The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Madison Mayor Desecrates Cemetery Memorial to Confederate POWs Who Died in Wisconsin Due to Union Neglect
🔊 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

From the Wisconsin State-Journal, keep reading for the poignant details:

Madison Mayor Paul Soglin orders removal of Confederate monuments at Forest Hill Cemetery

LOGAN WROGE [email protected] 9 hrs ago

A concrete slab remains where a stone and plaque memorializing the resting place of Confederate soldiers of the Civil War was removed from the Confederate Rest section of Forest Hill Cemetery on Wednesday.

JOHN HART, STATE JOURNAL

One Confederate monument is gone and another is slated to be taken down at Forest Hill Cemetery after Madison Mayor Paul Soglin ordered their removal.

Soglin said in a statement Thursday that he directed city staff to remove a plaque and a larger stone monument at the Confederate Rest section of the public cemetery, saying, “There should be no place in our country for bigotry, hatred or violence against those who seek to unite our communities and our country.” …

It described the 140 people buried there as “valiant Confederate soldiers” and “unsung heroes.” The privately funded plaque, which rested on a granite structure, said the soldiers were buried in the Union state after surrendering in a battle and dying at Camp Randall as prisoners of war.

Oh …

From the Badger Herald in 2016:

Confederate captives in Madison: Camp Randall’s history as Civil War prisoner-of-war camp

… Despite best efforts, U.S. Army officials deemed camp conditions unsuitable. A May 1 letter written by Assistant Quartermaster J.A. Potter described the soldiers of the 19th Wisconsin as undisciplined, inexperienced and poorly-equipped to guard such a volume of prisoners. He expressed disappointment in hospital conditions, noting that of the roughly 1,200 prisoners held at Camp Randall, some 200 were hospitalized with illness.

The condition of these afflicted prisoners worsened. Despite medical care, more prisoners began to succumb to measles, mumps and pneumonia. A Private Paddock of the 19th Wisconsin Regiment wrote to his family regarding these deaths: “They die off like rotten sheep. There was 11 die off yesterday and today, and there ain’t a day but what there is from two to nine dies.”

Barely a month after their arrival at Camp Randall, the Confederate inmates had to relocate. … On May 31, 1862, the majority of the Camp Randall inmates left for Camp Douglas, a larger encampment in Chicago.

By June, the last of the Camp Randall prisoners had left. The only ones who still remain in Madison are 140 Confederate soldiers who died during their stay at Camp Randall, now interred at Confederate Rest.

Dead Confederate prisoners were buried at Forest Hill Cemetery. Initially grouped into a mass grave, the dead were later given their own headstones and a more formally organized plot, now known as Confederate Rest.

The plot is well-shaded and removed from the more populated areas of the cemetery, a quiet and somber reminder of an unsung chapter of Madison history.

Okay, so the Union managed to kill off in a month, via disorganization, over 10% of its Confederate POWs interned at Camp Randall. That’s likely a war crime, although a minor, unintentional one. (The American Civil War was, on the whole, relatively civil.)

Originally, those who died in Union captivity were dumped in a mass grave, but later were allowed to have their own individual graves, tombstones, and memorials.

But that kind of mercy and reconciliation is racist, so it’s gotta go.

Here’s a picture by William Cronon of how the two-foot tall memorial to the dead POWs looked:

And here is Ann Althouse’s photo of all that is left today:

Screenshot 2017-08-18 20.57.42

While Mayor Soglin couldn’t bring himself to let soldiers dead for 150+ years rest unmolested, he is a huge fan of at least one white man:

From Madison.com:

Cuba announcement dredges up Madison Mayor Paul Soglin’s meetings with Fidel Castro
BRYNA GODAR | The Capital Times | [email protected] Dec 18, 2014

Following President Barack Obama’s Wednesday announcement that the United States would move toward normalizing relations with Cuba, Madison Mayor Paul Soglin changed his Facebook profile picture to a black-and-white shot of him chatting with Cuba’s long-time leader Fidel Castro.

“It’s long overdue,” Soglin said of the thawing relations. … Soglin traveled to Cuba three times in the 1970s, meeting Castro on two of those trips.

“There’s a contradiction,” Soglin said. “We have this image of him giving forceful, eight-hour speeches. In person, he’s quiet, soft-spoken. He listens.”

By the way, I’m reminded of the current dispute between Poland and Russia over memorials to Soviet Red Army soldiers who died in Poland.

It’s been hard for American media to get a handle on this because the Who? Whom? issues are complex. Today’s Russians are Bad Guys. but their ancestors were punching Nazis in Poland in 1944. But in 1939 they and Nazis were teamed up punching Poles. But maybe the anti-Semitic Poles deserved punching? After all, today’s Poles are Bad Guys too for not taking in Merkel’s refugees. From Newsweek:

RUSSIAN SENATE WANTS TO PUNISH POLAND FOR REMOVING STATUES HONORING WORLD WAR II SOLDIERS
BY DAMIEN SHARKOV ON 7/25/17 AT 11:01 AM

Russian senators are calling on President Vladimir Putin to put sanctions on Poland for a law that could see Soviet memorials in the country torn down.

Poland’s new law demands the removal of dates, names and mentions on public monuments that seem to glorify Communism or “any other totalitarian” regime. This mostly affects the many monuments built during Poland’s Cold War decades as a satellite state for the Soviet Union, and Russia has been particularly critical of the affect on memorials to Soviet soldiers who died fighting Nazism during World War II. …

The most emotive part of the issue for Russia officials seems to be the memory of around 600,000 Soviet soldiers who died in Poland during World War II. …

While in Russia the final Soviet siege of Nazi Berlin is annually marked with a huge celebration, Poles remember early Soviet action in World War II, focusing instead on the first year and a half of the conflict, when the Soviets and Nazis amicably split Poland’s territory between them. Moscow did not go to war with Nazi Germany until the German Wehrmacht mounted an attack on the Soviet Union.

This seems like a good time for a little statesmanship:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

But malice over events of 150+ years ago is currently running amok within the American Establishment.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

 
• Tags: Damnatio Memoriae 
Hide 167 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Nowadays there are even cemeteries for Wehrmacht soldiers in Russia. The Russians have allowed this despite the fact that those buried there fought for a system that literally wanted to destroy Russia.
    US liberals seem to be rather more vengeful.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Anglo-American progressivism is matriarchal and descended from Nonconformist Protestantism. Being more cruelly righteous and doctrinaire than one's neighbours is a competitive sport for both groups. In addition to that Yankee piety has been added the descendants of East European Jews and other ethnicities that have the opposite of a tradition of chivalry. That's why the Russians are better on this matter.
    , @Irish Whiskey
    It's called respect. Something that apparently isn't taught in schools or at home anymore.
  2. I applaud the consistency and hope to see more of this. Accelerate the war, get it over with. I do think that a bunch of Yankees going down to Gettysburg to tear up the Confederate regimental monuments would indeed provoke the peckerwoods into something that resembles an actual battle.

  3. This is a case of the self-righteous returning to their first positions after a period of self-criticism. At least it took longer for the Yankees of Wisconsin to take back their expressions of regret than it took the western Allies to get over their embarrassment at fire-bombing German and Japanese civilians.

    It’s worth noting that the same people who won’t listen to any talk of such atrocities by the “good guys” are the same people who banged the drums of war for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia, etc, etc. “We came, we saw, he died!!” she cackled. It’s easy to imagine Hillary Clinton’s ancestors singing about “the grapes of wrath” just down the road from those dying Confederate prisoners.

  4. Er,

    To be accurate, it would have been more likely disease than ‘neglect’ that killed the soldiers. Disease killed as many if not more than bullets in that war.

    You would have thought this would have been better known here:

    • Replies: @bomag

    ...more likely disease rather than ‘neglect’ that killed the soldiers.
     
    One tends to equal the other.
  5. Are there enough remains left to dig them up & hang them in effigy, as the royalists did with the remains of Cromwell?

    • Replies: @bomag

    enough remains left...
     
    We're on track to get more of this.
  6. Even Germany tolerates monuments to rank-and-file soldiers killed during WWII.

    http://www.thirdreichruins.com/memorials.htm

  7. Doesn’t this mean that he is desecrating United States veterans graves?

    Confederate soldiers are also U.S. veterans. The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900, signed June 6, 1903, the Congressional Act of 1906, by the 17th Congress in February 1929 and U.S. Public Law 85-425, Section 410, of May 1958.

    • Replies: @bomag

    The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of ...
     
    Just more history that needs rewriting by the current overlords.
    , @Hunsdon
    US troops that don't die in battle for Israel don't count.
    , @Anon
    The Dred Scot decision was "law" too, white man.
    , @Mr. Anon

    The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900,....
     
    About the time they realized they needed southerners to fight their wars.
  8. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    This is going on in other contexts as well. I read the Civil War books that are uploaded onto Project Gutenburg, and for some time now it seems the only Civil War memoirs being uploaded to the site are the most shrill, anti-slavery Northern ones. Almost no memoirs by southerners are making it onto the site anymore, and it looks like a deliberate attempt to reshape the past on the part of a crazed SJW cabal that has taken over PG. I have no other explanation for this sort of bias.

    • Replies: @kihowi
    Archive.org has them all.
    , @CCZ
    Also, literally, a few hundred thousand digitized books, journals, and essays, as far back as 1750, at Hathi Trust, a university research libraries consortium, at:

    https://www.hathitrust.org/

    To date, they even allow one to access such politically incorrect and no doubt "offensive" material as the below explanation of "Southern" monuments.

    The Motives and Aims of the Soldiers of the South in the Civil War

    RANDOLPH HARRISON McKlM, D. D., LL. D., 1904

    And so we accepted the result of the war in good faith. We abide the arbitrament of the sword. We subscribe as sincerely as the men who fought against us, to the sentiment: One Flag, One Country, One Constitution, One Destiny. This is now for us an indissoluble Union of indestructible States. We are loyal to that starry banner. We remember that it was baptized with Southern blood when our forefathers first unfurled it to the breeze. We remember that it was a Southern poet, Francis Key, who immortalized it in the "Star Spangled Banner." We remember that it was the genius of a Southern soldier and statesman, George Washington, that finally established it in triumph. Southern blood has again flowed in its defense in the Spanish War, and should occasion require, we pledge our lives and our sacred honor to defend it against foreign aggression as bravely as will the descendants of the Puritans.

    And yet, to-day, while that banner of the Union floats over us, we bring the offering of our love and loyalty to the memory of the flag of the Southern confederacy! Strange as it may seem to one who does not understand our people; inconsistent and incomprehensible as it may appear, we salute yonder flag — the banner of the Stars and Stripes — as the symbol of our reunited country at the same moment that we come together to do homage to the memory of the Stars and Bars. There is in our hearts a double loyalty today; a loyalty to the present, and a loyalty to the dear, dead, past. We still love our old battle flag with the Southern cross upon its fiery folds! We have wrapped it round our hearts! We have enshrined it in the sacred ark of our love; and we will honor it and cherish it evermore, — not now as a political symbol, but as the consecrated emblem of an heroic epoch; as the sacred memento of a day that is dead; as the embodiment of memories that will be tender and holy as long as life shall last.

    Let not our fellow countrymen of the North mistake the spirit of this great occasion. If Daniel Webster could say that the Bunker Hill monument was not erected "to perpetuate hostility to Great Britain," much more can we say that the monuments we have erected, and will yet erect, in our Southland to the memory of our dead heroes, are not intended to perpetuate the angry passions of the Civil War, or to foster or keep alive any feeling of hostility to our brethren of other parts of the Union. No, but these monuments are erected, and these great assemblages of our surviving veterans are held, in simple loyalty to the best and purest dictates of the human heart. The people that forgets its heroic dead is already dying at the heart; and we believe it will make for the strength and the glory of the United States if the sentiments that animate us today shall be perpetuated, generation after generation.
     
  9. But in 1939 they and Nazis were teamed up punching Poles

    Let it never be forgotten that the Poles teamed up with the Nazis to punch Czechoslovakia just a year earlier.

    • Replies: @matt
    Speaking of huge numbers of POWs dying through neglect, I take that Poland won't be honoring the huge number of Soviet POWs it let die in the 1920s any time soon. They didn't even have the excuse of being distracted by an ongoing war, as the Union at least did.
    , @songbird
    True, by way of excuse, Poland was a dictatorship, but I suppose that one would work all around. Hungary also took a piece, if I'm not mistaken.

    Another thing that people often forget is that the alliance with Mussolini (and thus the whole impetus for the war in Europe) began with Hitler betraying some of his own own people, formally giving their homes and land to Italy.
    , @Lex
    Did a single Czechoslovakian soldier die from all that punching?
  10. Tl; dr: liberal politician desecrates graves of war crime victims.

  11. Liberalism & by extension the Democrats seem to be mostly motivated by not missing out on the proverbial party. This doesn’t involve the mayor of Madison, a city where a recent police initiative was deemed racist because all of the criminals targeted were black. Yet here he is condemning some obscure memorial most knew nothing about.

    The Democrats are no longer a serious party.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Neither unfortunately are the Republicans, with very few exceptions.
  12. matt says:
    @matt

    But in 1939 they and Nazis were teamed up punching Poles
     
    Let it never be forgotten that the Poles teamed up with the Nazis to punch Czechoslovakia just a year earlier.

    Speaking of huge numbers of POWs dying through neglect, I take that Poland won’t be honoring the huge number of Soviet POWs it let die in the 1920s any time soon. They didn’t even have the excuse of being distracted by an ongoing war, as the Union at least did.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    Actually yes, there was a hardcore war between newly created Poland and Trotsky's Red Army goons going in in 1920.

    Not fun, it wasn't. Many atrocities commited on both side, there were.

    As for feeding POWs, the whole area was just emerging from WWI, which wrecked infrastructure fiercely.

    One may also want to remember that the Red Army forgot to tell its soldiers that there used to be a Poland between Ukraine and the Nazi Imperium. Hence, some events of light rape, looting and quick justice. But we should not start to make tallies, this just brings bad memories and needless trouble.
    , @ken
    20,000 on each side, a fair swap.
  13. @German_reader
    Nowadays there are even cemeteries for Wehrmacht soldiers in Russia. The Russians have allowed this despite the fact that those buried there fought for a system that literally wanted to destroy Russia.
    US liberals seem to be rather more vengeful.

    Anglo-American progressivism is matriarchal and descended from Nonconformist Protestantism. Being more cruelly righteous and doctrinaire than one’s neighbours is a competitive sport for both groups. In addition to that Yankee piety has been added the descendants of East European Jews and other ethnicities that have the opposite of a tradition of chivalry. That’s why the Russians are better on this matter.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    I for one will not miss our peculiar cultural witches' brew of Anglo Protestant post-Puritanism and Jewish tikkun olum. Maybe mass immigration isn't so bad after all.
  14. These days when I read such heartbreaking things, with the morally righteous Union Army in the role of the Japanese Army on Bataan, my first thought is how would Tiny Duck justify such evil? No doubt he could “contextualize” it to turn evil into good.

  15. There is certainly a lot of ‘malice’ going on in this effort to destroy Confederate Monuments. It is puzzling since, when many of these monuments were erected, there were plenty of former Union soldiers still living and they didn’t march in protest or vandalize them. If they did not object who today has any right to?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    This seems to have been the case in the decades after WW2. The most virulent anti-Germans and anti-Nazis seem to be those born decades after the war ended.
    , @Desiderius
    Bullies prey on the weak.
    , @Clyde

    There is certainly a lot of ‘malice’ going on in this effort to destroy Confederate Monuments. It is puzzling since, when many of these monuments were erected, there were plenty of former Union soldiers still living and they didn’t march in protest or vandalize them. If they did not object who today has any right to?
     
    Proceeding in fits and starts there was a process of reconciliation after the Civil War. This is why Confederates are buried at Arlington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Memorial_(Arlington_National_Cemetery)

    My bottom lining here is that monuments to white people are being desecrated and torn down. That they are Confederate memorials is only 10% of the issue. This is just inchoate rage against "white patriarchy" by the coalition of the fringes.

    Try doing this with any memorial to a black or Samoan or (my pet) Aleutian Islanders.
  16. @Vinteuil
    Are there enough remains left to dig them up & hang them in effigy, as the royalists did with the remains of Cromwell?

    enough remains left…

    We’re on track to get more of this.

  17. @anony-mouse
    Er,

    To be accurate, it would have been more likely disease than 'neglect' that killed the soldiers. Disease killed as many if not more than bullets in that war.

    You would have thought this would have been better known here:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFlAV5Y94nc

    …more likely disease rather than ‘neglect’ that killed the soldiers.

    One tends to equal the other.

  18. Curious to see what will be the take on this cemetery.

  19. @matt

    But in 1939 they and Nazis were teamed up punching Poles
     
    Let it never be forgotten that the Poles teamed up with the Nazis to punch Czechoslovakia just a year earlier.

    True, by way of excuse, Poland was a dictatorship, but I suppose that one would work all around. Hungary also took a piece, if I’m not mistaken.

    Another thing that people often forget is that the alliance with Mussolini (and thus the whole impetus for the war in Europe) began with Hitler betraying some of his own own people, formally giving their homes and land to Italy.

    • Replies: @matt
    I love how your first impulse is to come up with an excuse for Poland. Your first impulse would never be to excuse Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, even though, as you admit, the same sorry excuse applies to all these countries. It just shows deeply ingrained Polophilic ideology is in the West.
  20. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    This madness is the result of not only PC but Pop Culture.

    PC addicts us to the Moment. It is politics as fashion. Whatever is in fashion is COOL, whatever is not has no value. PC is emotionally shallow, intellectually infantile. It has no depth, reach, imagination, or empathy to understand that things were different in the past, and people had values and views at odds with ours. Worst such nonsense was evident among Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution.

    But there is also the degrading impact of Pop Culture that makes us amnesiac and bored with the past as ‘uncool’. For those addicted to the moving image and sound, anything that looks ‘old’ and static is just ‘boring’.

    And these morons once accused Nazis as ‘book burners’.

    These lowlife memorial vandals.

  21. @CCZ
    Doesn't this mean that he is desecrating United States veterans graves?

    Confederate soldiers are also U.S. veterans. The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900, signed June 6, 1903, the Congressional Act of 1906, by the 17th Congress in February 1929 and U.S. Public Law 85-425, Section 410, of May 1958.

    The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of …

    Just more history that needs rewriting by the current overlords.

  22. One shudders to think what Reconstruction would look like today.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    >One shudders to think what Reconstruction would look like today.

    -Would- look like? Look around, it looks like OxyContin, outsourcing and immigration.
    , @shockedintoinaction
    If the radical reconstruction had continued, the war for independence would have surely restarted no later than 1880. With the sad memory of the senseless human sacrifice (and the bitter memory of the war profiteers) of 1861-1865 still fresh and the economic desperation of the 1857-59 panic forgotten, the north would have shown little energy for a new war. The south would have renewed its bonds with the British Empire (after freeing the salves) making it likely that part of WWI would be fought in North America. But for sure the South and Canada would have fought the rump US to a stalemate, and for double-sure the USA and part of the British Empire would have never been able to intervene in France. So a just peace in 1918 or earlier. France finally de-fanged. Maybe or a smaller USSR or a revived but smaller Russia. No WWII. Western Civilization largely preserved.
  23. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    When they remove these things, can we take them and place them on our private property?

    If they don’t want it, hand it over?

    Americans were denouncing the Taliban for vandalism of Buddha statues.

    But notice the silence about ISIS and Alqaeda smashing things in Syria. I guess they were too useful against Assad. So, iconoclasm became okay

    And as ‘White Guilt’ is a religion in the US, the vandals are blind to the artistic or historic value of memorials.

  24. While in Russia the final Soviet siege of Nazi Berlin is annually marked with a huge celebration, Poles remember early Soviet action in World War II, focusing instead on the first year and a half of the conflict,

    The Poles also remember 1944, when the Russians stopped their advance when the Poles rose up against the Germans in Warsaw. The Germans proceeded to level Warsaw (all the “old” buildings you see in the middle of Warsaw now are reconstructions ) and destroy the Polish Resistance, whereupon Stalin resumed his advance with TWO enemies eliminated. Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.

    • Replies: @the Supreme Gentleman

    Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff
     
    Well, except for the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and dismissing the copious pre-operation intelligence about Barbarossa things...the whole "let the capitalists fight it out among themselves so we can pick up the pieces" plan backfired pretty seriously.
    , @El Dato
    He hadn't forgiving the Poles for blunting the Soviet march on Berlin of 1920 before the gates of Warsaw.

    Never forget, never forgive. (Twirls mustache with a sardonic smile)
    , @matt
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Radzymin_(1944)
    , @inertial
    This is a myth. The Russians stopped stopped their advance toward Warsaw because they were stopped by the German Army.

    Soviet army arrived to Warsaw exhausted and with overextended communications. The Germans counterattacked and threw the Russians back, in the process practically destroying a whole tank army. In three days the Russians lost almost 300 tanks. To give you an idea about the scale of this battle, during the Battle of the Bulge the allies lost about 800 tanks - over the course of a month.

    Also, consider the timing. You say that the Polish Resistance was destroyed, "whereupon Stalin resumed his advance." So when did this "whereupon" actually happen? The Warsaw Uprising was finally defeated on October 2, 1944. The Soviet Army resumed their offensive on Warsaw on January 17, 1945. That's 3.5 months later. Why didn't they move earlier? Because they couldn't.
    , @Sarah Toga

    Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.
     
    Please don't tarnish the name of Stalin with such an association.
  25. @unit472
    There is certainly a lot of 'malice' going on in this effort to destroy Confederate Monuments. It is puzzling since, when many of these monuments were erected, there were plenty of former Union soldiers still living and they didn't march in protest or vandalize them. If they did not object who today has any right to?

    This seems to have been the case in the decades after WW2. The most virulent anti-Germans and anti-Nazis seem to be those born decades after the war ended.

  26. @unit472
    There is certainly a lot of 'malice' going on in this effort to destroy Confederate Monuments. It is puzzling since, when many of these monuments were erected, there were plenty of former Union soldiers still living and they didn't march in protest or vandalize them. If they did not object who today has any right to?

    Bullies prey on the weak.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, they've lost their fear of another southern rebellion. The conciliation of the south after the civil war, and especially after WWI, was party christian forgiveness, but also motivated by fear that if excessively provoked the southerners would go for round 2. That fear is gone.
  27. @Jack D

    While in Russia the final Soviet siege of Nazi Berlin is annually marked with a huge celebration, Poles remember early Soviet action in World War II, focusing instead on the first year and a half of the conflict,
     
    The Poles also remember 1944, when the Russians stopped their advance when the Poles rose up against the Germans in Warsaw. The Germans proceeded to level Warsaw (all the "old" buildings you see in the middle of Warsaw now are reconstructions ) and destroy the Polish Resistance, whereupon Stalin resumed his advance with TWO enemies eliminated. Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.

    Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff

    Well, except for the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and dismissing the copious pre-operation intelligence about Barbarossa things…the whole “let the capitalists fight it out among themselves so we can pick up the pieces” plan backfired pretty seriously.

  28. Posted it before, but here’s the eloquent passage from Henry James’ The Bostonians where Basil Ransom visits Harvard’s Memorial Hall:

    “Now there is one place where perhaps it would be indelicate to take a Mississippian,” Verena said, after this episode. “I mean the great place that towers above the others—that big building with the beautiful pinnacles, which you see from every point.” But Basil Ransom had heard of the great Memorial Hall; he knew what memories it enshrined, and the worst that he should have to suffer there; and the ornate, overtopping structure, which was the finest piece of architecture he had ever seen, had moreover solicited his enlarged curiosity for the last half-hour. He thought there was rather too much brick about it, but it was buttressed, cloistered, turreted, dedicated, superscribed, as he had never seen anything; though it didn’t look old, it looked significant; it covered a large area, and it sprang majestic into the winter air. It was detached from the rest of the collegiate group, and stood in a grassy triangle of its own. As he approached it with Verena she suddenly stopped, to decline responsibility. “Now mind, if you don’t like what’s inside, it isn’t my fault.”

    He looked at her an instant, smiling. “Is there anything against Mississippi?”

    “Well, no, I don’t think she is mentioned. But there is great praise of our young men in the war.”

    “It says they were brave, I suppose.”

    “Yes, it says so in Latin.”

    “Well, so they were—I know something about that,” Basil Ransom said. “I must be brave enough to face them—it isn’t the first time.” And they went up the low steps and passed into the tall doors. The Memorial Hall of Harvard consists of three main divisions: one of them a theatre, for academic ceremonies; another a vast refectory, covered with a timbered roof, hung about with portraits and lighted by stained windows, like the halls of the colleges of Oxford; and the third, the most interesting, a chamber high, dim, and severe, consecrated to the sons of the university who fell in the long Civil War. Ransom and his companion wandered from one part of the building to another, and stayed their steps at several impressive points; but they lingered longest in the presence of the white, ranged tablets, each of which, in its proud, sad clearness, is inscribed with the name of a student-soldier. The effect of the place is singularly noble and solemn, and it is impossible to feel it without a lifting of the heart. It stands there for duty and honour, it speaks of sacrifice and example, seems a kind of temple to youth, manhood, generosity. Most of them were young, all were in their prime, and all of them had fallen; this simple idea hovers before the visitor and makes him read with tenderness each name and place—names often without other history, and forgotten Southern battles. For Ransom these things were not a challenge nor a taunt; they touched him with respect, with the sentiment of beauty. He was capable of being a generous foeman, and he forgot, now, the whole question of sides and parties; the simple emotion of the old fighting-time came back to him, and the monument around him seemed an embodiment of that memory; it arched over friends as well as enemies, the victims of defeat as well as the sons of triumph.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    How many Harvard men and women have died in Iraq or Afghanistan?
  29. > But malice over events of 150+ years ago is currently running amok within the American Establishment.

    The Establishment insists that the Civil War was fought over slavery, not those other issues Southerners keep bringing up. such as tariffs and states’ rights.

    So time hasn’t dulled the venom that Establishment characters feel towards these Rebs who died in captivity. And the descendants of their families and neighbors who carry this culture into the present.

    It necessarily follows that the Establishment must honor and venerate the 360,000 Union soldiers who died during the war (the one fought over slavery). And the descendants of their families and neighbors who carry this culture into the present.

    I don’t see much evidence of this hypothetical elite respect towards current-day Northern-state working-class whites and their culture. Malign neglect of the opiate crisis is one indication.

    Alternately, Mayor Soglin’s actions could be described as giving in to that “kick ’em when they’re down” feeling we all remember from childhood. Given that it’s the Current Year, Soglin could hardly have picked a safer target.

  30. @Anon
    This is going on in other contexts as well. I read the Civil War books that are uploaded onto Project Gutenburg, and for some time now it seems the only Civil War memoirs being uploaded to the site are the most shrill, anti-slavery Northern ones. Almost no memoirs by southerners are making it onto the site anymore, and it looks like a deliberate attempt to reshape the past on the part of a crazed SJW cabal that has taken over PG. I have no other explanation for this sort of bias.

    Archive.org has them all.

  31. Iconoclasts are always the worst sort of miserable psychos throughout history (Puritans, wahhabists, jacobins, communists etc) There is a viscous, controlling streak in every icon-smasher. Why are they so afraid of images? They must on some level believe they have magic powers.

    • Agree: Dahlia
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Well said.
  32. Okay, so the Union managed to kill off in a month, via disorganization, over 10% of its Confederate POWs interred at Camp Randall

    While the prisoners were alive, they were hopefully not interred (i.e., buried). Instead, they were interned at Camp Randall, and then later interred at the burial site.

    • Replies: @utu
    Prisoners of War: Union, mortality rate of 15.5% (30,192 died as prisoners of war)
    Confederate: 12% (Died as prisoners of war 31,000)

    In Civil War only 1/3 died on battlefields out of c. 600,000.
  33. Hey Steve, a while back you asked about Autistic characters in older books. I happened across one this morning: an autistic child Haasse’s In a Dark Wood Wandering, originally published (in Dutch) in 1949. Here is the relevant passage, from page 123 in my volume:

    “[Charles] was now about two years old, of a rather delicate constitution and, in his father’s opinion, a little too quiet and gentle. He would sit for hours in the same spot in the garden or hall playing with a stone, a flower, a piece of colored cloth.

    ‘Doesn’t he ever laugh, this son of mine?’ Louis asked the Dame de Maucouvent. … Louis picked the child up and let him play with his gold chain and the hilt of his dagger, which was shaped like a rolled-up hedgehog. The child stared at the gleaming ornaments with bight grey-green eyes, but he did not attempt to touch them or crow with joy as his dead older brother would have done.”

    This description could come straight out of a “warning signs your baby might have autism” video.

  34. Tate reading his “Ode to the Confederate Dead”

  35. @matt
    Speaking of huge numbers of POWs dying through neglect, I take that Poland won't be honoring the huge number of Soviet POWs it let die in the 1920s any time soon. They didn't even have the excuse of being distracted by an ongoing war, as the Union at least did.

    Actually yes, there was a hardcore war between newly created Poland and Trotsky’s Red Army goons going in in 1920.

    Not fun, it wasn’t. Many atrocities commited on both side, there were.

    As for feeding POWs, the whole area was just emerging from WWI, which wrecked infrastructure fiercely.

    One may also want to remember that the Red Army forgot to tell its soldiers that there used to be a Poland between Ukraine and the Nazi Imperium. Hence, some events of light rape, looting and quick justice. But we should not start to make tallies, this just brings bad memories and needless trouble.

    • Replies: @matt
    The deaths continued until 1924.
  36. @CCZ
    Doesn't this mean that he is desecrating United States veterans graves?

    Confederate soldiers are also U.S. veterans. The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900, signed June 6, 1903, the Congressional Act of 1906, by the 17th Congress in February 1929 and U.S. Public Law 85-425, Section 410, of May 1958.

    US troops that don’t die in battle for Israel don’t count.

  37. @Jack D

    While in Russia the final Soviet siege of Nazi Berlin is annually marked with a huge celebration, Poles remember early Soviet action in World War II, focusing instead on the first year and a half of the conflict,
     
    The Poles also remember 1944, when the Russians stopped their advance when the Poles rose up against the Germans in Warsaw. The Germans proceeded to level Warsaw (all the "old" buildings you see in the middle of Warsaw now are reconstructions ) and destroy the Polish Resistance, whereupon Stalin resumed his advance with TWO enemies eliminated. Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.

    He hadn’t forgiving the Poles for blunting the Soviet march on Berlin of 1920 before the gates of Warsaw.

    Never forget, never forgive. (Twirls mustache with a sardonic smile)

  38. Steve,

    This AP footage from Virginia needs to be more widely seen. Its 100-odd seconds offer the perfect encapsulation of Current Year political dynamics:

    First, our heroes: A crowd of iPhone-wielding white yuppies and their hysterical, deranged black lackey chanting abuse at the “terrorist” opposition, a lone proletarian youth a decade younger than they are.

    Second, the enemy: slope-shouldered, obese, his ill-fitting jacket patched with duct tape, but stoic, courteous, and strangely dignified, showing up to the park alone to honor a symbol of his ancestors that will soon be destroyed.

    Finally, the unwilling umpire of the contest, a cop tasked with “keeping the peace” in an emerging multicultural dystopia in which the Democrats and the press routinely whip up ethnic pseudo-controversies for votes and profit, treating the boy with an affecting gentleness but finally breaking his reserve when a female baizuo makes one too many attempts to escalate the conflict.

    When viewed with the eyes of Current Year faith, the video is a story about love and tolerance firmly yet compassionately driving bigotry out of the public square. To the uninitiated, however, it sure looks an awful lot like the opposite.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    That's a good one.

    Last five seconds are gold. Nice accent sweetie.
    , @Alec Leamas
    This bit beginning at 1:25 is telling:

    "You want another day like Saturday, don't you?" The Officer said. I think this can be interpreted as the Officer's belief that Antifa were the aggressors, no?
    , @Vinteuil
    Very well summed up.

    Hope that officer keeps his job. The vermin will be after him.

    And that beeatch at the end: pure evil, thinking well of itself.
    , @Venator
    A beautiful juxtaposition of virtue and stupidity, of the lone man, to the utmost true to his faith, and the vile crowd, abusing their better. Yes, he is a proletarian, and they are yuppies, probably with degrees, but he knows something they don't know, and never will. A scene right out of the morality playbook.
  39. @matt
    Speaking of huge numbers of POWs dying through neglect, I take that Poland won't be honoring the huge number of Soviet POWs it let die in the 1920s any time soon. They didn't even have the excuse of being distracted by an ongoing war, as the Union at least did.

    20,000 on each side, a fair swap.

    • Replies: @matt
    And this comment is relevant because, as everyone knows, no Union soldiers died in Confederate POW camps. Or something. Right?
  40. From Wikipedia: “In 1975, Mayor Soglin gave the key to the city to Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro.”

  41. @CCZ
    Doesn't this mean that he is desecrating United States veterans graves?

    Confederate soldiers are also U.S. veterans. The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900, signed June 6, 1903, the Congressional Act of 1906, by the 17th Congress in February 1929 and U.S. Public Law 85-425, Section 410, of May 1958.

    The Dred Scot decision was “law” too, white man.

    • Replies: @CCZ
    How do you presume to know my sex or racial identity, blatant racist sexist thinking on your part, anonymous being.
  42. @unit472
    There is certainly a lot of 'malice' going on in this effort to destroy Confederate Monuments. It is puzzling since, when many of these monuments were erected, there were plenty of former Union soldiers still living and they didn't march in protest or vandalize them. If they did not object who today has any right to?

    There is certainly a lot of ‘malice’ going on in this effort to destroy Confederate Monuments. It is puzzling since, when many of these monuments were erected, there were plenty of former Union soldiers still living and they didn’t march in protest or vandalize them. If they did not object who today has any right to?

    Proceeding in fits and starts there was a process of reconciliation after the Civil War. This is why Confederates are buried at Arlington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Memorial_(Arlington_National_Cemetery)

    My bottom lining here is that monuments to white people are being desecrated and torn down. That they are Confederate memorials is only 10% of the issue. This is just inchoate rage against “white patriarchy” by the coalition of the fringes.

    Try doing this with any memorial to a black or Samoan or (my pet) Aleutian Islanders.

  43. But malice over events of 150+ years ago is currently running amok within the American Establishment.

    It’s not malice over events 150+ years ago. Most of the Millennial “antifa” and the leftist politicians who endorse them are too fucking ignorant to know what happened 150+ years ago — let alone understand the political and cultural nuances of what it was like to live then.

    All of this is “Confederate” stuff is a big straw man. It’s based on malice today — toward white, heterosexual, conservative American males. The Confederacy is seen as part of their heritage, a symbol of whiteness, and the destruction of Confederate monuments is nothing but a great big juvenile middle finger in their faces.

    This is Jacobinism, plain and simple — the willful, radical destruction of the Old Order, just for the sake of destroying it.

  44. The patience of founding stock Americans is being severely tested now. As Chris Rock said though, “that train is never late”:

  45. @songbird
    One shudders to think what Reconstruction would look like today.

    >One shudders to think what Reconstruction would look like today.

    -Would- look like? Look around, it looks like OxyContin, outsourcing and immigration.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    And a technocratic police state where your government and both politial parties are on board with destroying your constitutional freedoms.
  46. @El Dato
    Actually yes, there was a hardcore war between newly created Poland and Trotsky's Red Army goons going in in 1920.

    Not fun, it wasn't. Many atrocities commited on both side, there were.

    As for feeding POWs, the whole area was just emerging from WWI, which wrecked infrastructure fiercely.

    One may also want to remember that the Red Army forgot to tell its soldiers that there used to be a Poland between Ukraine and the Nazi Imperium. Hence, some events of light rape, looting and quick justice. But we should not start to make tallies, this just brings bad memories and needless trouble.

    The deaths continued until 1924.

  47. Moralist Chelsea Clinton elevates the conversation: “The story of Lucifer-who rebelled against God-is part of many Christians’ traditions. I’ve never been in a church with a Lucifer statue.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I retweeted Chelsea's tweet about Lucifer last night, but I have no idea what it is about.

    Something to do with her mom's mentor Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a book to Lucifer?

    Any theories?

    , @res
    Chelsea demonstrating her erudition and great wisdom again.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_g%C3%A9nie_du_mal
    There are limits though: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/03/13/the-famous-statue-of-lucifer-was-installed-in-st-pauls-cathedral-in-liege-after-the-previous-statue-was-declared-too-seductive/
    , @anonymous
    There is a CSA Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery (The inscription: To our dead heroes, by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. "Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni.") This must not stand!!!
  48. @ken
    20,000 on each side, a fair swap.

    And this comment is relevant because, as everyone knows, no Union soldiers died in Confederate POW camps. Or something. Right?

    • Replies: @ken
    I'm trying to figure out the relevance of your initial post. Poland was naughty because Soviet troops died in POW camps, but the Soviets get a pass because something. Right?
  49. @Jack D

    While in Russia the final Soviet siege of Nazi Berlin is annually marked with a huge celebration, Poles remember early Soviet action in World War II, focusing instead on the first year and a half of the conflict,
     
    The Poles also remember 1944, when the Russians stopped their advance when the Poles rose up against the Germans in Warsaw. The Germans proceeded to level Warsaw (all the "old" buildings you see in the middle of Warsaw now are reconstructions ) and destroy the Polish Resistance, whereupon Stalin resumed his advance with TWO enemies eliminated. Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.
  50. This is going to end in a lot of blood.

    • Agree: Jack Hanson
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Been saying this for a while.
  51. @Burton
    Steve,

    This AP footage from Virginia needs to be more widely seen. Its 100-odd seconds offer the perfect encapsulation of Current Year political dynamics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqXWhG6IZ50

    First, our heroes: A crowd of iPhone-wielding white yuppies and their hysterical, deranged black lackey chanting abuse at the "terrorist" opposition, a lone proletarian youth a decade younger than they are.

    Second, the enemy: slope-shouldered, obese, his ill-fitting jacket patched with duct tape, but stoic, courteous, and strangely dignified, showing up to the park alone to honor a symbol of his ancestors that will soon be destroyed.

    Finally, the unwilling umpire of the contest, a cop tasked with "keeping the peace" in an emerging multicultural dystopia in which the Democrats and the press routinely whip up ethnic pseudo-controversies for votes and profit, treating the boy with an affecting gentleness but finally breaking his reserve when a female baizuo makes one too many attempts to escalate the conflict.

    When viewed with the eyes of Current Year faith, the video is a story about love and tolerance firmly yet compassionately driving bigotry out of the public square. To the uninitiated, however, it sure looks an awful lot like the opposite.

    That’s a good one.

    Last five seconds are gold. Nice accent sweetie.

    • Agree: ic1000
  52. @CCZ
    Moralist Chelsea Clinton elevates the conversation: "The story of Lucifer-who rebelled against God-is part of many Christians' traditions. I've never been in a church with a Lucifer statue."

    https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/status/898335002697412608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Finsider.foxnews.com%2F2017%2F08%2F18%2Fmark-steyn-charlottesville-chelsea-clinton-robert-byrd-confederate-democrats-white

    I retweeted Chelsea’s tweet about Lucifer last night, but I have no idea what it is about.

    Something to do with her mom’s mentor Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a book to Lucifer?

    Any theories?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I retweeted Chelsea’s tweet about Lucifer last night, but I have no idea what it is about.

    Something to do with her mom’s mentor Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a book to Lucifer?

    Any theories?
     
    An interesting bit of inversion. Radicals used to delight in seeing Milton's Lucifer as their archetypal role-model. Now that they are in power, rebels seem less romantically alluring....

    Ah, well, if Bad Whites must play the devil, we can at least exult in the fact that Satan gets the best lines:

    Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime,
    Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat
    That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom
    For that celestial light? Be it so, since he
    Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid
    What shall be right: fardest from him is best
    Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream
    Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields
    Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
    Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
    Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
    A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time.
    The mind is its own place, and in it self
    Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.
    What matter where, if I be still the same,
    And what I should be, all but less then he
    Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
    We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
    Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:

    Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
    To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
    Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
    But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
    Th’ associates and copartners of our loss
    Lye thus astonisht on th’ oblivious Pool,
    And call them not to share with us their part
    In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
    With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
    Regaind in Heav’n, or what more lost in Hell?


    Paradise Lost, Book I, Lines 221-270
    , @Jack D
    Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God and were defeated so they are Lucifer and they no more deserve memorials to their battle than does Lucifer (or Hitler).

    I will be honest - I don't think that Lee & co. deserved memorials in the 1st place - Lee didn't want any. The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral - the right to own other human beings as property. We should never have brought Africans over to America to begin with - they were the original cheap immigrant labor taking jobs away from Americans. The plantation owners knew that just freeing the blacks was no solution but neither was keeping them enslaved. Lincoln had the right idea - send them back to Africa. Lee fought nobly but he fought for an immoral cause. The memorials were a sort of Southern white backlash - most were put up long after the war was over.

    But by now, most of them have been there 100 years or more so they are part of our history - if not Civil War then the history of the Reconstruction Period and the early 20th century. Taking them down now is just another backlash and is wrong too.
    , @Desiderius
    (a) she's not real bright

    (b) taking the pretty transparent demonization frenzy taking hold among the failed elite literally
  53. @Anon
    The Dred Scot decision was "law" too, white man.

    How do you presume to know my sex or racial identity, blatant racist sexist thinking on your part, anonymous being.

  54. @keuril

    Okay, so the Union managed to kill off in a month, via disorganization, over 10% of its Confederate POWs interred at Camp Randall
     
    While the prisoners were alive, they were hopefully not interred (i.e., buried). Instead, they were interned at Camp Randall, and then later interred at the burial site.

    Prisoners of War: Union, mortality rate of 15.5% (30,192 died as prisoners of war)
    Confederate: 12% (Died as prisoners of war 31,000)

    In Civil War only 1/3 died on battlefields out of c. 600,000.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    In Civil War only 1/3 died on battlefields out of c. 600,000.
     
    Rather standard for the pre-antibiotic era. Back then, disease routinely killed more soldiers than bombs, bullets, and bayonets.
  55. @Burton
    Steve,

    This AP footage from Virginia needs to be more widely seen. Its 100-odd seconds offer the perfect encapsulation of Current Year political dynamics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqXWhG6IZ50

    First, our heroes: A crowd of iPhone-wielding white yuppies and their hysterical, deranged black lackey chanting abuse at the "terrorist" opposition, a lone proletarian youth a decade younger than they are.

    Second, the enemy: slope-shouldered, obese, his ill-fitting jacket patched with duct tape, but stoic, courteous, and strangely dignified, showing up to the park alone to honor a symbol of his ancestors that will soon be destroyed.

    Finally, the unwilling umpire of the contest, a cop tasked with "keeping the peace" in an emerging multicultural dystopia in which the Democrats and the press routinely whip up ethnic pseudo-controversies for votes and profit, treating the boy with an affecting gentleness but finally breaking his reserve when a female baizuo makes one too many attempts to escalate the conflict.

    When viewed with the eyes of Current Year faith, the video is a story about love and tolerance firmly yet compassionately driving bigotry out of the public square. To the uninitiated, however, it sure looks an awful lot like the opposite.

    This bit beginning at 1:25 is telling:

    “You want another day like Saturday, don’t you?” The Officer said. I think this can be interpreted as the Officer’s belief that Antifa were the aggressors, no?

  56. @Steve Sailer
    I retweeted Chelsea's tweet about Lucifer last night, but I have no idea what it is about.

    Something to do with her mom's mentor Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a book to Lucifer?

    Any theories?

    I retweeted Chelsea’s tweet about Lucifer last night, but I have no idea what it is about.

    Something to do with her mom’s mentor Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a book to Lucifer?

    Any theories?

    An interesting bit of inversion. Radicals used to delight in seeing Milton’s Lucifer as their archetypal role-model. Now that they are in power, rebels seem less romantically alluring….

    Ah, well, if Bad Whites must play the devil, we can at least exult in the fact that Satan gets the best lines:

    Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime,
    Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat
    That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom
    For that celestial light? Be it so, since he
    Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid
    What shall be right: fardest from him is best
    Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream
    Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields
    Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
    Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
    Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
    A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time.
    The mind is its own place, and in it self
    Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.
    What matter where, if I be still the same,
    And what I should be, all but less then he
    Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
    We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
    Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:

    Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
    To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
    Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
    But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
    Th’ associates and copartners of our loss
    Lye thus astonisht on th’ oblivious Pool,
    And call them not to share with us their part
    In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
    With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
    Regaind in Heav’n, or what more lost in Hell?

    Paradise Lost, Book I, Lines 221-270

  57. @Steve Sailer
    I retweeted Chelsea's tweet about Lucifer last night, but I have no idea what it is about.

    Something to do with her mom's mentor Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a book to Lucifer?

    Any theories?

    Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God and were defeated so they are Lucifer and they no more deserve memorials to their battle than does Lucifer (or Hitler).

    I will be honest – I don’t think that Lee & co. deserved memorials in the 1st place – Lee didn’t want any. The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral – the right to own other human beings as property. We should never have brought Africans over to America to begin with – they were the original cheap immigrant labor taking jobs away from Americans. The plantation owners knew that just freeing the blacks was no solution but neither was keeping them enslaved. Lincoln had the right idea – send them back to Africa. Lee fought nobly but he fought for an immoral cause. The memorials were a sort of Southern white backlash – most were put up long after the war was over.

    But by now, most of them have been there 100 years or more so they are part of our history – if not Civil War then the history of the Reconstruction Period and the early 20th century. Taking them down now is just another backlash and is wrong too.

    • Replies: @newrouter
    " the right to own other human beings as property."

    As I pay the school districts and their Demoncrat sinecures this month, I'll keep that in mind.
    , @Jack Hanson
    When Lee agrees with what we say for intensely personal reasons versus our ideology: The Marble Man speaks!

    When Lee disagrees with us on say, federalism: NAZI BIGOT

    Yeah we get the selective mendacity.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I think it's unfair and inaccurate to describe Lee as fighting for slavery. Likewise, statues to Confederates put up later were not meant to be memorials to human bondage.
    , @Mr. Anon

    The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral – the right to own other human beings as property.
     
    And it was opposed by Union soldiers who were drafted, i.e.....................enslaved.
    , @Allen
    "Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God"

    Um, assuming that you are a Christian, you should realize that the Bible has no real objection to slavery/human property. From the Old Testament to New Testament, the Bible urged slave owners to treat their slaves well, but never objected to the practice or told slave owners to free their slaves. Even in Philemon, when dealing with both a slave and slave owner who are Christians, Paul doesn't urge the slave owner to free Onesimus but merely to receive him back.

    This is even more complicated once you understand that the Hebrew word usually used for "husband" is "baal" which has the multiple meanings of lord/master/owner/husband. Thus, the Old Testament in various instances refers to individuals as being the baal of an animal, the baal of a pit, the baal of a slave, and the baal of a wife. Thus, from a certain interpretation, the Old Testament had the overtones of a husband "owning" his wife as human property in the way he owned a pit, animal, or slave.

    Now, it is worth noting that slavery in the ancient world was not the same as slavery during the Enlightenment. In the ancient world, slavery was typically more like indentured servitude and it was possible for a slave to save enough money to purchase his freedom. Also, while a man was permitted to marry a slave, rape is not permitted under the Old Testament law.

    There were Christians on both sides of the Slavery and Abolition debate. I think it's possible to argue that the form of slavery practiced during the Civil War was not Biblical, but I find no justification for arguing that the Bible is opposed to slavery as an institution.

  58. The emboldened Alt-Left is stupidly overconfident. Even in Madison, WI a clear majority opposes Soglin’s actions Forest Hill Cemetery (a mere 0.5 miles from the UW campus filled to the brink with insane SJWs)

  59. @utu
    Prisoners of War: Union, mortality rate of 15.5% (30,192 died as prisoners of war)
    Confederate: 12% (Died as prisoners of war 31,000)

    In Civil War only 1/3 died on battlefields out of c. 600,000.

    In Civil War only 1/3 died on battlefields out of c. 600,000.

    Rather standard for the pre-antibiotic era. Back then, disease routinely killed more soldiers than bombs, bullets, and bayonets.

  60. @songbird
    One shudders to think what Reconstruction would look like today.

    If the radical reconstruction had continued, the war for independence would have surely restarted no later than 1880. With the sad memory of the senseless human sacrifice (and the bitter memory of the war profiteers) of 1861-1865 still fresh and the economic desperation of the 1857-59 panic forgotten, the north would have shown little energy for a new war. The south would have renewed its bonds with the British Empire (after freeing the salves) making it likely that part of WWI would be fought in North America. But for sure the South and Canada would have fought the rump US to a stalemate, and for double-sure the USA and part of the British Empire would have never been able to intervene in France. So a just peace in 1918 or earlier. France finally de-fanged. Maybe or a smaller USSR or a revived but smaller Russia. No WWII. Western Civilization largely preserved.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Very doubtful.
  61. @Jack D
    Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God and were defeated so they are Lucifer and they no more deserve memorials to their battle than does Lucifer (or Hitler).

    I will be honest - I don't think that Lee & co. deserved memorials in the 1st place - Lee didn't want any. The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral - the right to own other human beings as property. We should never have brought Africans over to America to begin with - they were the original cheap immigrant labor taking jobs away from Americans. The plantation owners knew that just freeing the blacks was no solution but neither was keeping them enslaved. Lincoln had the right idea - send them back to Africa. Lee fought nobly but he fought for an immoral cause. The memorials were a sort of Southern white backlash - most were put up long after the war was over.

    But by now, most of them have been there 100 years or more so they are part of our history - if not Civil War then the history of the Reconstruction Period and the early 20th century. Taking them down now is just another backlash and is wrong too.

    ” the right to own other human beings as property.”

    As I pay the school districts and their Demoncrat sinecures this month, I’ll keep that in mind.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Let me know when you get sold down de river.
  62. This is at least the 65th comment and no one has mentioned who Madison WI was named for.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    This is at least the 65th comment and no one has mentioned who Madison WI was named for.
     
    Some girl, right? Madison is a girl's name, isn't it?
  63. @AndrewR
    This is going to end in a lot of blood.

    Been saying this for a while.

  64. @Jack D
    Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God and were defeated so they are Lucifer and they no more deserve memorials to their battle than does Lucifer (or Hitler).

    I will be honest - I don't think that Lee & co. deserved memorials in the 1st place - Lee didn't want any. The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral - the right to own other human beings as property. We should never have brought Africans over to America to begin with - they were the original cheap immigrant labor taking jobs away from Americans. The plantation owners knew that just freeing the blacks was no solution but neither was keeping them enslaved. Lincoln had the right idea - send them back to Africa. Lee fought nobly but he fought for an immoral cause. The memorials were a sort of Southern white backlash - most were put up long after the war was over.

    But by now, most of them have been there 100 years or more so they are part of our history - if not Civil War then the history of the Reconstruction Period and the early 20th century. Taking them down now is just another backlash and is wrong too.

    When Lee agrees with what we say for intensely personal reasons versus our ideology: The Marble Man speaks!

    When Lee disagrees with us on say, federalism: NAZI BIGOT

    Yeah we get the selective mendacity.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    You're right - when you agree with a man on one thing, you have to agree with him about EVERYTHING - it's all or nothing, I say.
  65. @Steve Sailer
    I retweeted Chelsea's tweet about Lucifer last night, but I have no idea what it is about.

    Something to do with her mom's mentor Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a book to Lucifer?

    Any theories?

    (a) she’s not real bright

    (b) taking the pretty transparent demonization frenzy taking hold among the failed elite literally

  66. @CCZ
    Moralist Chelsea Clinton elevates the conversation: "The story of Lucifer-who rebelled against God-is part of many Christians' traditions. I've never been in a church with a Lucifer statue."

    https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/status/898335002697412608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Finsider.foxnews.com%2F2017%2F08%2F18%2Fmark-steyn-charlottesville-chelsea-clinton-robert-byrd-confederate-democrats-white
  67. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The ctrl-left is running a meme this week using old photos of the D-Day invasion with a caption like ‘the alt-left punching the alt-right without a permit’.

    Well speaking of Normandy are we going to have to remove the German cemetery?

    PS. Why are they vandalizing the Joan of Arc statue in France?

  68. @Jack D

    While in Russia the final Soviet siege of Nazi Berlin is annually marked with a huge celebration, Poles remember early Soviet action in World War II, focusing instead on the first year and a half of the conflict,
     
    The Poles also remember 1944, when the Russians stopped their advance when the Poles rose up against the Germans in Warsaw. The Germans proceeded to level Warsaw (all the "old" buildings you see in the middle of Warsaw now are reconstructions ) and destroy the Polish Resistance, whereupon Stalin resumed his advance with TWO enemies eliminated. Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.

    This is a myth. The Russians stopped stopped their advance toward Warsaw because they were stopped by the German Army.

    Soviet army arrived to Warsaw exhausted and with overextended communications. The Germans counterattacked and threw the Russians back, in the process practically destroying a whole tank army. In three days the Russians lost almost 300 tanks. To give you an idea about the scale of this battle, during the Battle of the Bulge the allies lost about 800 tanks – over the course of a month.

    Also, consider the timing. You say that the Polish Resistance was destroyed, “whereupon Stalin resumed his advance.” So when did this “whereupon” actually happen? The Warsaw Uprising was finally defeated on October 2, 1944. The Soviet Army resumed their offensive on Warsaw on January 17, 1945. That’s 3.5 months later. Why didn’t they move earlier? Because they couldn’t.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The Germans counterattacked and threw the Russians back, in the process practically destroying a whole tank army. In three days the Russians lost almost 300 tanks.
     
    Leaving out self-propelled guns, the Soviets lost about 60 tanks a day throughout the war, so 300 tanks was just a little higher than normal, but typical of the ebb and flow of battle. Was it enough to derail the advance to a major objective like Warsaw? I'm skeptical. The US invaded Japanese-held Luzon for political reasons and took casualties that were militarily unnecessary for the advance to Tokyo. It's not just possible, but likely, given the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, that Stalin stood aside, just so that the Nazis would take the casualties (and the blame) for wiping out the non-Communist Polish resistance.

    Britain could have signed the equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany after winning the Battle of Britain, and supplied the Nazis for the Operation Barbarossa. The fact that they did not is indicative of the difference between British and Russian approaches towards ethical dilemmas. This difference is probably why Russia has held on to most of its empire, and remains by far the largest country in the world, while the British empire is mostly a historical artifact.
    , @Steve Sailer
    So the Soviets halted their advance on Warsaw from August 1944 to mid-January 1945 (i.e., after the Germans had lost the Battle of the Bulge)?
    , @Bies Podkrakowski
    There were certain actions that Soviets could take on the cheap to support the uprising. Even if they couldn't save the Warsaw they could make life difficult for Germans. Instead they forbid Allied from using Soviet airfields - planes dropping supplies for fighters had to go back to Italy. There was lets call it "discouragement" for Polish People Army trying to help the uprising. Not to mention the fact that Russians arrested those fighters that survived the uprising and managed to escape through Vistula to the east.

    It looks like Stalin didn't like Poles.
  69. Okay, so the Union managed to kill off in a month, via disorganization, over 10% of its Confederate POWs interned at Camp Randall.

    Presumably, many POW were wounded in battle before they were captured. Medical science being what it was, their chances of dying of their wounds must have been quite high even with the best of care.

  70. There are in a few places scattered around the US, memorials to German POWs who died while imprisoned in the US. I suppose the antifas and their political sympathizers might get around to these someday, but I don’t think so.

    Slavery was not just a tragedy for Blacks, but a tragedy for America, as the Civil War was not just a tragedy for the South, but for the entire nation. That tragedy continues to play itself out today, but since Americans as a rule believe themselves to be immune from tragedy, this interpretation doesn’t particularly resonate.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Talk about triggering, Volkstrauertag services are held at Ft.Custer, Michigan for Third Reich Military Personnel. From facebook:

    The Ft. Custer Wednesday Honor Guard had the distinct privilege to support Volkstrauertag 2016, held at the Ft. Custer National Cemetery earlier today.

    The Volkstrauertag (German for "people's day of mourning") is a public holiday in Germany two Sundays before the first day of Advent. It commemorates members of the German armed forces and civilians who died in armed conflicts, to include victims of violent oppression. It was first observed in its modern form in 1952.

    An official observation of Volkstrauertag takes place in the German Bundestag. The President of Germany traditionally gives a speech with the Chancellor, the cabinet and the diplomatic corps present. The national anthem and the song "Ich hatt' einen Kameraden" ("I had a comrade") are then played. Most provinces also hold their own ceremonies; veterans usually organize ceremonies that include a procession from the respective Church service to a war memorial, prayer by the pastor, speeches by the mayor and the veterans' chairmen, a military guard of honor, several wreaths are laid, and "Ich hatt' einen Kameraden"; where available, also with the attendance of a Bundeswehr officer as official representative.

    Because of the relation to Advent, the date is the Sunday nearest 16 November, i.e. in the period from 13 November to 19 November.

    This local Volkstrauertag observation is especially important to the local German-American community as they honor the "Forgotten Twenty-Six". From 1943 to 1946, Fort Custer housed several German Prisoner of War camps. Many of the 4,000 prisoners worked on farms and in vineyards in the area. In Section B of Fort Custer National Cemetery, once part of the Post Cemetery of Fort Custer, there are 26 German graves. Sixteen of the men were killed or died as a result of an accident on 31 October 1944 when a truck, returning German prisoners of war from a work detail to their POW camp at Fort Custer, collided with a train at an unguarded railroad crossing at Blissfield, MI. The other ten died of natural causes while prisoners of war.
     
    How can Senators Peters and Stabenow allow this!
  71. @shockedintoinaction
    If the radical reconstruction had continued, the war for independence would have surely restarted no later than 1880. With the sad memory of the senseless human sacrifice (and the bitter memory of the war profiteers) of 1861-1865 still fresh and the economic desperation of the 1857-59 panic forgotten, the north would have shown little energy for a new war. The south would have renewed its bonds with the British Empire (after freeing the salves) making it likely that part of WWI would be fought in North America. But for sure the South and Canada would have fought the rump US to a stalemate, and for double-sure the USA and part of the British Empire would have never been able to intervene in France. So a just peace in 1918 or earlier. France finally de-fanged. Maybe or a smaller USSR or a revived but smaller Russia. No WWII. Western Civilization largely preserved.

    Very doubtful.

  72. @Jack D
    Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God and were defeated so they are Lucifer and they no more deserve memorials to their battle than does Lucifer (or Hitler).

    I will be honest - I don't think that Lee & co. deserved memorials in the 1st place - Lee didn't want any. The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral - the right to own other human beings as property. We should never have brought Africans over to America to begin with - they were the original cheap immigrant labor taking jobs away from Americans. The plantation owners knew that just freeing the blacks was no solution but neither was keeping them enslaved. Lincoln had the right idea - send them back to Africa. Lee fought nobly but he fought for an immoral cause. The memorials were a sort of Southern white backlash - most were put up long after the war was over.

    But by now, most of them have been there 100 years or more so they are part of our history - if not Civil War then the history of the Reconstruction Period and the early 20th century. Taking them down now is just another backlash and is wrong too.

    I think it’s unfair and inaccurate to describe Lee as fighting for slavery. Likewise, statues to Confederates put up later were not meant to be memorials to human bondage.

  73. @Anon
    This is going on in other contexts as well. I read the Civil War books that are uploaded onto Project Gutenburg, and for some time now it seems the only Civil War memoirs being uploaded to the site are the most shrill, anti-slavery Northern ones. Almost no memoirs by southerners are making it onto the site anymore, and it looks like a deliberate attempt to reshape the past on the part of a crazed SJW cabal that has taken over PG. I have no other explanation for this sort of bias.

    Also, literally, a few hundred thousand digitized books, journals, and essays, as far back as 1750, at Hathi Trust, a university research libraries consortium, at:

    https://www.hathitrust.org/

    To date, they even allow one to access such politically incorrect and no doubt “offensive” material as the below explanation of “Southern” monuments.

    The Motives and Aims of the Soldiers of the South in the Civil War

    RANDOLPH HARRISON McKlM, D. D., LL. D., 1904

    And so we accepted the result of the war in good faith. We abide the arbitrament of the sword. We subscribe as sincerely as the men who fought against us, to the sentiment: One Flag, One Country, One Constitution, One Destiny. This is now for us an indissoluble Union of indestructible States. We are loyal to that starry banner. We remember that it was baptized with Southern blood when our forefathers first unfurled it to the breeze. We remember that it was a Southern poet, Francis Key, who immortalized it in the “Star Spangled Banner.” We remember that it was the genius of a Southern soldier and statesman, George Washington, that finally established it in triumph. Southern blood has again flowed in its defense in the Spanish War, and should occasion require, we pledge our lives and our sacred honor to defend it against foreign aggression as bravely as will the descendants of the Puritans.

    And yet, to-day, while that banner of the Union floats over us, we bring the offering of our love and loyalty to the memory of the flag of the Southern confederacy! Strange as it may seem to one who does not understand our people; inconsistent and incomprehensible as it may appear, we salute yonder flag — the banner of the Stars and Stripes — as the symbol of our reunited country at the same moment that we come together to do homage to the memory of the Stars and Bars. There is in our hearts a double loyalty today; a loyalty to the present, and a loyalty to the dear, dead, past. We still love our old battle flag with the Southern cross upon its fiery folds! We have wrapped it round our hearts! We have enshrined it in the sacred ark of our love; and we will honor it and cherish it evermore, — not now as a political symbol, but as the consecrated emblem of an heroic epoch; as the sacred memento of a day that is dead; as the embodiment of memories that will be tender and holy as long as life shall last.

    Let not our fellow countrymen of the North mistake the spirit of this great occasion. If Daniel Webster could say that the Bunker Hill monument was not erected “to perpetuate hostility to Great Britain,” much more can we say that the monuments we have erected, and will yet erect, in our Southland to the memory of our dead heroes, are not intended to perpetuate the angry passions of the Civil War, or to foster or keep alive any feeling of hostility to our brethren of other parts of the Union. No, but these monuments are erected, and these great assemblages of our surviving veterans are held, in simple loyalty to the best and purest dictates of the human heart. The people that forgets its heroic dead is already dying at the heart; and we believe it will make for the strength and the glory of the United States if the sentiments that animate us today shall be perpetuated, generation after generation.

  74. To be fair, the Grand Army of the Union allowed thousands upon thousands of its own soldiers to die of neglect too. Like the legions of Union Men in McClellans’ Army of the Potomac who shat themselves to death while waiting for thier generalissimo to actually bestir himself to do something.

    Equality! Fraternity! Dysentery!

    Hey, you can’t make an omelet without throwing away a whole bunch of eggs.

  75. @Jack D
    Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God and were defeated so they are Lucifer and they no more deserve memorials to their battle than does Lucifer (or Hitler).

    I will be honest - I don't think that Lee & co. deserved memorials in the 1st place - Lee didn't want any. The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral - the right to own other human beings as property. We should never have brought Africans over to America to begin with - they were the original cheap immigrant labor taking jobs away from Americans. The plantation owners knew that just freeing the blacks was no solution but neither was keeping them enslaved. Lincoln had the right idea - send them back to Africa. Lee fought nobly but he fought for an immoral cause. The memorials were a sort of Southern white backlash - most were put up long after the war was over.

    But by now, most of them have been there 100 years or more so they are part of our history - if not Civil War then the history of the Reconstruction Period and the early 20th century. Taking them down now is just another backlash and is wrong too.

    The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral – the right to own other human beings as property.

    And it was opposed by Union soldiers who were drafted, i.e…………………enslaved.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    We're "slaves" because we have to pay taxes, because we can be drafted. There are slaves in the Bible, etc. This is all weak sauce. It's not the same thing. Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong. It had been gone from Europe since Roman times but was revived on the fresh soil of America. It was America's original sin, for which we are still paying to this day. The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves - no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
  76. @CCZ
    Doesn't this mean that he is desecrating United States veterans graves?

    Confederate soldiers are also U.S. veterans. The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900, signed June 6, 1903, the Congressional Act of 1906, by the 17th Congress in February 1929 and U.S. Public Law 85-425, Section 410, of May 1958.

    The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900,….

    About the time they realized they needed southerners to fight their wars.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    The enlisted in huge numbers.

  77. After all, today’s Poles are Bad Guys too for not taking in Merkel’s refugees.

    Even worse, they love the Donald.

  78. @syonredux
    Posted it before, but here’s the eloquent passage from Henry James’ The Bostonians where Basil Ransom visits Harvard’s Memorial Hall:

    “Now there is one place where perhaps it would be indelicate to take a Mississippian,” Verena said, after this episode. “I mean the great place that towers above the others—that big building with the beautiful pinnacles, which you see from every point.” But Basil Ransom had heard of the great Memorial Hall; he knew what memories it enshrined, and the worst that he should have to suffer there; and the ornate, overtopping structure, which was the finest piece of architecture he had ever seen, had moreover solicited his enlarged curiosity for the last half-hour. He thought there was rather too much brick about it, but it was buttressed, cloistered, turreted, dedicated, superscribed, as he had never seen anything; though it didn’t look old, it looked significant; it covered a large area, and it sprang majestic into the winter air. It was detached from the rest of the collegiate group, and stood in a grassy triangle of its own. As he approached it with Verena she suddenly stopped, to decline responsibility. “Now mind, if you don’t like what’s inside, it isn’t my fault.”

    He looked at her an instant, smiling. “Is there anything against Mississippi?”

    “Well, no, I don’t think she is mentioned. But there is great praise of our young men in the war.”

    “It says they were brave, I suppose.”

    “Yes, it says so in Latin.”

    “Well, so they were—I know something about that,” Basil Ransom said. “I must be brave enough to face them—it isn’t the first time.” And they went up the low steps and passed into the tall doors. The Memorial Hall of Harvard consists of three main divisions: one of them a theatre, for academic ceremonies; another a vast refectory, covered with a timbered roof, hung about with portraits and lighted by stained windows, like the halls of the colleges of Oxford; and the third, the most interesting, a chamber high, dim, and severe, consecrated to the sons of the university who fell in the long Civil War. Ransom and his companion wandered from one part of the building to another, and stayed their steps at several impressive points; but they lingered longest in the presence of the white, ranged tablets, each of which, in its proud, sad clearness, is inscribed with the name of a student-soldier. The effect of the place is singularly noble and solemn, and it is impossible to feel it without a lifting of the heart. It stands there for duty and honour, it speaks of sacrifice and example, seems a kind of temple to youth, manhood, generosity. Most of them were young, all were in their prime, and all of them had fallen; this simple idea hovers before the visitor and makes him read with tenderness each name and place—names often without other history, and forgotten Southern battles. For Ransom these things were not a challenge nor a taunt; they touched him with respect, with the sentiment of beauty. He was capable of being a generous foeman, and he forgot, now, the whole question of sides and parties; the simple emotion of the old fighting-time came back to him, and the monument around him seemed an embodiment of that memory; it arched over friends as well as enemies, the victims of defeat as well as the sons of triumph.
     

    How many Harvard men and women have died in Iraq or Afghanistan?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    How many Harvard men and women have died in Iraq or Afghanistan?
     
    Damn few, I should think. We live in such degenerate times. Compare the current elite to the elite in 1898:

    Woodbury Kane (8 February 1859 – 5 December 1905) was a noted yachtsman and bon vivant, and member of Theodore Roosevelt's Rough Riders. A director of the Metropolitan Register Company, Kane served aboard the Columbia in the 1899 America's Cup race. He also was a noted hunter of big game, both in North America and South Africa.
    He was a member of the New York Yacht Club (for many years serving on the club's America's Cup committee), the Metropolitan Club, the Knickerbocker Club, the Racquet Court Club, the Seawanhaka Corinthian Yacht Club, the Meadowbrook Hunt Club, the Hudson River Ice Yacht Club, the Larchmont Club, and the Yacht and Country Club.
     

    Kane was one of eight children of Oliver Delancey Kane, of Newport, Rhode Island, and his wife Louisa Langdon; his brothers were Colonel Delancey Astor Kane, and John Innes Kane,and S. Nicholson-Kane. His sisters were Louisa Dorothea Kane, Emily Astor(Kane) Jay,and Sybil Kent Kane. He was a cousin of Lt. Col. John Jacob Astor IV.
    Woodbury entered Harvard University in the autumn of 1878; during university he was a member of the Hasty Pudding and Porcellian Clubs and other organizations. While at Harvard he became a close friend of Theodore Roosevelt. At Harvard, he played football and was considered an expert at cricket, tennis, and polo. He had a most charming personality, and his well-bred manner, his elegance of carriage and movement, his lithe and erect figure, and the zest with which he entered into tennis, football, boxing, and running races, together with his courtesy and good humor, made him conspicuous among his classmates
     

    When the Spanish–American War broke out in late April 1898, Kane enlisted in the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, better known as the "Rough Riders." Kane and several of his East Coast friends, including William Tiffany, donated two Colt Machine Guns that cost $7,500 each.
    When the Rough Riders were allowed to expand from their original number of 778 to 1000, Kane was commissioned a lieutenant. Kane was remarkable for always being immaculately dressed even during the worst conditions. Roosevelt mentioned him in his account The Rough Riders:
    When I went down to the camp at San Antonio he was on kitchen duty, and was cooking and washing dishes for one of the New Mexican troops; and he was doing it so well that I had no further doubt as to how he would get on.
    On July 1, 1898, in the assault on San Juan Hill by the Rough Riders, and while leading K Troop, Kane was wounded in the forearm and arm by Mauser rifle fire. For his wounds, he was awarded a citation for gallantry and was promoted to captain in the volunteer service. He served with distinction throughout the Cuban campaign. Kane is one of the Rough Riders featured in the foreground of Frederick Remington's famous painting of the charge on San Juan Hill.
    Regular Army officer, San Juan Battle Gatling Gun Commander batter commander and renowned developer of their forward tactical use, John H. Parker, described Captain Woodbury Kane in his book, as follows:

    Woodbury Kane – social leader, Fortune's favorite, aristocratic, refined, cultured, wealthy, haut ton de haut ton, and sabreur sans peur et sans reproche–how shall I paint him to you as I learned to know him in those dreadful, delightful seventeen days in which we lived only from instant to instant, and every man unconsciously bared his soul to his comrades because he could not help it?
    A gentleman–he always looked that in the fullest sense of the word. Well groomed; in those days when our bed was a mud-puddle and our canopy the stars, when the music which lulled us to sleep was the hum of the Mauser bullets and the vicious popping of the Remingtons, when water to drink had to be brought at the peril of life for every mouthful, Kane turned up every morning clean-shaved and neatly groomed, shoes duly polished, neat khaki, fitting like a glove and brushed to perfection, nails polished, and hair parted as nicely as if he were dressed by his valet in his New York apartments. How did he do it? We never knew. He kept no servant; he took his regular turn in the ditches, in the mud, or torrid sun, or smothering rain. No night alarm came that did not find Kane first to spring to the trench–and yet he did it, somehow. The courteous phrases of politest speech fell ever from his ready lips, as easily as they would have done in the boudoir of any belle in the metropolis. The shrieking of a shell or tingling hiss of a sharpshooter's close-aimed bullet never came so near as to interrupt whatever polished expression of thanks, regret, or comment he might be uttering. And it was the real thing, too. The gentle heart was there. No man was readier to bind a wound or aid a sun-struck soldier in the ranks; none more ready to deny himself a comfort or a luxury to help a more needy comrade. A braver man, a surer or more reliable officer, never trod in shoe-leather. A grand example to our pessimistic, socialistic friends and cheap demagogues of the sterling worth and noble, chivalric character of a "society man of wealth." He is a living type of "Bel a faire peur," without the idiotic sentimentality of that maudlin hero, and with all his other characteristics... (Kane and others) are the type of our young manhood - our representative American youth - As Roosevelt is of its vigorous manhood. They are the salt of the earth, and Kane - is both salt and spice

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_Kane
    , @syonredux

    "... To this rugged crew, Roosevelt added some 50 men with backgrounds closer to his own: Ivy Leaguers from wealthy Eastern families. In citing their qualifications for active duty, Roosevelt touted their athletic accomplishments. Dudley Dean was "perhaps the best quarterback who ever played on a Harvard 11." Bob Wrenn was "the champion tennis player of America." Other Easterners included "Waller, the high jumper; Craig Wadsworth, the steeplechase rider; Joe Stephens, the crack polo player; and Hamilton Fish, the ex-captain of the Columbia crew."[1]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Fish_II_(Rough_Rider)
  79. @Mr. Anon

    The U.S. government recognized Confederate veterans as equivalent to Union vets via the Congressional Act of 1900,....
     
    About the time they realized they needed southerners to fight their wars.

    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    The enlisted in huge numbers.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I assume it's about why there shouldn't be statues of Confederates. I retweeted this response.
    https://twitter.com/LeahLibresco/status/898380886852423681
    , @Mr. Anon

    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    They enlisted in huge numbers.
     
    They shouldn't have.
    , @Mr. Anon

    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?
     
    I assume that was one reason why Confederate General (then, a Senator from Alabama) Joeseph Hooker was asked to take a prominent role in command of the invasion of Cuba.

    By the way, Steve, did you ever see John Milius' "The Rough Riders"? It takes some liberties with history and is very John Milius-esque, but it has a very amusing and entertaining portrayal of Joe Hooker by Gary Busey.
  80. anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @black sea
    There are in a few places scattered around the US, memorials to German POWs who died while imprisoned in the US. I suppose the antifas and their political sympathizers might get around to these someday, but I don't think so.

    Slavery was not just a tragedy for Blacks, but a tragedy for America, as the Civil War was not just a tragedy for the South, but for the entire nation. That tragedy continues to play itself out today, but since Americans as a rule believe themselves to be immune from tragedy, this interpretation doesn't particularly resonate.

    Talk about triggering, Volkstrauertag services are held at Ft.Custer, Michigan for Third Reich Military Personnel. From facebook:

    The Ft. Custer Wednesday Honor Guard had the distinct privilege to support Volkstrauertag 2016, held at the Ft. Custer National Cemetery earlier today.

    The Volkstrauertag (German for “people’s day of mourning”) is a public holiday in Germany two Sundays before the first day of Advent. It commemorates members of the German armed forces and civilians who died in armed conflicts, to include victims of violent oppression. It was first observed in its modern form in 1952.

    An official observation of Volkstrauertag takes place in the German Bundestag. The President of Germany traditionally gives a speech with the Chancellor, the cabinet and the diplomatic corps present. The national anthem and the song “Ich hatt’ einen Kameraden” (“I had a comrade”) are then played. Most provinces also hold their own ceremonies; veterans usually organize ceremonies that include a procession from the respective Church service to a war memorial, prayer by the pastor, speeches by the mayor and the veterans’ chairmen, a military guard of honor, several wreaths are laid, and “Ich hatt’ einen Kameraden”; where available, also with the attendance of a Bundeswehr officer as official representative.

    Because of the relation to Advent, the date is the Sunday nearest 16 November, i.e. in the period from 13 November to 19 November.

    This local Volkstrauertag observation is especially important to the local German-American community as they honor the “Forgotten Twenty-Six”. From 1943 to 1946, Fort Custer housed several German Prisoner of War camps. Many of the 4,000 prisoners worked on farms and in vineyards in the area. In Section B of Fort Custer National Cemetery, once part of the Post Cemetery of Fort Custer, there are 26 German graves. Sixteen of the men were killed or died as a result of an accident on 31 October 1944 when a truck, returning German prisoners of war from a work detail to their POW camp at Fort Custer, collided with a train at an unguarded railroad crossing at Blissfield, MI. The other ten died of natural causes while prisoners of war.

    How can Senators Peters and Stabenow allow this!

  81. “On Wisconsin, On Wisconsin,
    Champions of the right …”

    How long does that last, when they realize the rubes are subconsciously capitalizing the word “right”, I wonder …?

  82. @CCZ
    Moralist Chelsea Clinton elevates the conversation: "The story of Lucifer-who rebelled against God-is part of many Christians' traditions. I've never been in a church with a Lucifer statue."

    https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/status/898335002697412608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Finsider.foxnews.com%2F2017%2F08%2F18%2Fmark-steyn-charlottesville-chelsea-clinton-robert-byrd-confederate-democrats-white

    There is a CSA Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery (The inscription: To our dead heroes, by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. “Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni.”) This must not stand!!!

  83. @inertial
    This is a myth. The Russians stopped stopped their advance toward Warsaw because they were stopped by the German Army.

    Soviet army arrived to Warsaw exhausted and with overextended communications. The Germans counterattacked and threw the Russians back, in the process practically destroying a whole tank army. In three days the Russians lost almost 300 tanks. To give you an idea about the scale of this battle, during the Battle of the Bulge the allies lost about 800 tanks - over the course of a month.

    Also, consider the timing. You say that the Polish Resistance was destroyed, "whereupon Stalin resumed his advance." So when did this "whereupon" actually happen? The Warsaw Uprising was finally defeated on October 2, 1944. The Soviet Army resumed their offensive on Warsaw on January 17, 1945. That's 3.5 months later. Why didn't they move earlier? Because they couldn't.

    The Germans counterattacked and threw the Russians back, in the process practically destroying a whole tank army. In three days the Russians lost almost 300 tanks.

    Leaving out self-propelled guns, the Soviets lost about 60 tanks a day throughout the war, so 300 tanks was just a little higher than normal, but typical of the ebb and flow of battle. Was it enough to derail the advance to a major objective like Warsaw? I’m skeptical. The US invaded Japanese-held Luzon for political reasons and took casualties that were militarily unnecessary for the advance to Tokyo. It’s not just possible, but likely, given the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, that Stalin stood aside, just so that the Nazis would take the casualties (and the blame) for wiping out the non-Communist Polish resistance.

    Britain could have signed the equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany after winning the Battle of Britain, and supplied the Nazis for the Operation Barbarossa. The fact that they did not is indicative of the difference between British and Russian approaches towards ethical dilemmas. This difference is probably why Russia has held on to most of its empire, and remains by far the largest country in the world, while the British empire is mostly a historical artifact.

  84. @inertial
    This is a myth. The Russians stopped stopped their advance toward Warsaw because they were stopped by the German Army.

    Soviet army arrived to Warsaw exhausted and with overextended communications. The Germans counterattacked and threw the Russians back, in the process practically destroying a whole tank army. In three days the Russians lost almost 300 tanks. To give you an idea about the scale of this battle, during the Battle of the Bulge the allies lost about 800 tanks - over the course of a month.

    Also, consider the timing. You say that the Polish Resistance was destroyed, "whereupon Stalin resumed his advance." So when did this "whereupon" actually happen? The Warsaw Uprising was finally defeated on October 2, 1944. The Soviet Army resumed their offensive on Warsaw on January 17, 1945. That's 3.5 months later. Why didn't they move earlier? Because they couldn't.

    So the Soviets halted their advance on Warsaw from August 1944 to mid-January 1945 (i.e., after the Germans had lost the Battle of the Bulge)?

    • Replies: @inertial
    Pretty much. I am not enough of a WWII buff to tell you exactly why. But here is a map of the Eastern Front in late July 1944, just before the Soviet Army tried to take Warsaw the first time. Warsaw is just off a tip of a bulge into the German held territory. You can see why pushing forward onto Warsaw was a risky proposition, and why the Soviet command might have preferred to take care of the situation in the north and the south first.

    I think what the Soviet command chose to do next was to attack in Romania and deprive Germany from its only source of oil. Which makes a lot of sense.

  85. I was looking to draw a parallel with Andersonville, where 29% of the Union prisoners died, but actually it is more of a contrast. The stockade commander there was hung, and the cemetery eventually became a national historic site run by the National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/camp_sumter_history.htm

  86. @Steve Sailer
    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    The enlisted in huge numbers.

    I assume it’s about why there shouldn’t be statues of Confederates. I retweeted this response.

  87. @Jack D
    Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God and were defeated so they are Lucifer and they no more deserve memorials to their battle than does Lucifer (or Hitler).

    I will be honest - I don't think that Lee & co. deserved memorials in the 1st place - Lee didn't want any. The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral - the right to own other human beings as property. We should never have brought Africans over to America to begin with - they were the original cheap immigrant labor taking jobs away from Americans. The plantation owners knew that just freeing the blacks was no solution but neither was keeping them enslaved. Lincoln had the right idea - send them back to Africa. Lee fought nobly but he fought for an immoral cause. The memorials were a sort of Southern white backlash - most were put up long after the war was over.

    But by now, most of them have been there 100 years or more so they are part of our history - if not Civil War then the history of the Reconstruction Period and the early 20th century. Taking them down now is just another backlash and is wrong too.

    “Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God”

    Um, assuming that you are a Christian, you should realize that the Bible has no real objection to slavery/human property. From the Old Testament to New Testament, the Bible urged slave owners to treat their slaves well, but never objected to the practice or told slave owners to free their slaves. Even in Philemon, when dealing with both a slave and slave owner who are Christians, Paul doesn’t urge the slave owner to free Onesimus but merely to receive him back.

    This is even more complicated once you understand that the Hebrew word usually used for “husband” is “baal” which has the multiple meanings of lord/master/owner/husband. Thus, the Old Testament in various instances refers to individuals as being the baal of an animal, the baal of a pit, the baal of a slave, and the baal of a wife. Thus, from a certain interpretation, the Old Testament had the overtones of a husband “owning” his wife as human property in the way he owned a pit, animal, or slave.

    Now, it is worth noting that slavery in the ancient world was not the same as slavery during the Enlightenment. In the ancient world, slavery was typically more like indentured servitude and it was possible for a slave to save enough money to purchase his freedom. Also, while a man was permitted to marry a slave, rape is not permitted under the Old Testament law.

    There were Christians on both sides of the Slavery and Abolition debate. I think it’s possible to argue that the form of slavery practiced during the Civil War was not Biblical, but I find no justification for arguing that the Bible is opposed to slavery as an institution.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    No I'm not Christian. I was putting these words in Chelsea's mouth to explain why in her view Confederates were Lucifer. Everyone always thinks that God is on THEIR side. Humans are capable of rationalizing anything. The Muslims who run down children and newlyweds with their cars think that God is on their side too.

    Baal is an ancient semitic word for "Lord" - the Semites worshiped "Baal" idols.

    In Yiddish, it has no connotation of slave master - a balabos (baal ha bayis) is the "master of the house" - the feminine version means homemaker. Balagula (master of the wagon) is a teamster.
    , @AM

    Now, it is worth noting that slavery in the ancient world was not the same as slavery during the Enlightenment. In the ancient world, slavery was typically more like indentured servitude and it was possible for a slave to save enough money to purchase his freedom. Also, while a man was permitted to marry a slave, rape is not permitted under the Old Testament law.
     
    Lots of American slaves purchased their own freedom. I believe the great "advancement" was the the child of a slave was also slave. Or more likely not new but widespread with African globalist slavery.
  88. Thanks for the musical interlude.

    Spent some time listening to other versions of The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, including covers by Joan Baez (several), Johnny Cash, etc. before YouTube purges them.

    Found this slow one by Jerry Garcia from 1976 especially poignant, if you have ten and a half minutes to listen:

  89. anon • Disclaimer says:

    It’s deranged. The New Yorker is now claiming that the North never really won the Civil War … Ipso facto we have to finish the job.

    With the exception of the brief interval of Reconstruction, the states of the former Confederacy have been able to exert as much influence on national affairs and on matters of race as they had before the Civil War, and possibly more. Having lost the quest to maintain slavery, they put in place sharecropping—a system of agricultural serfdom—which was dominant for the next eight decades. Prior to the Civil War, slaveholding states held a disproportionate influence in Congress, because the census counted sixty per cent of the enslaved population—people who could not vote—in apportioning representation. After the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the census counted the entire black population, but the regime of white terrorism that followed Reconstruction insured that these African-Americans could not vote, either. Thus, Southern white political power was amplified after the war by the mere existence of disfranchised African-Americans living in Southern states.

    This is idiotic. Prior to the Civil War, the South held up Manifest Destiny, The Transcontinental Railroad, Populating flyover country, etc. Afterwards, there were no longer issues over whether new states would be Slave or Free. So, it was over.

  90. I just want to send the dreamers back to Mexico.

    • Replies: @Anon
    It's more like the North lost the second Civil War where Jews conquered the Yankees. And now they target all other whites.

    This is White Nakba.
  91. Does Paul Soglin not have ancestors who fought in the Civil War?

  92. @Desiderius
    Bullies prey on the weak.

    Yes, they’ve lost their fear of another southern rebellion. The conciliation of the south after the civil war, and especially after WWI, was party christian forgiveness, but also motivated by fear that if excessively provoked the southerners would go for round 2. That fear is gone.

  93. I prefer Johnny Horton’s ‘Johnny Reb”. How much of the 50-60s popularity of the Confederacy was a reflection of southern rock and roll becoming popular rather than a civil rights backlash?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right, all these cool Southerners like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Buddy Holly, not to mention Chuck Berry and Little Richard.

    The Rolling Stones at their 1968-1972 peak were basically a Southern rock band.

  94. This act of ethnic cleansing, itself classifiable as a crime against humanity, is merely insult to the injury of the war crime that left these poor souls to moulder behind enemy lines.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    How is it ethnic cleansing?
  95. @LondonBob
    I prefer Johnny Horton's 'Johnny Reb". How much of the 50-60s popularity of the Confederacy was a reflection of southern rock and roll becoming popular rather than a civil rights backlash?

    Right, all these cool Southerners like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Buddy Holly, not to mention Chuck Berry and Little Richard.

    The Rolling Stones at their 1968-1972 peak were basically a Southern rock band.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Do you think the Stones will play Brown Sugar at the Charlottesville Benefit concert?
  96. Camp Randall is the name of the stadium where the Badgers play their home football games.

  97. @Allen
    "Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God"

    Um, assuming that you are a Christian, you should realize that the Bible has no real objection to slavery/human property. From the Old Testament to New Testament, the Bible urged slave owners to treat their slaves well, but never objected to the practice or told slave owners to free their slaves. Even in Philemon, when dealing with both a slave and slave owner who are Christians, Paul doesn't urge the slave owner to free Onesimus but merely to receive him back.

    This is even more complicated once you understand that the Hebrew word usually used for "husband" is "baal" which has the multiple meanings of lord/master/owner/husband. Thus, the Old Testament in various instances refers to individuals as being the baal of an animal, the baal of a pit, the baal of a slave, and the baal of a wife. Thus, from a certain interpretation, the Old Testament had the overtones of a husband "owning" his wife as human property in the way he owned a pit, animal, or slave.

    Now, it is worth noting that slavery in the ancient world was not the same as slavery during the Enlightenment. In the ancient world, slavery was typically more like indentured servitude and it was possible for a slave to save enough money to purchase his freedom. Also, while a man was permitted to marry a slave, rape is not permitted under the Old Testament law.

    There were Christians on both sides of the Slavery and Abolition debate. I think it's possible to argue that the form of slavery practiced during the Civil War was not Biblical, but I find no justification for arguing that the Bible is opposed to slavery as an institution.

    No I’m not Christian. I was putting these words in Chelsea’s mouth to explain why in her view Confederates were Lucifer. Everyone always thinks that God is on THEIR side. Humans are capable of rationalizing anything. The Muslims who run down children and newlyweds with their cars think that God is on their side too.

    Baal is an ancient semitic word for “Lord” – the Semites worshiped “Baal” idols.

    In Yiddish, it has no connotation of slave master – a balabos (baal ha bayis) is the “master of the house” – the feminine version means homemaker. Balagula (master of the wagon) is a teamster.

    • Replies: @AM

    Everyone always thinks that God is on THEIR side. Humans are capable of rationalizing anything. The Muslims who run down children and newlyweds with their cars think that God is on their side too.
     
    Correct. One side will be wrong or even both sides could be wrong. But it's possible that one side is also correct. That's the modern rub that never seems to be considered. The possibility that someone actually is on the side of God. That's how it's termed in proper religious thinking - you are aligning your will to God, not that God's will is aligning to yours and through that your endeavours will have help and success.

    The existence of the Jews as distinct people is an example of that. I tend to throw out conspiracy theories because I haven't seen much evidence that Jew really much wiser/brighter than the average bear. Seen in that light, it turns out that God does seem to pick sides. ;)
  98. @newrouter
    " the right to own other human beings as property."

    As I pay the school districts and their Demoncrat sinecures this month, I'll keep that in mind.

    Let me know when you get sold down de river.

  99. @Jack Hanson
    When Lee agrees with what we say for intensely personal reasons versus our ideology: The Marble Man speaks!

    When Lee disagrees with us on say, federalism: NAZI BIGOT

    Yeah we get the selective mendacity.

    You’re right – when you agree with a man on one thing, you have to agree with him about EVERYTHING – it’s all or nothing, I say.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I can tell you're upset that your SJW tactic of cherry picking events or statements without paying attention to context got rightfully called out.
  100. @matt

    But in 1939 they and Nazis were teamed up punching Poles
     
    Let it never be forgotten that the Poles teamed up with the Nazis to punch Czechoslovakia just a year earlier.

    Did a single Czechoslovakian soldier die from all that punching?

    • Replies: @matt
    Not a single (or only a handful, anyway) Latvian, Lithuanian, or Estonian soldier died when during the Soviet annexations of those countries either, so I suppose your ok with that too.

    Oh, you're not? You mean you're just tossing obfuscatory bullshit around in order to maintain saintly Poland's image as the plucky underdog that can do no wrong but is constantly the victim of it?
  101. @Jack D
    You're right - when you agree with a man on one thing, you have to agree with him about EVERYTHING - it's all or nothing, I say.

    I can tell you’re upset that your SJW tactic of cherry picking events or statements without paying attention to context got rightfully called out.

  102. @Mr. Anon

    The Lost Cause he was fighting for was immoral – the right to own other human beings as property.
     
    And it was opposed by Union soldiers who were drafted, i.e.....................enslaved.

    We’re “slaves” because we have to pay taxes, because we can be drafted. There are slaves in the Bible, etc. This is all weak sauce. It’s not the same thing. Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong. It had been gone from Europe since Roman times but was revived on the fresh soil of America. It was America’s original sin, for which we are still paying to this day. The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.

    • Replies: @AM

    Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong.
     
    You're an atheist correct? On what basis do you form this opinion? We're just random bags of water, here by accident. I don't see the problem with owning other accidental random bags of water.

    Also what makes non-hereditary slavery correct?


    It was America’s original sin, for which we are still paying to this day. The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
     
    Um..the real issue we're grappling with today, in 2017, was not the labor organization, but the fact Africans don't blend very well with Germanic peoples. Buying and selling African slaves was the sin of a few Jewish merchants and wealthy aristocratic elites. I'm afraid I'm a decedent from white plebs on the point. And for the actual sinners, they're all dead.

    Also, the whole essence of the Civil War was not about the right to keep slaves. A regiment from Indiana, one of the best, rioted at the news of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln himself had no urge to free the slaves (just stop it's spread). It's highly doubtful he would have risked alienating Northern troops over the Negro question if it weren't a way to keep the Brits out of the war.

    Meanwhile, if you look across the pond, how do explain the unification of Italy and German at almost the exact same point in time? They have civil wars themselves, going from city-states (states in the US) to unified nations. Where is the black slavery to justify those wars? Or maybe something else was going on.

    Slavery may explain an intensity about the whole thing (and Lincoln's mess ups it's brutality), but in the context of world history or even Northern reactions on the point, it explains nothing.


    So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
     
    Only to a reductionist thinker who hasn't read his history. Lee was fighting reluctantly as a Virginia against an invasion. Had Lincoln kept Virginia out of the war, there would have been no need for Lee to fight.
    , @Mr. Anon

    We’re “slaves” because we have to pay taxes, because we can be drafted. There are slaves in the Bible, etc. This is all weak sauce. It’s not the same thing.
     
    No, it is not "weak sauce". Telling somebody: we're going to force you to be soldier, send you off to kill - and possibly die - in a war that you might not even care about - and if you resist, we will imprison you, or shoot you as a deserter - is everybit as enormous an infringement of one's civil liberties as making of somebody a chattel slave.

    Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong.
     
    I don't know - pretty daring statement there - really goes against the conventional wisdom.

    Sure, slavery was wrong. And ending it was not what the war was about at the outset.

    It was America’s original sin, for which we are still paying to this day.
     
    It was a mistake we are paying for to this day. Original sin? I don't care. I'm not interested in invoking loaded religious language in discussing history. Framing it that way is one of the ways the other side in the culture war continues to make us "pay for it to this day".

    The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
     
    That's sophistry. We have no idea whether there would have been a war or not, absent the peculiar institution. Lee was not fighting for the right to keep slaves. If Virginia had abolished slavery, he would have abided by it without putting up a fight.
  103. Anonymous [AKA "G10"] says:

    It’s quite possible that removing the memorial was illegal and the Mayor could be prosecuted for it.

    Most states have laws which strictly regulate the control of public art and once you dedicate a piece of artwork to the public on public land, whether at the local level or at the state level, the artwork is covered by state regulation, which supersedes local control. This is why, in saner times, you would periodically see a local interest article about some fugly piece of public art that irritated locals and the mayor would shrug his/her shoulders and essentially say there’s nothing he/she could do about it because state law prohibited removal or alteration of the work.

    These types of laws are usually implemented by appointing a state-level commission on public art, which resolves the various ownership and copyright issues at an administrative level.

    Most states also have laws which strictly regulate erecting and removing monuments in cemeteries, which laws would also supersede local control. Violating these laws is usually a felony.

    In the article linked in the Althouse post the city of Madison took pains to specifically describe the monument as “city owned” even though it was apparently funded by a private citizen. This reads like a preemptive strike to attempt to assert title where no clear title exists. Most likely the monument sits on land that is owned by the city (this is apparently a public cemetery) but the work was probably simply dedicated to the public, with no specifics as to who owns the actual monument.

    In any event, if Wisconsin has such laws then it’s not at all clear that the Mayor of Madison had legal authority to order the monument removed without approval from the appropriate authority. Since the work was in a cemetery his actions may have constituted a felony.

    Wisconsin’s Attorney General is a Republican. He should open an investigation into the actions of the Mayor and, if appropriate, prosecute him. He won’t, and this is one more reason why Republicans are losing the culture wars. We don’t fight back.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  104. @Allen
    "Abolitionism was Godly. The Confederate rebelled against God"

    Um, assuming that you are a Christian, you should realize that the Bible has no real objection to slavery/human property. From the Old Testament to New Testament, the Bible urged slave owners to treat their slaves well, but never objected to the practice or told slave owners to free their slaves. Even in Philemon, when dealing with both a slave and slave owner who are Christians, Paul doesn't urge the slave owner to free Onesimus but merely to receive him back.

    This is even more complicated once you understand that the Hebrew word usually used for "husband" is "baal" which has the multiple meanings of lord/master/owner/husband. Thus, the Old Testament in various instances refers to individuals as being the baal of an animal, the baal of a pit, the baal of a slave, and the baal of a wife. Thus, from a certain interpretation, the Old Testament had the overtones of a husband "owning" his wife as human property in the way he owned a pit, animal, or slave.

    Now, it is worth noting that slavery in the ancient world was not the same as slavery during the Enlightenment. In the ancient world, slavery was typically more like indentured servitude and it was possible for a slave to save enough money to purchase his freedom. Also, while a man was permitted to marry a slave, rape is not permitted under the Old Testament law.

    There were Christians on both sides of the Slavery and Abolition debate. I think it's possible to argue that the form of slavery practiced during the Civil War was not Biblical, but I find no justification for arguing that the Bible is opposed to slavery as an institution.

    Now, it is worth noting that slavery in the ancient world was not the same as slavery during the Enlightenment. In the ancient world, slavery was typically more like indentured servitude and it was possible for a slave to save enough money to purchase his freedom. Also, while a man was permitted to marry a slave, rape is not permitted under the Old Testament law.

    Lots of American slaves purchased their own freedom. I believe the great “advancement” was the the child of a slave was also slave. Or more likely not new but widespread with African globalist slavery.

  105. @Jack D
    No I'm not Christian. I was putting these words in Chelsea's mouth to explain why in her view Confederates were Lucifer. Everyone always thinks that God is on THEIR side. Humans are capable of rationalizing anything. The Muslims who run down children and newlyweds with their cars think that God is on their side too.

    Baal is an ancient semitic word for "Lord" - the Semites worshiped "Baal" idols.

    In Yiddish, it has no connotation of slave master - a balabos (baal ha bayis) is the "master of the house" - the feminine version means homemaker. Balagula (master of the wagon) is a teamster.

    Everyone always thinks that God is on THEIR side. Humans are capable of rationalizing anything. The Muslims who run down children and newlyweds with their cars think that God is on their side too.

    Correct. One side will be wrong or even both sides could be wrong. But it’s possible that one side is also correct. That’s the modern rub that never seems to be considered. The possibility that someone actually is on the side of God. That’s how it’s termed in proper religious thinking – you are aligning your will to God, not that God’s will is aligning to yours and through that your endeavours will have help and success.

    The existence of the Jews as distinct people is an example of that. I tend to throw out conspiracy theories because I haven’t seen much evidence that Jew really much wiser/brighter than the average bear. Seen in that light, it turns out that God does seem to pick sides. 😉

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The problem is that (except in very rare instances and even in those instances we don't know whether the person claiming to talk with God is really talking with God - is he Joseph Smith or is he Moses?) we really have no way of knowing what God's will really is. Satan is very good at tricking humans into thinking that they are doing God's will when they are really following Satan. And temporary successes may fool you into thinking that you have the mandate of heaven on your side - when the WTC collapsed this exceeded even Bin Laden's highest hopes and he took that as a sign that Allah was with him. Later when the SEALS showed up and blew his brains out - not so much.
  106. “To be accurate, it would have been more likely disease than ‘neglect’ that killed the soldiers.”

    Not in this case. Many of these POWs were suffering from scurvy and purposely denied treatment. The history channel had a great documentary about this: 80 Acres of Hell, I believe. This was a blatant war crime.

    Truthfully, Southerners are partly to blame for this. As the saying goes, you can’t have two masters. Serve a Union that hates you and you’re giving permission for them to abuse you. Perhaps it would be wise to consider an independence movement. After all, what kind of coward sits back and allows an enemy to desecrate the graves of your people that they murdered?

  107. @Jack D
    We're "slaves" because we have to pay taxes, because we can be drafted. There are slaves in the Bible, etc. This is all weak sauce. It's not the same thing. Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong. It had been gone from Europe since Roman times but was revived on the fresh soil of America. It was America's original sin, for which we are still paying to this day. The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves - no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.

    Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong.

    You’re an atheist correct? On what basis do you form this opinion? We’re just random bags of water, here by accident. I don’t see the problem with owning other accidental random bags of water.

    Also what makes non-hereditary slavery correct?

    It was America’s original sin, for which we are still paying to this day. The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.

    Um..the real issue we’re grappling with today, in 2017, was not the labor organization, but the fact Africans don’t blend very well with Germanic peoples. Buying and selling African slaves was the sin of a few Jewish merchants and wealthy aristocratic elites. I’m afraid I’m a decedent from white plebs on the point. And for the actual sinners, they’re all dead.

    Also, the whole essence of the Civil War was not about the right to keep slaves. A regiment from Indiana, one of the best, rioted at the news of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln himself had no urge to free the slaves (just stop it’s spread). It’s highly doubtful he would have risked alienating Northern troops over the Negro question if it weren’t a way to keep the Brits out of the war.

    Meanwhile, if you look across the pond, how do explain the unification of Italy and German at almost the exact same point in time? They have civil wars themselves, going from city-states (states in the US) to unified nations. Where is the black slavery to justify those wars? Or maybe something else was going on.

    Slavery may explain an intensity about the whole thing (and Lincoln’s mess ups it’s brutality), but in the context of world history or even Northern reactions on the point, it explains nothing.

    So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.

    Only to a reductionist thinker who hasn’t read his history. Lee was fighting reluctantly as a Virginia against an invasion. Had Lincoln kept Virginia out of the war, there would have been no need for Lee to fight.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    Buying and selling African slaves was the sin of a few Jewish merchants
     
    You're delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. You and Farrakhan should be good buddies - he was the one who invented this blood libel. Before Farrakhan, it never occurred to anyone that Jews had any special or dominant role in the slave trade. Prior to 1808 when the importation of slaves was abolished, the US had a tiny Jewish population and by no means did they dominate the slave trade. Jews of that period did not particularly oppose slavery but they were such a small minority in the US at that time that even if every last one of them had been a slave merchant (and they weren't) it wouldn't have been nearly enough to run the slave trade. In the entire US in 1800 there were about 2,500 Jews counting women, children, the elderly, etc. so maybe there were six hundred Jewish men of working age total. In the American South in 1830 it has been estimated that there were 120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves, so roughly 1/4 of 1 % of American slaveholders were Jewish and 99.75% were not.

    If I say "child abuse was the sin of a few Catholic priests" you correctly say that they are not the only ones who abuse children but somehow the whole slave trade was in the hands of the Joos. Shame on you.
  108. @The Alarmist
    This act of ethnic cleansing, itself classifiable as a crime against humanity, is merely insult to the injury of the war crime that left these poor souls to moulder behind enemy lines.

    How is it ethnic cleansing?

  109. @anon
    I just want to send the dreamers back to Mexico.

    It’s more like the North lost the second Civil War where Jews conquered the Yankees. And now they target all other whites.

    This is White Nakba.

  110. I’m doubtful that any of Mayor (((Paul Soglin’s ))) ancestors fought in the Civil War.

  111. “The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.”

    Revolutionary War: fought to expand colony holdings west of Ohio in defiance of King George III.

    War of 1812: fought to expand New England’s holdings into Canada; burned their parliament to the ground, too – mirroring what Union Troops later did to Atlanta.

    Mexican-American War: fought to expand US territory along Rio Grande.

    Considering the historical precedent leading up the Civil War, one that continued well after the Civil War ended (“Remember the Maine”, anyone?), I’m sure that had the South abolished slavery before seceding there would have been no war. Yes, that was sarcasm. You can’t really be that naive, can you?

    “no slavery issue, no civil war.”

    ‘Traditionally, the way the US gets into a war’

    “So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves”

    I suppose that the Founding Fathers were fighting to kill Indians, too. Right? Or perhaps that is a gross over simplification, like your entire comment?

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Please elaborate.
  112. @anonymous
    How many Harvard men and women have died in Iraq or Afghanistan?

    How many Harvard men and women have died in Iraq or Afghanistan?

    Damn few, I should think. We live in such degenerate times. Compare the current elite to the elite in 1898:

    Woodbury Kane (8 February 1859 – 5 December 1905) was a noted yachtsman and bon vivant, and member of Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. A director of the Metropolitan Register Company, Kane served aboard the Columbia in the 1899 America’s Cup race. He also was a noted hunter of big game, both in North America and South Africa.
    He was a member of the New York Yacht Club (for many years serving on the club’s America’s Cup committee), the Metropolitan Club, the Knickerbocker Club, the Racquet Court Club, the Seawanhaka Corinthian Yacht Club, the Meadowbrook Hunt Club, the Hudson River Ice Yacht Club, the Larchmont Club, and the Yacht and Country Club.

    Kane was one of eight children of Oliver Delancey Kane, of Newport, Rhode Island, and his wife Louisa Langdon; his brothers were Colonel Delancey Astor Kane, and John Innes Kane,and S. Nicholson-Kane. His sisters were Louisa Dorothea Kane, Emily Astor(Kane) Jay,and Sybil Kent Kane. He was a cousin of Lt. Col. John Jacob Astor IV.
    Woodbury entered Harvard University in the autumn of 1878; during university he was a member of the Hasty Pudding and Porcellian Clubs and other organizations. While at Harvard he became a close friend of Theodore Roosevelt. At Harvard, he played football and was considered an expert at cricket, tennis, and polo. He had a most charming personality, and his well-bred manner, his elegance of carriage and movement, his lithe and erect figure, and the zest with which he entered into tennis, football, boxing, and running races, together with his courtesy and good humor, made him conspicuous among his classmates

    When the Spanish–American War broke out in late April 1898, Kane enlisted in the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, better known as the “Rough Riders.” Kane and several of his East Coast friends, including William Tiffany, donated two Colt Machine Guns that cost $7,500 each.
    When the Rough Riders were allowed to expand from their original number of 778 to 1000, Kane was commissioned a lieutenant. Kane was remarkable for always being immaculately dressed even during the worst conditions. Roosevelt mentioned him in his account The Rough Riders:
    When I went down to the camp at San Antonio he was on kitchen duty, and was cooking and washing dishes for one of the New Mexican troops; and he was doing it so well that I had no further doubt as to how he would get on.
    On July 1, 1898, in the assault on San Juan Hill by the Rough Riders, and while leading K Troop, Kane was wounded in the forearm and arm by Mauser rifle fire. For his wounds, he was awarded a citation for gallantry and was promoted to captain in the volunteer service. He served with distinction throughout the Cuban campaign. Kane is one of the Rough Riders featured in the foreground of Frederick Remington’s famous painting of the charge on San Juan Hill.
    Regular Army officer, San Juan Battle Gatling Gun Commander batter commander and renowned developer of their forward tactical use, John H. Parker, described Captain Woodbury Kane in his book, as follows:

    Woodbury Kane – social leader, Fortune’s favorite, aristocratic, refined, cultured, wealthy, haut ton de haut ton, and sabreur sans peur et sans reproche–how shall I paint him to you as I learned to know him in those dreadful, delightful seventeen days in which we lived only from instant to instant, and every man unconsciously bared his soul to his comrades because he could not help it?
    A gentleman–he always looked that in the fullest sense of the word. Well groomed; in those days when our bed was a mud-puddle and our canopy the stars, when the music which lulled us to sleep was the hum of the Mauser bullets and the vicious popping of the Remingtons, when water to drink had to be brought at the peril of life for every mouthful, Kane turned up every morning clean-shaved and neatly groomed, shoes duly polished, neat khaki, fitting like a glove and brushed to perfection, nails polished, and hair parted as nicely as if he were dressed by his valet in his New York apartments. How did he do it? We never knew. He kept no servant; he took his regular turn in the ditches, in the mud, or torrid sun, or smothering rain. No night alarm came that did not find Kane first to spring to the trench–and yet he did it, somehow. The courteous phrases of politest speech fell ever from his ready lips, as easily as they would have done in the boudoir of any belle in the metropolis. The shrieking of a shell or tingling hiss of a sharpshooter’s close-aimed bullet never came so near as to interrupt whatever polished expression of thanks, regret, or comment he might be uttering. And it was the real thing, too. The gentle heart was there. No man was readier to bind a wound or aid a sun-struck soldier in the ranks; none more ready to deny himself a comfort or a luxury to help a more needy comrade. A braver man, a surer or more reliable officer, never trod in shoe-leather. A grand example to our pessimistic, socialistic friends and cheap demagogues of the sterling worth and noble, chivalric character of a “society man of wealth.” He is a living type of “Bel a faire peur,” without the idiotic sentimentality of that maudlin hero, and with all his other characteristics… (Kane and others) are the type of our young manhood – our representative American youth – As Roosevelt is of its vigorous manhood. They are the salt of the earth, and Kane – is both salt and spice

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

  113. @anonymous
    How many Harvard men and women have died in Iraq or Afghanistan?

    “… To this rugged crew, Roosevelt added some 50 men with backgrounds closer to his own: Ivy Leaguers from wealthy Eastern families. In citing their qualifications for active duty, Roosevelt touted their athletic accomplishments. Dudley Dean was “perhaps the best quarterback who ever played on a Harvard 11.” Bob Wrenn was “the champion tennis player of America.” Other Easterners included “Waller, the high jumper; Craig Wadsworth, the steeplechase rider; Joe Stephens, the crack polo player; and Hamilton Fish, the ex-captain of the Columbia crew.”[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Fish_II_(Rough_Rider)

  114. @AM

    Everyone always thinks that God is on THEIR side. Humans are capable of rationalizing anything. The Muslims who run down children and newlyweds with their cars think that God is on their side too.
     
    Correct. One side will be wrong or even both sides could be wrong. But it's possible that one side is also correct. That's the modern rub that never seems to be considered. The possibility that someone actually is on the side of God. That's how it's termed in proper religious thinking - you are aligning your will to God, not that God's will is aligning to yours and through that your endeavours will have help and success.

    The existence of the Jews as distinct people is an example of that. I tend to throw out conspiracy theories because I haven't seen much evidence that Jew really much wiser/brighter than the average bear. Seen in that light, it turns out that God does seem to pick sides. ;)

    The problem is that (except in very rare instances and even in those instances we don’t know whether the person claiming to talk with God is really talking with God – is he Joseph Smith or is he Moses?) we really have no way of knowing what God’s will really is. Satan is very good at tricking humans into thinking that they are doing God’s will when they are really following Satan. And temporary successes may fool you into thinking that you have the mandate of heaven on your side – when the WTC collapsed this exceeded even Bin Laden’s highest hopes and he took that as a sign that Allah was with him. Later when the SEALS showed up and blew his brains out – not so much.

    • Replies: @AM

    The problem is that (except in very rare instances and even in those instances we don’t know whether the person claiming to talk with God is really talking with God – is he Joseph Smith or is he Moses?) we really have no way of knowing what God’s will really is.
     
    Okay, let's look at the examples you supply, starting with Moses.

    Not one, but 2 religions acknowledge his 10 Commandments as from God. Furthermore both have been highly successful as distinct groups doing do so. A review of the 10 Commandments from a natural law perspective reveals them as sound and just, with only "Thou shall have no Gods before me" requiring digging a little deeper.

    In other words, I have abundant evidence of the least the natural truth of such visions.

    Now let's take a look at Joseph Smith or Mohammed. While Moses proposes ideas of no use to him personally, both men propose twists of existing religions that benefit them personally. That's an alarm bell right there. "No drawing Mohammed" benefited him while he was alive and wanted for war crimes.

    Meanwhile, their "visions" are bit too complete. Moses supplies a solid foundation, but many volumes of both Jewish and Christian philosophy were needed to flesh out those Commandments. Both religions develop as result of a collective process over time, suggesting the original vision was merely the seed, which appears to be how God likes to operate.

    Mohammed instead proposed to write The Last Scripture You'll Ever Need. To this day, hard core Islamists insist that everyone needs to learn Arabic because it's just too darn beautiful to translate. Smith radically changes some Christian doctrine to this side of unrecognizable and adds his own The Last Scripture You'll Ever Need.

    God doesn't seem to work this. He doesn't give one person a brain dump. Seeds, little visions, little slices with Moses visions arguably one of the largest before Christ. But not whole religions, not all at once, and most certainly not your personal benefit. It's not like Moses had grand time after his visions.

    "And temporary successes may fool you into thinking that you have the mandate of heaven on your side – when the WTC collapsed this exceeded even Bin Laden’s highest hopes and he took that as a sign that Allah was with him. Later when the SEALS showed up and blew his brains out – not so much."

    Of course. But that's why the commandments and other learning within Judaism and Christianity exist. It's how you figure out that you're aligning yourself with God, rather than ego imagining God is with whatever random desires you have.

    Even though Mohammed left the ranch entirely for women (or girls I guess, yuck) and war, there's a great deal of truth in the Quran he gleaned from the Christian services he attended. It's quite possible every Muslim terrorist really does know better than to think God wants him to blow up little girls with nail bombs. But Islam makes it easy to cave to the ego.
  115. matt says:
    @Lex
    Did a single Czechoslovakian soldier die from all that punching?

    Not a single (or only a handful, anyway) Latvian, Lithuanian, or Estonian soldier died when during the Soviet annexations of those countries either, so I suppose your ok with that too.

    Oh, you’re not? You mean you’re just tossing obfuscatory bullshit around in order to maintain saintly Poland’s image as the plucky underdog that can do no wrong but is constantly the victim of it?

    • Replies: @Lex
    If Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians gave away their countries without fight then I'm okay with that.
  116. @matt
    And this comment is relevant because, as everyone knows, no Union soldiers died in Confederate POW camps. Or something. Right?

    I’m trying to figure out the relevance of your initial post. Poland was naughty because Soviet troops died in POW camps, but the Soviets get a pass because something. Right?

    • Replies: @matt
    It didn't say a single thing to excuse Soviet crimes, you cretin. I guess you morons really need it spelled out.

    The relevance of my comment is that if you're going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place. The fact that Polish POWs also died through neglect in the USSR doesn't change anything, at least not if the fact that Union POWs died through neglect in the south doesn't justify tearing down a monument to Confederate POWs in the north.
  117. @Steve Sailer
    Right, all these cool Southerners like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Buddy Holly, not to mention Chuck Berry and Little Richard.

    The Rolling Stones at their 1968-1972 peak were basically a Southern rock band.

    Do you think the Stones will play Brown Sugar at the Charlottesville Benefit concert?

  118. How about Breaking Bad’s goodbye song Baby Blue by Badfinger?

    At 1:18
    “Dixie when I let you go
    Thought you’d realize I would know
    I would show…. the special love I had for you
    my baby blue”
    It is a crypto ode to the Confederacy, probably not intended by the suicidal Badfinger band, but possibly intended by the series writers who ended the show on an oblique Ode to Whiteness.
    A TV show that portrays over 5 seasons the evolution of a White suburban teacher into a fearsome druglord who takes out a cartel has lots of nonPC messages. Hence its popularity and the possibility that there are many levels to this song.

  119. @AM

    Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong.
     
    You're an atheist correct? On what basis do you form this opinion? We're just random bags of water, here by accident. I don't see the problem with owning other accidental random bags of water.

    Also what makes non-hereditary slavery correct?


    It was America’s original sin, for which we are still paying to this day. The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
     
    Um..the real issue we're grappling with today, in 2017, was not the labor organization, but the fact Africans don't blend very well with Germanic peoples. Buying and selling African slaves was the sin of a few Jewish merchants and wealthy aristocratic elites. I'm afraid I'm a decedent from white plebs on the point. And for the actual sinners, they're all dead.

    Also, the whole essence of the Civil War was not about the right to keep slaves. A regiment from Indiana, one of the best, rioted at the news of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln himself had no urge to free the slaves (just stop it's spread). It's highly doubtful he would have risked alienating Northern troops over the Negro question if it weren't a way to keep the Brits out of the war.

    Meanwhile, if you look across the pond, how do explain the unification of Italy and German at almost the exact same point in time? They have civil wars themselves, going from city-states (states in the US) to unified nations. Where is the black slavery to justify those wars? Or maybe something else was going on.

    Slavery may explain an intensity about the whole thing (and Lincoln's mess ups it's brutality), but in the context of world history or even Northern reactions on the point, it explains nothing.


    So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
     
    Only to a reductionist thinker who hasn't read his history. Lee was fighting reluctantly as a Virginia against an invasion. Had Lincoln kept Virginia out of the war, there would have been no need for Lee to fight.

    Buying and selling African slaves was the sin of a few Jewish merchants

    You’re delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. You and Farrakhan should be good buddies – he was the one who invented this blood libel. Before Farrakhan, it never occurred to anyone that Jews had any special or dominant role in the slave trade. Prior to 1808 when the importation of slaves was abolished, the US had a tiny Jewish population and by no means did they dominate the slave trade. Jews of that period did not particularly oppose slavery but they were such a small minority in the US at that time that even if every last one of them had been a slave merchant (and they weren’t) it wouldn’t have been nearly enough to run the slave trade. In the entire US in 1800 there were about 2,500 Jews counting women, children, the elderly, etc. so maybe there were six hundred Jewish men of working age total. In the American South in 1830 it has been estimated that there were 120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves, so roughly 1/4 of 1 % of American slaveholders were Jewish and 99.75% were not.

    If I say “child abuse was the sin of a few Catholic priests” you correctly say that they are not the only ones who abuse children but somehow the whole slave trade was in the hands of the Joos. Shame on you.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @AM

    You’re delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way.
     
    The tiny Jewish population in the South primarily made their living as middle men for the slave trade. Even if they were not all of the merchants, they were enough of them that some markets even closed on Jewish holidays.

    It's okay. It's not a panic moral situation. It just is, just like you find Jews today who make their living selling diamonds. Anti-semitic has a meaning. It does not mean even close what you're trying to imply here.

    But if you could accept that Jews sold and owned slaves , perhaps Robert E Lee suddenly isn't quite so bad? Does maybe he come back to being fully human, rather than an orge?


    If I say “child abuse was the sin of a few Catholic priests” you correctly say that they are not the only ones who abuse children but somehow the whole slave trade was in the hands of the Joos. Shame on you.
     
    The difference is I say: "Yes, there were bad priests who hurt people. Yes, there will more bad priests because we're not getting rid of our homosexuals the way the way we should. However, their sins are not my sins and they do not reflect on the behavior nor can they remove the great charity and work of the Catholic saints. "

    In other words, I did not scream at you that you're anti-Catholic bigot. I'm frustrated mostly that people use it to tear down the faith of others. Meanwhile, you assume I'm assuming the worst. It took people to buy the slaves and the people to enslave the slaves back in Africa. There's big, messy system for which many people have a share in. Jews had a part of it too. It's okay.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    AM is ascribing neither principal, nor a preponderance of, guilt to the "Juice." AM is pointing out that any ethnic "original sin" regarding slavery in the USA cannot be evaded by merely claiming descent from the angel-wrestling Jacob. But your ethnic kin are using slavery to abuse the innocent, and further the destruction of the accumulated social, economic and political capital of America.

    You really do make matters needlessly difficult for those of us that wish you well.
  120. @Steve Sailer
    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    The enlisted in huge numbers.

    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    They enlisted in huge numbers.

    They shouldn’t have.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    You can take the boy out of Ulster but …
  121. @Jack D
    The problem is that (except in very rare instances and even in those instances we don't know whether the person claiming to talk with God is really talking with God - is he Joseph Smith or is he Moses?) we really have no way of knowing what God's will really is. Satan is very good at tricking humans into thinking that they are doing God's will when they are really following Satan. And temporary successes may fool you into thinking that you have the mandate of heaven on your side - when the WTC collapsed this exceeded even Bin Laden's highest hopes and he took that as a sign that Allah was with him. Later when the SEALS showed up and blew his brains out - not so much.

    The problem is that (except in very rare instances and even in those instances we don’t know whether the person claiming to talk with God is really talking with God – is he Joseph Smith or is he Moses?) we really have no way of knowing what God’s will really is.

    Okay, let’s look at the examples you supply, starting with Moses.

    Not one, but 2 religions acknowledge his 10 Commandments as from God. Furthermore both have been highly successful as distinct groups doing do so. A review of the 10 Commandments from a natural law perspective reveals them as sound and just, with only “Thou shall have no Gods before me” requiring digging a little deeper.

    In other words, I have abundant evidence of the least the natural truth of such visions.

    Now let’s take a look at Joseph Smith or Mohammed. While Moses proposes ideas of no use to him personally, both men propose twists of existing religions that benefit them personally. That’s an alarm bell right there. “No drawing Mohammed” benefited him while he was alive and wanted for war crimes.

    Meanwhile, their “visions” are bit too complete. Moses supplies a solid foundation, but many volumes of both Jewish and Christian philosophy were needed to flesh out those Commandments. Both religions develop as result of a collective process over time, suggesting the original vision was merely the seed, which appears to be how God likes to operate.

    Mohammed instead proposed to write The Last Scripture You’ll Ever Need. To this day, hard core Islamists insist that everyone needs to learn Arabic because it’s just too darn beautiful to translate. Smith radically changes some Christian doctrine to this side of unrecognizable and adds his own The Last Scripture You’ll Ever Need.

    God doesn’t seem to work this. He doesn’t give one person a brain dump. Seeds, little visions, little slices with Moses visions arguably one of the largest before Christ. But not whole religions, not all at once, and most certainly not your personal benefit. It’s not like Moses had grand time after his visions.

    “And temporary successes may fool you into thinking that you have the mandate of heaven on your side – when the WTC collapsed this exceeded even Bin Laden’s highest hopes and he took that as a sign that Allah was with him. Later when the SEALS showed up and blew his brains out – not so much.”

    Of course. But that’s why the commandments and other learning within Judaism and Christianity exist. It’s how you figure out that you’re aligning yourself with God, rather than ego imagining God is with whatever random desires you have.

    Even though Mohammed left the ranch entirely for women (or girls I guess, yuck) and war, there’s a great deal of truth in the Quran he gleaned from the Christian services he attended. It’s quite possible every Muslim terrorist really does know better than to think God wants him to blow up little girls with nail bombs. But Islam makes it easy to cave to the ego.

  122. @Jack D
    We're "slaves" because we have to pay taxes, because we can be drafted. There are slaves in the Bible, etc. This is all weak sauce. It's not the same thing. Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong. It had been gone from Europe since Roman times but was revived on the fresh soil of America. It was America's original sin, for which we are still paying to this day. The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves - no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.

    We’re “slaves” because we have to pay taxes, because we can be drafted. There are slaves in the Bible, etc. This is all weak sauce. It’s not the same thing.

    No, it is not “weak sauce”. Telling somebody: we’re going to force you to be soldier, send you off to kill – and possibly die – in a war that you might not even care about – and if you resist, we will imprison you, or shoot you as a deserter – is everybit as enormous an infringement of one’s civil liberties as making of somebody a chattel slave.

    Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong.

    I don’t know – pretty daring statement there – really goes against the conventional wisdom.

    Sure, slavery was wrong. And ending it was not what the war was about at the outset.

    It was America’s original sin, for which we are still paying to this day.

    It was a mistake we are paying for to this day. Original sin? I don’t care. I’m not interested in invoking loaded religious language in discussing history. Framing it that way is one of the ways the other side in the culture war continues to make us “pay for it to this day”.

    The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.

    That’s sophistry. We have no idea whether there would have been a war or not, absent the peculiar institution. Lee was not fighting for the right to keep slaves. If Virginia had abolished slavery, he would have abided by it without putting up a fight.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Good post.
  123. @Cagey Beast
    Anglo-American progressivism is matriarchal and descended from Nonconformist Protestantism. Being more cruelly righteous and doctrinaire than one's neighbours is a competitive sport for both groups. In addition to that Yankee piety has been added the descendants of East European Jews and other ethnicities that have the opposite of a tradition of chivalry. That's why the Russians are better on this matter.

    I for one will not miss our peculiar cultural witches’ brew of Anglo Protestant post-Puritanism and Jewish tikkun olum. Maybe mass immigration isn’t so bad after all.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I for one will not miss our peculiar cultural witches’ brew of Anglo Protestant post-Puritanism and Jewish tikkun olum. Maybe mass immigration isn’t so bad after all.
     
    You really cannot differentiate between the baby and the bathwater, can you?
    , @Cagey Beast
    It's so true. If there's any group on Earth who rival East European Jews for having had more than their say in the last hundred years, it has to be the Anglo-Protestant "free thinkers". The small "r" republican, painfully materialist and oh-so pious "progressives" who made it big during the Second Industrial Revolution and have been buggering with other people's things ever since.

    Those of us Anglosphericals who don't happen to come from that narrow band of humanity get to live in the cultural desert they made. It's a blend of boredom, insecurity, relative prosperity and tyranny that only a "nation of shopkeepers" could have created over generations.

    "You can buy the world a Coke, you can sell the world a Coke but you're having the god-damned Coke". "Deep down you're a Coke drinker struggling to get out and we're going to assassinate, torture or bribe your grocer to make sure you get Coke". "Have a nice day!"

  124. @anony-mouse
    This is at least the 65th comment and no one has mentioned who Madison WI was named for.

    This is at least the 65th comment and no one has mentioned who Madison WI was named for.

    Some girl, right? Madison is a girl’s name, isn’t it?

  125. @S. Anonyia
    Iconoclasts are always the worst sort of miserable psychos throughout history (Puritans, wahhabists, jacobins, communists etc) There is a viscous, controlling streak in every icon-smasher. Why are they so afraid of images? They must on some level believe they have magic powers.

    Well said.

  126. @Jack D

    Buying and selling African slaves was the sin of a few Jewish merchants
     
    You're delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. You and Farrakhan should be good buddies - he was the one who invented this blood libel. Before Farrakhan, it never occurred to anyone that Jews had any special or dominant role in the slave trade. Prior to 1808 when the importation of slaves was abolished, the US had a tiny Jewish population and by no means did they dominate the slave trade. Jews of that period did not particularly oppose slavery but they were such a small minority in the US at that time that even if every last one of them had been a slave merchant (and they weren't) it wouldn't have been nearly enough to run the slave trade. In the entire US in 1800 there were about 2,500 Jews counting women, children, the elderly, etc. so maybe there were six hundred Jewish men of working age total. In the American South in 1830 it has been estimated that there were 120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves, so roughly 1/4 of 1 % of American slaveholders were Jewish and 99.75% were not.

    If I say "child abuse was the sin of a few Catholic priests" you correctly say that they are not the only ones who abuse children but somehow the whole slave trade was in the hands of the Joos. Shame on you.

    You’re delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way.

    The tiny Jewish population in the South primarily made their living as middle men for the slave trade. Even if they were not all of the merchants, they were enough of them that some markets even closed on Jewish holidays.

    It’s okay. It’s not a panic moral situation. It just is, just like you find Jews today who make their living selling diamonds. Anti-semitic has a meaning. It does not mean even close what you’re trying to imply here.

    But if you could accept that Jews sold and owned slaves , perhaps Robert E Lee suddenly isn’t quite so bad? Does maybe he come back to being fully human, rather than an orge?

    If I say “child abuse was the sin of a few Catholic priests” you correctly say that they are not the only ones who abuse children but somehow the whole slave trade was in the hands of the Joos. Shame on you.

    The difference is I say: “Yes, there were bad priests who hurt people. Yes, there will more bad priests because we’re not getting rid of our homosexuals the way the way we should. However, their sins are not my sins and they do not reflect on the behavior nor can they remove the great charity and work of the Catholic saints. ”

    In other words, I did not scream at you that you’re anti-Catholic bigot. I’m frustrated mostly that people use it to tear down the faith of others. Meanwhile, you assume I’m assuming the worst. It took people to buy the slaves and the people to enslave the slaves back in Africa. There’s big, messy system for which many people have a share in. Jews had a part of it too. It’s okay.

  127. @Steve Sailer
    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    The enlisted in huge numbers.

    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    I assume that was one reason why Confederate General (then, a Senator from Alabama) Joeseph Hooker was asked to take a prominent role in command of the invasion of Cuba.

    By the way, Steve, did you ever see John Milius’ “The Rough Riders”? It takes some liberties with history and is very John Milius-esque, but it has a very amusing and entertaining portrayal of Joe Hooker by Gary Busey.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    The former Confederate General who volunteered to lead troops in 1898 was not Joseph Hooker. His name was Joseph Wheeler and was known as "Fighting Joe Wheeler."

    BTW, a theme of Milius' film was reconciliation between North and South. Sort of "We're all Americans and we have come together."

    The present Establishment is, shall we say, averse to any such notion.
  128. @matt
    Not a single (or only a handful, anyway) Latvian, Lithuanian, or Estonian soldier died when during the Soviet annexations of those countries either, so I suppose your ok with that too.

    Oh, you're not? You mean you're just tossing obfuscatory bullshit around in order to maintain saintly Poland's image as the plucky underdog that can do no wrong but is constantly the victim of it?

    If Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians gave away their countries without fight then I’m okay with that.

    • Replies: @matt
    Good to know you're a sociopath. Anyway, the Poles didn't put up a tremendous fight against the 1939 Soviet invasion either, for what it's worth to your demented mind.
  129. @Burton
    Steve,

    This AP footage from Virginia needs to be more widely seen. Its 100-odd seconds offer the perfect encapsulation of Current Year political dynamics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqXWhG6IZ50

    First, our heroes: A crowd of iPhone-wielding white yuppies and their hysterical, deranged black lackey chanting abuse at the "terrorist" opposition, a lone proletarian youth a decade younger than they are.

    Second, the enemy: slope-shouldered, obese, his ill-fitting jacket patched with duct tape, but stoic, courteous, and strangely dignified, showing up to the park alone to honor a symbol of his ancestors that will soon be destroyed.

    Finally, the unwilling umpire of the contest, a cop tasked with "keeping the peace" in an emerging multicultural dystopia in which the Democrats and the press routinely whip up ethnic pseudo-controversies for votes and profit, treating the boy with an affecting gentleness but finally breaking his reserve when a female baizuo makes one too many attempts to escalate the conflict.

    When viewed with the eyes of Current Year faith, the video is a story about love and tolerance firmly yet compassionately driving bigotry out of the public square. To the uninitiated, however, it sure looks an awful lot like the opposite.

    Very well summed up.

    Hope that officer keeps his job. The vermin will be after him.

    And that beeatch at the end: pure evil, thinking well of itself.

  130. William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis is a great history of Chicago and the city’s relationship to its vast hinterland. It’s a fascinating read.

  131. @Steve Sailer
    So the Soviets halted their advance on Warsaw from August 1944 to mid-January 1945 (i.e., after the Germans had lost the Battle of the Bulge)?

    Pretty much. I am not enough of a WWII buff to tell you exactly why. But here is a map of the Eastern Front in late July 1944, just before the Soviet Army tried to take Warsaw the first time. Warsaw is just off a tip of a bulge into the German held territory. You can see why pushing forward onto Warsaw was a risky proposition, and why the Soviet command might have preferred to take care of the situation in the north and the south first.

    I think what the Soviet command chose to do next was to attack in Romania and deprive Germany from its only source of oil. Which makes a lot of sense.

  132. @Mr. Anon

    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?

    They enlisted in huge numbers.
     
    They shouldn't have.

    You can take the boy out of Ulster but …

  133. @Ed
    Liberalism & by extension the Democrats seem to be mostly motivated by not missing out on the proverbial party. This doesn't involve the mayor of Madison, a city where a recent police initiative was deemed racist because all of the criminals targeted were black. Yet here he is condemning some obscure memorial most knew nothing about.

    The Democrats are no longer a serious party.

    Neither unfortunately are the Republicans, with very few exceptions.

  134. @27 year old
    >One shudders to think what Reconstruction would look like today.

    -Would- look like? Look around, it looks like OxyContin, outsourcing and immigration.

    And a technocratic police state where your government and both politial parties are on board with destroying your constitutional freedoms.

  135. @Mr. Anon

    That was a big question in the Spanish-American War: would Southerners show up?
     
    I assume that was one reason why Confederate General (then, a Senator from Alabama) Joeseph Hooker was asked to take a prominent role in command of the invasion of Cuba.

    By the way, Steve, did you ever see John Milius' "The Rough Riders"? It takes some liberties with history and is very John Milius-esque, but it has a very amusing and entertaining portrayal of Joe Hooker by Gary Busey.

    The former Confederate General who volunteered to lead troops in 1898 was not Joseph Hooker. His name was Joseph Wheeler and was known as “Fighting Joe Wheeler.”

    BTW, a theme of Milius’ film was reconciliation between North and South. Sort of “We’re all Americans and we have come together.”

    The present Establishment is, shall we say, averse to any such notion.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The former Confederate General who volunteered to lead troops in 1898 was not Joseph Hooker. His name was Joseph Wheeler and was known as “Fighting Joe Wheeler.”
     
    Yes, you are right. I got my Civil War generals mixed up.
  136. @German_reader
    Nowadays there are even cemeteries for Wehrmacht soldiers in Russia. The Russians have allowed this despite the fact that those buried there fought for a system that literally wanted to destroy Russia.
    US liberals seem to be rather more vengeful.

    It’s called respect. Something that apparently isn’t taught in schools or at home anymore.

  137. @Lex
    If Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians gave away their countries without fight then I'm okay with that.

    Good to know you’re a sociopath. Anyway, the Poles didn’t put up a tremendous fight against the 1939 Soviet invasion either, for what it’s worth to your demented mind.

  138. matt says:
    @ken
    I'm trying to figure out the relevance of your initial post. Poland was naughty because Soviet troops died in POW camps, but the Soviets get a pass because something. Right?

    It didn’t say a single thing to excuse Soviet crimes, you cretin. I guess you morons really need it spelled out.

    The relevance of my comment is that if you’re going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place. The fact that Polish POWs also died through neglect in the USSR doesn’t change anything, at least not if the fact that Union POWs died through neglect in the south doesn’t justify tearing down a monument to Confederate POWs in the north.

    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski

    Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.
     
    What country on Earth makes monuments for dead of the defeated army that tried to extinguish its independence?
    , @Mr. Anon

    The relevance of my comment is that if you’re going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.
     
    If they had gone home after the war, instead of staying for the next forty years, maybe the Poles would have.
  139. matt says:
    @songbird
    True, by way of excuse, Poland was a dictatorship, but I suppose that one would work all around. Hungary also took a piece, if I'm not mistaken.

    Another thing that people often forget is that the alliance with Mussolini (and thus the whole impetus for the war in Europe) began with Hitler betraying some of his own own people, formally giving their homes and land to Italy.

    I love how your first impulse is to come up with an excuse for Poland. Your first impulse would never be to excuse Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, even though, as you admit, the same sorry excuse applies to all these countries. It just shows deeply ingrained Polophilic ideology is in the West.

  140. @inertial
    This is a myth. The Russians stopped stopped their advance toward Warsaw because they were stopped by the German Army.

    Soviet army arrived to Warsaw exhausted and with overextended communications. The Germans counterattacked and threw the Russians back, in the process practically destroying a whole tank army. In three days the Russians lost almost 300 tanks. To give you an idea about the scale of this battle, during the Battle of the Bulge the allies lost about 800 tanks - over the course of a month.

    Also, consider the timing. You say that the Polish Resistance was destroyed, "whereupon Stalin resumed his advance." So when did this "whereupon" actually happen? The Warsaw Uprising was finally defeated on October 2, 1944. The Soviet Army resumed their offensive on Warsaw on January 17, 1945. That's 3.5 months later. Why didn't they move earlier? Because they couldn't.

    There were certain actions that Soviets could take on the cheap to support the uprising. Even if they couldn’t save the Warsaw they could make life difficult for Germans. Instead they forbid Allied from using Soviet airfields – planes dropping supplies for fighters had to go back to Italy. There was lets call it “discouragement” for Polish People Army trying to help the uprising. Not to mention the fact that Russians arrested those fighters that survived the uprising and managed to escape through Vistula to the east.

    It looks like Stalin didn’t like Poles.

  141. @matt
    It didn't say a single thing to excuse Soviet crimes, you cretin. I guess you morons really need it spelled out.

    The relevance of my comment is that if you're going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place. The fact that Polish POWs also died through neglect in the USSR doesn't change anything, at least not if the fact that Union POWs died through neglect in the south doesn't justify tearing down a monument to Confederate POWs in the north.

    Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.

    What country on Earth makes monuments for dead of the defeated army that tried to extinguish its independence?

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Men like my great-great-grandfather, the Union army colonel, who stood every year at Gettysburg next to the memorial to his own men...along with surviving members of his and close regiments...and with Johnny Rebs who had fought there too. (Several of them boot-lace relations down in VA, NC, and SC.)

    Warriors respect warriors.

    The end game of this present insanity is to erase the legacy of ALL warriors.

    Men of honor respect men of honor.

    The end game of this present insanity is to replace honor with hysteria and manipulation.

    First they came for the Rebs, then they came for the Yanks, then they came for all the vets with hunting rifles. That is the end game.

    To retcon and obliterate everything that ever happened that makes Americans Americans and replace it with globalista bolshevik culture's icons of degeneracy, obsequiousness, money-grubbing, primitivism, and manipulation.

    They wish to erase the men who fought because they wish to erase what they fought for.

    We remember the defeated army so we never forget who fought, and what for.

    , @matt
    There's that famous Polish magnanimity.
    , @matt
    By the way, you know that the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet War wasn't just a bit more complicated than a plucky little Poland trying to stop the big bad commie Russians from "exterminating its independence" right? Of course you do.
  142. @Jack D

    While in Russia the final Soviet siege of Nazi Berlin is annually marked with a huge celebration, Poles remember early Soviet action in World War II, focusing instead on the first year and a half of the conflict,
     
    The Poles also remember 1944, when the Russians stopped their advance when the Poles rose up against the Germans in Warsaw. The Germans proceeded to level Warsaw (all the "old" buildings you see in the middle of Warsaw now are reconstructions ) and destroy the Polish Resistance, whereupon Stalin resumed his advance with TWO enemies eliminated. Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.

    Stalin was really a master when it came to that stuff and of course totally unconstrained by morality. Kinda like Chuck Schumer.

    Please don’t tarnish the name of Stalin with such an association.

  143. @Eye of Sauron
    "The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves."

    Revolutionary War: fought to expand colony holdings west of Ohio in defiance of King George III.

    War of 1812: fought to expand New England's holdings into Canada; burned their parliament to the ground, too - mirroring what Union Troops later did to Atlanta.

    Mexican-American War: fought to expand US territory along Rio Grande.

    Considering the historical precedent leading up the Civil War, one that continued well after the Civil War ended ("Remember the Maine", anyone?), I'm sure that had the South abolished slavery before seceding there would have been no war. Yes, that was sarcasm. You can't really be that naive, can you?

    "no slavery issue, no civil war."

    'Traditionally, the way the US gets into a war'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-mo96i_4iI

    "So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves"

    I suppose that the Founding Fathers were fighting to kill Indians, too. Right? Or perhaps that is a gross over simplification, like your entire comment?

    Please elaborate.

  144. @Mr. Anon

    We’re “slaves” because we have to pay taxes, because we can be drafted. There are slaves in the Bible, etc. This is all weak sauce. It’s not the same thing.
     
    No, it is not "weak sauce". Telling somebody: we're going to force you to be soldier, send you off to kill - and possibly die - in a war that you might not even care about - and if you resist, we will imprison you, or shoot you as a deserter - is everybit as enormous an infringement of one's civil liberties as making of somebody a chattel slave.

    Hereditary chattel slavery was wrong.
     
    I don't know - pretty daring statement there - really goes against the conventional wisdom.

    Sure, slavery was wrong. And ending it was not what the war was about at the outset.

    It was America’s original sin, for which we are still paying to this day.
     
    It was a mistake we are paying for to this day. Original sin? I don't care. I'm not interested in invoking loaded religious language in discussing history. Framing it that way is one of the ways the other side in the culture war continues to make us "pay for it to this day".

    The whole essence of the Civil War was about the right to keep slaves – no slavery issue, no civil war. So yes Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
     
    That's sophistry. We have no idea whether there would have been a war or not, absent the peculiar institution. Lee was not fighting for the right to keep slaves. If Virginia had abolished slavery, he would have abided by it without putting up a fight.

    Good post.

  145. @David In TN
    The former Confederate General who volunteered to lead troops in 1898 was not Joseph Hooker. His name was Joseph Wheeler and was known as "Fighting Joe Wheeler."

    BTW, a theme of Milius' film was reconciliation between North and South. Sort of "We're all Americans and we have come together."

    The present Establishment is, shall we say, averse to any such notion.

    The former Confederate General who volunteered to lead troops in 1898 was not Joseph Hooker. His name was Joseph Wheeler and was known as “Fighting Joe Wheeler.”

    Yes, you are right. I got my Civil War generals mixed up.

  146. @matt
    It didn't say a single thing to excuse Soviet crimes, you cretin. I guess you morons really need it spelled out.

    The relevance of my comment is that if you're going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place. The fact that Polish POWs also died through neglect in the USSR doesn't change anything, at least not if the fact that Union POWs died through neglect in the south doesn't justify tearing down a monument to Confederate POWs in the north.

    The relevance of my comment is that if you’re going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.

    If they had gone home after the war, instead of staying for the next forty years, maybe the Poles would have.

    • Replies: @inertial
    You do realize that the war in question was the Russo-Polish war of 1920? Which was started by Poland with express goal to grab some Russian land. Which they did manage to do, although not as much as was planned at the outset.
    , @matt
    Wrong war, idiot.
  147. @L Woods
    I for one will not miss our peculiar cultural witches' brew of Anglo Protestant post-Puritanism and Jewish tikkun olum. Maybe mass immigration isn't so bad after all.

    I for one will not miss our peculiar cultural witches’ brew of Anglo Protestant post-Puritanism and Jewish tikkun olum. Maybe mass immigration isn’t so bad after all.

    You really cannot differentiate between the baby and the bathwater, can you?

  148. @Jack D

    Buying and selling African slaves was the sin of a few Jewish merchants
     
    You're delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. You and Farrakhan should be good buddies - he was the one who invented this blood libel. Before Farrakhan, it never occurred to anyone that Jews had any special or dominant role in the slave trade. Prior to 1808 when the importation of slaves was abolished, the US had a tiny Jewish population and by no means did they dominate the slave trade. Jews of that period did not particularly oppose slavery but they were such a small minority in the US at that time that even if every last one of them had been a slave merchant (and they weren't) it wouldn't have been nearly enough to run the slave trade. In the entire US in 1800 there were about 2,500 Jews counting women, children, the elderly, etc. so maybe there were six hundred Jewish men of working age total. In the American South in 1830 it has been estimated that there were 120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves, so roughly 1/4 of 1 % of American slaveholders were Jewish and 99.75% were not.

    If I say "child abuse was the sin of a few Catholic priests" you correctly say that they are not the only ones who abuse children but somehow the whole slave trade was in the hands of the Joos. Shame on you.

    AM is ascribing neither principal, nor a preponderance of, guilt to the “Juice.” AM is pointing out that any ethnic “original sin” regarding slavery in the USA cannot be evaded by merely claiming descent from the angel-wrestling Jacob. But your ethnic kin are using slavery to abuse the innocent, and further the destruction of the accumulated social, economic and political capital of America.

    You really do make matters needlessly difficult for those of us that wish you well.

  149. @Mr. Anon

    The relevance of my comment is that if you’re going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.
     
    If they had gone home after the war, instead of staying for the next forty years, maybe the Poles would have.

    You do realize that the war in question was the Russo-Polish war of 1920? Which was started by Poland with express goal to grab some Russian land. Which they did manage to do, although not as much as was planned at the outset.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    No matter what the war, the Poles are under no obligation to build monuments to invaders. As to your contention about the Soviet-Polish War, yours is a soviet / russian interperetation of the matter. The Soviets intended to spread their "revolution" throughout Europe. The Poles were in the right. As indeed, damned near anybody would be fighting the bolsheviks.
    , @matt
    Hey, not fair! Everyone knows is a saintly victim country with no historical agency whatsoever!
  150. @Burton
    Steve,

    This AP footage from Virginia needs to be more widely seen. Its 100-odd seconds offer the perfect encapsulation of Current Year political dynamics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqXWhG6IZ50

    First, our heroes: A crowd of iPhone-wielding white yuppies and their hysterical, deranged black lackey chanting abuse at the "terrorist" opposition, a lone proletarian youth a decade younger than they are.

    Second, the enemy: slope-shouldered, obese, his ill-fitting jacket patched with duct tape, but stoic, courteous, and strangely dignified, showing up to the park alone to honor a symbol of his ancestors that will soon be destroyed.

    Finally, the unwilling umpire of the contest, a cop tasked with "keeping the peace" in an emerging multicultural dystopia in which the Democrats and the press routinely whip up ethnic pseudo-controversies for votes and profit, treating the boy with an affecting gentleness but finally breaking his reserve when a female baizuo makes one too many attempts to escalate the conflict.

    When viewed with the eyes of Current Year faith, the video is a story about love and tolerance firmly yet compassionately driving bigotry out of the public square. To the uninitiated, however, it sure looks an awful lot like the opposite.

    A beautiful juxtaposition of virtue and stupidity, of the lone man, to the utmost true to his faith, and the vile crowd, abusing their better. Yes, he is a proletarian, and they are yuppies, probably with degrees, but he knows something they don’t know, and never will. A scene right out of the morality playbook.

  151. @Bies Podkrakowski

    Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.
     
    What country on Earth makes monuments for dead of the defeated army that tried to extinguish its independence?

    Men like my great-great-grandfather, the Union army colonel, who stood every year at Gettysburg next to the memorial to his own men…along with surviving members of his and close regiments…and with Johnny Rebs who had fought there too. (Several of them boot-lace relations down in VA, NC, and SC.)

    Warriors respect warriors.

    The end game of this present insanity is to erase the legacy of ALL warriors.

    Men of honor respect men of honor.

    The end game of this present insanity is to replace honor with hysteria and manipulation.

    First they came for the Rebs, then they came for the Yanks, then they came for all the vets with hunting rifles. That is the end game.

    To retcon and obliterate everything that ever happened that makes Americans Americans and replace it with globalista bolshevik culture’s icons of degeneracy, obsequiousness, money-grubbing, primitivism, and manipulation.

    They wish to erase the men who fought because they wish to erase what they fought for.

    We remember the defeated army so we never forget who fought, and what for.

  152. Soglin’s just trying to mobilize the base for his run for gov.

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/paul-soglin-says-he-s-considering-running-for-governor/article_48d060c4-dc0e-58c2-8225-db303f12afbd.html

    The old walrus is shrewd indeed.

    From 2007:

    http://isthmus.com/news/news/paul-soglin-leaves-epic-begins-consulting/

    That’s Epic as in the health software company.

    http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/10-things-to-know-about-epic.html

    http://hitconsultant.net/2015/06/11/epic-ceo-judy-faulkner-pledges-wealth/

    https://healthitanalytics.com/features/judy-faulkner-epic-is-changing-the-big-data-interoperability-game

    Make no mistake: Madison’s powerful (many/most of them in Chicago) play on the half-century-old image of the city as Hippies On The Isthmus.

    Madison is not that. It never was that. But the Bolshie Narrative has been excellent camo, and occasional actings-out of its Activist Caste help provide additional masking.

    That’s why I generally don’t weigh in over kerfuffles like “anti white workshop at UW-Madison.”

    It’s just an SJW circus sideshow designed to distract truth from power.

    • Replies: @bored identity



    That’s why I generally don’t weigh in over kerfuffles like “anti white workshop at UW-Madison.”

    It’s just an SJW circus sideshow designed to distract truth from power.

     

    That's why bored identity generally encourages United Paledom of Weimerica to use Tim Wisely Occam's Rule of Thumb whenever some Entry Level Spector of Polansky Schmooze Your Guilt to Make You Vote for Them and Against Yourself:


    http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-these-are-8-and-12-year-old-kids-it-doesn-t-matter-how-they-got-here-it-is-time-to-show-paul-soglin-60-66-15.jpg
    , @bored identity



    That’s why I generally don’t weigh in over kerfuffles like “anti white workshop at UW-Madison.”

    It’s just an SJW circus sideshow designed to distract truth from power.

     

    That's why bored identity generally encourages United Paledom of Weimerica to use Tim Wisely Occam's Rule of Thumb whenever some Entry Level Spector of Polansky Schmooze Your Guilt to Make You Vote for Them and Against Yourself:


    http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-these-are-8-and-12-year-old-kids-it-doesn-t-matter-how-they-got-here-it-is-time-to-show-paul-soglin-60-66-15.jpg
  153. …and that’s why bored identity encourages United Paledom of Weimerica to use wisely Occam’s Rule of Thumb whenever some Entry Level Spector of Polansky Schmooze Your Gulit to Make You Vote for Them and Against Yourself:

  154. @inertial
    You do realize that the war in question was the Russo-Polish war of 1920? Which was started by Poland with express goal to grab some Russian land. Which they did manage to do, although not as much as was planned at the outset.

    No matter what the war, the Poles are under no obligation to build monuments to invaders. As to your contention about the Soviet-Polish War, yours is a soviet / russian interperetation of the matter. The Soviets intended to spread their “revolution” throughout Europe. The Poles were in the right. As indeed, damned near anybody would be fighting the bolsheviks.

  155. @Bies Podkrakowski

    Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.
     
    What country on Earth makes monuments for dead of the defeated army that tried to extinguish its independence?

    There’s that famous Polish magnanimity.

  156. @Mr. Anon

    The relevance of my comment is that if you’re going to get upset about tearing down a monument to dead Confederate POWs, then you should be more upset about the fact that Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.
     
    If they had gone home after the war, instead of staying for the next forty years, maybe the Poles would have.

    Wrong war, idiot.

  157. @inertial
    You do realize that the war in question was the Russo-Polish war of 1920? Which was started by Poland with express goal to grab some Russian land. Which they did manage to do, although not as much as was planned at the outset.

    Hey, not fair! Everyone knows is a saintly victim country with no historical agency whatsoever!

  158. @Bies Podkrakowski

    Poland has never even put up a single monument to dead Soviet POWs in the first place.
     
    What country on Earth makes monuments for dead of the defeated army that tried to extinguish its independence?

    By the way, you know that the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet War wasn’t just a bit more complicated than a plucky little Poland trying to stop the big bad commie Russians from “exterminating its independence” right? Of course you do.

  159. @L Woods
    I for one will not miss our peculiar cultural witches' brew of Anglo Protestant post-Puritanism and Jewish tikkun olum. Maybe mass immigration isn't so bad after all.

    It’s so true. If there’s any group on Earth who rival East European Jews for having had more than their say in the last hundred years, it has to be the Anglo-Protestant “free thinkers”. The small “r” republican, painfully materialist and oh-so pious “progressives” who made it big during the Second Industrial Revolution and have been buggering with other people’s things ever since.

    Those of us Anglosphericals who don’t happen to come from that narrow band of humanity get to live in the cultural desert they made. It’s a blend of boredom, insecurity, relative prosperity and tyranny that only a “nation of shopkeepers” could have created over generations.

    “You can buy the world a Coke, you can sell the world a Coke but you’re having the god-damned Coke”. “Deep down you’re a Coke drinker struggling to get out and we’re going to assassinate, torture or bribe your grocer to make sure you get Coke”. “Have a nice day!”

  160. @Olorin
    Soglin's just trying to mobilize the base for his run for gov.

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/paul-soglin-says-he-s-considering-running-for-governor/article_48d060c4-dc0e-58c2-8225-db303f12afbd.html

    The old walrus is shrewd indeed.

    From 2007:

    http://isthmus.com/news/news/paul-soglin-leaves-epic-begins-consulting/

    That's Epic as in the health software company.

    http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/10-things-to-know-about-epic.html

    http://hitconsultant.net/2015/06/11/epic-ceo-judy-faulkner-pledges-wealth/

    https://healthitanalytics.com/features/judy-faulkner-epic-is-changing-the-big-data-interoperability-game

    Make no mistake: Madison's powerful (many/most of them in Chicago) play on the half-century-old image of the city as Hippies On The Isthmus.

    Madison is not that. It never was that. But the Bolshie Narrative has been excellent camo, and occasional actings-out of its Activist Caste help provide additional masking.

    That's why I generally don't weigh in over kerfuffles like "anti white workshop at UW-Madison."

    It's just an SJW circus sideshow designed to distract truth from power.

    That’s why I generally don’t weigh in over kerfuffles like “anti white workshop at UW-Madison.”

    It’s just an SJW circus sideshow designed to distract truth from power.

    That’s why bored identity generally encourages United Paledom of Weimerica to use Tim Wisely Occam’s Rule of Thumb whenever some Entry Level Spector of Polansky Schmooze Your Guilt to Make You Vote for Them and Against Yourself:

  161. @Olorin
    Soglin's just trying to mobilize the base for his run for gov.

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/paul-soglin-says-he-s-considering-running-for-governor/article_48d060c4-dc0e-58c2-8225-db303f12afbd.html

    The old walrus is shrewd indeed.

    From 2007:

    http://isthmus.com/news/news/paul-soglin-leaves-epic-begins-consulting/

    That's Epic as in the health software company.

    http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/10-things-to-know-about-epic.html

    http://hitconsultant.net/2015/06/11/epic-ceo-judy-faulkner-pledges-wealth/

    https://healthitanalytics.com/features/judy-faulkner-epic-is-changing-the-big-data-interoperability-game

    Make no mistake: Madison's powerful (many/most of them in Chicago) play on the half-century-old image of the city as Hippies On The Isthmus.

    Madison is not that. It never was that. But the Bolshie Narrative has been excellent camo, and occasional actings-out of its Activist Caste help provide additional masking.

    That's why I generally don't weigh in over kerfuffles like "anti white workshop at UW-Madison."

    It's just an SJW circus sideshow designed to distract truth from power.

    That’s why I generally don’t weigh in over kerfuffles like “anti white workshop at UW-Madison.”

    It’s just an SJW circus sideshow designed to distract truth from power.

    That’s why bored identity generally encourages United Paledom of Weimerica to use Tim Wisely Occam’s Rule of Thumb whenever some Entry Level Spector of Polansky Schmooze Your Guilt to Make You Vote for Them and Against Yourself:

  162. … what – no law against desecrating a grave ?
    Or, merely no will to apply the law ?
    Wake up, locals .
    Where have all the WASPS gone ?
    Or is priority #1 all about keeping one’s head down ? .,,

  163. The pyramids are graves that were built by slaves. In a society that depended on slavery. I wonder when they’re coming down?

  164. Anonymous [AKA "www.sixofuscambridge.com"] says: • Website

    Es iist great, dass Siie auch Ideen aus dieser article sowie unserer Diskussion gemacht zu diesem Zeitpunkt.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2