The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsJared Taylor Archive
Adored Now for What He Was Once Hated
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Bruce Levine, Thaddeus Stevens: Civil War Revolutionary, Fighter for Racial Justice, Simon and Schuster,2021, 309 pp., \$28.00.

Countless men who were American heroes are now villains because of their racial views: Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Taney, Wilson, Roosevelt, even Lincoln. I can think of no white man who was once reviled for racial views but is now honored for them, but a prime candidate would be Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens. When he died in 1868, the New York Times wrote that he “had so fostered hatred of the nation’s [Confederate] enemies, that he refused, even in their helplessness, to extend the fraternal hand,” adding that his “measures were unjust.”

Historian Lloyd Paul Stryker wrote in a 1929 book that Stevens was a “horrible old man . . . craftily preparing to strangle the bleeding, broken body of the South,” and that Stevens thought it would be “a beautiful thing” to see “the white men, especially the white women of the South, writhing under negro domination.” In his bestselling The Epic of America, published in 1931, historian James Adams called him “the most despicable, malevolent and morally deformed character who has ever risen to power in America.” In his 1955 Profiles in Courage, even John F. Kennedy called him “the crippled, fanatical personification of the extremes of the Radical Republican movement.”

A new biography of Stevens stands all that on its head and calls the Pennsylvania congressman a “civil war revolutionary and fighter for racial justice.” Author Bruce Levine, who is professor emeritus of American History at University Illinois, praises Stevens because he:

became a full-bore abolitionist decades earlier [than other prominent abolitionists], at a time when white people calling for slavery’s destruction constituted only a widely despised handful. And he stood even then not only for the prompt abolition of slavery but for equal rights for African Americans.

Add to this his hatred for Southern whites and he becomes the perfect hero for our times. Here is Professor Levine’s story.

Early days

Stevens was born in 1792 and reared in Vermont. He appears always to have been a racial egalitarian, no doubt influenced by childhood in the state that, in 1777, adopted the first constitution that condemned slavery. Stevens had a club foot and was teased for it as a child; some historians think this contributed to his bitter personality.

At age 24, he passed the bar and in 1816 started a law practice in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. At first, he was willing to represent both slave owners and freed slaves, and quickly got a reputation for a sharp tongue. When a judge accused him of showing contempt of court, he replied, “Sir, I am doing my best to conceal it.” In his mid-30s, Stevens lost all his hair to alopecia, and thereafter always wore a wig. Publicly, he was a Christian, once saying that only “a fool . . . disbelieves in the existence of a God.” However, a long-time friend and ally wrote that in private, Stevens comments on religion “were exceedingly coarse and exceedingly contemptuous.”

Stevens thought that industry was the key to national prosperity and this seems to have nourished his dislike for the more agricultural South. He supported tariffs to protect Northern factories, even though this made industrial goods more expensive for Southerners. During the 1832 Nullification Crisis, South Carolina threatened to refuse to collect tariffs on manufactured goods, forcing Congress to repeal some of the tariff’s harsher provisions. Stevens was furious. He thought President Andrew Jackson should have forced the law on SC and even “execute the traitors, if need be.”

Stevens’s egalitarianism did not run to socialism. He thought “unequal distribution of wealth” was inevitable: “As men advance in refinement, distinction of ranks and orders multiply.” In 1837, as a delegate to a convention to write a new constitution for Pennsylvania, he opposed abolishing the requirement that only people who paid taxes could vote. He was firm that the vote be denied “the vile, the vagabond, the idle and dissipated,” and to any man who “lodged in a barn.”

The old state constitution was vague on whether blacks could vote, and Stevens insisted that propertied blacks be given the franchise, just like whites. This was voted down and a new constitution denying blacks the vote was approved by referendum.

By 1836, Stevens had become a fervent and open abolitionist, saying that “the domestic slavery of this country is the most disgraceful institution that the world had ever witnessed.” He believed that the Constitution barred Congress from interfering with slavery in the states, but was one of very few to claim that it had the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, even against the wishes of white citizens residents.

Stevens was first sent to the Pennsylvania state house as a member of the Anti-Masonic party, which thought Masons were dangerously elitist and anti-democratic. Part of his hatred of the Masons may have been because they did not admit “cripples” and other disfigured people; Stevens had a club foot and no hair.

As the Masons went into decline, so did the party. Stevens jumped ship and joined the Whigs, who sent him to Congress in 1848 as an abolitionist. He opposed slavery on moral grounds but also though it hurt the economy. He argued that slaves have no incentive to work and “are idle and wasteful.” “Sloth, negligence, improvidence, are the consequence,” and “the land being neglected becomes poor and barren.”

The Compromise of 1850 included fugitive slave laws that required free states to help catch runaway property. Stevens urged defiance of the laws, and in 1851 acted as defense counsel for a group of blacks and whites who had killed a slaveowner who had come for his property. This outraged many in both South and North. Whigs drove him out of the party, and he failed to win reelection in 1852.

He switched parties again, and joined the American Party, better known as the Know Nothings, because he appears to have doubted whether Catholics could be good citizens. However, after he learned that most ethnic immigrants opposed slavery, he dropped nativist views. In 1858, Stevens returned to Washington as a Pennsylvania congressman, this time as a member of the short-lived Union Party, a mix of Republicans and Know Nothings. He campaigned not only on abolition but on giving the vote to women.

Stevens was thrilled by John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry. He said that Brown “deserved to be hung for being a hopeless fool” for his “attempt to capture Virginia with seventeen men,” adding that Brown should have known “that it would require at least twenty-five.” Within a week of Brown’s execution, he was calling for publication of Brown’s last statements, letters, interviews: “I know nothing that would be more read or do more good.” In a speech on the floor of Congress about Brown, he insulted the South in such vile language that it had to be sanitized in the Congressional Record.

Stevens was probably the most anti-Southern zealot in Congress. After the South seceded, President Buchanan tried to resupply Fort Sumter by sea, but Confederates fired across the ship’s bow and turned it back. Stevens was furious that Buchanan had not attacked the South immediately, calling him “a very traitor.” He reportedly looked into impeaching Buchanan, even though there were only two months left in his term. When some northerners said that the South should be allowed to depart in peace, Stevens accused them of “preaching moral treason.”

When the war broke out, Stevens was 69, but the fight seemed to rejuvenate him. In July 1861, he became head of the Ways and Means Committee, and never failed to vote money to support a war that he saw as a way to make blacks equal to whites and punish the South.

President Lincoln’s main goal was to preserve the Union. There were four slave-holding states that had not joined the Confederacy — Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware — and many Unionists understood the danger of making the war look like an abolitionist crusade. Not so, Stevens. In July 1861, Kentucky Congressman John Crittenden and Tennessee Senator Andrew Johnson introduced legislation stating that the Union was fighting solely “to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union” and not for the purpose “of overthrowing or interfering with the rights of established institutions of those States.” Stevens was furious when the bill passed overwhelmingly in both houses.

This biography describes the confusion within Congress over what to do with slaves who crossed into Union lines. Many Northerners thought the Constitution did not permit taking the property — human or otherwise — of secessionists, but Stevens had no time for legal niceties. He scoffed at the “puerile inconsistency” of people who would “send forth your sons and brothers to shoot and saber and bayonet the insurgents,” but who “hesitate to break the bonds of their slaves.” In a fight to preserve the Union, if the North had the right to kill Confederates, it certainly had the right to take property.

But abolition came first. Stevens mistakenly thought that white men would fight harder for to free blacks than to save the Union and that “the blood of every [white] freeman would boil with enthusiasm, and his nerves be strengthened in this holy warfare.” Stevens even claimed God would punish the Union and delay victory if it did not free the slaves, and that anyone who opposed abolition was responsible for “the continued misery and bloodshed.”

From the beginning, Stevens wanted all slaves freed, armed, and turned against their masters: “The slaves ought to be incited to insurrection and give the rebels a taste of real civil war.” This shocked many whites. Delaware Democrat Willard Saulsbury denounced any attempt “to elevate the miserable nigger” and make a soldier of him. The New York Times wrote: “the enrollment of negroes in the military service in such states as South Carolina and Georgia would, of course, mean nothing else than a determination to exterminate the white population in those states.” The article added that Southerners might accept defeat at the hands of white union soldiers, “but to expect them to submit quietly to the rule of their own slaves, armed by our own Government and quartered in their midst, is an error, the folly of which is only exceeded by the devilish malignity that suggests it.”

Lincoln initially did not want blacks to fight, but changed his mind as the war dragged on. By war’s end, 200,000 had served in the army and navy.

In the West, as the Army marched East to fight the Confederacy, Indians moved into the vacuum and, in some cases, pushed settlers back hundreds of miles. Stevens said that any resulting bloodshed was the fault of “bad white men.” He also opposed legislation that would have limited Chinese immigration.

After Appomattox, Stevens wanted “to inflict condign punishment on the rebel belligerents” and to treat the Confederate states as conquered territory, unprotected by the Constitution, subjected only to the laws of war.

Stevens was determined to remake Southern society from top to bottom. “The foundation of their institutions, both political, municipal, and social, must be broken up and relaid.” This could “only be done by treating and holding them as a conquered people.” Republicans would “work a radical reorganization in southern institutions habits and manners” and “revolutionize their principles and feelings.” He wanted the South under martial law until “the purifying fires of this revolution” had been burned out and Republicans were permanently in power.

George Clemenceau, then a journalist based in the United States, marveled at “one of the most radical revolutions known in history.” Karl Marx said “never has such a gigantic revolution occurred with such rapidity.”

Stevens repeatedly introduced bills to seize the property of ex-Confederates and give it to blacks. Anything left over would be sold to the highest bidder to pay pensions to Union soldiers. There were other radical Republicans, but even without Southern representation in Congress, no majority supported such harsh vengeance. The New York Herald wrote in 1868 that “we are passing through a similar revolution to that of the French” and that Stevens had “the boldness of Danton, the bitterness and hatred of Marat, and the unscrupulousness of Robespierre.”

Military occupation and Reconstruction stripped ex-Confederates of the franchise and ensured black control of many statehouses. Therefore, in the congressional elections of 1867, Republicans took power in the South, but the Republican majority shrank drastically in Congress. This was mainly because of Northern revulsion at the harsh treatment of the conquered South. Republican moderates were much more interested in reconciling with Southern whites with whom they wanted peace and harmony rather than in punishment and revolution. Even abolitionists were disturbed by black rule in the South.

The Reconstruction Act of 1867 put the US Army in control of 10 Southern states, but then-President Andrew Johnson refused to order the depredations the radicals wanted. Already, in the previous year, angry at Johnson’s lenient treatment of the South, Stevens had been preparing for impeachment. He admitted that his motives were “wholly political,” and that Johnson need not have committed any crime, much less the “high crimes and misdemeanors” called for in the Constitution.

After several failed attempts, on February 24, 1868 Stevens persuaded Congress to vote articles of impeachment on the theory that the president had violated the Tenure of Office Act by firing his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. By then, Stevens’s health was failing, and he had to be carried around Congress in a chair. He was one of the managers of the impeachment trial, but was so weak he spoke only three times. The New York Herald described him:

face of corpselike color, and rigidly twitching lips … a strange and unearthly apparition — a reclused remonstrance from the tomb … the very embodiment of fanaticism, without a solitary leaven of justice or mercy … the avenging Nemesis of his party — the sworn and implacable foe of the Executive of the nation.

The Last Speech on Impeachment, Thaddeus Stevens Closing the Debate in the House, March 2, Sketched by T.R. Davis, Harper’s Weekly, March 21, 1868 (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)
The Last Speech on Impeachment, Thaddeus Stevens Closing the Debate in the House, March 2, Sketched by T.R. Davis, Harper’s Weekly, March 21, 1868 (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)

On May 21, conviction in the Senate failed by a just one vote. However, it is important to remember that most Southern states had not yet been readmitted to Congress, and Republicans had a huge minority. Johnson was saved by Republican defectors who thought Congress was abusing its power. Stevens was carried from the Senate — an observer called him “black with rage and disappointment” – and shouted, “The country is going to the devil.”

A dying but undaunted Stevens drafted new articles of impeachment, but the House refused to adopt them. As Southern states were readmitted, Stevens proposed a bill to break up Texas into several parts so that the additional Republican senators could help vote Johnson out. The New York Herald wrote that “it is lamentable to see this old man, with one foot in the grave, pursuing the President with such vindictiveness.”

Stevens did not live out the year, dying on August 11, 1868. Two black preachers came to pray for him as he lay dying. They assured him that all black people were praying for him. Also at his bedside was Lydia Hamilton Smith, a light-skinned black housekeeper who lived with him for 20 years. Some historians believe they were lovers. Stevens had racially mixed pall bearers, and his body lay for a day in the Capitol Rotunda with an honor guard of black soldiers.

Thaddeus Stevens Lying in State in the Rotunda of the Capitol at Washington. (Credit: Album / Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY)
Thaddeus Stevens Lying in State in the Rotunda of the Capitol at Washington. (Credit: Album / Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY)

The New York Times praised his support for emancipation, but added that “on the subject of Reconstruction, then, Mr. Stevens must be deemed the Evil Genius of the Republican Party.” Moderates considered his death “an emancipation for the Republican Party” because it ended his vindictive influence.

Stevens today

The author of this book calls Stevens “one of the central leaders of the Second American Revolution” — meaning the elevation of blacks — but laments that “the Second American Revolution was left unfinished.” No doubt he will continue to think it unfinished until Ibram Kendi has his way, and there is a US Department of Anti-Racism with the power to veto every law or regulation that does not actively promote “equity” for blacks.

This makes Stevens the perfect hero for our time: He would stop at nothing in the name of blacks and wanted to crush whites who stood in his way. It is easy to imagine him teaching critical race theory, bellowing “black lives matter,” and finding “white supremacy” everywhere. He had the perfect personality for it: indignant, uncompromising, nourished by hate. And he was a formidable figure.

Stevens had a strange power to win people over. Frederick Douglass said he was “more potent in Congress and in the country than even the president and cabinet combined.” He also had a sharp tongue with which he flayed opponents. Of one, he said, “There are some reptiles so flat that the common foot of man cannot crush them.” He called another “that thing which has crawled into this House and adheres to one of the seats by its own slime.”

When Lincoln wondered whether a Pennsylvania Republican named Simon Cameron, who was frequently accused of corruption, was a thief, Stevens replied, “I don’t think he would steal a red-hot stove.” Cameron heard about this and complained. Stevens is then supposed to have said to Lincoln “I believe I told you he would not steal a red-hot stove. I will now take that back.”

There are three schools named after Stevens, including the first school built for blacks in Washington DC, in 1868. They are not likely to be renamed any time soon. Of all the white men who have devoted their lives to black people, it would be hard to think of one who worked harder or to greater effect — or one who paid a higher price in the disapproval of shocked whites. Unlike the laughable “courage” attributed to today’s racial arsonists, Stevens had to face down powerful enemies.

And yet, when todays radicals rip the names of whites from schools and tear down monuments, does anyone ever propose honoring Thaddeus Stevens instead? No. When a white man comes down, up goes a person of color — preferable a woman — who was a midget compared to Stevens.

I wonder if today’s overexcited whites ever dream of honors and memorials in the multi-culti America they claim to want. If so, they dream in vain. A nation that so despises whites that it cannot even remember Thaddeus Stevens with thanks will have no white heroes, certainly not today’s pathetic trucklers.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 112 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. thad says:

    Jews can’t bear to treat Palestinians or African blacks as humans and equal subjects under the law in Israel, but they can praise Thaddeus Stevens for wanting white America to bleed under “negro domination”. This is the danger with having jews teach your history to you: it will be shaped and perverted to serve their ends, and not America’s ends. Whites better start getting tribal. Why any smart, capable white man would aid this country as it’s presently constituted is beyond me. Let the house burn down, but make sure to get out first.

    • Thanks: mark green
    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  2. northeast says:

    Thanks, Jared. Never heard of this individual. A wretched fanatic who would fit in well these days in academia or the democratic party.

  3. What occurs to me upon reading this article is the old saying “The more things change, the more the stay the same.” I see Taylor is still pushing the BS that Civil War-era American whites were somehow deeply opposed to all this racial “equality” enacted by their duly elected representatives, but obviously they weren’t opposed enough to actually do anything to stop it, or at least most of it. On the contrary, Taylor wants to uphold the lie they fought America’s bloodiest war without any desire at all to free the negroes, and were completely surprised and appalled when the freed slaves were granted citizenship and the vote immediately after the war was over. It was a total accident! LOL. It says a lot about him that he must think most of his readers are stupid enough to believe this, yet it may be that he is correct in that assessment.

    If the piece confirms anything, it’s that antifa’s anti-white tactics are an old tradition in American life, as old as Lincoln and Stevens, or even older. Either then or now, they’d never have succeeded without the tacit approval of the majority of whites.

  4. They should have either instituted Steven’s Reconstruction with extreme draconian prejudice for 100 years.

    Or they should have let the South go.

    Instead, as usual, they choose the namby-pamby neither/nor don’t rock no boats status quo ante source of all our current problems.

  5. …but was one of very few to claim that it had the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, even against the wishes of white citizens residents.

    How were the white residents citizens? Unless of their home states?

    Also at his bedside was Lydia Hamilton Smith, a light-skinned black housekeeper who lived with him for 20 years. Some historians believe they were lovers.

    Eww, gross. How is that any different from doing it with a reptile? Only mentally ill men would even consider it, e.g., Richard Mentor Johnson, or Strom Thurmond.

    …and finding “white supremacy” everywhere.

    Transgender abuse of Dave Chappelle is white supremacy. Calling Ugandans “odious”, as Obama did, is white supremacy. Mandatory recycling is white supremacy. Disarming felons, even non-violent ones, is white supremacy. Mask and vaccine mandates are white supremacy.

    The only way to escape white supremacy is to escape whites. That they won’t do. Otherwise, the choice is between which flavor of white supremacy you’ll be served.

  6. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    On the contrary, Taylor wants to uphold the lie they fought America’s bloodiest war without any desire at all to free the negroes, and were completely surprised and appalled when the freed slaves were granted citizenship and the vote immediately after the war was over.

    The slaves were already represented in Congress, and had been since 1789, 65 years before the GOP’s birth. White Southerners had several times the voting power of whites elsewhere. The smart solution would have been to expel the blacker states, and not let them back in until they whitened up to, say, 95%. Unfortunately, both sides did the worst thing for their people.

    As for tariffs, that’s a lame excuse. If you don’t like the products manufactured by your compatriots, build them yourself. No need to go abroad.

    Or, as the Mormons say, “Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without.”

  7. JimDandy says:

    Stevens had a club foot and was teased for it as a child; some historians think this contributed to his bitter personality.

    A true progressive archetype.

    • Agree: CSFurious, Ace
    • Replies: @G. Poulin
    , @Wielgus
  8. Have you ever thought that all this division into “untouchables” is a deliberate engineering.

    In the military you have to break the civilian down to make a soldier.

    What is now happening is the breaking up of “white privilege” (what ever that means) after that the next privilege group, heterosexuals are been attacked, then it is the buisness owner, etc, etc.

    And once each group has been reduced to atoms, the old order is gone…then the new human will be created for the New World Order.

    You either start forming groups to fight or you lose.

    Maybe people want to be the New World Order human whatever that may look like?

    • Replies: @Ace
  9. I remember reading about Thadeus Stevens in an article many years ago in Instauration and thinking at the time that he was born 150 years too soon. Such a disgusting anti-white creature, had he been living in our present day would be married to a negro male, working for CNN and would be one of the leading figures in the BLM movement.

    • Agree: Ace
  10. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Sadomasochism. Nearly all indocrinated ((Jews)) suffer from it. Their religioun/culture makes sadomasochists of them. That sadomasochism is often chanelled into politics, as ((Levine)) has done here here by glorifying the bitter clubfoot Stevens, who also channeled his rage into politics, and became a fanatical hater, as ((Jews)) are haters.

    This is why ((Jews)) are big on starting wars, so others will become as stunted, debilitated and bitter as they are. They can then use these like-minded psychotics as shock troops to push their sadistic agenda. The more wars or conflict, the more casualties there will be, as they also subconsciously see themselves as casualties of their upbringing. Misery loves company. Sadomasochists love power.

    Nearly all politics comes down to psychology and materialism.

    Christians, for example, are brainwashed to turn the other cheek, so they don’t become bitter haters like ((Jews)). But this also becomes a pathology, because they have ignored the ((Jewish))-psychotic elephant in the living room to the point that it is now running the country based on mentally ill ((Jewish)) principles.

    A true Christian would recognize ((Jews)) as the poison they are and either force them into mental health treatment or banish them entirely, recognizing that some people (in this case, Stevens) are scarred beyond salvation and can only make the world worse.

  11. Cris M. says:

    Another tome, as they continue to yank rabbits out of hats, increase followers of nonsense. Though has no doubt been couched in other or similar vein before by others, as I tend to frame things in core tactics, do we notice how effective the tactic is that media and politicians use their –white skin, in putting down whites and pushing other races over whites. It has been and is an effective tactic, and in this case using book cover face does the same thing. May want to note the tactic. Think how effective it is, for someone with white skin to be putting down whites. Of course there are dupes also, but am referring to gang pushers of anti-white agenda, for oppression. A question being why do whites continue allowing a thousand oppressions from every angle.

    Side note, on face on book, which as cons have been painting nonsense history over centuries, then used photos, and masking/editing, and later photoshop, making what they want, point being the face didn’t look that way, looked on wiki. It’s been very graphic’d, didn’t have a flat broad forehead, or big cheekbones, is edited to cartoon level on book, way beyond orig photo which was already edited. The orig has masking across forehead to make look flatter and broader when had sharp browbone and more sloping forehead, also cheeks masked a bit, and on book is double nonsense. Of course purpose being brainwashing and getting paid, so they make appear attractive, this one graphic’d out to almost a christopher reeves look, except the angry granny mouth. Maybe was going for a ‘superman of anti-white’ inference.

  12. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    On the contrary, Taylor wants to uphold the lie they fought America’s bloodiest war without any desire at all to free the negroes, and were completely surprised and appalled when the freed slaves were granted citizenship and the vote immediately after the war was over.

    They fought the war because they could see that the greedy ((Jews)) were going to keep importing Black slaves until America looked like Africa, because their Zionist pathology demands it.

  13. KenH says:

    Author Bruce Levine,……..

    So a Jewish author is rehabilitating the deranged and white hating Thaddeus Stevens. No surprise, but Jared Taylor ignores the Jewish angle as usual.

    Since a large number of whites have been propagandized to hate their own people and denatured Thaddeus Stevens would find millions of white compatriots were he to come back from the dead.

    • Agree: Catdompanj, AndrewR, Ace
    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  14. Author is Jewish, and Jews like him hate whites.

    But Taylor the Cuck won’t mention that.

    Whites are under Jewish Domination for sure, and people like Taylor seem to like it.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  15. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Stevens thought that industry was the key to national prosperity and this seems to have nourished his dislike for the more agricultural South.

    To the extent that Stevens violently opposed the agricultural oligarchs’ reliance on Black slave labor (which robbed White laborers of a decent living) he was heroic. But the top ((Jews)) exploited his bitterness and transformed it into a generic hatred for Whites.

    ((Jews)) are engaged in similar treachery today. This is “Globalism.” And because top ((Jews)) have insider status with the Fed which they use to dominate it, their White cucks (including Trump) go along with it.

    A subset of Whites are indeed scoundrels of the lowest order: White cucks to ((Jews)). But ((Jew)) stoogery knows no race. It’s a Satanic/Parasitic state mind that’s “multicultural.”

    • Agree: RedpilledAF
  16. Have any mainstream reviewers dared to be critical of this book?

  17. Zzz.

    The author would appear to be Jewish. ‘Levine’ is a form of ‘Levi.’

    • Agree: Angharad
  18. @obwandiyag

    ‘They should have either instituted Steven’s Reconstruction with extreme draconian prejudice for 100 years, or…’

    How would that have helped? Blacks would still be blacks. They are wherever they go, and however they’re treated.

  19. G. Poulin says:
    @JimDandy

    Stevens should have been strangled in his crib. What a total piece of shit. That someone like that could end up in the government is a good argument for abolishing it.

    • Agree: Angharad
  20. This is a wonderful article. I learn that Stevens had an extraordinary intelligence (however malignant) plus the will and command of it to crush his enemies. We see no one to match that in public life today. We are ruled by a colony of ants, a very powerful and organized force to be sure, but lacking brilliance and evolving downward.

    It is by people such as Stevens and his heirs that I learn how I can be made to submit, and from that, resist.

    A thought persisted when reading Stevens. Can this man have children? He didn’t. What he shares with too many childless women–there are no limits.

  21. @thad

    Regretably Jewish society in Israel is bitterly divided against itself as well. I was gifted ‘Yeshiva World News’ by Youtube for some time, and the videos of Jews in Jerusalem, Big Hats, Easter Island pukao hats, little hats, no hats, either secularists or those who keep the little hats for the synagogue, all getting stuck into one another with gusto were rather revealing. The Big Hats and pukaos seem to rather hate Jewish women, too. Such lovely people to run a world.

  22. @obwandiyag

    I actually agree on this point. The Middle Way was a poor call. At the very least, the middle way would only be truly effective with blacks also being removed and forming a Greater Liberia. To be fair, the extreme prejudice path also.

  23. Angharad says:

    Thaddeus Stevens. Spiteful Mutant Deluxe.

  24. Jews tell us that this is the most sacred race that whites should grovel to.

    Jews control media and top institutions and push this agenda on whites, but cuck Taylor will not name Jewish Power. He’s useless.

    Blacks attack, and whites do nothing because of BAMMAMA factor or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. But even after all the beatings and humiliating, whites will go back to cheering for black muscle in football and basketball and swoon at the feet of blacks as their heroes. Black muscle punches the white guy, but the white guy cheers for black muscle on NFL night. What dummies.

  25. J1234 says:

    It’s a dark age we are entering, one where the “true believer” (aka extremist or fanatical cultist) is held in highest regard by society rather than people who hold up a wide array of valid moral precepts within a balanced and thoughtful world view. History is the discipline most easily tainted by extremism because it’s so open to interpretation. In the mid and early 20th century, the type of historians referred to in this article were called “neo-abolitionist,” a disparaging term that described academics motivated by pathos and radicalism rather than reason and scholarship.

    The good news is that extremism can’t last forever. Society, like the physical world and nature, seeks equilibrium. But the damage extremism can do in the short term should be of great concern.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  26. Sorry, but the ungrammatical headline sounds like it was written by a product of the government-run school system. Et tu, Jared?

    I understand not wanting to repeat for, but if the head starts, “Adored for what … ” there is no way around ending it with “hated for.”

    It could have read, “Hated, now adored, for loathing Southern whites.”

  27. The fake “conservative” George Will is probably a fan of this guy. He believes far more misery should have been inflicted on Southern Whites.

    and that Stevens thought it would be “a beautiful thing” to see “the white men, especially the white women of the South, writhing under negro domination.

    This seems to be the prime motivation of a lot of sick people today.

    • Agree: flyingtiger
  28. Seraphim says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    A question is: who really loved the White Southerners besides themselves?

    • Replies: @Resartus
    , @Colin Wright
  29. Jack Aubin says: • Website

    Looks like D.W. Griffith wasn’t being at all excessive in his portrayal of Stevens in The Klansman/The Birth of a Nation.

    • Agree: mike99588
    • Replies: @europeasant
  30. neutral says:

    A true piece of shit he was. He however serves as a good example of how the US constitution is ultimately a flawed and evil piece of paper. It allows the worst forms of concern troll cockroaches like this Thaddeus to rise to the top and unleash their bitterness on the population in the name of goodness.

    • Replies: @Ace
    , @GeneralRipper
  31. @Priss Factor

    “or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.”

    This is a common misconception. There are plenty of Whites who are just as much, or even much more, muscular and aggressive than blacks (in fact per capita they surely outnumber blacks in this regard nationwide). The issue is, Whites have a lot to lose from a violent confrontation, and better things to do with their time than work out constantly and train for confrontation; blacks have nothing to lose, and nothing better to do with their time than cultivate toughness.

    Blacks grow up in chaotic, pathological gladiator academies that center on easy sex, easy cash, casual violence, and street cred/respect; whites tend to grow up in much more wholesome communities, have ambitions far beyond rap and basketball, have solid families which leads to an even temper and emotional well-being instead of hair-trigger negro paranoia; and Whites can’t be bothered to risk it all in a brawl over some petty slight. Whites have better things to do.

    I know white guys who are 6’3″, 225 pounds, experts in multiple martial arts, and you know what they do with their time? They get advanced degrees at Ivy League universities. If a negro starts in with them, they withdraw whenever possible rather than fight, because… who cares what negroes think?

    • Agree: Rich
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  32. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:

    Big scandal in Germany, turns out the (((person))) lied. A couple of weeks ago, a semi-famous (((person))) announced that in some Hotel in Leipzig the staff had told him to ‚get rid of that star necklace‘ ….

    Typical German guilt process. Hand wringing in Talk Shows, Long columns in the big newspapers. Hard hitting interviews with tax payer funded leaders of the (((community))).

    And turns out the (((person))) invented the entire story out of whole cloth. The good news is the accused has file suit against the (((person))) for defamation etc.

    Link to article ( use google translate)
    https://www.merkur.de/politik/gil-ofarim-hotel-westin-leipzig-antisemitismus-bericht-kanzlei-staatsanwaltschaft-zeugen-kette-stern-91078942.html

  33. Excuse me. But this was one of the most enlightening articles about a man I am unfamiliar with.

    There are a few men and women who fully grasped what it meant to have a philosophy of equality and liberty (a much abused word) and espouse the same in real time and circumstance.

    appreciated it

    It might be a good idea to place the south’s needless war in context when it comes to consequence

    ——————————-

    nearly one million peopled died from a conflict that was totally unnecessary and avoidable.

  34. Countless men who were American heroes are now villains because of their racial views:

    No, they’re labeled villains by undermining Jews.

  35. ANON[426] • Disclaimer says:

    Nigrowes

  36. @mulga mumblebrain

    Gosh darn it. Sounds like diversity–even among similar groups–isn’t the strength they’re advertising it to be everywhere else.

  37. @Priss Factor

    The nigger ape punched a White Woman much shorter and smaller than the ape, a great display of “black muscle”, and despite that display of “black muscle” barely moved her, impressive. Then the ape starts to “rap”. Anyway, Priss, for the last several weeks you have thankfully spared us from your usual posts about “giant black dong” but you appear to be close to a relapse.

  38. Thaddeus Stevens is the left’s kind of guy. He was a co-revolutionary with Lincoln, who destroyed the founder’s republic, relegating the states to little more than departments of FedGov. The left hates Lincoln now, but was their kind of guy as well. It’s just that Lincoln made those problematic statements about blacks, which now can’t be tolerated.

    Thaddeus Stevens was full of hate just as the modern left is. They are spiritual brothers.

  39. @Jack Aubin

    In that movie (Birth of a Nation, 1915) it looks like Stoneman is the Thaddeus Stevens character. A lot of similarities, even the housekeeper.

    I’ll have to pop that movie into the DVD player for a review. Everyone should watch that movie for some historical perspectives.

  40. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:

    Wow. Who would have thought that in those benighted times there existed a man of such a staggeringly upright moral character that he could easily be inducted into the august ranks of Honarary-Non-White white man.

    And dare I say, perhaps even into the stratopheric heights of the Righteous. An Honorary-Jew!!!

    A whitey! In those days! Wow. Just wow.

  41. Resartus says:
    @Seraphim

    A question is: who really loved the White Southerners besides themselves?

    Seems a lot of Yankees have over the last 50/60 years….
    Since they have migrated into the South, destroying the culture and economy….

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  42. Rich says:

    Thadeus Stevens really is one of the Founding Fathers of the modern United States. 90% of elected democrat politicians would agree with him and probably 25% of repubs. It’s a real shame all the Southern Democrats went along with FDR and the stupid repubs weren’t able to stop them. FDR’s policies have led directly to the position we’re in now, forced integration, high taxes, heavy regulation and affirmative action. Too bad Smedley Butler was able to stop that coup back in the 30s, those men might have saved the country.

  43. CSFurious says:

    The last place you would go for history would be the works of this author.

  44. How long before the Afro-centrists begin to claim that Mr.Stevens was actually a black man?

  45. Ace says:
    @Cookie Boy

    The military does not break the civilian down. It shows him a different way of living and provides positive incentives to adopt it. Military training is a LOT of fun.

  46. When Lincoln wondered whether a Pennsylvania Republican named Simon Cameron, who was frequently accused of corruption, was a thief, Stevens replied, “I don’t think he would steal a red-hot stove.” Cameron heard about this and complained. Stevens is then supposed to have said to Lincoln “I believe I told you he would not steal a red-hot stove. I will now take that back.”

    Wonderful quote.

  47. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    If a negro starts in with them, they withdraw whenever possible rather than fight, because… who cares what negroes think?

    I have been acquainted with several martial arts teachers over the years. Withdrawing is part of the philosophy. The martial arts are taught as defensive, not offensive. One used to ask his young students to raise their hands if they were enrolled to fight bullies. If they raised their hands, they were giving a dressing down emphasizing that what they would learn was to be used as a last resort.

  48. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    There was no civil war. A civil war is a war between factions seeking to control the government. The Confederacy had seceded and wanted no part of the Union. If anything, it was a second revolutionary war, with the Confederacy seeking to freeing itself from the taxation regime of the North, just as the 13 Colonies claimed they were freeing themselves from the taxation of Britain.

    • Agree: animalogic
  49. Rob McX says:

    There’s a role for Matthew McConaughey when Hollywood makes the hagiopic.

  50. Mr. Ed says:

    @ Priss Factor: You speak truly and justly of Taylor, sir.

  51. @Seraphim

    ‘A question is: who really loved the White Southerners besides themselves?’

    A lot of those politicians and generals who took the side of the North were actually quite moderate in their views. That would apply, for example, to McClellan and Lincoln — both of the candidates running for the Presidency in 1864. Even Grant’s sentiments upon the news of Lee’s surrender hardly suggest dislike for Southerners:

    ‘…I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us…’

  52. @Priss Factor

    After he pulled that in front of me you would look in his ears and see his nostrils.
    Likely treats the mothers of his kiddies the same way.

  53. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    who else had a clubfoot and was not a little resentful for the rest of his life?

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

  54. jtgw says:

    A little confused about the thesis of this essay. It begins by arguing that, based on books like Levine’s, Stevens is finally being rehabilitated by progressives after generations of obscurity on the basis of his radicalism, anti-Southern vitriol and contempt for Constitutional restraints. Then at the end he claims today’s progressives ignore Stevens and his legacy and prefer to commemorate obscure black and female historical figures that didn’t achieve nearly as much. Which is it?

    • Replies: @animalogic
  55. Curmudgeon: “There was no civil war. … it was a second revolutionary war …”

    Ironically for your point, which seems to be the absurd one that the so-called Civil War was fought over taxes, and that slavery had nothing to do with it, many historians would agree with seeing it as a second American Revolution, but for the opposite reason.

    Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence was widely mocked at the time for its hypocrisy with the phrase “all men are created equal”, and there was always a powerful constituency in the colonies that understood it to be universal. In fact, of the original 13 colonies, 5 of them allowed free negroes to become citizens and vote. So this wasn’t an idea confined to modern-day egalitarians, but rather a deep chord of feeling that was always present in white, Christian America from its founding. Lincoln certainly desired that the Declaration be interpreted that way. E.g., in a letter to his friend Joshua Speed, he said:

    “As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].”
    – Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Joshua Speed dated August 24, 1855

    Sometimes he even expressed such egalitarian opinions in public, depending on the audience.

    “My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man – this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position – discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and united as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”
    – Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Chicago, July 10, 1858

    Christianity itself is racially egalitarian, so it’s quite natural that a Christian nation should come to this conclusion, and quite predictable that a politician like Lincoln, who was trying to appeal to them for votes, should cater to their beliefs.

  56. HVM says:

    Simon and Schuster is the publisher. The author’s name is Levine. What more do you need to know? As the saying goes where there is a Jew there is a black.

  57. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:

    Tiger John McCausland and his boys burned Chambersburg to the ground and gave the Yankees a tiny bit of their own medicine, mostly because this sick son of a bitch’s blacksmith works were a few miles down the road.

    Too bad they didn’t kill all the military aged males and any negros they found as well, like Anderson and Quantrill did in Missouri and Kansas.

    • LOL: 36 ulster
    • Replies: @aj54
  58. In “Lincoln,” SpielBERG’s treatment, Tommy Lee Jones plays Stevens as the consciousness of the Northern cause. There is even an obviously fictional scene where Stevens borrows the actual text of the 13th Amendment after it was signed, and takes it home to show his negro lover.

    This is how history is warped and subverted. You see this kind of maudlin garbage in films about every historical event. The (((winners))) write the historical record.

    Tragically, we will never know many of the actual truths erased by this process.

  59. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:

    Yankees have a well documented history of Leftist perversion and virtue signaling.

    As a matter of fact they were dabbling in Marxism, shacking up in communes and practicing “free love” long before the Hippies in the Sixties.

    This is not to say that all Northerners shared the same flawed character traits, but unfortunately many of them were duped into fighting for the ones who did.

    • Replies: @G. Poulin
  60. Ace says:
    @neutral

    What other provisions in the Constitution could have prevented such a man from being elected? Please provide specific language.

    • Replies: @neutral
  61. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:
    @neutral

    The US Constitution is most certainly flawed, as is the foundation it was built upon. But I don’t see how you can call it entirely evil.

  62. Yevardian says:

    Jared should write more American history pieces.

  63. Still publishing Jared “Jews look White to me.” Taylor?

    LOL

    Reminds me — how about some more Fred Reed?

    • Troll: 36 ulster
  64. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:

    You know America is in trouble when this guy is a “hero”

    and this guy is a “traitor”

    • Agree: Automatic Slim
  65. neutral says:
    @Ace

    An easy one is to have a declaration for who the constitution is meant for, and blacks should definitely not be one of them. Any sane country would have laws against men who openly support blacks over whites.

    That however is not my point, the real problem with the US constitution is that it is a fanatical document that rejects human nature for absurd ideals. When you value these absurd ideals you really have zero arguments against gay marriage, race mixing, trans men in female toilets, drag story hour, etc, etc. It is a fundamentally evil document, that produced the sick society of today.

  66. In the conflict between Endsers and Meansers, the Endsers usually win.

    Endsers believe the end is so important than any means are necessary to attain it. So, lying is fine as long as it leads to fulfillment of the ends. Endsers are focused on the PRODUCT.

    Meansers believe the the principles of truth and integrity are more important. They are focused on the PROCESS and believe truth must be admitted to and favored over lies EVEN IF it hurts one’s own side and its favored ends.

    Jews are endsers, and their way shapes the mentality of many on their side. They believe their crusade is so holy that lies are just fine as long as they serve as useful means to their Ends.

    • Replies: @Alt Right Moderate
  67. Seraphim says:
    @Resartus

    I should probably rephrase the question: Why should anyone love the White Southerners?

    • Replies: @Resartus
  68. ‘and this guy is a “traitor”’

    this man chose to engage in a war to sever is country. he took an oath to defend the united states, no southern state was forced to become part of a single nation, and no southern state engaged in a process by which to legal sever that national bond

    they were traitors to a one

    out of a sense of healing and restoration the leaders of that cause were not placed on trial, but their act was an act of treason

    and i won’t indulge in further hopscotch nonsense about the oath — that road is well trodden

    one might admire his military prowess against a better equipped and fed opposition — but one cannot ignore that his act as anything other than treason in the light of the laws, customs and expectations of his day

    • Replies: @neutral
  69. Resartus says:
    @Seraphim

    I should probably rephrase the question: Why should anyone love the White Southerners?

    Mainly for the fact they keep the U.S. Military viable as a force…..
    Without us, the draft would have been reinstalled during the enlistment drought of
    the late ’70s and mid ’80s…..

  70. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:
    @KenH

    Neocon Jews have been scraping the Civil War scab for years now.

    It’s a win/win for them. Keep American White men divided, all the while appealing to Northern white kids patriotism for the military and their Mideast wars.

    Keeping white Christians divided is key.

    They fear us.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  71. And yet in Spielberg’s movie about Lincoln, Stevens is really the hero more than Lincoln.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  72. It’s about time we had another Civil War.

    This time, it’d be about Emancipation of White Folks from Jewish Supremacist Slavery.

    White Liberation and Wower(better term for white power).

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  73. Seraphim says:
    @GeneralRipper

    But why the American ‘Christian’ Whites let themselves be so easily divided and so avidly eat the sh*t that the Jews forcefully feed them? A tentative answer (partial) is that they are not Christian at all.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  74. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  75. Jews say, goyim obey. It’s incredible how Jews set the trend, and whites just bend. Do whites have a mind of their own? Whites are like dogs. They get most excited, pro or con, about ideas and idols chosen for them by Jews.

    Black guys beat white guys and took the mantle of the ‘better man’. But hey, I suppose white guys can beat white girls for the title of ‘better woman’.

    And of course, conzos have ‘lady maga’. Whites are such cucks that they should just be called whucks.

  76. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:
    @Seraphim

    Why did Christian Russians let themselves be so easily taken over by dirty Bolshevik Jews perverts who sexually molested the Czar’s young daughters prior to murdering him and his entire family?

    I’ll answer when you do.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  77. neutral says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Did somebody steal your shift key?

  78. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:
    @Priss Factor

    It’s about time we had another Civil War.

    Hold on Prissy Boy!

    Weren’t you the guy who was just a few months ago saying Ashli Babbit got what she deserved for breakin’ into our Holy Democracy Temple?

    You want me to fetch that post for you, bro?

    So Civil War it is then, Suh!

    As long as it’s Proles killing Proles.

  79. For a moment I thought it was Don Imus. One look at that mug and you can tell he must have been the life of the party.

  80. @Priss Factor

    Jews, pragmatic? I think you meant Israelis who are sub-group of Jews that would probably get wiped out if they adopted soft, sentimental western values. In the West, there are lots of wealthy, educated Jews who engage in idealistic progressive politics. Which for some strange reason, is the same idealistic progressive politics that rich White gentiles engage in. If there’s a race that is focused on ends it’s the up and coming Chinese, who, like Europeans of another era, still take pride in pragmatism and flexibility.

  81. Seraphim says:
    @GeneralRipper

    Comparing apples and oranges is not an answer. Russians didn’t let themselves so easily taken over. It was necessary a relentless ‘Red Terror’ to achieve a passive acquiescence for a while. Eventually Russians got rid of their Jewish conquerors and reverted to their Christian roots. The conquerors fled to America where they have been welcomed and received with open arms.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  82. ‘Did somebody steal your shift key?’

    what’s a shift key

    no, i am just very slow to upgrade my system and this old gal is giving way. i will of course just buy another old gal

  83. GeneralRipper [AKA "Zwischenzug"] says:
    @Seraphim

    That’s pretty much the answer I expected.

    I know most of you people think the worst of us, but honestly I have no animosity whatsoever towards “Russians” or “Chinese”.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  84. @mulga mumblebrain

    Reminds me of that joke —
    “how many synogogues does one Jew need? ”
    “two — one to attend, & one to boycott ”

  85. Here’s a great overview of why the Civil War was fought. The author, James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862), was the President of Columbia Theological Seminary, founder of the Southern Presbyterian Review, and editor of the Southern Quarterly Review. The text is a little long, so I’ll post the whole thing below, but here is a taste.

    The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and Slaveholders; they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground, Christianity and Atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity the stake.

    And the battle continues today.

    [MORE]

    Here is the whole quote from the Southern Literary Messenger for July 1851 (hat tip to Timothy A. Duskin in the Abbeville Institute):

    “The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and Slaveholders; they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground, Christianity and Atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity the stake. One party seems to regard society, with all its complicated interests, its divisions and subdivisions, as the machinery of man, which, as it has been invented and arranged by his ingenuity and skill, may be taken to pieces, reconstructed, altered or repaired, as experience shall indicate defects or confusion in the original plan. The other party beholds in it the ordinance of God; and contemplates ‘this little scene of human life’ as placed in the middle of a scheme, whose beginnings must be traced to the unfathomable depths of the past, and whose development and completion must be sought in the still more unfathomable depths of the future – a scheme, as Butler expresses it, ‘not fixed, but progressive, in every way incomprehensible;’ in which, consequently, irregularity is the confession of our ignorance, disorder the proof of our blindness, and with which it is as awful temerity to tamper as to sport with the name of God.”

    • Replies: @American Marius
  86. @Colin Wright

    Great quote from Grant.
    Sadly such moral complexity/
    ambivilence is now unfathomable or intolerable to the mass of people — people who think in
    B & W, not colour.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  87. Jiminy says:

    Thaddeus Stevens, a man ahead of his time? But wanting to give women the vote, come on. I’m sure that’s half the problem where I live. Women are even becoming the majority in the government, and that’s the conundrum, because females let their vaginas do the thinking and we’re all suffering because of it.

  88. @jtgw

    I see your point – ie apparent contradiction. However, the two views are not entirely inconsistent. Stevens can be rehabilitated, but, like other whites, is ignored when it comes to monuments etc.

  89. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    On the contrary, Taylor wants to uphold the lie they fought America’s bloodiest war without any desire at all to free the negroes

    Abraham Lincoln had no desire at all to free the slaves. Below the “more tag” is the relevant text from his First Inaugural Address. This language is the third paragraph, practically the most important thing Lincoln felt he had to say. Here is a brief excerpt that gives the gist.

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

    More of the relevant text is below. But Lincoln had no intention to free the slaves. And when it became clear that this was going to happen anyway, Lincoln invited black religious leaders to a meeting at the White House, the first time blacks had been so invited. The topic? Repatriation of freed slaves back to Africa.

    So who’s lying again?

    [MORE]

    From Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

    “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

  90. @Wade Hampton

    Nice bit of rhetoric, but not particularly true. The Republican Party during the Civil War was a coalition of various (mostly Northern) groups that included the aforementioned radicals but also Evangelical Christians who saw slavery (along with alcohol etc.) as sin, conservative industrialists who wanted higher tariffs, white farmers who did no wish to compete with slavery for land etc.

  91. Seraphim says:
    @GeneralRipper

    That’s again the ‘ad hominem’ type of argument.
    ‘We’ don’t have any ‘animosity’ for Americans. We are amazed at their capacity to delude themselves.

  92. “The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and Slaveholders; they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. :

    Uhhgggggggggggggg

    the south presumed despite all evidence to the contrary that the the newly elected president would or could abolish slavery —

    a descriptor of the components doesn’t impacts that discussion — it ,merely notes the players and their various belief systems this was a battle over a states right to something they thought would be arbitrarily and against their collective will taken away —

    it’s not a hard leap, southern state after southern state said exactly why they were attacking the union — to dissolve the relationship — both sides had men and women who christians, atheists, unitarians . . . muslims and even a few jews . . . and a host of philosophical differences in between

    — the battle could the states sever their affiliation at will and by force if necessary

    the south in such circumstance would their days antifa — by any means necessary –except of course the use of the mechanisms by which to make that case — legal recourse

    It would have been a fascinating legal discussion — maybe not so much for slaves, but then north and south agreed that slavery was legal — as President Lincoln made clear repeatedly

  93. I’m surprised the article didn’t mention the Corwin Amendment. Surely , Stevens would have been beside himself.

    The Grand Old Party was founded by the Socialist , Horace Greeley and several Marxist revolutionaries. Known as the 48’ers.

    Look at us now. We’re still dealing with the Marxist invasion of 1848.

    Conspiracy? I’d say so.

  94. Wade Hampton: “Abraham Lincoln had no desire at all to free the slaves. Below the “more tag” is the relevant text from his First Inaugural Address.”

    See my comment #55 above.

    Wade Hampton: “So who’s lying again?”

    Lincoln in his First Inaugural, obviously. This is shown by his real opinions given in the quoted remarks above, his prosecution of the war, and his ardent support of the 13th Amendment.

    Also lying is Taylor, who knows these things and “forgets” to mention them, but probably not you. As I said, Taylor thinks most of his readers are stupid enough to believe his lies, and in your case he’s right.

    • Disagree: Wade Hampton
    • Replies: @Wade Hampton
  95. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I’d have to agree with you that Lincoln is a lying sack of garbage. Perhaps we should start to correct the historical record by tearing down the Lincoln Memorial in DC.

    And perhaps you could read some history. Perhaps you could start with my comment at 85 above.

    Good luck.

  96. G. Poulin says:
    @Colin Wright

    Unfortunately the more moderate views of McClellan, Lincoln, and Grant are not the views that won out, because the war itself helped to empower the radicals. They’ve been with us ever since. Thanks a lot, Abe. We know you meant well, but….

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  97. G. Poulin says:
    @GeneralRipper

    You can say that again. One of the very first nudist colonies in America was started in the nineteenth century in Otis, Massachusetts, about thirty miles from where I live. Yankeeism is a mental illness.

  98. aj54 says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    perhaps look at the channels on YT of the Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus/Yehsua. There is hope for them yet.

  99. aj54 says:
    @GeneralRipper

    Most people have no idea that John Brown was from KS, and the actions that begat the Civil War were the ongoing raids by MO and KS residents against each other, which was over the question of KS being admitted as slave or free. The Kansans would go steal slaves from MO farms, and the farmers would put together a militia to go take them back.

  100. @Abbott Hall

    Piss on both Stevens and Lincoln.

    Lincoln was a statist, a warmonger, a racist, a railroad lawyer/lobbyist, and a devotee of corporate welfare. Read “Lincoln Unmasked: Everything You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe” by Thomas DiLorenzo.

  101. Orville H. Larson: “Read “Lincoln Unmasked: Everything You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe” by Thomas DiLorenzo. ”

    DiLorenzo is a Christian who is intent on covering up the role of Christianity in causing the Civil War.

    Orville H. Larson: “Lincoln was a … racist”

    LOL. Lincoln was such a racist that he not directed the murder of hundreds of thousands of whites in order to free the negroes, but then, after the war was over, called for those same negroes to be made citizens and given the vote! He was even so racist that he insisted negroes never be deported unless they volunteered ed to go! In practical effect, Lincoln the racist re-founded America as the multi-racial paradise it is today.

    Some racist!

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  102. Corvinus says:
    @GeneralRipper

    Hello, General Ripper. Yet again another handle? Just stick to one.

  103. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    ‘DiLorenzo is a Christian who is intent on covering up the role of Christianity in causing the Civil War.’

    In the America of that era, it’s hard to imagine Christianity not being involved in the question somehow.

    Of course Christianity had a role in causing the Civil War. I would assume it had a role in causing the Transcontinental railway.

  104. Colin Wright: “Of course Christianity had a role in causing the Civil War. I would assume it had a role in causing the Transcontinental railway. ”

    That’s a ridiculous comparison.

    Christianity’s racial egalitarianism provided the sole moral justification for the war, and the war was instigated by Christian fanatics such as John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe. This is quite unlike the Christian role in “causing” the railway, if there was one. People like DiLorenzo and his associated acts are only showmen and grifters, intent on distracting people from this with absurd hypotheses, such as the allegation that Lincoln was an incorrigible racist who didn’t intend to free the slaves, or that the war was caused by a dispute over taxes, and had nothing at all to do with slavery. Truly idiotic stuff.

    “My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man – this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position – discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and united as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”
    – Lincoln “the racist”, Speech at Chicago, July 10, 1858

  105. ‘That’s a ridiculous comparison…’

    No, it’s not. My point is the America of the era was such a completely Christianized society that the tenets and teachings of the religion would come into play in any question of moment. It’s similar to what goes on now, where any action by a Muslim society is seen as somehow reflecting on Islam.

    Well, yes and no. If a religious doctrine pervades a society, it’s almost inconceivable that any event can occur that isn’t somehow influenced, defined by, or otherwise connected to that doctrine. Slavery, for example, will be variously permitted by, regulated by, or prohibited by the tenets of that religion.

    One can hardly have an event as dramatic as a war in a religious society without that war coming to be defined in religious terms. Of course the Civil War was going to be ‘about’ religion in sense — the societies that were fighting it were religious societies.

    ‘Christianity’s racial egalitarianism provided the sole moral justification for the war, and the war was instigated by Christian fanatics such as John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe…’

    This gets tedious: almost nothing has a monocausal explanation. Even a simple individual act is subject to multiple motivations. I’m typing this post now; that’s because I’m interested in the Civil War, because I want to respond to what you said, because I want to kill some time until dinner, and because I’m tired of stripping the paint from the stairs. Which is ‘the’ motive? Remove any one of those elements, and I don’t type this post.

    …And that’s for a simple action involving five minutes of one person’s time. How much more absurd is it to see a ‘sole’ justification for an event spanning years and involving thirty million people?

    One can easily list a score of motives, justifications, circumstances, doctrines, attitudes, assumptions, and factors that both permitted and caused the war. They can be variously weighted, defined, and seen as either necessary or superfluous — but to speak of a ‘sole moral justification’ is nonsense. Slavery and the perception that it was immoral was certainly an element in bringing about the war — but it’s also true that most of those who fought did not do so either to free the slaves or to keep them in chains, did not own slaves, and didn’t actually care one way or the other about slavery.

  106. Colin Wright: “No, it’s not. My point is …”

    You stated your point. Restating it doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. If you wanted to justify your inane statement, then an explanation of exactly HOW Christianity “caused” the railroad to be built would have been in order. Unfortunately, (and unsurprisingly, since the connection would seem tenuous at best) that seems to be beyond your abilities to provide.

    Colin Wright: “This gets tedious: almost nothing has a monocausal explanation.”

    Listing a lot of motives for your making a post has no bearing on what I said. As before, if you were capable of defending your point, you’d have listed ANOTHER moral justification for the war. Failing to do so evidently means you can’t. Again, not surprising, since there wasn’t one.

  107. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    It doesn’t sound like he was raring to indict them as war criminals.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  108. Wielgus says:
    @JimDandy

    Totally unlike the laid-back, chilled-out commentariat on this site 🙂

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  109. GeneralRipper [AKA "J.S. Tomlin"] says:
    @Wielgus

    Yes, well your kind have always hated the ones who give as good as they get.

    Our hate for you dirty Leftist filth still burns white hot.

    Rest assured.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  110. GeneralRipper [AKA "J.S. Tomlin"] says:
    @Wielgus

    Because he was raring to get on with making money.

    The post wars years were some of the most corrupt in all of American history. ( that’s quite a feat )

    Yankees were spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse…lol

  111. Wielgus says:
    @GeneralRipper

    Well, that’s just like your opinion, man. And I bet you had a Thaddeus Stevens-type expression when you were writing it.
    Stevens was an ideologue, and so are you.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  112. GeneralRipper [AKA "J.S. Tomlin"] says:
    @Wielgus

    Nope, I’m about as far from an “ideologue” as you can get, but I don’t suffer the greedy fools who serve them very well at all.

    Actually my expression while writing that previous post was more like this:

    than the visage of the freak Stevens.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jared Taylor Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism