Slavery Defended

I don’t know who stocks the shelves of my college library, but they forgot to burn this book.  Peering into the back, I notice I’m the first one to check it out since February of  ’86.  Saner times, the 80′s.

And, God help me but, “Slavery Defended”, (edited by Eric L. McKitrick) has ruined me.  From this point on, I’ll be a more consistent Southern apologist, but it’ll be at the expense of a good name.  The book has convinced me that slavery, as it was known in Dixie, was not only morally-permissible, but a moral good.  *The* ideal organization for civilized society.

It’s a wonderful feeling: not being constrained by popularity.

I don’t even know any Kinists who would argue for the moral superiority of a slave-based social order.  Even among the most adamant of White Nationalist pagans, I’ve not heard slavery seriously defended as an institution. The anti-slavery meme has so thoroughly penetrated our nation that no one takes it seriously any longer.

Nevertheless — my ancestors faced canon-fire for their beliefs.  I can take a few jabs from pretentious liberals.

That McKitrick’s book was published at all in this country is miraculous.  It was published in 1963, so I’m guessing the complete domination of all publishing and educational institutions by the liberal elite, was not yet solidified.  McKitrick (associate professor of history at Columbia University) however, is all the more baffling since he takes a very fair, almost sympathetic position towards the essays in his book.  His brief commentary at the beginning of each article is sometimes critical, sometimes supportive, but always informative.  He’s obviously not an advocate of slavery.  But on the other hand, he doesn’t want the pro-slavery tradition suppressed by academia.  He says this in the introduction:

“Nothing is more susceptible to oblivion than an argument, however ingenious, that has been discredited by events; and such is the case with the body of writing which was produced in the antebellum South in defense of Negro slavery.  In the one hundred years since emancipation, almost the whole of that work has remained superbly unread.  What we know about the pro-slavery intellectuals and their writings is known not directly but through tag-names and hearsay.  History books refer to them, but with a flicker of impatience, having little time to spend on crackpots.”

This book has introduced me, not only to the major premise in the pro-slavery position, but to many of the great Southern thinkers who attempted to defend an institution that represented their entire way of life.  To read the articles of men like John Calhoun, George Fitzhugh, and Edmund Ruffin, in their frank and open (almost casual) defense of the unspeakably-taboo subject of slavery, was like hearing echoes of the past.  Polemics of ghost-men.  More than once, while reading this book, I wished that I could sit with these men — just for five minutes — and soak up their passion and integrity.

These are not essays chosen for their naivete’, so that a liberal editor can take easy pot shots at the authors.  No, McKitrick, it seems, really has chosen a sampling of the best, brightest, and most intellectually rigorous essays in defense of Slavery that Dixie produced.

John Calhoun has three articles (one of which I cited in my last blog).  The statesmanship inherent in his writing demonstrates why his name comes to mind when people think of an excellent politician.

George Fitzhugh’s “Sociology for the South” is maybe the most brilliant essay of all the ones I’ve read.  Fitzhugh is certainly the giant of Southern apologetics.  His comparison of Free-Market economics with “warfare” was one I’ve been making for awhile, thinking it was original.  If you read any essays out of this entire book, make sure it’s Fizthugh’s.

If George Fitzhugh is my favorite of the intellectuals for his arguments, Edmund Ruffin has to be my favorite for his passion.  According to McKitrick’s introduction, Ruffin was given the honor to fire the infamous first shot on Fort Sumter.  And, upon hearing of the collapse of the Confederacy in 1865, he “seized a pistol and blew out his brains.”  An honorable patriot to the end.  His essay “The Political Economy of Slavery” attempts to systematically interact with the economics of a slave society.

Kinists and Christians of all stripes, may be interested to turn directly to Thornton Stringfellow’s (a Baptist minister from Culpepper County, Virginia) article “A Scriptural View of Slavery”.  The premise is that God sanctions slavery all throughout the Bible, in many cases, explicitly, and in other cases, implicitly (by blessing slave-owners).

There is a review of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” by George Frederick Holmes and an essay on the cotton industry by David Christy.  Also, perhaps more beneficial than all the essays is the “further reading” section in back of the book, which lists an extensive bibliography of pro-slavery works.

Since I don’t think the contents are listed on Amazon, I’ll provide it here for interested parties:

CONTENTS

Introductory Essay … The Defense of Slavery, by eric L. McKitrick                                                                                   pg. 1

John C. Calhoun … Disquisition on Government                                                                              pg. 7

… Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions                                                                                   pg. 12

… Speech on the Importance of Domestic Slavery                                                                                     pg. 16

Thomas R. Dew … Review of the Debate in the Virginia Legislature                                                                               pg. 20

George Fitzhugh …  Sociology for the South                                                                                        pg. 34

Henry Hughes … A Treatsie on Sociology                                                                                  pg. 51

William J. Grayson … The Hireling and the Slave                                                                                         pg. 57

Edmund Ruffin … The Political Economy of Slavery                                                                                      pg. 69

Thorton Stringfellow … A Scriptural View of Slavery                                                                                     pg. 86

George Frederick Holmes … Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin                                                                                        pg. 99

David Christy … Cotton Is King                                                                                          pg. 111

James Henry Hammond … “Mud-Sill” Speech                                                                                     pg. 121

Josiah Nott … Types of Mankind                                                                                  pg. 126

Samuel Cartwright … The Prognathous Species of Mankind                                                                                   pg. 139

Nehemiah Adams … A South-Side View of Slavery                                                                                     pg. 148

Edward A. Pollard … Black Diamonds                                                                                 pg. 162

J. D. B. DeBow … The Interest in Slavery of the Southern Non-Slaveholder                                                                       pg. 169

Suggestions for Further Reading                                                                                   pg. 179

For the time they were written, these essays represent the cutting-edge of scientific thought on racial issues.  Henry Hughes, for instance, was the first American to use Auguste Comte’s newly coined term “Sociology” in the title of a book.  The South, it seemed, had scientific fact on her side.

So, what is the argument for slavery?

When Americans think about this issue today, they tend to think of it in isolation — abstracted from all political and social institutions.  They think about the morality of one human owning another.  They seldom think of slavery in terms of a political and social, even “economic” institution.  Our contemporary colleagues are not alone in this.  Appealing to Edmund Burke, Thomas Dew has this to say:

“No set of legislators ever have, or ever can, legislate upon purely abstract principles, entirely independent of circumstances, without the ruin of the body politic, which should have the misfortune to be under the guidance of such quackery.  Well and philosophically has Burke remarked, that circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect.  The circumstances are what render every political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind, and we cannot stand forward and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions and human concerns on a simple view of the object as it stands, stript of every relation in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction.”

Obviously then, “slavery” in the South — as an institution — must be critiqued in its concrete context and not abstractly, as Dew concludes:

“The historical view which we have given of the origin and progress of slavery, shows most conclusively that something else is requisite to convert slavery into freedom, than the mere enunciation of abstract truths, divested of all adventitious circumstances and relations.”

When people scoff at slavery, I’ve usually replied by asking them if they support America’s penal system.  “Well, why shouldn’t we?”, they ask.  When I point out that it’s just another form of slavery, they hoot-n-holler, but eventually have to admit that, under certain conditions, slavery is perfectly acceptable.

This is similar to the path taken by the authors of these essays.  They look at Southern social institutions as a whole, and treat the South as an entirely different economic system than the “free-labor” based, industrialized North.  The distinction between workers and the “Capitalists” is drawn repeatedly.  It’s argued that, in the absence of mitigating and formal institutions (like slavery), the Capitalist has no motivation to provide for his workers and, in effect, is actually at war with them and they, with him.  Furthermore, the unique economic situation created by slavery creates social stability and fosters cultural creativity among the ruling class.

Henry Hughes further highlights the economic distinction between the two paradigms by calling the Slave-system “Warranteeism” and the Northern system, a “Free Labor” economy.   In a Warrantist social-order, society is structured so that each class is “warranted” in providing for the other.   I’ll have to reserve an in-depth comparison of the two systems for some other blog as I’m still digesting these insights and marveling at how closely they resemble later ideals of British Distributism and Southern Agrarianism.  The Southern Agrarians inherited their economic criticisms of industrialism from the authors of these essays.

Much is also made of the Negro’s advanced position under slavery.  They learned to read, write, perform a trade, learned religion, and attained a higher form of civilization than they ever have in history.  This, combined with their status as slaves — who are provided for their entire lives, regardless of the health of the economy — make slavery an ideal situation for the Negro as well as for their white masters.

Seeing a critique of slavery as a critique of an entire social-order, was new to me.  These authors make it clear that a certain sort of unrestricted free-market ideology is disastrous for the human spirit, society, and the peace of a community.

Another interesting aspect of the essays was the prophetic accounts of what society would be like if the slaves were emancipated and given legal and political equality with the whites.  Thomas Dew has amazing foresight on this issue:

“Two totally different races, as we have before seen, cannot easily harmonize together, and although we have no idea that any organized plan of insurrection or rebellion can ever secure for the black the superiority, even when free, yet his idleness will produce want and worthlessness, and his very worthlessness and degredation will stimulate him to depths of rapine and vengeance…Let Virginia liberate her slaves, and every year you would hear of insurrections and plots, and every day would perhaps record a murder; the melancholy tale of Southhampton would not alone blacken the page of our history, and make the tender mother shed the tear of horror over her babe as she clasped it to her bosom; others of a deeper dye would thicken upon us; those regions where the brightness of polished life has dawned and brightened into full day, would relapse into darkness, thick and full of horrors.“

He was right…

…Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.

The Rescue of Von Jones

Mr. Von Jones has gotten so feeble in his old age, that his daughter finally took him off somewhere; I’m not sure if it’s to a nursing home or if he’s moved in with her.  But before he moved, he lived by himself.

My uncle was his closest friend (that I know of).  He’s a Baptist pastor at a small church out in the country and I suppose he felt obligated to look after Mr. Jones.  So, he’d go out of his way to help him when he could.

I met Von Jones when I went to the local community college to talk to my uncle about joining the machining program.  In addition to being a small-town pastor, my uncle is also the master-machinist at the college and was more than happy to welcome me into a blue-collar trade that he’s been passionate about for years.

Von Jones was sitting in the office, half-asleep.  We had lunch, the three of us, and I got to know him a little better.  He was a fiercely independent old man.  He insisted on taking care of himself.  My uncle told me that Von kept a  house full of guns and ammo, even though I doubt he’d have the strength to chamber a round.  A defiant southerner to the end.

I’ve thought about Mr. Jones a lot over the past few months, especially when I get depressed about the state of Dixie and her morally-depraved institutions.   With so much depressing content in the news, it’s easy to despair.  “What has happened to the South” I’m tempted to ask?  “Where is the honorable society I romanticize?”

I think about Mr. Jones in times like this because of something that happened to him a few months ago.

I was at my uncle’s house, helping tear down his barn.  We had demolished the sub-structure but the rafters were still in tact, so we had to crawl around in the rubble with our hammers and crow-bars, dismantling them piece by piece.

During mid-hammer blow, my uncle stopped.  I glanced over in time to see him jump off the wood-pile and disappear.  “A wreck” he shouted!  I was on the inside of the rubble so I hadn’t heard anything, but I could tell by his eyes and tone of voice that something major had just happened.

I climbed out and took off running.  I could hear a car-horn.  One continuous beep — it didn’t bode well.  I didn’t know what I’d see when I ran around the corner of the house.

At this point in the story, everything seemed to happen in slow motion.  At least, that’s the way I remember it.  I get chills when I think of how it all played out.

I hold this memory up in defiance to all those who gloat over the death of old Dixie:

Von Jones had come for a visit but fell asleep during the drive.  Instead of taking the sharp turn in front of my uncle’s house, he went full speed off the road and into a tree.  His car was totaled and I saw him there, hunched over the steering wheel.  His horn was blaring, his airbags were out, and there was smoke coming from under the hood.

This is where the music starts in my narrative — inspirational music that matches the pace of my slow-motion account.

I ran to Mr. Jones.  My uncle and cousin were ahead of me, but I quickly caught them up.  I arrived at the car and tried to pry open the door.  It was hard because the car was in a thicket of briars.  I struggled.  Immediately, a second pair of hands were on the door.  Then a third.  Then a fourth?!

Hunters were materializing out of the woods.  Camouflaged men and women crawled out of the thicket and lent their strength to the rescue effort.  We got Mr. Jones out.  He was ok, but shaken.  Once he was safe, we focused our attention on the smoke and car-horn.

My cousin is an EMT and volunteer fire-fighter. Within minutes he had a rescue and fire-truck on scene.  One of the hunters was a deputy.  He called his partner, who arrived just after the ambulance.  The peaceful country-side erupted into a frenzy of dedicated service.

Now you — you degenerate, God-hating Satanists who despise old Dixie — you tell me that she’s dead!  You tell me that we don’t care for our own!  You tell me there isn’t a blue-collar heroism just waiting for evil to challenge it!

I thank God for Von Jones and I’ll always remember the day white heroes literally popped from the wood-work to save one of their own.

Deo Vindice.

A Kinist’s Take on the 2012 AMREN Conference

It came burning hot into my mind,
whatever he said and however he flattered,
when he got me home to his house,
he would sell me for a slave.
~ John Bunyan

Dear readers,

Have you ever felt exhilarated and discouraged at the same time?  Put a name to that emotion and that’s how I’m feeling in the aftermath of the 2012 American Renaissance conference.  I’ve heard nothing but good reviews so far (see here and here) and that’s part of the reason I feel a little discouraged.

If Jared Taylor’s organization represents a movement (and I think I’m being kind in granting that it does) then it’s not a movement that is interested in the sensibilities of a Christian Southerner like myself.  On the other hand, getting the chance to flex my intellectual muscles among like-minded folk was thrilling.  The company of compatriots was a refreshing end to the long night of isolation.  To say out loud the things I’ve only been able to write (or type) was well worth the drive to Nashville.

My journey through Nashville warrants a brief mention.  I arrived early and decided to explore.  I wanted to see the famous Vanderbilt University — the institution that birthed the Twelve Southerners who penned that famous book of essays, “I’ll Take My Stand” and helped spark a Southern renaissance.  Vanderbilt has a beautiful campus, (some of her female students match the blooming dogwoods in glamor, though, as you’re soon to learn, have nothing of the dogwood’s appeal).

I wandered around the campus and talked to some of the students.  I wanted to see if any of them were going to be the next John Crowe Ransom or Stark Young.  I struck up a conversation with a young lady ( a few years younger than myself) who, after learning about the Twelve Southerners and having gained some small insight about their thinking, assured me that nothing of that sort was taught at Vanderbilt and that she was appalled that I was so stuck in “another century” that I’d dare bring up such a politically incorrect subject.  She, erm, “politely” declined my invitation to have lunch.

And so it went (though not as dramatic) with other students.

In memory of the Twelve, I wanted to leave tire-tracks across the well-manicured campus — something in the shape of a Confederate Flag, maybe — but thought better of it.  Instead, I hung my head and whistled Dixie all the way back to my car, in long, mournful notes.  Later that evening, I raised a glass (or twelve) to my literary heroes.

But then, there was the conference.

I didn’t fully agree with any of the speakers, with the exception of perhaps James Edwards whose discussion was more pragmatic than ideological.  Some of the speakers I have very serious and profound disagreements with.  Remember earlier, I claimed that if Jared Taylor’s organization was to be considered a movement, it isn’t a movement that is kind to my sensibilities as a Christian Southerner?  Let me explain what I meant more thoroughly:

The great Sam Dickson (an archetypical Southern gentleman) did a wonderful job, as usual, in crafting together, in broad strokes, the underlying ideology that ties the American Renaissance ilk together into a recognizable movement.

“We’re empirical!” he says.  “We’re scientific!  We base our position on the facts!”

He used the old secularist buzz-phrases and, in so many words, declared that the racial-realist (and ethnic-nationalist) movements are based on secularism and scientific empiricism — the same evils that helped birth the dragon of modernism (on my view).  I recall thinking, during the presentations, that these guys adhered to the same religion as the neo-babelists, egalitarians and alienists.  The only difference between them is one of eschatology.  How ought the world play out?  To what end is man working?  They answer these questions similarly to the neo-babelist, but instead of a mixed utopia, desire a white utopia.

To further exemplify my observation, some of the AmRen speakers (and many in the crowd) advocated for eugenics.  This was especially the case with Dr. Richard Lynn.  He distinguished between “positive” and “negative” eugenics, the one being implemented through various educational endeavors aimed at improving desired genes.  The other is coerced by the strong arm of the state and aims to discourage, through sterilization and other means, the breading of non-desired genes.  Simply put, the one encourages, the other discourages.

Neither way is appealing to me as a Christian.  They both assume a bunch of pretentious, limp-wristed intellectuals, whose fingernails have never seen dirt, oil or blood, can sit around in their ivory towers and design humanity.  This is tyranny of one group of humans planners over countless millions.

Says Lewis:

“What we call Man’s power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by…And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive.  By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer.  From this point of view, what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.” ~ Abolition of Man, pg. 55

“For its own reasons…”

That statement summarizes the bulk of my disagreement with the secular mind-set of the race-realists in attendance.  They want to arbitrarily impose their will over the rest of us.

Why do these people choose “IQ” as the standard to judge fellow humans?  Isn’t there more to a man than mere intelligence?  How high must his IQ be before we value him as a human?  My parents do not have the highest IQ in the world, should they not have been allowed to breed?  Should I not exist?  No.  There is far more to man than his IQ.  That’s why we don’t euthanize the elderly or pull the plug on coma patients.  And we certainly wouldn’t murder someone just because they happened to fall asleep!  (I don’t know what a sleeping man’s IQ is, but I’m sure he wouldn’t do well on a test).

The race-intellectuals’ dogmatic and zealous adherence to materialism and secular humanism, blinds them to the underlying dignity and spiritual importance of man.

I asked this question of one gentleman,

“Suppose there is a pill or injection that, once administered, would raise all humanity to an ideal IQ.  And, suppose further that everyone takes it.  Now the entire globe is similar in IQ.  Would we then be able to claim that our racial-group is special?”

The conversation moved on and he never directly answered the question.  (He was a marvelous conversationalist, however.  Having been in the Navy, like myself, he and I became friends.  He was also in possession of numerous fine cigars, which he handed out liberally.  Despite our minor disagreements, I found in him a compatriot and role-model.  I look forward to meeting him at other conferences).

Their IQ-topia doesn’t sound like the old Europe (or old Dixie) that I’ve come to love through literature.

I suppose this mindset has seeped into the movement from the influences of Frederick Nietzsche, though I have no idea why these folks are infatuated with him.  His philosophy, if followed consistently, would lead to complete nihilism in all things, ethics and politics included.  The idea that we need to impose our arbitrary whims on a chaotic universe always leads to tyranny.

This philosophy pops up elsewhere, especially in the realm of economics which was another hot topic among the conference participants.  I’ll have to discuss the rising ideology of social-credit theory and why it’s undesirable from a Christian point of view, in another post.

By way of general criticism, however, we Christians know that no man is omniscient, therefore, no man (or small group of men) can make decisions that will benefit all other men in a meaningful way.  The only way this is possible, is if the ruling man or group of men, make their decisions based on divine revelation, which is the only sure knowledge man can have about all of humanity, since it’s given to them by the only authority who can possibly know.

These very general comments provide the basis for a Christian theory of social-hierarchy and aristocracy, but as I said, all of that will have to be addressed in another post.

In conclusion, I think we Christians who are also racial-realists and ethnic-nationalists, should look at American Renaissance as less of a podium and more of a forum.  Jared Taylor shouldn’t be looked to as the leader of a movement, rather, he’s the facilitator of discussion among a full-spectrum of white-advocates and in that regard, is very good at his work.

When ideas collide and people interact on this level, I’m sure the truth, which by definition is God’s truth, will emerge on the field, victorious.

I met a lot of good friends (Mary! Courtney! B Oz! Mr. Jared P! Craig! And the guy who ran the Arktos books table, but I’m embarrassed because I’ve forgotten his name!) and many others.  I’m also always glad to see and speak with James Edwards, Paul Fromm, Jared Taylor and the great Sam Dickson.

I should also add a quick note of apology to Alex Kurtagic.  Due to some ill-perceived statement of his (on my part) I’ve been calling him Alex “Kurtragic”, but after meeting him in person, I’m ashamed of myself and hope to do right in the future.  He’s a very humble, poetic and passionate man whom I’m honored to have met.  (I suggested to him that he add zombies to the novel he’s presently writing, though I hope he doesn’t take me seriously.  I’d hate to see him use mundane-devices to curry pop-favor ).

I’m looking forward to a day when Kinists can have our own gathering of this sort, one where God is openly and formally honored and the spiritual nature of man can be discussed without reservation.  I’ve long daydreamed about who would speak at that sort of conference, but it doesn’t do any good thinking about that now.  For the present, I’ll take what I’ve learned from the AmRen and build on it for years to come.

Till the next breath…

Shotgun

Abhor Egalitarianism!

I’m always on the lookout for ways to help Old Dixie.

We unreconstructed folk answer objections, right misconceptions (and weave through emotional confessions) quite frequently!

But the one issue at the bottom of all the controversy is a radical (and unbiblical) doctrine of social egalitarianism to which our opponents are religiously devoted.

The mere idea that class distinctions and aristocracy exist in a free society is Hell to the egalitarian. They don’t see beauty in the old social norms of Dixie; they don’t realize the honor and chivalry inherent in that sort of place! No sir! They don’t appreciate fields or workers, but see only opportunity. (Their eyes rape the land AND the workers!)

This is terrible!

Clarity is found from an odd source however:

Richard J. Ellis is a self-proclaimed liberal democrat who sees the harmful effects of this doctrine on liberalism. He connects the dots between the egalitarianism of the Unitarians and their desire to destroy the entire social structure of Old Dixie:

Radical abolitionists did not seek just the end of slavery; they sought the end of the Old South. “The whole social system of the Gulf states,” said Wendell Phillips, “is to be taken to pieces, every bit of it.” (See Ellis “The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America.)

The very nature of Southern culture drove them mad! My anscestors could not be allowed to live as they had been living, and had to either change, or die!

The gospel of egalitarianism was spread through old dixie by filthy mouthed soldiers and the call of war trumpets.

Now we hear this same gospel from the mouths of our children.

There should be a special brand of soap made to clean this horror from their mouths! We could call it: “Truth: cleansing away egalitarianism since 1865!”

Ellis shows that when the elementary nature of man doesn’t conform with the ideals of the egalitarians, these Satanists respond in the same way their Unitarian forebears responded to Dixie! They hate man and wish him eradicated!

The Egalitarian hates fallen man because the egalitarian hates the all-sovereign God. They don’t want the grace of Christ! They can’t stand this idea that some men are forgiven and others aren’t! To deny God, they must posit that all men are, at base, good. All deserve salvation!

In response I’ll end by citing an ominous observation made by Irving Babbit in his book “Democracy and Leadership”:

“…when one starts with the assumption that men are naturally good and virtuous, one ends by wishing to kill them all.”

Cooking With Paula

I work at a news organization. 

Famous chef, Paula Deen, visited our studio one Thanksgiving hoping to share some recipes with deployed servicemen. 

Some of the producers didn’t find Ms. Dean’s down-home, southern demeanor all that appealing, and decided to ridicule her over an intercom system.  Between the producer’s questions to Paula, she would make snide remarks that only her and a few others could hear. 

I’ve noticed that people in the TV and news industry, as well as many people in government bureaucracies, have a terrible bias, almost hate, for positive representations of Southern culture. 

Perhaps it was no coincidence that this same producer is an avid animal lover, and a member of PETA.

A fellow co-worker and I both found the comments about Dixie and Ms. Dean highly offensive.  It’s unwise to voice such opinions in my workplace though, so I decided to act in a more indirect fashion.

The result is the above poster.  My coworker and I enjoyed it very much…although, I’m sorry to say that the animal-loving (Dixie hating) producer, found it quite offensive.

Enjoy!

The REAL Inauguration Celebration

(The following is from a Harper’s Weekly report about the Inauguration of President Jefferson Davis.)

On Page 157 (above image) we publish a picture of the Inauguration of President Davis, of the Southern Confederacy, at Montgomery, Alabama, on February 18, from a photograph obligingly placed at our disposal. We published part of the inaugural in our last number.  A lady who witnessed the scene thus writes to a friend in this city:

“The President is a pleasant-looking old gentleman, of about fifty years of age; he was escorted to the Capitol by the military, he being in an elegant carriage drawn by six white horses. After he took his seat on the platform in front of the Capitol, and a short prayer had been offered, he read a very neat little speech, not making many promises, but hoping, by God’s help, to be able to fulfill all expectations.  He took the oath amidst the deepest silence; and when he raised his hand and his eyes to heaven, and said, ‘So Help Me God!’ I think I never saw any scene so solemn and impressive.

 

He puts much in the mind of General Jackson in appearance and character, though he is much more of a gentleman in his manners than the old General ever wished to be.  He had a reception last night which I attended.  I walked about and exchanged greetings with my friends, but would not shake hands with the President, for I thought I would not be recognized today, and so would rather wait for a more private introduction.  The Vice-President is a constant visitor at the houses where I stay; he is very slight and delicate looking, has more the appearance of a dead man than a living one, until he begins to speak, when you forget entirely how ugly he is.”

 

 

(Here is a link to President Jefferon Davis’ Inauguration Speach:  http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Davis_inauguration_Speech.htm )

Strife of Brothers

(At the American Vision Forums, a guy by the name of Nathan said some really insulting things about my Southern ForeFathers.  The discussion took place surrounding the book “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians” by Walter B. Cisco.   In the book, Mr. Cisco documents and highlights some of the most terrible atrocities carried out against Southdern civilians, often women and children.  It was in this context that the following discussion took place.  You can read it in context here:  http://www.americanvision.org/wvforum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=241 )

Nathan Albright says:

Well, those Southerners (and though I have been raised in the South, I am a born Northerner and a definite partisan of the North) were rebels and traitors against a constitutionally elected government. They were treated far more gently than they deserved.

Shotgun replies:

It is duly noted that the slaughter and oppression of people is deemed just when said people are accused of violating the law-word of the messianic state.

With that in mind, Mr. Nathan, I feel I owe a duty to the memory of my kinsmen and would like to ask you to apologize, or either engage in a formal debate with me (in the debate section of this forum, or via email) so it can be demonstrated that…while our brave Southern nation may have been out resourced and militarily defeated, her ideals were and still are far superior.

I understand that you may not have realized the full effect of your words and in sober recollection may regret having expressed your passions in such an insulting way. Therefore, I hope you can see my response as an opportunity to correct an error.

To conclude, I think Joseph Derry’s “Strife of Brothers” has served to rescue in some small part the honor of our beloved Dixie, and as such, I think it would be beneficial to close out my post with a brief, but relevant passage:

The Southern States willed not this cruel war. Peace with their brethren they preferred by far. The government they never wished to harm, Or cause their sister States the least alarm; And seeking a new Union did no more Than did our fathers in the days of yore. They just as sadly severed once loved bond As did our sires, who with affection fond Had looked upon Old England’s meteor flag And in the fiercest battles did not lag Where that proud banner pointed them the way, Until that ever dark and mournful day, When their just rights were scornfully denied. Then England’s power they valiantly defied. Destroy the government? Such motive they To us have oft assigned since that sad day, When South and North contending stood apart In strife, the cause of grief to ev’ry heart.

Dixie In Our Hearts?

“Without Jesus Christ’s restitution payment to God for the sins of man, there could never have been rehabilitation cosmically, for even with it, the whole world came under a curse.  Society’s institutions of justice are supposed to reflect the judicial terms of this cosmic redemption.  When they do not, we can confidently expect God’s historical negative sanctions to reform the institutions (Deut. 28:15-68). – Gary North “Victim’s Rights” pg. 9

Is it true that Dixie exists only in our hearts?  Is there some objective entity that we can point to and call “Dixie” or is it rather the case that no such body exists?

Clyde N. Wilson discusses this very topic in his essay “The Mind of the Old South” (found in the book, “Defending Dixie”).   He says:

“The intellectual history of the South is yet to be written.  This assertion bootlegs two assumptions that do not go unchallenged.  The first is that there is someting called the South distinct enough to have a history.  There are those who, from a variety of standpoints, dispute this premise.  Some seem to feel that the South is evil and that therefore it is best treated as spurious and unreal, a kind of temporary aberration from the norm of a progressive democratic universe…The Second bootlegged premise is that this phenomenon of the South, if admitted to be real, had a life of the mind sufficient to justify an intellectual history.”

We can see the truth of Wilson’s statements regarding those who (for arbitrary reasons) declare the South as “evil” and thus not fitting to be realized in any objective way. 

Could this be?  Could it be true that all the “South” really consists of is a bunch of ignorant rednecks and hillbillies who managed to get themselves coordinated enough at one point in history to battle for their common political interests?  Is the South nothing more than a brief and tragic political movement that was put out before it had a chance to engulf the country in the flames of ignorance?

At work behind such nefarious and insulting insenuations are the doctrines of humanism, the necessary end of which is always autonomous sovereignty for the state.  Consequently, we can measure the encroaching humanistic worldview by how consistently it is played out in the political realm…as freedom fails, so humanism rises.

Exactly why humanism leads necessarily to statism is beyond the scope of this article to demonstrate.  Instead it is more important to focus on the fact that a humanistic worldview seeks to disenfranchise any culture that stands in its way.  This was specifically the case with the American South, and as Gary North points out in the opening quote, should our culture continue to be robbed, plundered, and brutalized, God’s negative sanctions will fall against the nation.

I have yet to study in depth the cultural demographics of the South, although I have purchased the book “Abilon’s Seed” which promises to fill in various gaps.  I highly recommend it to the arden’t Southerner who wishes to free himself from the bonds of statism foisted onto him by government school.

Assuming some level of cultural continuity among Southerners, the question naturally arises of the legitimacy of a humanistic government in the first place, or rather…do ideas make a nation, or does blood kinship?  See the blog on the blog “First Word” that discusses this topic:  http://firstword.us/2008/04/kelsos-gedankenexperiment-two-visions-of-the-conservative-foundation/

The humanist would have us believe that man created ideas will be (and are) the salvation of all mankind!  Consider Gary North’s statements:

Today, we have seen the rise of the messianic State, whose self-appointed task is to heal society through a program of salvation by legislation.  Humanism substitutes the concept of salvation by man’s law for salvation by God’s grace.  It also substitutes its own sanctions for the Bible’s sanctions.  It promises to redeem (rehabilitate) criminals, but then neglects to defend their victims.  – Victim’s Rights, page 9

Lest anyone think Gary North is ignorant of the schemes of the humanistic state, they need only read Huxly’s “Brave New World” Orwell’s “1984″ or read Freud’s views on government. 

Additionally, consider what Erik J. Wielenberg, author of “Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe” has to say about the desired goal of a humanistic society:

In a naturalistic universe, it makes sense to put science, particularly neuroscience, to work in the service of the ancient Platonic task of finding a reliable method of making people virtuous…the suggestion that we try to use science as a means to moral improvement is one that should be taken seriously.

It is clear then, that to the humanist a nation is necessarily bound up and held together by the brilliance of man…brilliance which can and is expected to transcend familial bonds and (as Gary North says) “atomize” individuals in society. 

Less and less are neighbors relied on and communities fostered.  The front porch is traded in for long drives to secluded beaches.  Family rooms are exchanged for individual TVs and personal entertainment devices.  The concept of community is systematically eradicated by the humanist system in favor of an atomized “community” with no passion for others (see “Brave New World.”)

In light of this horrible truth, it is imperritive for the Southern man to stand in support of his culture and declare with the strength that characterized his ancestors, “We will NOT go down quietly, and we DO EXIST!”

Please take the time to sign the petition for the Declaration of Southern Cultural Independence. 

http://www.petitiononline.com/cripps/petition.html

Another Southern Mockery

This is so hilarious, I just had to share it with you guys!

“Ohhh what a litter of pickaninnies she has!!”

What is so great about this “mockumentary” is that, while they intend to be very slanderous and disrespectful to the South, they end up making some knee slappingly hilarious commercials.

COMCAST cable offered this IFC film “On Demand” and a buddy and I watched it.  We couldn’t stop laughing!

While the makers of this film are completely ignorant of the issues involved in the war, the documentary is worth watching, just to laugh at the commercials they put in there.

Recovering Southern History

A while back, I did a movie review of Denzel Washington’s “The Great Debaters.”

In my review, I discussed how terribly this movie portrayed Southerners, and Southern culture. In fact, I was outraged, (although I knew going into the theater that the movie would upset me.)

See my review here:

http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/movie-review-the-great-debators/

A Christian friend of mine was visibly upset when she replied to my review.

She wondered how I could be so ignorant and bigoted.

There was a scene in the movie, when two white hog farmers, forced Forrest Whittaker to pay for a hog that he accidentally ran over with his car. Whittaker had to swallow his pride, and humble himself before these two men (in front of his wife and son.)

I claimed that such a scene was highly unbelievable and misrepresented Southern folk, and Southern culture. (Indeed the movie was one big piece of anti-Southern propaganda.)

My friend claimed, “something like that probably DID happen in the South…“

The problem with my Christian friend, (and with many other Southerners out there today) is that they are completely ignorant of their own heritage and culture.

In this day n’ age of Google, Yahoo, and Dogpile, people are more “knowledgeable” of the facts than ever. The problem is, they are more ignorant of how to string these facts together, or form one big coherent picture than at any other time in America’s history!

When I said above that many Southerners today are ignorant of their heritage and culture; I mean simply that they have accepted an entirely different outlook on the facts of history than that of their Southern ancestors. A different philosophy of history; a different worldview.

This paradigm shift has been purposefully carried out on all levels; from Satan, to Lincoln, down to the common American who chooses to watch TV instead of read books.

Professor Clyde Wilson, in his book “Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture” hits the nail on the head in the first essay of the book, “American Historians and Their History.”

I highly recommend buying this book, and keeping it next to your Bible on the ol’ nightstand.

http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Dixie-Southern-History-Culture/dp/0962384224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216594893&sr=8-1

Wilson highlights the more abstract aspects of history, showing how the historian’s job as a “myth-maker” has become increasingly important in this new era of American intellectualism.

In other words, he’s simply saying: All historians have to approach the facts from SOME sort of view. However, after the “Civil War” historiographical objectivity has become less and less accepted in favor of historians who literally already have a view of the past (I.E. a “myth”) and attempt to make the facts support their myth. (1.)

Wilson provides enough examples to make a pragmatic case on this point, (although he doesn’t get into a strict philosophical defense of this.) (2) One of the more interesting examples he gives, is of the way George Washington is portrayed in many of todays history text books, as well as the way this understanding prevails in the minds of many Americans. To quote Wilson:

Take a tour through Mount Vernon or Monticello and listen to the questions and comments of the typically garrulous visitors. You will see how disingenuously the subject of slavery is skirted around. In the Americans’ minds, Mount Vernon is not an eighteenth-century plantation, it is a mid-west farm that happens to be situated in Virginia. Or get down your child’s encyclopedia, turn to the table of Presidents, and look under “Occupation.” George Washington is a “surveyor,” Thomas Jefferson is a “lawyer,” Andrew Jackson is a “soldier.”

The American consciousness is unable to admit to itself that eight of our first twelve Presidents were Southern plantation owners, not only as their chief occupation but in their primary social identity. (3)

So you see, Wilson realizes that the conflict between North and South, was a conflict arising from two different “views” of American history; a history that is today unbelievable to many and causes inconsistencies in their history. The South was highly suspicious of centralized government, believing man was essentially depraved (evil) and in need of many proper checks and balances to stave off tyranny. The South believed that this was what America was founded on.

The North however, didn’t share the Souths view of history.

Wilson observes:

The very point of the “Civil War” was to decide between two alternative ways of understanding the meaning of America. Otherwise, there would have been no point to the war. But the nature of the war as a contest of alternative social symbolizations (myths) meant that history would have to be orchestrated to support the winning side. The losers must not only be conquered on the field of battle and disenfranchised in the body politic, but they must be discredited. The competitive legitimacy of their alternative view must be suppressed. (4)

So, how do Southerners, (and ultimately Americans) regain our history? How do we resurrect our “myth” of history?

Wilson suggests that a new “myth” of history is currently being constructed over and against the one foisted on America during the Reconstruction period. This new myth surrounds the “diversity” of Americas ethnic past. The onslaught of this new paradigm, is causing many historians to go back to the books so to speak.

If the South is to “rise again” it will happen in the history classes…or perhaps in some form of massive home school movement?

God speed my reconciliation with this legendary friend; a friend I’ve only become aquainted with through nostalgic stories from my grandfather. A friend I was assured is all but dead. A friend who’s decomposing corpse is put on display by Hollywood for all to see. A friend that is spit on by the modern farce of “Southern Culture” (Larry the Cable guy, and CMT, etc.)

Maybe…just maybe, she’s still out there; hiding in the remote recesses of some deep southern town, waiting to carry me away into the wild embrace of freedom.

(1). Every particular instant of past time (history) becomes jumbled into one big mass of memories or circumstances. We couldn’t ever record or recount every single thing! The night I had my first kiss, the crickets were chirping, and the night sky was brilliant! I don’t remember the specific crickets though, nor the moon, nor much of anything for that matter. But you see, my “bias” in this situation causes me to record the kiss over and above the crickets. A guy that studies crickets for a living may have recounted the crickets instead of the boy and girl kissing over in his neighbors yard. So, you see the use of the term “myth” here simply means the historians reconstruction of the events from a particular point of view. It doesn’t mean a “myth” as in Aesops fables or anything.

(2.) See R.J. Rushdoony’s book “The Philosophy of History” for a great introduction to this concept. Also, read Van Til’s book, “Defense of the Faith” to see how we can only draw conclusions about all the particular things that we experience if we start by presupposing the Christian God. I also link to some great articles on this subject in my movie review of the “Great Debaters” (linked to above.)

(3.) Clyde Wilson “Defending Dixie” chapter 1, page 9.

(4.) IBID page 6.