- Born: September 16, 1832, Fort Monroe, Hampton, VA
- Died: February 18, 1913, Alexandria, VA
“pushing nature past its limits”
58 minutes ago
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Confederate Pic of the Day: General George Washington Custis Lee
Major Robert Anderson, Inside Fort Sumter, Credits Lincoln With Starting the Civil War
I don't know why Yankees (like Donald Douglas) insist on arguing every little point. It is so important to them to believe that Lincoln was not the war-monger he was, but a gentle lamb on which the Civil War was forced, all the while he was dreaming of peace and daffodils and racial harmony.
Actually, who fired the first shot is not important. What is important is who made that first shot necessary -- and that was Abraham Lincoln. Determined to hold all forts in Southern territory, he made the war inevitable.
However, Lincoln did indeed diabolically plot to force the South to fire the first shot. He knew it would have tremendous propaganda value -- indeed, the propaganda is still working, 150 years later. Ask Donald Douglas.
Here are some more actual, historical facts that prove it.
On April 7, 1861 Confederate authorities intercepted mail from Union Major Robert Anderson, who was commanding Union troops in Fort Sumter. In that letter, Anderson expressed shock to hear that an expedition to the fort was now en route. (Any attempt to resupply the fort was an act of war and would commence hostilities.) Anderson wrote: "We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war which I see is to be thus commenced."
Bombardment of Fort Sumter began five days later, on April 12, 1861.
In that statement, Major Anderson acknowledged the truth, that Lincoln had determined to begin hostilities in the Civil War. Lincoln was the aggressor and the author of the carnage that followed. And, on Lincoln's soul, is the blood of perhaps as many as 850,000 men, women and children. I'd hate to go to God with that record. What a hero!
Source: The Union is Dissolved!: Charleston and Fort Sumter in the Civil War, By Douglas W. Bostick
Actually, who fired the first shot is not important. What is important is who made that first shot necessary -- and that was Abraham Lincoln. Determined to hold all forts in Southern territory, he made the war inevitable.
However, Lincoln did indeed diabolically plot to force the South to fire the first shot. He knew it would have tremendous propaganda value -- indeed, the propaganda is still working, 150 years later. Ask Donald Douglas.
Here are some more actual, historical facts that prove it.
On April 7, 1861 Confederate authorities intercepted mail from Union Major Robert Anderson, who was commanding Union troops in Fort Sumter. In that letter, Anderson expressed shock to hear that an expedition to the fort was now en route. (Any attempt to resupply the fort was an act of war and would commence hostilities.) Anderson wrote: "We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war which I see is to be thus commenced."
Bombardment of Fort Sumter began five days later, on April 12, 1861.
In that statement, Major Anderson acknowledged the truth, that Lincoln had determined to begin hostilities in the Civil War. Lincoln was the aggressor and the author of the carnage that followed. And, on Lincoln's soul, is the blood of perhaps as many as 850,000 men, women and children. I'd hate to go to God with that record. What a hero!
Source: The Union is Dissolved!: Charleston and Fort Sumter in the Civil War, By Douglas W. Bostick
Black Radicals to Burn American Flags
Radical blacks and their white liberal supporters will never be satisfied with the cultural cleansing of the South. Next, they will come for national symbols like the American flag.
As for relegating the Confederate flag to museums, sooner or later some racial opportunist will claim that he or she can't take the kids to the museum because it contains "racist symbols" out in full view. They will then demand that all Confederate flags never be displayed anywhere at all.
The pamphlet below is circulating in New York, preparing for a flag burning there tomorrow. the claims made by the radicals are BE (Bovine Excrement). They hate white people and invent reasons for that hatred. Black racism and violence against non-blacks is legendary, and way out of proportion to their numbers in the population as a whole. Those blacks who work so tirelessly to drive a wider and wider wedge between themselves and white people, will eventually erode the patience of the latter. Then, affirmative action and their status as a protected and privileged class will finally be over.
They sow the wind to reap the whirlwind. As for Dylann Roof, hang the little bastard, ASAP.
Read about it at the Blaze, here.
The pamphlet below is circulating in New York, preparing for a flag burning there tomorrow. the claims made by the radicals are BE (Bovine Excrement). They hate white people and invent reasons for that hatred. Black racism and violence against non-blacks is legendary, and way out of proportion to their numbers in the population as a whole. Those blacks who work so tirelessly to drive a wider and wider wedge between themselves and white people, will eventually erode the patience of the latter. Then, affirmative action and their status as a protected and privileged class will finally be over.
They sow the wind to reap the whirlwind. As for Dylann Roof, hang the little bastard, ASAP.
Read about it at the Blaze, here.
More Computer Problems: Trojan Horse Attacks the Stogiemeister
Sheee-it, I have had two laptops lunched in three days. This morning my backup laptop acquired a nasty Trojan. I was sitting at the patio table when my computer displayed a message that I had a serious virus and would have to call a certain number, and to have my credit card ready. A robotic voice repeated this over and over in a monotone. I knew then that I did have a serious virus, and it was talking to me, trying to convince me that it was a legitimate utility built into Windows. Of course, I am not that stupid. Yeah, I'm going to give my debit/credit card number to computer criminals and watch them drain my bank account.
I couldn't stop the voice and display by the usual means -- couldn't halt it, couldn't reboot -- so I held down my on/off button to force the computer to shut down. Then I turned it back on and ran a malware removal program (Spyhunter 4). Spyhunter quickly deleted the Trojan, but when I rebooted my partition had been damaged, and Windows could not start the computer.
There was nothing left to do but reinstall the operating system from scratch. This caused all files and installed programs to be lost. Word, Excel, Outlook, Photoshop, Chrome, everything.
I must have contracted the Trojan during the short time I fired up the laptop and before I reinstalled McAfee virus checker. Where and how, I do not know.
This is not my week.
I couldn't stop the voice and display by the usual means -- couldn't halt it, couldn't reboot -- so I held down my on/off button to force the computer to shut down. Then I turned it back on and ran a malware removal program (Spyhunter 4). Spyhunter quickly deleted the Trojan, but when I rebooted my partition had been damaged, and Windows could not start the computer.
There was nothing left to do but reinstall the operating system from scratch. This caused all files and installed programs to be lost. Word, Excel, Outlook, Photoshop, Chrome, everything.
I must have contracted the Trojan during the short time I fired up the laptop and before I reinstalled McAfee virus checker. Where and how, I do not know.
This is not my week.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Confederate Soldier Pic of the Day: Cavalry Trooper with Plumed Hat
I see an emblem on his brass buttons, but can't tell what it is. It was common for buttons to bear the logo of the state from which the soldier's regiment came.
Other standard issue buttons merely had an A, I or C on each. A for artillery, I for Infantry, C for cavalry. Still other buttons merely had CSA imprinted thereon. Some buttons were made of pewter instead of brass.
Most of the soldiers in these pics look decidedly humorless and serious. This was mostly due to the fact that they had to sit or stand perfectly still for about a minute while the camera took their picture. Wet plate photography was not instantaneous. The photographer took a cap off the camera lens, and replaced it a minute or so later. Any movement would produce a blurry picture.
Did Lincoln Deliberately Instigate War at Fort Sumter? Yes, He Did.
Donald Douglas has criticized me as a 911 style truther for claiming that Lincoln plotted to provoke the South into firing the first shot of the Civil War. It's true. Lincoln's mind was made up, he would never agree to a peaceful secession of the Southern states. They were to be dragged back into the Union kicking and screaming. The problem was, how could he start the war without appearing to be the aggressor? Easy, by refusing to negotiate the peaceful transfer of Fort Sumter to South Carolina, and instead, attempting to reinforce it.
Fort Sumter, with its powerful guns, could bombard any point in the city of Charleston. Now Union Major Anderson had been ordered to refuse surrender of the fort, and a fleet of Northern warships was on its way to Charleston harbor. Soon, the South Carolinians would or could be targeted by the cannon from both fort and the fleet simultaneously. They decided to act before the fleet arrived, and deal only with the fort. They than began bombardment of Fort Sumter, for their own protection.
Here are some quotes from various sources that back me up:
"Increasingly it became clear that any attempt to relieve these garrisons [Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens] would precipitate war. . . ." (John Hicks, The Federal Union, Third Edition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957, p. 558)
"By the time Lincoln took office Confederate authorities, fearing hasty action from South Carolina, had assumed control of the delicate Fort Sumter negotiations. . . . Would Lincoln pursue the dilatory course of Buchanan or would he be aggressive and forthright as the leader of the party which had condemned Buchanan's policy? He did neither. Instead, he carried out a plan of his own which was so devious, so subtle, and perhaps so confused that it is almost as difficult for the historian to understand as it was for the men of the times. Some scholars believe that he blundered into war, overestimating the strength of the Union party in the South. It is more likely that, with a subtlety approaching the diabolical, he provoked the Confederates into firing upon Fort Sumter in order to solidify North public opinion. . . .
"Although Lincoln did not confess his part in provoking the Civil War with the cynical honesty of a Bismarck, he did speak certain revealing words. He consoled the commander of the Fort Sumter relief expedition for that officer's failure: 'You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.' Shortly after the fall of the fort he was quoted by a close personal friend: 'The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter--it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.' A few of his party friends congratulated him upon his masterful stroke. The New York Times believed that 'the attempt at reinforcement was a feint--that its object was to put upon the rebels the full and clear responsibility of commencing the war. . . .' Jefferson Davis, others exulted, 'ran blindly into the trap.'" (Francis Simkins, A History of the South, Third Edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963, pp. 213, 215-216, emphasis added)
"After a sleepless night, Lincoln called his Cabinet together and announced that--against the recommendations of his military advisors--he was going to reinforce Fort Pickens and order a supply expedition to sail from New York to Fort Sumter. . . . If South Carolina's artillery opened fire on Sumter or the ships, he could blame the Confederacy for starting a war." (William Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, New York: Viking Press, 2001, p. 45)
Quotes are from the website Southern Heritage 411.com.
Fort Sumter, with its powerful guns, could bombard any point in the city of Charleston. Now Union Major Anderson had been ordered to refuse surrender of the fort, and a fleet of Northern warships was on its way to Charleston harbor. Soon, the South Carolinians would or could be targeted by the cannon from both fort and the fleet simultaneously. They decided to act before the fleet arrived, and deal only with the fort. They than began bombardment of Fort Sumter, for their own protection.
Here are some quotes from various sources that back me up:
"Increasingly it became clear that any attempt to relieve these garrisons [Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens] would precipitate war. . . ." (John Hicks, The Federal Union, Third Edition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957, p. 558)
"Although Lincoln did not confess his part in provoking the Civil War with the cynical honesty of a Bismarck, he did speak certain revealing words. He consoled the commander of the Fort Sumter relief expedition for that officer's failure: 'You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.' Shortly after the fall of the fort he was quoted by a close personal friend: 'The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter--it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.' A few of his party friends congratulated him upon his masterful stroke. The New York Times believed that 'the attempt at reinforcement was a feint--that its object was to put upon the rebels the full and clear responsibility of commencing the war. . . .' Jefferson Davis, others exulted, 'ran blindly into the trap.'" (Francis Simkins, A History of the South, Third Edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963, pp. 213, 215-216, emphasis added)
Quotes are from the website Southern Heritage 411.com.
Quote of the Day: The Hartford Courant Journalists on the North's Involvement in Slavery
Several years ago, Aetna Insurance Company issued a public statement saying that they regretted having insured slaves in the antebellum period. The Hartford Courant published a story about it, and three journalists from The Hartford Courant became interested in the North's involvement in American slavery. They did some research, and were shocked to learn that the North's involvement was substantial. They wrote a book entitled Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery. (In truth, the North was a lot more than merely complicit in slavery. They were foundational.)
In the preface to their book, the three journalists wrote:
In the preface to their book, the three journalists wrote:
What was true of Connecticut turned out to be overwhelmingly true of the entire North. Most of what you'll read here was gleaned from older, often out-of-print texts, and from period newspapers, largely in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts.As quoted by Gene Kizer, Jr., Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, page 257.
We are Journalists, not scholars, and want to share what surprised, and even shocked, the three of us. We have all grown up, attended schools, and worked in Northern states, from Maine to Maryland. We thought we knew our home. We thought we knew our country.
We were wrong.
A Time to Fight: Take Down the American Flag -- America Has Seceded From the South!
This morning I read on Drudge that the Antietam Battlefield Park has removed all Confederate flag items from its shops. They are so fanatical about their censorship of history, that they won't sell anything that even pictures a Confederate flag, if that picture or depiction is detachable.
This is worse than fascism -- this is mass insanity. America has become a hostile work environment. Or more than that, a hostile living environment.
NASCAR is also reaching new depths of depravity. Not only are they banning use of the Confederate flag on the track, now they are seeking to ban it in the infield as well.
There are ways to comply with this madness: stay home. If Antietam and other parks deny the Confederate flag to the public, then the public should deny its dollars to Antietam. Don't go there.
If NASCAR wants to spit in the face of its greatest supporters (flag-waving Southerners), comply with its wishes: leave your Confederate flags at home, and stay there with them.
AND TAKE DOWN THE AMERICAN FLAG. Why fly the flag of the invader? The flag of a nation who hates us and seeks to oppress, marginalize, insult and disinherit us? By its choice, not ours, we are no longer a part of America. America has seceded from us!
America, then, should no longer be a part of us. Let each one of us internally and morally secede from the Union, by withdrawing our moral support from it, by denying its moral legitimacy over our lives, by refusing to accept its false history, oppression and marginalization.
IT IS TIME TO FIGHT. Not with guns (yet), but with strategies and countermeasures. It is time for us to find ways to repay our Yankee masters for 150 years of occupation and oppression.
This is worse than fascism -- this is mass insanity. America has become a hostile work environment. Or more than that, a hostile living environment.
NASCAR is also reaching new depths of depravity. Not only are they banning use of the Confederate flag on the track, now they are seeking to ban it in the infield as well.
There are ways to comply with this madness: stay home. If Antietam and other parks deny the Confederate flag to the public, then the public should deny its dollars to Antietam. Don't go there.
If NASCAR wants to spit in the face of its greatest supporters (flag-waving Southerners), comply with its wishes: leave your Confederate flags at home, and stay there with them.
AND TAKE DOWN THE AMERICAN FLAG. Why fly the flag of the invader? The flag of a nation who hates us and seeks to oppress, marginalize, insult and disinherit us? By its choice, not ours, we are no longer a part of America. America has seceded from us!
America, then, should no longer be a part of us. Let each one of us internally and morally secede from the Union, by withdrawing our moral support from it, by denying its moral legitimacy over our lives, by refusing to accept its false history, oppression and marginalization.
IT IS TIME TO FIGHT. Not with guns (yet), but with strategies and countermeasures. It is time for us to find ways to repay our Yankee masters for 150 years of occupation and oppression.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Gavin McInnes: The U.S. of Shame, or Why Everything Offensive to Somebody Must be Banned from Public View
Gavin McInnes, writing at Taki's Magazine, notes how many flags, symbols and other paraphernalia should be banned like the Confederate flag, to avoid annoying the Perpetually Offended. He writes:
A common refrain during all this controversy is that it’s no big deal and nobody’s banning the flag, they just want it relegated to museums where it won’t hurt anybody’s feelings. They said the same thing about Pamela Geller. Why bother having an art contest if it’s going to make people mad? Well, because capitulating to the perpetually offended is a thankless task that never ends.And:
Black people in America are far from spoiled English girls, but the culture of shame has the same effect no matter who it touches. Capitulation leads to more capitulation until you simply cease to be.And:
History is written by the victors, and they tell me the Civil War was all about the racist South refusing to abolish slavery. I’m sure this has some truth to it, but it appears that the South just didn’t like being told what to do. I think Lincoln made the war about slavery as a PR stunt and it was really about secession.Read it all here.
Note to Robert Stacy McCain: Now I Understand Your Blogging Focus
Up until Barack Obama was re-elected, Robert Stacy McCain wrote excellent expository essays on the tyranny and destructiveness of liberalism. Then he apparently gave up the general fight against the left, and just focused on the foolishness of feminism.
I regretted this, because feminism has limited interest for me. I missed McCain's essays, which I found informative and educational. After this past week to ten days, I began to understand why McCain more or less dropped out of the general fight. Conservatism has lost the battle. The Republican Party is weak and ineffective. The culture wars have been lost to the left. America is now someplace else, something other than the country we all loved.
Perhaps McCain realized that there is little we can do to turn back the tide of progressivism. The Supreme Court has become a farce. Profound ignorance of history, particularly that of the South, grows by leaps and bounds. The country has become increasingly intolerant of traditional Americanism, e.g., Christianity, traditional marriage, Confederate history, flags and symbols. It will probably get worse, not better. I no longer feel that I belong here, that I am a stranger in a strange land. What's the point?
So McCain has seemingly picked one small front in our losing battle for freedom. I now share this feeling of futility. For the time being, I will cease the general battle as well, and concentrate on fighting the Northern Myth of history. Will I help turn the tide? Probably not in our lifetimes.
So I'll do what little I can on a smaller front. And I will write about non-political subjects that interest me. For now, anyway.
I regretted this, because feminism has limited interest for me. I missed McCain's essays, which I found informative and educational. After this past week to ten days, I began to understand why McCain more or less dropped out of the general fight. Conservatism has lost the battle. The Republican Party is weak and ineffective. The culture wars have been lost to the left. America is now someplace else, something other than the country we all loved.
Perhaps McCain realized that there is little we can do to turn back the tide of progressivism. The Supreme Court has become a farce. Profound ignorance of history, particularly that of the South, grows by leaps and bounds. The country has become increasingly intolerant of traditional Americanism, e.g., Christianity, traditional marriage, Confederate history, flags and symbols. It will probably get worse, not better. I no longer feel that I belong here, that I am a stranger in a strange land. What's the point?
So McCain has seemingly picked one small front in our losing battle for freedom. I now share this feeling of futility. For the time being, I will cease the general battle as well, and concentrate on fighting the Northern Myth of history. Will I help turn the tide? Probably not in our lifetimes.
So I'll do what little I can on a smaller front. And I will write about non-political subjects that interest me. For now, anyway.
Natalie Wood, a Beautiful Woman (Photo)
Natalie starred as the little girl in the 1947 movie "Miracle on 34th Street," about her meeting Santa Claus. When she grew into young adulthood, she starred with James Dean in the 1955 hit, "Rebel Without a Cause."
Confederate Soldier Pic of the Day
Here's an ambrotype photograph of a young, handsome Confederate soldier. His identity is unknown. He is wearing a forage hat and a shell jacket. A forage hat is similar to a kepi, but deeper. It was used as a kind of grocery bag to carry apples, eggs, corn or whatever foodstuffs the soldier could find while on campaign.He also appears to have a secession cockade pinned onto his jacket.
An ambrotype photo is one that was made on glass. These old time photographs had no negative -- they were the negative! So the photos were actually mirror images of the subject. They also appear very dark when viewed, as they rely on reflected light in order to see the details. I have used Photoshop to lighten the images, flip them horizontally so they show the subject as he really was, not a mirror image. Finally, I cleaned up a few spots and imperfections here and there.
The photographer would often paint on a bit of color to make the image look more realistic. This Confederate's buttons have been tinted gold, and the badge on top of his hat has also. I can't tell what the badge is. If it is crossed cannons, he would be in the artillery; crossed swords, the cavalry. A bugle signifies infantry.
The photographer would often dab a subtle blush of pink on the subject's cheeks. You can see that in this photograph.
Repairing Old Photographs: Trying Out the Latest Version of Photoshop
To try it out, I used it to repair this photo of a Brit soldier that I found on the web. The repair was just for fun. The Before and After photos are on the left.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Black Woman Explains Why She Supports the Confederate Flag (Video)
Black Southern lady, former member of the Nation of Islam, enthusiastically supports the Confederate flag and the Confederacy.
Great interview by Virginia Flagger Miss Karen Cooper!
Posted by Haralson Invincibles Camp # 673 on Sunday, June 7, 2015
Go to this page to view
Great interview by Virginia Flagger Miss Karen Cooper!
Posted by Haralson Invincibles Camp # 673 on Sunday, June 7, 2015
Go to this page to view
More Butt-Hurt for Donald Douglas: The Top Six Racist Quotes of Abraham Lincoln
Some more butt hurt for Donald Douglas, who is currently experiencing a nervous breakdown over the demise of his biased Yankee views of history:
1. On Why He Wanted to Keep Blacks Out of the Territories:
Lincoln said:
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...
2. On deportation of blacks and replacing them with white laborers:
Lincoln said:
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers."
3. On outlawing slavery in the South (after secession):
Lincoln said, in his first inaugural address:
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.
4. On racial equality:
Lincoln said:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
5. On why blacks must be separated from whites:
Lincoln said:
Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.
6. On why the blacks should accept colonization out of the United States:
Lincoln addressed free black clergymen at a meeting in the White House, August 14, 1862. He said:
Why should they [blacks] leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
Via Top 5 Racist Quotes of Abraham Lincoln -- edited and amended
Friday, June 26, 2015
Winston Smith: Why We Defend the Confederate Flag
Winston Smith describes "Why We Defend the Confederate Flag." A salient quote:
I look at the footage of the protests, and I see the vulgar signs, scrawled by hands that trembled under the coercion of the blackest of hatred; I read the comments of the emboldened Philistines in suits and ties, whose every word is calculated to insult an entire culture and enflame a barbarous horde; I behold the faces of the haters on the street, contorted into demonic-looking visages as they shriek their hateful demands. And it’s happening because those creatures have gleefully embraced what they know to be a lie — that the Confederate flag on the South Carolina Statehouse grounds is responsible for a lunatic killing nine blacks.Read it all here.
"Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States -- the Irrefutable Argument"
Here's what the back cover says about this book:
*****
This book proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery. The North went to war because it faced economic annihilation and a Southern competitor that controlled the most demanded commodity on earth: cotton. The North's economy was based mostly on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton around the world. Cotton alone was 60% of U.S. exports in 1860. When the South seceded, the Northern economy began a dramatic collapse, and by war time, there were hundreds of thousands of hungry, unemployed Northerners in the street -- and the "tocsin of war" sounded.
Economically ignorant Northern leaders then passed the astronomical Morrill Tariff that threatened to destroy the Northern shipping industry by rerouting trade away from the high-tariff North and into the low-tariff South. The Morrill Tariff was like pumping gasoline into an already raging fire.
Abraham Lincoln was the first sectional president in American history. He was president of the North, and the North was clamoring for war. He saw an opportunity to start it without appearing to be the aggressor, so he took it. Thus, he started a war that killed 800,000 men and wounded a million.
The idea that the good North was so outraged over slavery that they marched armies into the South to free the slaves is an absurdity of biblical proportions and this book proves it.
****
Gene Kizer, Jr. graduated magna cum laude in 2000 from the College of Charleston with History Department Honors and the highest award for the History Department, the Outstanding Student Award. He won the Rebecca Motte American History Award the year before.
Order a copy of this book at Amazon here.
Supremes Ruling on Gay Marriage: Justice Scalia's Dissent
Justice Scalia, writing for the minority in the Gay Marriage issue before the Supreme Court, skewered the majority justices for their frivolous, anti-constitutional decision. Powerline has some salient quotes from that dissent, such as:
Read Powerline's extracts of the dissent here.
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.Scalia discusses the superficiality of the decision thus:
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.Scalia's right. Thanks to progressivism, leftism, and political correctness, we have lost our ability to govern ourselves. Thanks to the increasinlgy superficiality of our culture, we have lost the ability to care.
Read Powerline's extracts of the dissent here.
The Blessings of White Supremacy (Not Really) -- According to Fred Reed
I don't fancy myself a White Supremacist. I assume that "white supremacy" is a political environment where the white race is given an official standing higher than that of other races. No, my ego does not require that. On the other hand, some far-out leftists believe we already live under such a system, one being Professor Cornel West, a man I have previously honored here at Saber Point. See here, for instance.
Fred Reed, of "Fred On Everything," responds to Professor Cornel West's complaints about white supremacy and privilege. Reed writes:
As for you liberal pin-heads who came here hoping to refresh your biases, the heading in this post is intended as link bait. On the other hand, there is much truth in Fred Reed's column. You non-whites owe a hell of a lot to white people, so STFU about "white privilege" and "white supremacy."
Fred Reed, of "Fred On Everything," responds to Professor Cornel West's complaints about white supremacy and privilege. Reed writes:
We have White Supremacy, Professor, because for 2500 years we, whites, have produced the best minds on the planet, the greatest flourishing of the arts and sciences ever seen, the most complex and organized societies. We have White Supremacy, whatever exactly it may be, because we have been the earth’s most successful race. No other has come close. Deal with it.That's right. Other races need to pay us whites royalties for all the blessings we have bestowed upon them. At least, that's Fred's take (probably satirical). In any case, his points are well taken. Read them all here: Are White Men Gods?
As for you liberal pin-heads who came here hoping to refresh your biases, the heading in this post is intended as link bait. On the other hand, there is much truth in Fred Reed's column. You non-whites owe a hell of a lot to white people, so STFU about "white privilege" and "white supremacy."
Ready to Secede? #secession
The U.S. Supreme Court has become a cruel joke. They just saved Obamacare again, and enforced gay marriage on all 50 states by edict, in a 5-4 vote. States can no longer decide for themselves whether or not to enact gay marriage or stay with the traditional view of marriage. Now they have been ordered to accept it.
Once again, we see the power of the states slipping away, replaced by an arm of the federal government. It is clear that the Republic is lost, the Constitution a relic -- perhaps fit only for a museum, right next to the Confederate flag.
Personally, I don't see any other option: It is time for states to begin secession from the United States of America, and to form new unions or confederations as they see fit.
Once again, we see the power of the states slipping away, replaced by an arm of the federal government. It is clear that the Republic is lost, the Constitution a relic -- perhaps fit only for a museum, right next to the Confederate flag.
Personally, I don't see any other option: It is time for states to begin secession from the United States of America, and to form new unions or confederations as they see fit.
Computer Problems
Late yesterday my 4 year old Dell Inspiron Laptop started getting blue screens. The situation deteriorated, and this morning while in Safe Mode, the computer went completely dark. Now it no longer powers up at all. Fortunately, I have a backup laptop, which I am now using. I've spent the whole morning updating the McAfee virus checker, Windows 7, Acrobat, and RegCure.
I think I can recover my critical files by taking the hard drive out and using it as a portable hard drive -- this is not hard to do. I'll attend to that later.
I think I can recover my critical files by taking the hard drive out and using it as a portable hard drive -- this is not hard to do. I'll attend to that later.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
"Gone With the Wind" May Soon Be Gone With the Wind
The cultural cleansing progressives are on a roll. Like Sherman's March to the Sea, they want to burn down the South, destroy everything in their path. They are fueled by a hateful fanaticism. Now they want to relegate the 1939 film "Gone With the Wind" to the museum, right along side the Confederate flag. Dave Blount at Moonbattery writes:
Read Dave's article here.
The totalitarian impulse that drives political correctness is like fire. The more it consumes, the hungrier it becomes. Attempting to appease it would be insane. It will keep burning until it is forcibly stopped, or until there is nothing left to burn.Somewhere, some how, we have to stop this.
Read Dave's article here.
Death by a Thousand Cuts: the Slow Erasure of Our Liberties
 |
| Big Sister Is Watching |
“I don’t know what the hell the fight is about over the Confederate flag. We need to put the American flag down. Because we’ve caught as much hell under that as the Confederate flag. Who are we fighting today? It’s the people that carry the American flag.”In light of the latest hysterical attack on Southern heritage, more people are waking up. It is not just Southern heritage that is dying the death of a thousand cuts, but American heritage. America, as we know it, is being slowly replaced with something quite different than what the Founders intended.
At the bottom of it all is the left's desire to eradicate patriotism and cause shame for one's ancestors, to doubt the ultimate goodness of America. If this can be accomplished, the populace will be less psychologically resistant to extreme political change -- namely, to instill a socialist/fascist government, one with absolute control over every facet of our lives, including what we believe, who and what we respect and revere. By erasing or rewriting our past, they change our idea of who we were, are or should be. He who controls the past, controls the future.
Our past is being erased and our heroes replaced with a fanatical belief in the goodness and power of the state. Conformity in thought, tradition, values, culture, language (i.e., what words and terms are allowed in public expression) will be enforced through absolute control of the media. Public pressure and social ostracism will be applied to those who refuse to conform. Southerners and other Americans are being broken down psychologically so they can be rebuilt, much as soldiers are in boot camp. We will all be soldiers in the new Army of the State.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
"Dukes of Hazzard" Star Ben Jones Defends the Confederate Flag
Ben Jones, also known as "Cooter," isn't shy about castigating those who would remove the Confederate flag from the top of the "General Lee," the souped up orange colored car that was used in this popular televison series. He defended the flag and Southern symbols on FaceBook. His comments are below.
With thanks to Young Conservatives for this article.
Democrat Jim Webb Stands Up For the Confederate Flag
Hmmm, I will consider voting for Jim Webb if he is the Democrats' candidate for President. He is currently considering a run.
He has made some very common sense statements on the recent flag hysteria, He wrote:
He has made some very common sense statements on the recent flag hysteria, He wrote:
“This is an emotional time and we all need to think through these issues with a care that recognizes the need for change but also respects the complicated history of the Civil War,” Webb wrote in a post on Facebook.He also said:
“We should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War, including slave holders in the Union Army from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many non-slave holders fought for the South. It was in recognition of the character of soldiers on both sides that the federal government authorized the construction of the Confederate Memorial 100 years ago, on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.”Read more about it here.
Powerline: "Democrats Get Their Crazy On"
Powerline has a great article on anti-South frenzy now being driven by the Democrats: "Democrats Get Their Crazy On."
Rush Limbaugh is quoted, and Rush makes some insightful remarks on the controversy. The left hates the South, because it is the most patriotic section of the country.
Read it here.
Rush Limbaugh is quoted, and Rush makes some insightful remarks on the controversy. The left hates the South, because it is the most patriotic section of the country.
Read it here.
Why is the Confederate Flag a "Racist Symbol"?
The detractors of the Confederate flag, including the moron who sat in for Michael Savage today, one John DePetro, insist that the Confederate flag is a "symbol of racism." However, who made it that way?
The Klan has sometimes used the flag, but they are a tiny minority of malcontents, and do not represent the great majority of people who see the flag as a sacred heritage symbol. Apparently, those who misuse the flag are to be given credibility over the majority who do not.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued the Klan to make them stop using the flag, but lost the case. The flag, it seems, is in the public domain and anyone can use it for whatever purpose they wish.
In 1991 the NAACP declared war on the Confederate flag, and began a campaign of eliminating it from the public square. Since liberals see this organization as the voice of all black people, they quickly got on board. Movies and films have used the flag in totally negative ways, always presenting it as a symbol of racism or other villains. Remember the Tom Hanks film "Forrest Gump?" Hooligans in a car chase poor Forrest Gump to bully him. On their front bumper is a Confederate flag. Such negative images are constantly insinuated into the mind of the public by popular media.
The NAACP's motive was to create a program for their members. Since this useless organization has failed miserably at solving the problems of black people, e.g. school drop-out rates, illegitimacy, crime, drug abuse and poverty, they needed something they could succeed at. Something they could point to as a success. Some symbol that could be used to motivate the membership, like waving a red flag at a bull.
Liberals and Yankee-philes find it easy to think of the flag as a racist symbol, because it agrees with their prejudices and preconceived notions, and because it reinforces the Northern Myth, i.e., that the evil South hated and mistreated blacks, but the enlightened North loved, emancipated and advanced blacks. After years of this propaganda, it is of little wonder why the murderer Dylann Roof was photographed waving a Confederate flag. No doubt he had been listening to liberals for far too long, about what they say the flag means, instead of what it actually means to most Southerners.
Every time a Confederate flag, symbol or song is banished from the public domain, it strengthens the public perception that these icons represent race hatred and evil -- and the slander increases exponentially. We have fought to preserve these icons, because to do less would be to abandon them to racial extremists. Unfortunately, we are losing the fight.
I say that this undeserved reputation was created not so much by extremist groups like the Klan, but by popular media and morons like John DePetro, and by the esteemed but mistaken Mark Levin.
The Klan has sometimes used the flag, but they are a tiny minority of malcontents, and do not represent the great majority of people who see the flag as a sacred heritage symbol. Apparently, those who misuse the flag are to be given credibility over the majority who do not.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued the Klan to make them stop using the flag, but lost the case. The flag, it seems, is in the public domain and anyone can use it for whatever purpose they wish.
In 1991 the NAACP declared war on the Confederate flag, and began a campaign of eliminating it from the public square. Since liberals see this organization as the voice of all black people, they quickly got on board. Movies and films have used the flag in totally negative ways, always presenting it as a symbol of racism or other villains. Remember the Tom Hanks film "Forrest Gump?" Hooligans in a car chase poor Forrest Gump to bully him. On their front bumper is a Confederate flag. Such negative images are constantly insinuated into the mind of the public by popular media.
The NAACP's motive was to create a program for their members. Since this useless organization has failed miserably at solving the problems of black people, e.g. school drop-out rates, illegitimacy, crime, drug abuse and poverty, they needed something they could succeed at. Something they could point to as a success. Some symbol that could be used to motivate the membership, like waving a red flag at a bull.
Liberals and Yankee-philes find it easy to think of the flag as a racist symbol, because it agrees with their prejudices and preconceived notions, and because it reinforces the Northern Myth, i.e., that the evil South hated and mistreated blacks, but the enlightened North loved, emancipated and advanced blacks. After years of this propaganda, it is of little wonder why the murderer Dylann Roof was photographed waving a Confederate flag. No doubt he had been listening to liberals for far too long, about what they say the flag means, instead of what it actually means to most Southerners.
Every time a Confederate flag, symbol or song is banished from the public domain, it strengthens the public perception that these icons represent race hatred and evil -- and the slander increases exponentially. We have fought to preserve these icons, because to do less would be to abandon them to racial extremists. Unfortunately, we are losing the fight.
I say that this undeserved reputation was created not so much by extremist groups like the Klan, but by popular media and morons like John DePetro, and by the esteemed but mistaken Mark Levin.
Confederate Flag Enthusiasts (Photos)
Photos credit: Southern Historical Society
Survival in a Post-American World
Donald Douglas and I have had it out on the cause of the Civil War. We had a debate. I think I won pretty convincingly. However, that's not for me to decide, that's for you. Read the debate and decide for yourself. In any case, it is way past time we had these debates. I will continue my assault on the huge Northern lie about why they invaded the South in 1861-1865. Eventually, the truth will come out, though it may not be in the near future.
I am feeling rather radicalized today. Whenever I get like this, I am open to a paradigm shift -- a radical alteration to my current viewpoint. I think I am almost at that point today.
If this is America, I want out. You can have it.
My anger will smolder for a few days, then cool with the realization that America is over. Our freedoms are lost, and they aren't coming back. So, there is nothing to be gained by anger or depression. Perhaps the only thing left for us is acceptance of our fate.
Our goal now must be to find ways to survive in a post-American world. Voting Republican is futile. Voting Democratic is suicidal.
I am feeling rather radicalized today. Whenever I get like this, I am open to a paradigm shift -- a radical alteration to my current viewpoint. I think I am almost at that point today.
If this is America, I want out. You can have it.
My anger will smolder for a few days, then cool with the realization that America is over. Our freedoms are lost, and they aren't coming back. So, there is nothing to be gained by anger or depression. Perhaps the only thing left for us is acceptance of our fate.
Our goal now must be to find ways to survive in a post-American world. Voting Republican is futile. Voting Democratic is suicidal.
Black Conservative Makes Sense on the Confederate Flag
Mychal Massie writes:
Mychal has other thoughts on the controversy. Read it all here.
The Assault on Southern Heritage: "A Cultural and Political Atrocity"
Concerning the modern assault on Southern history and culture, the esteemed historian Eugene D. Genovese writes:
To speak positively about any part of this Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity -- an increasingly successful campaign by the media and an academic elite to strip young white Southerners, and arguably black Southerners as well, of their heritage, and therefore their identity. They are being taught to forget their forebears or to remember them with shame.
--The Southern Tradition, the Achievements and Limitations of American Conservatism, Harvard University Press, 1994; as quoted by Gene Kizer, Jr. in his recent book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States
To speak positively about any part of this Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity -- an increasingly successful campaign by the media and an academic elite to strip young white Southerners, and arguably black Southerners as well, of their heritage, and therefore their identity. They are being taught to forget their forebears or to remember them with shame.
--The Southern Tradition, the Achievements and Limitations of American Conservatism, Harvard University Press, 1994; as quoted by Gene Kizer, Jr. in his recent book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States
I am a Confederate
This latest brouhaha over the Confederate flag has made me realize one thing: I am a Confederate first, and an American second. I am a Confederate first, and a conservative third. I am not even sure I am a Republican anymore.
At least the increasingly virulent attacks on the symbols of my nation have clarified that for me. I now have a better idea of who I am. And who I am not.
The Confederate flag is my flag. The United States flag is not. I have psychologically seceded from the Union.
Northerners hate our guts. We hate their guts. You want no part of us. We want no part of you. Let us separate, as we should have done back in 1861.
At least the increasingly virulent attacks on the symbols of my nation have clarified that for me. I now have a better idea of who I am. And who I am not.
The Confederate flag is my flag. The United States flag is not. I have psychologically seceded from the Union.
Northerners hate our guts. We hate their guts. You want no part of us. We want no part of you. Let us separate, as we should have done back in 1861.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
A Point by Point Rebuttal of Donald Douglas on "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery"
Donald Douglas at American Power has read the essay by Professor Donald Livingston on ""Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery" and has attempted to rebut it. I now consider his points and offer a counter-rebuttal. Since his screed is quite long, I will ignore his ad hominem attacks on Dr. Livingston and other forays into irrelevance, and concentrate on his salient points.
My responses to each of his points are in blue text.
There's a couple of ways to respond to Livingston's essay. The first way, and more professional, is to pick apart the essay's historical and logical arguments, highlighting especially Livingston's egregious logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies, and frankly, outright lies.
Good luck with that. He has no logical fallacies, inaccuracies or lies. Your venture into ad hominem attacks merely showcases the weaknesses of your arguments.
The second way, more partisan and bloggy, is to attack Livingston as a rank ideological hack, driven by fringe ideological tendencies with about as much mainstream acceptance as Holocaust denial. Purportedly a reputable historian, Professor Livingston's professional biography includes links to some rather steamy Southern revisionist outfits --- the kind of organizations with which I'd never associate and of which I lend very little professional credence. Seriously, the guy comes off as rather a crank.
More ad hominem attacks. Not only is this unethical, but rather juvenile to boot. I am not surprised that you would never associate with any organizations that do not support your preconceived notions and prejudices. Most people with a closed mind feel the same way.
But more about that later. Let's look at a number of problems with his essay from a straightforward historical and political analysis.
First, Livingston argues that to correctly understand the debate on Southern slavery is to expand the playing field to include the entire United States, and to go back to the Founding of 1787 to grasp the universal acceptance of slavery --- with the concomitant national ideology of white supremacy --- in the Northern states, in New England America especially, shortly after the overthrow of British colonialism. By doing this, one can see that slavery as an ideological system of political, social, and economic racial domination wasn't unique to the American South, but rather was a nationwide phenomenon with uniquely Northern characteristics.
The problem with this argument is that it's an extremely simplistic straw man. I mean, I don't claim to have anything nearing a scholarly familiarity with the historical scholarship on antebellum America, North and South. But just frankly from my wide reading of history and my professional teaching of the Founding, the Constitutional Convention, and the growth of slavery throughout the 19th century, to say that slavery was a "national enormity, an American sin for which every section of the Union bore some responsibility," and to use this as an argument against those who attack the South, is simply irrelevant. Of course slavery was a national institution. Slavery was a thoroughgoing institution in all the 13 colonies by the end of the 17th century. Who argues otherwise? Slavery developed in the colonies and after the Constitution of 1787 for almost 150 years. It did break down into regional varieties, as part of the economic regionalism that took hold in the country. For example, by the early- to mid-1800s, rural agrarianism came to be predominantly associated with the South, and with the invention of the cotton gin, the Southern economy become increasingly the locus of cotton production in the U.S., on the backs of slave laborers.
So the North's huge culpability in the institution of slavery is a "straw man?" Nonsense. Livingston pointing this out accomplishes two things: (1) It demolishes the myth that the South was alone guilty of slavery, and (2) substantiates his argument that ending slavery was the obligation of the entire country, not merely the South alone. He is right in this.
The debate we're having today is the persistence of racial supremacy symbolism in the present day South, like the Confederate Flag, hardly a sign of Northern white supremacy. But the "national enormity" argument is a logical diversion, a fallacy that's easily exposed.
I have already disproved your statement above. The fact of Northern guilt and profit in slaves is not a logical diversion or fallacy, and you have exposed nothing. If the Confederate flag is to be forever associated with slavery, then so should the American flag, which flew over Northern slave ships, and represents the USA, which grew rich off of slave produced staples and taxes generated by them. It is you who are attempting a diversion, and it isn't working.
Second, Livingston argues that in antebellum American "no nation" had developed, in the sense of the national unification seen contemporaneously among the European continental states as Britain and France. Further, he claims that the national government couldn't interfere with slavery in the states, that "Congress simply had no constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the States." This is just a bunch of ideological hooey. It is true that the U.S. remained a largely agrarian, decentralized nation-state in the early 19th century, but the argument ignores monumental developments in constitutional law that created the foundations for what legal and political analysts identify as national supremacy within the system of political federalism. Crucially, majestic Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland expounded nationalist doctrines that placed federal authority as supreme to conflicting state power. Of course the debate on federalism wasn't (practically) resolved until decades later, perhaps not even until the 20th century. But it's absurd to claim that there was no national ideology or national consensus on federal power in the years before the Civil War. Indeed, why would the Southern states bother developing doctrines of nullification and so forth if no national culture and constitutional power had developed?
You really are confused. Livingston is correct in stating that in 1860, the United States was a collection of sovereign states over which Congress had limited power; each resident of individual states saw his state as his country. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery before the war, and is merely giving background material that is not controversial. So why do you even bring it up?
Prior to the Civil War, people said "the United States are" and after the war, "the United States is," which illustrates the consolidation of these states into one nation. You use a lot of words to prove nothing. Livingston is right, you are wrong and way out in left field.
Livingston goes on, "Since Congress had no power over slavery, and did not want such power, the only way to abolish slavery would be through individual state action or by an amendment to the Constitution." This makes no sense. While any individual state could abolish slavery within its boundaries, all the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been passed by Congress and ratified by the states, including the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. Further, major congressional action on slavery took place in 1808 with abolition of the international slave trade, in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, and in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Frankly, Congress was at the center of regulatory activity involving slavery right up to the Civil War. Maybe from the perspective of radical states rights' theory Congress "had no power over slavery," but in reality Congress did have such power and passed consequential legislation that shaped national events over decades of time.
Not only does it make sense, it is historically accurate and makes plenty of sense. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery prior to the Civil War. He explains that Congress had limited power over slavery in the states, and did not even want the power. He cites the Corwin Amendment as proof. Congress passed it on March 2, 1862, making it illegal for Congress to ever interfere in the domestic institutions (i.e. slavery) of the states. They hoped this would stop slave states from seceding, but it didn't. That's because preserving slavery was not the major reason for secession. The Corwin Amendment was never ratified. Your long discussion goes into Congressional power and amendments made after the Civil War, and are irrelevant to the discussion.
Third, Livingston makes a number of bizarre arguments regarding President Abraham Lincoln's positions on slavery, and some of these appear to be bald-faced lies. He argues, for example, that "Lincoln did not object to slavery as long as it was confined to the South." This is again a red herring, for it's widely recognized that Lincoln was no abolitionist and that even at the time of secession in 1861, Lincoln's fundamental war aims were the preservation of union.
How is this a red herring? Livingston's essay is meant for general audiences, and cannot assume that they know as much as you do about it. His comment is meant to illuminate the fact that Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and therefore the South had no reason to believe he was going to somehow emancipate their slaves without their consent. It undermines the Northern myth that the South seceded to protect slavery, when no threat to slavery existed.
Livingston goes on with a number of selective quotations in an attempt to paint Lincoln as pro-slavery as any Southern rebel.
Now who's lying? Livingston does nothing of the sort. I have read and reread this essay several times, and I never saw any evidence of this. You're wrong.
The reality is way more complicated, as any historical review of Lincoln political career would recognize. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, Lincoln made a clear distinction between his acquiescence to slavery in the North and his clearly foundational belief that the Declaration of Independence made all men equal in the eyes of God, and that in the long run the U.S. could not survive with slavery as an institution. When he said a "house divided upon itself cannot stand" it wasn't a political program of abolition as much as a recognition that at some point one side would prevail over the other, either the pro-slavery forces would prevail and slavery would win out over the land or the abolitionists would prevail and slavery would die out altogether.
Lincoln did believe that the rights described in the Declaration of Independence applied to all men, including Negroes. However, he was quite clear that Negroes could not enjoy those rights in America, but only "on their own soil." He proposed to send them back to Africa.
Livingston in fact lies about the meaning of Lincoln's statement that the United States as "the last best hope of earth." He claims that Lincoln supported colonization of American blacks back to Africa, and that "The 'last best hope of earth' referred to a purely white European polity free of racial strife, and not to a land of freedom for all as it is absurdly interpreted today." Actually, voluntary colonization of slaves and compensated emancipation were just policy alternatives that Lincoln included in his message to Congress in December 1862. A simple reading of the conclusion of his address reveals Lincoln's exceptionalism and his faith in Jefferson's ideals in the Declaration:
Livingston did not distort anything. Lincoln clearly saw slavery as immoral and contrary to natural law, as almost everyone, North or South, did. Livingston believes that Lincoln's "Best Hope" comment did not insinuate that Lincoln wanted to integrate the freed slaves into American society. Lincoln made it clear many times previous, in speeches and correspondence, that he did not want this at all. He wanted blacks out of America. If you like, I can shower you with quotations to that effect.
And it important to remember that we can't read present-day moral sentiments into history. That is, we cannot apply 21st century normative commitments to the political mores of the mid-19th century. Livingston in fact attacks his critics as adopting a presentist ideological agenda, but much of his essay employs the exact type of presentist commitments that he so decries.
I don't recall Livingston mentioning "presentist ideological agendas" anywhere. I think you are mistaken. In any case, how is that relevant to whether or not the Civil War was about slavery?
Finally, Livingston breaks down "the main anti-slavery episodes in the antebellum period," from the Constitutional Convention to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Again, there's a lot of arguments against straw men and even more tendentious connections to the historical record. I'm going to eschew a longer analysis simply to avoid repetition. Suffice it to say that Livingston provides completely decontextualized and selective interpretations of historical events, spurts of analysis that really add up to more of an ideological screed than a dispassionate historical critique.
And yet you cannot present a single example of this "ideological screed," because it isn't at all true. Further, there are no "straw men" in his arguments, no "decontextualized and selective interpretations," and you have not described any. Your comments are those of someone losing an argument, and knows it.
And that brings me to my second, more partisan and bloggy criticism of Professor Livingston. He is indeed a genuine scholar and is Professor Emeritus at Emory University and an expert on the writings of Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume.
At this point, Donald launches into personal attacks on Livingston and attempts to discredit the man by calling him a radical with radical associations, etc etc. I won't bother to refute these, as they are irrelevant to whether Livingston's essay is accurate and factual -- which it is. Read it for yourself.
Conclusions: Donald's attempted rebuttal of Livingston's argument fails and fails badly. If he has made any salient points disproving Livingston, it isn't obvious to me.
My responses to each of his points are in blue text.
****
There's a couple of ways to respond to Livingston's essay. The first way, and more professional, is to pick apart the essay's historical and logical arguments, highlighting especially Livingston's egregious logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies, and frankly, outright lies.
Good luck with that. He has no logical fallacies, inaccuracies or lies. Your venture into ad hominem attacks merely showcases the weaknesses of your arguments.
The second way, more partisan and bloggy, is to attack Livingston as a rank ideological hack, driven by fringe ideological tendencies with about as much mainstream acceptance as Holocaust denial. Purportedly a reputable historian, Professor Livingston's professional biography includes links to some rather steamy Southern revisionist outfits --- the kind of organizations with which I'd never associate and of which I lend very little professional credence. Seriously, the guy comes off as rather a crank.
More ad hominem attacks. Not only is this unethical, but rather juvenile to boot. I am not surprised that you would never associate with any organizations that do not support your preconceived notions and prejudices. Most people with a closed mind feel the same way.
But more about that later. Let's look at a number of problems with his essay from a straightforward historical and political analysis.
First, Livingston argues that to correctly understand the debate on Southern slavery is to expand the playing field to include the entire United States, and to go back to the Founding of 1787 to grasp the universal acceptance of slavery --- with the concomitant national ideology of white supremacy --- in the Northern states, in New England America especially, shortly after the overthrow of British colonialism. By doing this, one can see that slavery as an ideological system of political, social, and economic racial domination wasn't unique to the American South, but rather was a nationwide phenomenon with uniquely Northern characteristics.
The problem with this argument is that it's an extremely simplistic straw man. I mean, I don't claim to have anything nearing a scholarly familiarity with the historical scholarship on antebellum America, North and South. But just frankly from my wide reading of history and my professional teaching of the Founding, the Constitutional Convention, and the growth of slavery throughout the 19th century, to say that slavery was a "national enormity, an American sin for which every section of the Union bore some responsibility," and to use this as an argument against those who attack the South, is simply irrelevant. Of course slavery was a national institution. Slavery was a thoroughgoing institution in all the 13 colonies by the end of the 17th century. Who argues otherwise? Slavery developed in the colonies and after the Constitution of 1787 for almost 150 years. It did break down into regional varieties, as part of the economic regionalism that took hold in the country. For example, by the early- to mid-1800s, rural agrarianism came to be predominantly associated with the South, and with the invention of the cotton gin, the Southern economy become increasingly the locus of cotton production in the U.S., on the backs of slave laborers.
So the North's huge culpability in the institution of slavery is a "straw man?" Nonsense. Livingston pointing this out accomplishes two things: (1) It demolishes the myth that the South was alone guilty of slavery, and (2) substantiates his argument that ending slavery was the obligation of the entire country, not merely the South alone. He is right in this.
The debate we're having today is the persistence of racial supremacy symbolism in the present day South, like the Confederate Flag, hardly a sign of Northern white supremacy. But the "national enormity" argument is a logical diversion, a fallacy that's easily exposed.
I have already disproved your statement above. The fact of Northern guilt and profit in slaves is not a logical diversion or fallacy, and you have exposed nothing. If the Confederate flag is to be forever associated with slavery, then so should the American flag, which flew over Northern slave ships, and represents the USA, which grew rich off of slave produced staples and taxes generated by them. It is you who are attempting a diversion, and it isn't working.
Second, Livingston argues that in antebellum American "no nation" had developed, in the sense of the national unification seen contemporaneously among the European continental states as Britain and France. Further, he claims that the national government couldn't interfere with slavery in the states, that "Congress simply had no constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the States." This is just a bunch of ideological hooey. It is true that the U.S. remained a largely agrarian, decentralized nation-state in the early 19th century, but the argument ignores monumental developments in constitutional law that created the foundations for what legal and political analysts identify as national supremacy within the system of political federalism. Crucially, majestic Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland expounded nationalist doctrines that placed federal authority as supreme to conflicting state power. Of course the debate on federalism wasn't (practically) resolved until decades later, perhaps not even until the 20th century. But it's absurd to claim that there was no national ideology or national consensus on federal power in the years before the Civil War. Indeed, why would the Southern states bother developing doctrines of nullification and so forth if no national culture and constitutional power had developed?
You really are confused. Livingston is correct in stating that in 1860, the United States was a collection of sovereign states over which Congress had limited power; each resident of individual states saw his state as his country. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery before the war, and is merely giving background material that is not controversial. So why do you even bring it up?
Prior to the Civil War, people said "the United States are" and after the war, "the United States is," which illustrates the consolidation of these states into one nation. You use a lot of words to prove nothing. Livingston is right, you are wrong and way out in left field.
Livingston goes on, "Since Congress had no power over slavery, and did not want such power, the only way to abolish slavery would be through individual state action or by an amendment to the Constitution." This makes no sense. While any individual state could abolish slavery within its boundaries, all the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been passed by Congress and ratified by the states, including the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. Further, major congressional action on slavery took place in 1808 with abolition of the international slave trade, in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, and in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Frankly, Congress was at the center of regulatory activity involving slavery right up to the Civil War. Maybe from the perspective of radical states rights' theory Congress "had no power over slavery," but in reality Congress did have such power and passed consequential legislation that shaped national events over decades of time.
Not only does it make sense, it is historically accurate and makes plenty of sense. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery prior to the Civil War. He explains that Congress had limited power over slavery in the states, and did not even want the power. He cites the Corwin Amendment as proof. Congress passed it on March 2, 1862, making it illegal for Congress to ever interfere in the domestic institutions (i.e. slavery) of the states. They hoped this would stop slave states from seceding, but it didn't. That's because preserving slavery was not the major reason for secession. The Corwin Amendment was never ratified. Your long discussion goes into Congressional power and amendments made after the Civil War, and are irrelevant to the discussion.
Third, Livingston makes a number of bizarre arguments regarding President Abraham Lincoln's positions on slavery, and some of these appear to be bald-faced lies. He argues, for example, that "Lincoln did not object to slavery as long as it was confined to the South." This is again a red herring, for it's widely recognized that Lincoln was no abolitionist and that even at the time of secession in 1861, Lincoln's fundamental war aims were the preservation of union.
How is this a red herring? Livingston's essay is meant for general audiences, and cannot assume that they know as much as you do about it. His comment is meant to illuminate the fact that Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and therefore the South had no reason to believe he was going to somehow emancipate their slaves without their consent. It undermines the Northern myth that the South seceded to protect slavery, when no threat to slavery existed.
Livingston goes on with a number of selective quotations in an attempt to paint Lincoln as pro-slavery as any Southern rebel.
Now who's lying? Livingston does nothing of the sort. I have read and reread this essay several times, and I never saw any evidence of this. You're wrong.
The reality is way more complicated, as any historical review of Lincoln political career would recognize. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, Lincoln made a clear distinction between his acquiescence to slavery in the North and his clearly foundational belief that the Declaration of Independence made all men equal in the eyes of God, and that in the long run the U.S. could not survive with slavery as an institution. When he said a "house divided upon itself cannot stand" it wasn't a political program of abolition as much as a recognition that at some point one side would prevail over the other, either the pro-slavery forces would prevail and slavery would win out over the land or the abolitionists would prevail and slavery would die out altogether.
Lincoln did believe that the rights described in the Declaration of Independence applied to all men, including Negroes. However, he was quite clear that Negroes could not enjoy those rights in America, but only "on their own soil." He proposed to send them back to Africa.
Livingston in fact lies about the meaning of Lincoln's statement that the United States as "the last best hope of earth." He claims that Lincoln supported colonization of American blacks back to Africa, and that "The 'last best hope of earth' referred to a purely white European polity free of racial strife, and not to a land of freedom for all as it is absurdly interpreted today." Actually, voluntary colonization of slaves and compensated emancipation were just policy alternatives that Lincoln included in his message to Congress in December 1862. A simple reading of the conclusion of his address reveals Lincoln's exceptionalism and his faith in Jefferson's ideals in the Declaration:
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.I don't know why Livingston would so blatantly distort what Lincoln actually said, other than to chalk it up to dishonesty. Lincoln's views were complicated and developed along with the political necessities of his day.
Livingston did not distort anything. Lincoln clearly saw slavery as immoral and contrary to natural law, as almost everyone, North or South, did. Livingston believes that Lincoln's "Best Hope" comment did not insinuate that Lincoln wanted to integrate the freed slaves into American society. Lincoln made it clear many times previous, in speeches and correspondence, that he did not want this at all. He wanted blacks out of America. If you like, I can shower you with quotations to that effect.
And it important to remember that we can't read present-day moral sentiments into history. That is, we cannot apply 21st century normative commitments to the political mores of the mid-19th century. Livingston in fact attacks his critics as adopting a presentist ideological agenda, but much of his essay employs the exact type of presentist commitments that he so decries.
I don't recall Livingston mentioning "presentist ideological agendas" anywhere. I think you are mistaken. In any case, how is that relevant to whether or not the Civil War was about slavery?
Finally, Livingston breaks down "the main anti-slavery episodes in the antebellum period," from the Constitutional Convention to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Again, there's a lot of arguments against straw men and even more tendentious connections to the historical record. I'm going to eschew a longer analysis simply to avoid repetition. Suffice it to say that Livingston provides completely decontextualized and selective interpretations of historical events, spurts of analysis that really add up to more of an ideological screed than a dispassionate historical critique.
And yet you cannot present a single example of this "ideological screed," because it isn't at all true. Further, there are no "straw men" in his arguments, no "decontextualized and selective interpretations," and you have not described any. Your comments are those of someone losing an argument, and knows it.
And that brings me to my second, more partisan and bloggy criticism of Professor Livingston. He is indeed a genuine scholar and is Professor Emeritus at Emory University and an expert on the writings of Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume.
At this point, Donald launches into personal attacks on Livingston and attempts to discredit the man by calling him a radical with radical associations, etc etc. I won't bother to refute these, as they are irrelevant to whether Livingston's essay is accurate and factual -- which it is. Read it for yourself.
Conclusions: Donald's attempted rebuttal of Livingston's argument fails and fails badly. If he has made any salient points disproving Livingston, it isn't obvious to me.
Monday, June 22, 2015
I Challenge Jonathan Tobin of Commentary Magazine to Debate the Confederate Flag #Tobin #Commentary #Charleston
Jonathan Tobin has written the following screed at Commentary Magazine, about his opposition to the Confederate flag:
"For those who plan to respond, as they always do, to discussions about this topic with emails regurgitating neo-Confederate talking points about the Civil War being a conflict about state’s rights rather than slavery, let me state up front that I’m not buying it and neither is any other serious student of history. The Civil War did hinge in part on constitutional questions but the notion that slavery was incidental to the outbreak of the conflict is simply absurd. Without slavery, there would have been no war. The south seceded because it feared limits on the expansion of slavery would eventually doom the institution. To protect a heritage built on the uncompensated labor of slaves and their vast investment in human “property,” the states that formed the Confederacy waged a bloody war that costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and left the south in ruins. It would take a century for the region to recover completely."
"For those who plan to respond, as they always do, to discussions about this topic with emails regurgitating neo-Confederate talking points about the Civil War being a conflict about state’s rights rather than slavery, let me state up front that I’m not buying it and neither is any other serious student of history. The Civil War did hinge in part on constitutional questions but the notion that slavery was incidental to the outbreak of the conflict is simply absurd. Without slavery, there would have been no war. The south seceded because it feared limits on the expansion of slavery would eventually doom the institution. To protect a heritage built on the uncompensated labor of slaves and their vast investment in human “property,” the states that formed the Confederacy waged a bloody war that costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and left the south in ruins. It would take a century for the region to recover completely."
Tobin, you are not a serious student of history. You are a serious apologist for Northern aggression and are largely ignorant of the history of the Civil War. If you disagree, then I formally challenge you to debate the issue: RESOLVED, that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Stop hiding behind your masthead where you can't be held accountable for your error. I'll give you a few hints of your coming beat down in this article.
1. Without slavery there would have been no war. Not true. Without the Northern invasion, there would have been no war. Lincoln invaded, not because of slavery, but because if the South left the Union, it would end the North's protective tariffs on foreign goods, substantially damaging the Northern economy. Lincoln made it clear that slave emancipation was not his goal or his motivation:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.--Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862)
2. The south seceded because it feared limits on the expansion of slavery would eventually doom the institution. This statement is sheer nonsense. If the South seceded, it would no longer have access to the new western territories, and no place to expand slavery to. How do you explain that, genius? Was the South going to start plantations in the Atlantic Ocean?
3. To protect a heritage built on the uncompensated labor of slaves and their vast investment in human “property,” the states that formed the Confederacy waged a bloody war that costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and left the south in ruins. So much is wrong with this statement. I have these points in rebuttal:
a. Slave labor was not uncompensated. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care, even after they became too old to work. According to Fogel and Engerman's Time on the Cross, The Economics of American Negro Slavery (1974), slaves consumed 90% of everything they produced.
b. The South's "vast investment in human property" included many millions of dollars paid to Northern slave traders. The North had no qualms about selling Africans into slavery when it was enriching them, and they continued the slave trade in foreign markets when it was outlawed in the U.S. in 1808. For every slave Yankees sold to the South, they sold about 20 more to Cuba, Brazil and the West Indies. The North ended slavery in its states primarily by selling its slaves to the South, not by emancipating them. Further, slavery continued in states loyal to the North after the Civil War began, in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Tell me again, Tobin, about Yankee moral superiority.
c. The South waged a defensive war against a ruthless invader that made total war on the Southern population, who burned homes, farms, universities and public buildings to the ground, killed livestock and burned crops, used Confederate prisoners as human shields against artillery, and lobbed shells into downtown Charleston to randomly kill civilians. But you, Tobin, act as if the South started the war, instead of the other way around. The shame of the carnage is totally on the backs of the Northern invaders, and those who rationalize their aggression. There is absolutely NOTHING honorable about the Northern aggression on the South.
Conclusions:
You, Jonathan Tobin, really should read a long essay that deals with the subject thoroughly. It is "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery," by Professor Donald Livingston of Emory University. I'm sure you'll find it uncomfortable having all of your prized myths exploded before your very eyes. I am also sure that you will not be able to offer any serious rebuttal.
Let your education begin, Jonathan Tobin, at the following link.
And I'll be waiting to hear from you about that debate.
Note to Confederate Descendants: Don't Back Down on the Confederate Flag #Charleston #Confederate
Note to those who support the Confederate flag: DON'T BACK DOWN.
Don't be tepid or tentative in your support of the flag. Our opposition to Northern cultural bigotry and historical (and hysterical) ignorance must be firm and unflinching. We are right, and they are wrong. View the issue with the moral clarity it deserves.
Anti-Southern bigotry is possibly one of my biggest triggers. I wrote about that some time ago, in a previous post from 2010. In that post I noted that the Civil War was then, and this is now. I said that I wanted to work with Northerner conservatives in our modern political struggles, and not refight a war of 150 years ago. However, I noted that the Civil War (better described as The War for Southern Independence) tapped deep emotions in me, and had the power to make me hate. I stated that I don't like to hate and seek to avoid that emotion whenever possible, because happiness and hate cannot coexist. This week, however, I feel the negative emotion returning.
Why? Because Yankees, liberals and Southerners ignorant of their own history keep re-invading the South. They buy into the Northern Myth. Intellectually lazy, they go along with the popular mythology that casts the Confederates into the role of villain. They dishonor our Confederate ancestors and grossly misrepresent their cause. Now they want to finish the wishes of General Sherman to exterminate all Southerners completely, by insisting that the Confederate flag be relegated to museums, viewed only as a dishonorable artifact.
"We must show manners to those who find the flag objectionable," they write. Why is it that we must show manners but they do not? Why do their feelings count but not ours?
Arm yourselves with knowledge of Southern history. I suggest you can do that by reading a previously posted article by Professor Donald Livingston of Emory University, "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
