. They drove out prior inhabitants of the region. Those people never settled anywhere to develop property ownership through beneficial appropriation.

    Exactly right. It’s a lazy fallacy to say that the Indians had “their” land stolen. The West has never recognized “ownership” — especially collective ownership — based on merely hunting or traveling across land. The Indians “owned” (or, more accurately, “possessed”) this land solely to the extent they could exercise dominion by forcibly excluding other groups — i.e., basically by “right of conquest.” Each band or tribe was continually gaining or losing control over territory based on this principle.

    So, when the White Tribe ultimately gained dominion using the Indian’s own rules of possession, well . . . that was as legitimate as any preexisting claim by Indians based on the same rule.

    Also, in 1887, the Dawes Act gave the Indians straight-up individual property rights to tens of millions of highly productive acres. Bu they mostly sold it off to whites and then dissipated the proceeds.

    • Agree: Gleimhart Mantooso
  38. @Buzz Mohawk

    Most on the Right when defending the statues will begin with a caveat -“Although we deplore the Confederacy,” etc., and it always makes my skin crawl.

    I feel the same.

    This is a self-defeating rhetorical practice I see all the time. Basically, the advocate of an idea feels the need to preface his argument with a virtue signal that he is a bona fide, respectable moderate. So he recites something like: “I am merely saying X is going too far . . . however, please understand that I am a good person because I would never dispute that Y, on the other hand, is not going far enough. . . .”

    But if X is wrong, just say so, and leave Y out of it.

    Casually conceding that Y is an unspeakably extremist position just anchors the over-arching debate and defines everything to your right as illegitimate. This weak arguing technique also signals defensiveness and insecurity. That’s why nobody on the Left bothers to preface their arguments with: “I’m not saying we should expropriate white people’s property and treat them as second class citizens. Of course that would be going too far . . .” No, they leave the horizon of argument wide open to their left, because they know they will eventually get there, little by little.

    If there isn’t already, there needs to be a name for this strategic argument blunder. It is related to concepts of “anchoring” and defining the “Overton Window.” It seems like something Scott Alexander might have written a 6,000 word essay about.

  39. @Hypnotoad666

    The corollary to this is that North fought the war to retain sovereignty over the South against its will, and not to eliminate slavery.

    The “fugitive slave” laws, which tried to prevent illegal aliens (they had no right to be here, per SCOTUS) from self-deporting, may have been constitutional, but nonetheless were a severe attack on the invaded states’ sovereignty. The catchers didn’t invade Upper Canada or the Maritimes, did they?

    Whatever one may think of the “Underground Railroad”, they were clearly improving the country’s value by unloading liabilities.

  40. @Buzz Mohawk

    White Southerners got a raw deal (just as the Germans did, Ilana) and the victors have written the history.

    White Southerners got that raw deal in 1619, when race traitors began their plot to replace them.

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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.