Bilbo’s Prophecy

Sen. Theodore Bilbo sees rivers of blood ahead
Mississippi

Whether it be the fire eaters of the 1850s and 1860s or the Redeemers in the 1890s and 1900s or segregationists of the 1940s and 1950s, Southern reactionaries had an absolutely uncanny ability to predict the future of America.

The winners write the history books: one of these days, I will write a book about the prophecies of the losers which will show how all their warnings about the future have come true.

Last year, African-Americans were responsible for 62 percent of homicide, 55 percent of rape, 77 percent of robbery, 55 percent of aggravated assault, 59 percent of burglary … and 91.5 percent of interracial rape in Alabama.

“If you succeed in the passage of this bill, you will open the floodgates of hell in the South. Raping, mobbing, lynching, race riots, and crime will be increased a thousandfold; and upon your garments and the garments of those who are responsible for the passage of the measure will be the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie, as well as the blood of the perpetrators of these crimes that the red-blooded Anglo-Saxon White Southern men will not tolerate.”
– Sen. Theodore Bilbo

Let no one say that we were not warned.

Every generation of White Southerners for over a 150 years has been engaged in a struggle with Yankees over the race issue. As late as 1890, Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge were pushing the Federal Elections Bill, the precursor of the Voting Rights Act.

Bilbo is referring to the federal anti-lynching bill that was repeatedly killed by Southern filibusters in his own time. He didn’t live to see the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights of 1965 or the Watts Riot or the Los Angeles Riots.

Sen. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi repeatedly introduced legislation in the Senate that would have deported black people to Liberia. The Bilbo plan was to retire the French and British war debts by acquiring territory in West Africa that could have been turned into a colony for African-Americans.

About Hunter Wallace 9525 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Bilbo was a great admirer of Madison Grant having a foot in both the Scientific and Radical Racialist camps. In other words, Bilbo’s repatriation plan was supported by prominent Yankees. Bilbo was also a strong supporter of FDR. The South in general was strongly supportive of FDR with vast shows of support in 1936 and 1940. This despite the fact that FDR enacted Fair Employment Practices eliminating discrimination in both the public and private sector. The greatest advance for civil rights since Reconstruction. Of course it was the North that bore the brunt of desegregation in this duplicitous deal with the devil; that is until Truman attempted to square the circle by forcing it upon the South in 1948. The filibuster delayed the inevitable, but the die was cast.

  2. Laughs.

    There was never a time in New York, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Minnesota when those states had been segregated. Those states never had anti-miscegenation laws. Their public schools were integrated long before 1954.

    Blacks were American citizens with voting rights in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and (either Rhode Island or Connecticut one) before 1860. The Yankees complained bitterly about the failure of other states to recognize the citizenship status of their black citizens.

    By the 1880s, segregation was dead in the Northeast and Midwest. Every state in that region (with the exception of Indiana) had repealed its anti-miscegenation law. I want to say that Maine and Ohio were the last two states to repeal.

    The Northeast and Midwest also banned segregation. They banned racial discrimination. If you practiced segregation in Minnesota, you could be thrown in prison for up to a year.

    http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm

    I’m presently reading “Boston Confronts Jim Crow: 1890 to 1920” by Mark Schneider.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=spwX9a3Xd4sC&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=henry+cabot+lodge+civil+rights+1890&source=bl&ots=y9Ao3lGtnh&sig=FPFEAhcqHP_b595BfNMhuwfGBNU&hl=en&ei=Lf21TrD7Lu642QWJhtHMDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=henry%20cabot%20lodge%20civil%20rights%201890&f=false

    It looks interesting: we are told that nowhere was the problem of the color line more earnestly addressed than in Boston from 1890 to 1920. They urged their fellow Americans to live up to Boston’s best traditions!

  3. I have my doubts that the northern states mentioned were not segregated. California was, in practice if not in law. The courts called it “de facto” segregation, as opposed to the “de jure” segregation of the Jim Crow South. I actually remember seeing my first Negro, when we went way across town to a baseball game. I stared, amazed at how his pink tongue stood out against his black face, and how his palms did not match the back of his hands. Years later, I actually spoke to some Negroes. Four lost Black sailors had somehow gotten to our world, and my kindly father gave them a ride about four miles to a bus stop he knew would get them to the ghetto. Yeah, Negroes were real exotics when I was growing up, and it was no accident. The courts were right to call it segregation, because it was.

  4. Discard,

    You can follow the link to the Jim Crow History website and read the legislative history of every state in America on that subject. Follow the link above.

    We live under “de facto” segregation now. It means Whites living in an overpriced suburban neighborhood or school district and then having to flee when the Black Undertow moves into the area.

    As for “housing discrimination,” that was addressed at the state level in the Northern states long before the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed. The Fair Housing Act was passed to appease blacks after MLK was assassinated.

    There were already plenty of these “Fair Housing” laws though in the North before the system that was pioneered there was imposed on the country by Northern representatives in Congress.

  5. HW: The legislative history is well documented, but it’s not the complete history. Regardless of the laws, California was racially segregated, as its people wanted it to be. I grew up isolated from any Blacks because that’s what White people wanted. (Thanks, Dad.) The LAPD and County Sheriff kept a lid on the Darks, and Whites liked it that way. Fair housing laws were ignored, the Black undertow was kept away, and it was actually the courts that finally forced the Blacks on us. And I’m certain that the northern states that actually had any Blacks did the same, regardless of their legislative histories. The liberals of the time were ceaselessly pointing out racism and discrimination and police brutality, and they were right. White communities practiced deliberate evasion of the fair housing and civil rights laws because they no more believed in them than did George Wallace.

  6. Hunter, you’re not addressing Desmond’s point. Northern elites were largely self described “white supremacists” until the 1930’s. After the reconstruction era, racial consciousness increased in the North to the point that many Northerners were sympathetic to the Confederacy and white revolutionary groups that you have been writing about. The abolitionists declined into oblivion and were replaced by Darwin influenced racialists among Northern elites. That’s why there were millions of Klansman in Northern states. You keep forgetting about this and things like restrictive housing covenants, which were legal segregation.

  7. Hunter, you’re not addressing Desmond’s point. Northern elites were largely self described “white supremacists” until the 1930?s.

    If the North’s elite was committed to “white supremacy,” then why did every single Northern state make a point to repeal their anti-miscegenation laws, to criminalize “racial discrimination,” and to ban segregation and make it a crime?

    Why did they have integrated public schools? Why was every business in the North integrated by law and custom?

    After the reconstruction era, racial consciousness increased in the North to the point that many Northerners were sympathetic to the Confederacy and white revolutionary groups that you have been writing about.

    This is true.

    D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation popularized the Second Klan in the Northern states. The North also retreated from “civil rights” evangelism. It was a gradual process. Daniel Chamberlain, for example, recanted his belief in racial equality, as did Charles Francis Adams.

    The last push for a federal civil rights bill was Henry Cabot Lodge’s Election Bill of 1890. Reconstruction came to be seen as a mistake in the North. The Dunning School of Reconstruction at Columbia University was predominant right down until the 1940s.

    So how do we explain the retreat from Reconstruction and the growth of the Second Klan with the evidence of the dozens of state laws in the North that banned and criminalized segregation?

    You can say that the North became more skeptical of racial equality because of the rise of Darwinism. There was also a spirit of nationalism in the air. America was becoming a world power. Sectional division was something that most Northerners wanted to downplay and forget.

    The Second Klan in the North (its counterpart in the South was still anti-black) was more about keeping the Catholic hordes of Europe out the Protestant North. It was also very much involved in the temperance movement.

    So both stories are true: it became more racialist and retreated from racial equality on the national level, but at the state level it kept pushing for civil rights, and it varies across the North, with the West being unlike the North in many ways.

    The abolitionists declined into oblivion and were replaced by Darwin influenced racialists among Northern elites.

    Follow the links to the two James McPherson books and to Boston Confronts Jim Crow. That’s not exactly what happened. William Lloyd Garrison’s grandson was a founder of the NAACP. His daughter was involved in the women’s suffrage movement.

    These abolitionists moved on to other radical causes in the late nineteenth century. Civil rights was one one cause. Women’s suffrage and temperance and “anti-imperialism” became much more predominant in that period.

    That’s why there were millions of Klansman in Northern states. You keep forgetting about this and things like restrictive housing covenants, which were legal segregation. You keep forgetting about this and things like restrictive housing covenants, which were legal segregation.

    What kind of Klansmen though?

    Was it like the Klan in Birmingham which was explicitly a White working class organization that clashed with the Big Mules? Or was it a Klan that was more opposed to Catholic immigrants and supportive of Prohibition?

  8. In December, we are going to spend a lot of time researching what happened in the North and why Yankeedom collapsed, as it clear that the truth is far more complex that the simplistic WN narrative that “Jews are controlling our minds.”

    We might spend a whole month in the North researching Northern racialism. I’m already positive though that the root cause of the cultural collapse of Yankeedom can be traced to the collapse of its traditional faith, and the embrace of Unitarianism by the Yankee elite in the early nineteenth century.

    That more than anything else is what has unleashed all these utopian social movements. The old Puritan religious impulses are still there, but it has become secularized, and now it misfires in support of all kinds of ridiculous doctrines.

    It is much the same way in Britain where the liberal establishment that has embraced “secular humanism” reeks of a kind of rotten form of Methodism. The worst Jews are also atheists, agnostics, and secularists.

    Why are the Jews so attracted to radical messianic leftwing social movements? As Buchanan pointed out in his book, when the faith dies, the culture dies, and then the people die.

    Diaspora Jewry (the Orthodox excepted) are dying out and their degeneracy is but a symptom of this.

  9. “We live under “de facto” segregation now. It means Whites living in an overpriced suburban neighborhood or school district and then having to flee when the Black Undertow moves into the area.”

    One of the first exemplars of ‘racialist thought’ for me, was reading the phrase: “The rich can always afford their own Apartheid.”

    When Clinton (the Southern integrationist) sent BUTT-UGLY Chelsea to a private school, I realized EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL CLICHE was FALSE. And the truism of that above phrase has been verified, time and again. When I went to work near Cleveland, some decades ago, I was told to ‘stay away’ from certain parts of the town. I was also told that Shaker Heights was a very ‘posh’ area to live- it also happened to be close to the place where I had gotten a job. Cleveland, (even back in the early ’90’s) however, already had their ‘Equality Gestapo’ in place. When calling from 1500 miles away, to find housing, the Equal Housing Bitch said, “We ask you your ethnicity because we want to ensure a ‘mixed race’ environment for everyone.”

    When I said, “But what if I refuse to tell you my race, either over the phone or when I arrive?” She then laid the bombshell on me- “We make assumptions based on your visual appearance, and/or your linguistic dialect as to your race, and fill in the info anyway.” In short, I could NOT rent in Shaker Heights, because I was white! I had to live on the edge of Shaker Square, just before it dropped down to the ‘ghetto’ because I was White, and couldn’t afford to pay an arm and a leg for a ‘full-price apartment’… but the niggers in Section 8 sure could!

    Since then, I have chosen to work and live ONLY where Whites are the predominant ‘minority’ and have never had a mugging, car jacking, or feared for my life on the scale I did that year in Cleveland… Hmmm, wonder why?

    It’s true, and with a vengeance: “The rich can always afford their own Apartheid.” It’s time to dismantle this ‘verkachte’ system.

  10. Hunter, once again you are right on the mark. The debt we owe our villified ancestors is one we can never repay. They truly “spoke the truth to power,” to borrow a phrase from the degenerate enemies of our people.

    We will never have a worthwhile future as long as we are tied and bound to these enemies. Secession remains the only viable alternative to preserve and protect our people from the trepidations of the North.

    The so-called “race aware” Yankees can dissimilate about the truth all they want. If they really are race aware they should be deeply ashamed of their forebears who betrayed both them and us and stop trying to rationalize and make excuses for them.

    Deo Vindice

  11. Apuleius: Why should the descendents of Northern men be ashamed of anything, when the descendents of Southern men who defiled this continent by importing Africans are not ashamed?

  12. There was no “white” supremacy in the South as Bilbo’s quote belies. Bilbo, like so many other Southerners equated “white” with Anglo-Saxon. Even “Pitchfork” Ben wished to erect a triumphal arch to ” liberty, progress and the Anglo-Saxon civilization”. However, let’s concede the point for the sake of argument. The facts still exist that Northern elites, like Grant, supported African repatriation. Northern elites, like Grant, received resistance in the push to close the Mexican border from Southwestern ranchers. The military was segregated and FDR moved to integrate it. Private industry was not coerced to integrate until FDR signed this bill into law. The deep South was overwhelmingly supportive of FDR in 1940 despite the advancing of civil rights. Over 85% of Alabamans supported FDR. In Mississippi 95.7% and in South Carolina, 95.6% of their vote was given to FDR. Astounding, considering his record of advancing the cause of the African-Americans. Only Jews rivaled these numbers. 92% voted for FDR. How is the disconnect explained? Yes Southern senators were able to buy time through filibuster, but by the war’s end, a war that saw the South, as a region, as its greatest supporter, and saw the greatest push for equal rights, since Wilson’s Jews sought the extension of minority rights to be included in the Versailles treaty, can Southerners be abrogated from accepting the responsibility of laying the ground work for their own demise.

    Step after step, Southerners knowingly supported a government(s) that brazenly pursued policies that led, by the 1960s, to their own demise. The trap had been set and Southerners bore significant responsibility for building the cage.

  13. What kind of Klansmen though?

    It was a prohibitionist Klan, but then who were the groups that opposed prohibition. The Catholic Church and the Jewish Synagogue. And yes, in general they were anti=Catholic, but the opposition to Catholic immigration was not solely a phenomena of Northern nativists.

    After their increased immigration to the US in the late 19th century, Italian Americans also became lynching targets, chiefly in the South, where they were recruited for laboring jobs. On March 14, 1891, eleven Italian Americans were lynched in New Orleans after a jury acquitted them in the murder of David Hennessy, an ethnic Irish New Orleans police chief.[20] The eleven were falsely accused of being associated with the Mafia. This incident was one of the largest mass lynchings in U.S. history.[21] A total of twenty Italians were lynched in the 1890s. Although most lynchings of Italian Americans occurred in the South, Italians had not immigrated there in great numbers. Isolated lynchings of Italians also occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

  14. If the Yankees were really for repatriation as you claim, then why didn’t they do it when they had the whip hand after the war? Instead they installed negro Republican governments in all the occupied states to misrule whites in the South. Strange behavior for “white supremacists” indeed. Perhaps separating dishonest political rhetoric from fact remains too difficult for the selective memories of some.

    That great Southerner from Hyde Park, Mississippi, FDR, was a transformational political figure, having started as a Republican like his progressive cousin TR. Failing to get a nomination for office from the “party of Lincoln”, he changed to the Democratic party and began to undermine the party’s traditional stance concerning race. This began the transformation into the Democratic party into what we know now.

    Southerners have never possessed a crystal ball into the future, or we would have never joined the united States to begin with. So Southerners in the 1940’s should have voted for the Republican party, the party of negro rule, who had only recently finished raping the South, right?

    Southerners never brazenly supported Republican (always pro-negro) government, ever. When the Democratic party turned its back on Southerners in the last half of the 20th century, the Republican party cynically began to exploit Southern political homelessness in the Yankee Empire. No Southerner would have dreamed of voting Republican before that. The Republican party began as and remains an anti-Southern party.

    Of course it was Eisenhower (Republican) who mobilized the newly integrated Federal troops (Truman, 1947) against Southerners (just like Lincoln) to “peacefully” integrate schools? Or perhaps you prefer St. Ronald Reagan of Illinois, who cynically exploited Southerners with his empty rhetoric about “states rights” while expanding the Federal beast and of course generously giving us that landmark Southern holiday, MLK day, to undermine what used be celebrated by all Southerners as Lee-Jackson day?

    As a subject people in an involuntary union, we lack any responsibility for the Yankee constructed cage. We simply need to free ourselves from it so we may control our own destiny.

    Ashamed? We have done all humanly possible to prevent the deification of their negro pets by Yankees. We have paid in blood for it. Something no Yankee Jew-hating white supremacist has NEVER done.

    Deo Vindice

  15. Denise, the opposition to newly-arrived Italians in the South was relatively short-lived and most certainly related to the Yankee nativist influence in Southern affairs following Reconstruction.

    Italians were encouraged to come to Louisiana after the war to work in the sugar cane plantations because the newly emancipated negroes refused to work there anymore. Louisiana was felt to be compatible for them, since it was a “Catholic” state. The only state with parishes instead of counties.

    Louisiana has always been a mix of peoples, French Cajun, Spanish Creole, English Southerners, Jews, negroes, etc… It’s the part of the South that both defies and sometimes confirms stereotypes. The earliest beginnings of the Mafia in the united States are to be found in New Orleans.

    You might also be surprised to learn that the large numbers of Baptists in the South are a result of a Northern missionary religious movement from Connecticut into North Carolina. That’s right, the modern majority religion of the South has Yankee origins.

    Following Reconstruction, lynching was the way Southerners enacted a rough form of “frontier justice.” Southerners resorted to this because the military occupation carpetbagger governments were just as dysfunctional as the BRA government is today. The Italian immigrants were unfortunately caught in the crossfire. They recovered.

    This is close to home for me personally, being half “Southern” Italian and half mostly “English” via Jamestown (FFV) with a tiny bit of German and Cherokee thrown in for good measure.

    Deo Vindice

  16. @Apuleius

    “And we have paid for it in blood”..?

    So have plenty of innocent “Yankees”. Don’t act like you Southerners have some monopoly on suffering under negroid rule. Argue all the complexities you like, but unignorable truth is that there wouldn’t be a nigger problem or EBT or BRA or any of that shit if THE SOUTH hadn’t brought those monsters here to begin with. Take responsibility for that.

    All this Yankee/Northerner blame-fest is a joke. There us just as much blood on your hands as any Union conscript… It’s like if you intentionally built a building with a dangerous, faulty foundation, which caused the structure to pose a safety hazard to it’s surroundings, then blindly fought the buildings condemning, and then held a lifelong, personal grudge against the poor sucker who was just doing his job by demolishing it.

  17. Divide and Rule works well for our enemys. This Yank and Reb stuff sounds like a planted thing from infiltrators. Whites in Boston did not want Busing. In Penn State on the Western side, people are racially aware. Read Tom Metzers ARTICLES – North Vs South on his website White Aryan Resistance. The comments how White Southerners leaving their babies with Black Nannys and the babies sucking the tits…..maybe that is whats wrong with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton…..

  18. Desmond,

    There was no “white” supremacy in the South as Bilbo’s quote belies. Bilbo, like so many other Southerners equated “white” with Anglo-Saxon.

    No, the term “white supremacy” was ubiquitously used in the South. The Democratic Party was explicitly the “White Man’s Party.” Occasionally, the term “Anglo-Saxon” (as Southerners are overwhelmingly of British ancestry) was used, but “White” was far more commonly used.

    Why should the descendents of Northern men be ashamed of anything, when the descendents of Southern men who defiled this continent by importing Africans are not ashamed?

    Because we could have easily solved that problem if we had been left alone. It wasn’t a problem either. The Confederacy was one of the richest countries in the world. The Southern economy was worth more than entire Northern economy of commerce and manufacturing.

    Why is America now in its present sorry condition? Because the North won the War Between the States. It has acted out all of its various utopian fantasies: gay rights, gender equality, social equality, racial equality, expressive individualism, human rights, etc.

    The South today is nothing more than a colony of the North. The degenerate culture that we complain about is American culture. The laws that we complain about are American laws. The leaders that we complain about are American leaders.

    he facts still exist that Northern elites, like Grant, supported African repatriation

    No, the facts are that Southerners like Theodore Bilbo and Walter Plecker were the ones who insisted on maintaining the color line, whereas Madison Grant and his fellow Northern eugenicists were far more interested in subracial differences among Whites and sterilizing the White trash.

    Northern elites, like Grant, received resistance in the push to close the Mexican border from Southwestern ranchers. The military was segregated and FDR moved to integrate it.

    FDR didn’t integrate the military. It was integrated by Truman in the Korean War because Northern Democrats were demanding integration and he needed their support to win reelection.

    Private industry was not coerced to integrate until FDR signed this bill into law. The deep South was overwhelmingly supportive of FDR in 1940 despite the advancing of civil rights.

    FDR did almost nothing to “advance civil rights.” Even the New Deal agencies like the WPA and CCC was segregated. It was the Republican candidate ran on a “civil rights platform” in 1940. Wendell Wilkie even wrote a book called “One World.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie

    ver 85% of Alabamans supported FDR. In Mississippi 95.7% and in South Carolina, 95.6% of their vote was given to FDR. Astounding, considering his record of advancing the cause of the African-Americans. Only Jews rivaled these numbers. 92% voted for FDR. How is the disconnect explained?

    Very easily.

    The Republican Party, with the brief exception of Herbert Hoover, who wanted a “lily White” Republican Party, had consistently support “civil rights” ever since Reconstruction. After all, it was the party of the North, the party of the 14th Amendment, and the party that proudly integrated the Northern states in the 1870s and 1880s.

    The Republican Party ran on a “civil rights platform” in 1936, 1940, and 1944. The Democratic Party didn’t adopt a “civil rights platform” until 1948 (because Northern Democrats like Hubert Humphrey demanded it) and that prompted the Dixiecrat revolt.

    FDR did almost nothing to advance the cause of “civil rights.” He didn’t even support the federal anti-lynching bill which was blocked in his era. Blacks were Republicans until Goldwater campaigned against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Yes Southern senators were able to buy time through filibuster, but by the war’s end, a war that saw the South, as a region, as its greatest supporter, and saw the greatest push for equal rights, since Wilson’s Jews sought the extension of minority rights to be included in the Versailles treaty, can Southerners be abrogated from accepting the responsibility of laying the ground work for their own demise.

    This is absurd.

    The White House itself was resegregated under Wilson for the first time since the Lincoln administration. Wilson segregated all kinds of federal agencies. Jim Crow was thriving under Wilson.

    Unlike previous Republican presidents, Herbert Hoover and FDR were remarkable in the fact that they did not support the Civil Rights Movement, which is why W.E.B. DuBois was so despondent in the 1930s, and was about ready to give up in that time period.

    OTOH, Republicans had repeatedly pushed the anti-lynching bill and other types of civil rights legislation that was defeated by Southerners in Congress.

    Step after step, Southerners knowingly supported a government(s) that brazenly pursued policies that led, by the 1960s, to their own demise. The trap had been set and Southerners bore significant responsibility for building the cage.

    The truth is that the South consistently resisted the “Civil Rights Movement” as it existed in the North from the 1860s right down until the 1960s. Throughout that entire period, the South had opposed Radical Reconstruction and had succeeded in overthrowing it, and then the South had opposed all the successors to federal civil rights legislation, like the Lodge Bill of 1890, and then the White House was resegregated under Wilson, and the South blocked the anti-lynching bill multiple times and introduced bills to send blacks back to Africa.

    What happened?

    Well, the South was sold out by its Democratic allies in the Northern states, which after the Second World War began pushing for a “civil rights plank.” By far the most well known agitator for this was Hubert Humphrey who was the proudest supporter of the Civil Rights of 1964.

    That resulted in the split in the Democratic Party in 1948, the first defections to the Republicans, Goldwater’s success in the Deep South, and then the final collapse of the New Deal coalition in 1968 when Nixon defeated Humphrey.

  19. Discard,

    The only Americans who brought negroes to America were Yankees operating out of New England and especially out of Rhode Island. They brought thousands of negroes to America on their New England trading ships and thousands more to Latin America and the Caribbean.

    What was the first slave state? It was Massachusetts. Yes, slavery existed in the North from the 1600s until the mid-1800s. And then, when New York and New Jersey were emancipating their last slaves in the 1830s, and after Yankees (including many abolitionists) had made sure to sell their own slaves to the South and pocket the money, they hypocritically turned around on a dime and started attacking the South over slavery, and demanding immediate emancipation.

    Yes, the North had been involved in slavery for TWO HUNDRED YEARS, and slavery here in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley existed for LESS THAN THIRTY YEARS, but we are responsible for slavery, which at the exact moment when the North rid itself of slavery, after taking TWO HUNDRED YEARS, it had to be abolished in the South overnight.

  20. You’re right. I’ve never really considered it from the viewpoint of the innocent Yankee shipping firms in Rhode Island and New England that suffered so under the slave trade.

    I don’t feel too sorry for all the innocent Yankees who lost their money on John Brown’s abortive attempt to turn the South into Haiti. I do feel a great deal of sympathy for the Yankee soldiers of the War, valiant but misused as they were.

    I guess Reconstruction was rather rough on the innocent Yankees, too. It must be awfully hard economically exploiting people through taxation so severe they lose all their property. Not to mention setting up corrupt governments run by your cronies and their negro allies. Those damn Southerners should not have made them do it.

    Southerners obviously caused the spontaneous disappearance of segregation which happened all by itself. After inviting the freedom riders down and organizing economic boycotts of themselves, those Southerners had the temerity to act like they were not responsible for the implementation of BRA. The nerve!

    Maybe in the abstract we were all slaveholders and that’s what really counts. Maybe segregation wasn’t really a working system and we should now resort to genocide to put the genie back in the bottle. Yeah, that will work, won’t it?

    Thanks for “putting me straight.” No other Yankee has ever tried to do that for me.

    Deo Vindice

  21. Re: Voting patterns, etc. in the 20th century:

    Very well stated, Apuleius. Maybe more of these Americans would understand how Southerners could vote for FDR if you ask them to consider the types of politicians post 1945 Germans “vote” for. For some reason they relate to Hitlerian racialism but refuse to see it in “their own countrymen”.

  22. This is my first time posting on here. I can’t believe some of the comments above. I never knew for instance that the South was it’s own country in colonial times, demanding that slaves be imported into America. Really? Some of you are making stuff up here.

    As a Southerner I find it blatantly offensive how Northerners in this movement try to act as if the South suffered very little at the hands of the North throughout history. I also find this whole idea offensive that racial consciousness is just as abundant up North as it is down here. It is NOT.

    They say that stereotypes exist for a reason. I would like my Yankee friends on here to explain where all these stereotypes come from in mainstream society about Southerners being so insular , backwards and racist? Did they just pop up out of no where?

    I am sorry, but I take offense to this idea that we are supposed to ignore the excessive abuse that has been inflicted on white Southerners continuously since the Civil War. I thought our white friends up North involved in this movement had a little more sympathy for us.

  23. I do agree with you, Hunter. Refighting old fights will get us nowhere. If the northern WN’s can find a solution for their woes, more power to them. Having been suckled by negroes, I’m afraid the taint that I have acquired prevents me from endorsing genocide or transportation as a solution. I just don’t believe it will work. It smacks of another fantasy ideology to me.

    Pretending that we have some basis for unity is wishful thinking in the extreme. In the South, our political outlook is Jeffersonian. That is our legacy, not theirs. They are seeking a racial utopia. I don’t think we Southerners can follow this lead, honestly. Perhaps the truest light for our future is alluded to in this recent article by the esteemed Dr. Clyde Wilson, founding member of the League of the South:
    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/11/03/a-little-rebellion/

    I think the future resolution of our woes here in the South will more likely resemble the segregation of our not too distant past. Before this can ever happen I believe permanent separation from the alien culture of the North and political system of the Federal government is inevitable. If we remain with them, any solution we find has a half life of about 50 or so years, before they begin to oppose it once more.

    Without this separation we have no hope of preserving our people or our culture. At that point all will be lost and irrevocably gone. Perhaps it is too late already. I’m sure our northern WN friends will not regret our demise, which they feel is well deserved.

    Deo Vindice

  24. Thank you kindly for the compliment, Bill.

    Hunter, can you ever imagine abandoning your home in Alabama? When all is said and done we Southerners belong to this land which we love so dearly. It is where our ancestors are buried and its claims supercede all others. At least to me, anyway. I’ll bet any amount of money that most Southerners feel the way I do, instinctively.

    Where does that instinct come from?

    Deo Vindice

  25. Apuleius,

    The solution to our predicament is an ethnostate like Quebec, Ireland, Serbia, Germany, or Poland – a state that is based on blood, soil, religion, history, tradition, and heritage – not on liberal abstractions.

    As for White Nationalism, it is a hopelessly confused utopian social reform movement. Dixie was the “White Man’s Country.” The “White Revolution” was the Redemption of the South in 1876.

    Northern WNs have taken the South’s traditional racial ideal – the “White Man’s Country” – and turned it into a Yankee abstraction that refers to no specific identifiable place. They aren’t loyal to any specific place. They are ideologues who are loyal to a proposition nation. They intend to move there.

    Again, it is a very confused movement: WNs stress that they are not “white supremacists,” but “white supremacy” meant that Whites were the dominant race in Dixie. You can’t have a “White ethnostate,” much less a Jew-free White ethnostate, until Whites physically control some portion of the United States.

    You can’t have a “White Man’s Country” or a “White Republic” (the abstract term used by WN intellectuals) without first establishing “white supremacy.” All this talk about a “White Republic” is a hazy nostalgic folk memory of the Jim Crow South.

    The only realistic way to establish a “White Republic” would be for Whites to rise to power within some portion of the United States. They would have to assert their racial dominance in that region. Then the realization of the racial ideal would be a gradual process. It wouldn’t happen overnight.

    Once again, the whole concept is inseparable from Dixie, because the “White people” have always been Southerners. White racial consciousness has always been a part of our culture.

    What about secession? The only part of America that ever seceded from the United States and fought a war against the Union was the Confederacy.

  26. I’m reviewing a book about my own home here in Alabama this week. I will save my comments on that subject for the essay.

    It will suffice to say that my home in Alabama happens to be an unusual place within the state: it was the capital of the Cotton Kingdom here, the heart of the plantation belt, the most “Old South” of the “Old South” cities in Alabama, and the most staunchly secessionist and Confederate county in the state.

    John Gill Shorter was the Governor of Confederate Alabama. Braxton Bragg Comer was Governor of Alabama at the height of Jim Crow. George Wallace, our most famous resident, was also from here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gill_Shorter
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Comer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

    You can get a copy of “The Eufaula Regency: Alabama’s Most Celebrated Secessionist Faction” from the Eufaula Heritage Association. 🙂

  27. No, the facts are that Southerners like Theodore Bilbo and Walter Plecker were the ones who insisted on maintaining the color line, whereas Madison Grant and his fellow Northern eugenicists were far more interested in subracial differences among Whites and sterilizing the White trash.

    You’ve never heard of Margaret Sanger?

    The Mexican border:

    “From 1926 to 1930, the House and Senate Immigration Committees held hearings on closing the back door. The usual Grantians (Richards M Bradley, Roy L. Garis, Francis H. Kinnicutt, Demarest Lloyd, James H. Patten, and John B. Trevor) testified, and Harry H. Laughlin submitted another one of his special reports, showing that ”Mexican immigrants are making a reconquest of the Southwest/*99
    Naturally, many of the same groups that testified in 1924 against European restriction
    also showed up to oppose Mexican restriction, including, as the Immigration Restriction League put it, “racial zealots … of Hebrew origin” whose “racial interests and prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest.” But unlike in 1924, the Jews were joined this time by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of sugar beet manufacturers, livestock representatives, produce farmers, railroad executives, and mining interests, who put up a formidable fight in Congress. Few of them denied that the Mexicans were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic disaster for the Southwest. And besides, they wanted Congress to understand that the Mexicans were “timid” workers who always “knew their place” and were willing to work “all day or night and the next day without ever making a kick.” Certainly the “wetbacks” were less dangerous to society than the Negroes. The head of the American Cattle Raiser’s Association, for instance, told the Senate that he always let his three daughters ride the range with Mexicans, and the girls were “just as safe as if they had been with me…. Do you suppose we would send them out with a bunch of negroes? We would never think of such a thing.” 100

    Patrician Racist: The Evolution of Madison Grant
    by
    Jonathan Peter Spiro

  28. They say that stereotypes exist for a reason. I would like my Yankee friends on here to explain where all these stereotypes come from in mainstream society about Southerners being so insular , backwards and racist? Did they just pop up out of no where?

    Southerners are not the only ones to be classified as ignorant backwards racists.

    Until the 1940s, Canada had been a poor country, with much of the meanness poverty tends to produce. Pre-war Canadians often knew little beyond their own distractions and neighbourhoods, which were small, largely homogeneous, and exclusive. There was usually no room in them for Japanese or Chinese Canadians, and scant tolerance for Jews or blacks or those with ‘different’ attitudes or beliefs. 22

    And that taxonomy did not originate from some Yankee.

  29. You’ve never heard of Margaret Sanger?

    I have Jonathan Spiro’s biography of Madison Grant, Defending the Master Race. It is somewhere on my bookshelf. It has been some time now since I read it. Margaret Sanger is famous for her starring role in the “pro-choice movement.”

    The most striking thing about Grant, Sanger, Laughlin, Davenport and the rest of the Yankee racialists of the early 20th century was their obsession with subracial differences among Whites – Nordics, Alpines, Meds – and their emphasis on controlling the heredity of the “white trash.”

    Meanwhile, while all this was happening, while Grant and his Nordicist allies were worried about the Poles and Italians settling in the North, and the imbecility of Appalachian Whites, millions of blacks were moving to Northern cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, Cleveland, etc.

    That is why nearly half of all the blacks in the entire United States live in the Northeast and Midwest.

    Where was Madison Grant though on that issue? Where was Charles Davenport? The North was being invaded by the Black Undertow. You would think their top priority would have been to preserve the color line or to repulse the invasion. The Northern states didn’t have any anti-miscegenation laws or segregation laws.

    But no, they were strangely quiet on that issue.

    It was Walter Plecker and John Powell in Virginia who were pioneering tougher anti-miscegenation laws and advancing the color line.

    “John Powell (September 6 ? 1882 – August 15, 1963) was an American pianist, ethnomusicologist and composer. He helped found the White Top Folk Festival, which promoted music of the people in the Appalachian Mountains.
    Believing in segregation and white supremacy, Powell was one of the founders of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, which soon had numerous posts in Virginia. He contributed to the drafting and passage of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which institutionalized the one-drop rule by classifying as black (colored) anyone with any African ancestry, regardless of the individual’s or family’s identification and recognized community.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Plecker
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Powell_(musician)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

    Note: The Mexicans were kicked out of the Southwest under the Hoover administration during the Great Depression.

    It was also the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which Plecker and Powell had toiled so hard for in the 1920s, that was struck down in the Loving vs. Virginia decision.

  30. This is 2011 not 1800s or 1900s. It is not a Yank Reb thing! The White Race is threatened on a global scale, its not just North and South — but the whole world. In order for White Race to survive it needs a solution. White Whiggers will never change and will kill for their masters and march to their death. Pastor Martin Lindstedts Triubulation – The Third and Final is in process right now! Scot Rite Baptist Preachers, Diest Judeo Masons, Lawyers, Politicians, Judges – Sicko White Whigger Cops — The Third and Final will get them all……

  31. Margaret Sanger is also [in]famous for her position vis-a-vis black sterilization.

    Where was Grant? Proposing and lobbying for a ‘back to Africa’ movement.

    It seems the sons of the South were not too keen on Meds either. Lynching all those Italians is a fine display of racial solidarity. Even Bilbo was a member of the second Klan. Why are you against Nordic racial survival? Why was the South the strongest supporter (Neutrality Act, Draft Extension, Lend-Lease) of FDR’s plans for war against Germany? Embittered by the oppostion to slavery by the 48ers in Kansas? Contemptuous of the Texa-Deutchers refusal to join the sons of the South in their battle against the vile Yankee?

    How then is the Southern contempt for white trash explained? It being white man’s country and all.

    Life and Labor in the Old South

    Book by Ulrich Bonnell Phillips; Little, Brown, 1929.

    Infestations by this parasite might have been relieved quite readily by medicine or prevented by the mere wearing of shoes; but its existence unsuspected, no prevention or cure was applied. The victims, ” lank, lean, angular and bony, with . . . a natural stupidity or dullness of intellect that almost surpasses belief “, 5 “the most degraded race of human beings claiming an AngloSaxon origin that can be found on the face of the earth”, 6 suffered the contumely of their contemporaries who might better have given sympathy if they could not afford relief.

    These wretchedly genuine “po’ white trash”, scorned even by the slaves, could not embrace opportunities.

    Po’ white trash held in contempt by their betters, Negro slaves, in white man’s country; God forbid!

    Grant et al fight for repatriation of blacks in the North and a closure of the Mexican border in the Southwest while sons of the Confederacy, in Texas, are quite prepared to trust the well being of their daughters to the vicissitudes of Mex morality in order to undermine the wages of a fellow white man. Southern ‘White supremacy’ in its finest moment!

  32. The disapprobation of Thaddeus Stevens.

    Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens had proposed a bill to redistribute white land to ex-slaves. The bill failed miserably. In a speech before the rump-Congress (“rump”: no ex-CSA delegates yet), Representative Chandler of New York — speaking for the voting majority —

    [Rep. Chandler:] Calling out Stevens himself: “When I listened to the venerable gentleman in that speech, tottering as he seemed on the brink of the grave, so full of bitterness and uncharitableness, I could but feel that the “remnant of his days,” where great or “small,” were better spent in the exercise of that charity and forgiveness with which alone he could expect the favor of the final Conqueror, our divine Master” (113).

    “Sir, the dominion of this continent belongs to the white man. He formed the nations which now extend across it. He developed the civilization which those nations protect and adorn. His is the mastery, and you might as well seek to check this planet in its course around the sun as to curb the white man in his dominion in America. The white race is fulfilling the destiny of their race and the law of their God. This bill from this point of view is too feeble to deserve but a passing notice.”

    After hearing Mr. Chandler’s presentation, the House then voted to let the bill die that day, never to be reconsidered. Thus ended Thaddeus Stevens mad dream for social re-engineering. He himself would lie dead less than a year later.

    Mr. Chandler also objected to confiscation and land distribution as an elaborate plan for buying the votes of the freedmen for the Republican Party:

    “It is thought by this scheme to check the political power of the Democratic party of the free States and build up a petty African principality in the ten southern States under the dominion of certain political religious fanatics” (112).

    “Sir, this bill to me seems a mad, bad, worthless plan to deluge the South in blood. It can have no other result. It will cost millions of treasure, thousands of lives, and years of public distress in every department of life. The black man must work for his own living, earn his own wages, and buy his own land. This Government has no power and no right to make a special pensioner of him” (111).

    “A constituency created, maintained, and provided for in land and homesteads by the Government they are called on to elect is a monstrous anomaly, and is only fit for tyranny.” (112).

    “It ought to be enough to condemn all these measure of military governments and belligerent confiscations that they are the desperate resort of a political party to perpetuate its party power; that they are all devised, not by statesmen in the interest of the country, but by politicians in the interest of party” (116).

    http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/40-acres-and-mule-denied-why-freedmen.html

  33. HW at 1:42 AM and 2:00 AM, Nov 7: By what measure was the Southern economy worth more than the Northern? Nonsense. The North had 72% of the railroad milage, 81% of the bank deposits, and 85% of the industrial production. It also had a hugely productive agricultural sector, of free White farmers feeding the North and much of Europe too. The South’s planter elite was perpetually in debt to British and Northern banks, as we are now to China, because they were so wealthy?
    And just how did the South plan on resolving the slavery problem? Free the slaves? Deport them back to Africa? And impoverish their ruling class? Not likely. Can you cite any statements by leading slave-owning Southerners about how they planned to rid the South of the African defilement? Like you wrote at 11:59 AM on the Eric Foner post, the South was a slave society, unlike the North. Don’t blame the Yankee sea captains. They were shits for running slaves, but they didn’t force anybody to buy their cargo. Blacks were auctioned for high prices because the Southern elite wanted them. And by their slave system, they enriched themselves and impoverished their own people.
    Nobody here, to my knowledge, has defended Yankee slavers, reconstruction, or Thaddeus Stevens. Why do you lump all Yankees together, as though we were all lefty scum?

  34. Courtney from Alabama (From AmRen?): During the colonial period, the South bought most of the slaves because they wanted most of the slaves. Nobody forced them to use slaves, no Yankee slaver dumped their cargo on the docks and told the plantation owners to take them or else. If there was no demand, the captains would have sold them in Brazil or some other place.

    Who here has said that the South did not suffer at the hands of the North? Has anyone denied that the antebellum South was a tariff cow for Northern manufacturers? That Reconstruction was a bad thing? That the 14th Amendment was not passed illigitimately?

    Did anybody here say that racial awareness is as prevalent up north as down south? As long as I’ve been reading this site, commenters have been pointing out how so many their Northern neighbors are clueless about race, particularly in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota that have a lot of Scandinavians. All anyone who has an ounce of sense has said is that many, if not most Northerners don’t like Blacks either.

    The stereotype of Southerners being insular, backwards, and racist comes from the observation that, compared to Northerners, Southerners ARE insular, backwards, and racist. As you yourself insist, Yankees are NOT as racially conscious as Southerners, they are in fact more racist.
    The picture of Southerners as backwards stems from the fact that the South had a much lower literacy rate than the North, a consequence of the relative lack of public schools. (I don’t know what the relative literacy rates of northern and southern Whites are today.) HW has pointed out the difference between North and South in schooling. And despite the efforts of Harold Mann to create factory schools to produce a docile working class, the typical Northern school well into the 20th Century was a local school, run by a local school board that stood for election. Had the southern aristocracy cared about their White neighbors, the South would not have been so poor.
    As for insularity, it is demonstrated by this whole topic, this whole Yankees-are-this-or-that bullshit. A less polite but more accurate word would be bigotry. Nobody commenting here hates the South, but many of us object to being lumped in with those who do. And if you’re going to drag up historical animosities that ought to have died a century ago, at least acknowledge that the South started the ball rolling by creating a slave society, defiling the continent with Africans, and keeping their own people poor.

  35. Apulieus: I don’t speak for WN, whoever they may be. The taxonomy of racially aware people escapes me. However, as a White man who grew up in a White place, and who has witnessed the arrival of Black and Brown and Oriental hordes who once there were none, I can easily envision an all-White world. This shit came here unwanted and it can go back. If you’ve grown up around Darks, you may very well find them tolerable as long as they behave. To me, and I’d guess to others who grew up all-White, they are a pollutant. What you call a racial utopia call I used to call normal.

  36. Discard,

    However, as a White man who grew up in a White place, and who has witnessed the arrival of Black and Brown and Oriental hordes who once there were none, I can easily envision an all-White world.

    Who voted for the Immigration Act of 1965?

  37. Discard,

    Courtney from Alabama (From AmRen?): During the colonial period, the South bought most of the slaves because they wanted most of the slaves.

    During the colonial period, Massachusetts was the first slave state, the Transatlantic Slave Trade was run out of New England, and every colony was a slave state, and that didn’t begin to change until the American Revolution.

    Nobody forced them to use slaves, no Yankee slaver dumped their cargo on the docks and told the plantation owners to take them or else. If there was no demand, the captains would have sold them in Brazil or some other place.

    The Yankee slave traders brought far more negroes to the West Indies than they ever brought to Virginia and South Carolina. In fact, they had a near monopoly on the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the American colonies, and their entire economy was based on exports to the West Indies.

    The stereotype of Southerners being insular, backwards, and racist comes from the observation that, compared to Northerners, Southerners ARE insular, backwards, and racist.

    There is definitely some truth to this: the South is conservative, not “progressive”; therefore, it is “backwards” in the eyes of Northern liberals; it is insular, as Southerners are not migratory, Southerners are a homogeneous ethnic group, unlike Northerners; and we are “racist” because Dixie was a caste based society for three hundred years, unlike the North.

    The picture of Southerners as backwards stems from the fact that the South had a much lower literacy rate than the North, a consequence of the relative lack of public schools

    Very true.

    Southerners have always been suspicious of public schools. Unlike the North, we didn’t need compulsory public education to “educate” millions of mindless industrial drones. In a heavily rural, agrarian society, you don’t need compulsory mass public education.

    HW has pointed out the difference between North and South in schooling.

    The Southern public education system couldn’t be more different from its Northern counterparts.

    In the South, we had an education system that catered to the needs of a leisured aristocratic political class, which is why the South produced men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John C. Calhoun who were deeply familiar with the Greco-Roman classics and English political theory, and who especially enjoyed the study of the art of rhetoric.

    The triumph of the North in the War Between the States and its ideal of liberal capitalist democracy happens to be a major reason why great statesmen like John C. Calhoun or Thomas Jefferson are virtually unknown in the United States. Instead, we have thousands of political prostitutes who are the political prostitutes of industrial corporations and finance capital.

    Had the southern aristocracy cared about their White neighbors, the South would not have been so poor.

    The South was the richer section of the United States before the War Between the States. Mississippi was one of the richest states in America. There were more millionaires in Natchez than anywhere in America.

    As for the South being horrendously poor, that was the result of the War Between the States, when the negro was “liberated” and the Yankee capitalist “free labor system” was imposed on the South, and everyone (rich, middle class, poor) lost their land and became sharecroppers.

    Yes, it was the North’s victory in the War Between the States that made the South a land of destitute poverty for generations. The North became the richer section because it had massive tariffs that protected its industries from foreign competition and because it systematically redistributed wealth within the Union through the scheme of Union Army pensions.

    And if you’re going to drag up historical animosities that ought to have died a century ago, at least acknowledge that the South started the ball rolling by creating a slave society, defiling the continent with Africans, and keeping their own people poor.

    (1) First, there isn’t a Southerner here who doesn’t wish the historical animosities would have died a century ago, but those animosities were revived in the 1950s and 1960s when the Northern Congress voted 9 to 1 to impose the Second Reconstruction on the South.

    (2) Second, the South was the richest part of the country before the War Between the States, when the South was the dominant section in the Union, and it became the poorest after the Union victory in 1865.

    (3) Third, as you know should know from living in California, these Northern utopian schemes go far beyond the race issue. Just look at San Francisco or the shit that the California legislature in Sacramento is coming up with all the time.

    Remember, we have homosexuals serving openly in the military now, we have gay marriage in several states, we have full political and social equality for women and young adults, we got universities that have been captured by feminists, we have “critical whiteness” studies in our universities, we got legalized abortion, a pornography industry, etc.

    If there wasn’t a single negro in America, these utopian schemes would have brought them here. Look no further than Minnesota and Maine where Yankees and Scandinavians decided to import raw Somalians to Minneapolis and Portland for the purpose of creating more “racial diversity” in the region!

  38. Re: Desmond

    (1) Margaret Sanger was a feminist who was a pioneer of abortion and birth control. If you want to see her handiwork on display, check out the European continent will undergo rapid depopulation in the 21st century.

    (2) Madison Grant was passionately devoted to the cause of Nordic preservation and preserving endangered species in the Western states like the buffalo. The major crusade of his life was obviously the Immigration Act of 1924 which was designed to keep the Poles, the Greeks, and the Italians out of the Northern states.

    (3) The Klan in the North and the Klan in the South were completely different organizations. The Northern Klan was heavily involved in Prohibition and opposing Catholic immigration from Europe. It owes very little to the original Klan of the Reconstruction era.

    (4) The South was the strongest supporter of FDR because it was the most impoverished region of the United States and because FDR was a Democrat and because Southern Democrats seized power in Congress where their seniority enabled them to start turning the economic tide for the first time since Reconstruction.

    (5) The hatred of the “white trash” in the South stems from the anti-Confederates who preyed upon their neighbors in the Southern lowlands during the War Between the States.

    (6) Madison Grant fought tirelessly for the Immigration Act of 1924 to close America to Southern and Eastern Europeans. He also fight tirelessly to preserve endangered plant and wildlife species in the Western states.

    Meanwhile, half of all the negroes in America moved to the Northern states, a flood of negroes moved to the North’s industrial cities. Charles Davenport and Madison Grant spent their time pushing for sterilization laws against the white trash plague.

    Again, they were focused on sterilizing the White underclass and resisting European immigration when there wasn’t a single Jim Crow law or a single anti-miscegenation law in the Northeast during that time period.

    (7) The Mexicans in the Southwest were expelled on two occasions: under Herbert Hoover, during the Great Depression, and by Dwight Eisenhower in Operation Wetback.

  39. Discard,

    By what measure was the Southern economy worth more than the Northern? Nonsense. The North had 72% of the railroad milage, 81% of the bank deposits, and 85% of the industrial production.

    That’s true.

    The South was growing over half the cotton in the entire world at that time which accounted for over half of America’s exports. The cotton was used by British textile mils to produce cloth which was the first commodity of the Industrial Revolution.

    The combined value of the North’s industries, its railroads, and its commerce was dwarfed by the capital that was invested in slavery. The internal improvements in the North were financed by government spending. The revenues of the government came from Southern taxes.

    It also had a hugely productive agricultural sector, of free White farmers feeding the North and much of Europe too.

    It was also the poorer section of the United States.

    The South’s planter elite was perpetually in debt to British and Northern banks, as we are now to China, because they were so wealthy?

    There were more millionaires in Natchez than anywhere in America. Mississippi was one of the richest states in America. The North hated the planter class largely because they were so wealthy.

    And just how did the South plan on resolving the slavery problem? Free the slaves? Deport them back to Africa? And impoverish their ruling class? Not likely.

    The Southern plan to end slavery was the same as the Northern plan which ended that institution. When slavery was no longer a viable institution in the South, we would have sold off our slaves, preserved our capital, and invested in other industries.

    How did the North end slavery? Did it just “abolish” slavery? Did it just voluntarily decide to nuke the foundation of its own economy?

    The North sold its own slaves to the South. After many of these abolitionists had sold their own slaves, they started hypocritically attacking Southerners for slavery, even though slavery had existed in the North for over two hundred years, and only for a few decades in most of the South.

    The North became morally indignant about slavery at the exact point when the North no longer had any investment in the institution. Their moral hypocrisy was also completely driven by self interest.

    Can you cite any statements by leading slave-owning Southerners about how they planned to rid the South of the African defilement?

    Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, discusses that in the book he wrote about the War Between the States. The slaves would have been drained from the Upper South to the Lower South, from the Eastern South to the Western South, and from there to Latin America and the Caribbean.

    Personally, I think his plan made a hell of a lot more sense than abolishing slavery and making negroes into American citizens and then using the military to create negro dictatorships in the South to support the “civil rights” of the freedmen.

    Like you wrote at 11:59 AM on the Eric Foner post, the South was a slave society, unlike the North. Don’t blame the Yankee sea captains. They were shits for running slaves, but they didn’t force anybody to buy their cargo.

    Don’t blame the Yankees: they are not responsible for marching into the South at the head of negro armies to burn down our cities, not responsible for the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment, not responsible for elevating negroes over Whites in South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi for years, not responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which they alone supported, and they are not responsible for the Immigration Act of 1965, which they alone supported, or the DREAM Act, which they continue to push for over our opposition.

    Yankees are not responsible for the Obama presidency either. Even though it was the Blue States that put Obama in the White House, where over 50 percent of Whites voted for Obama, the Yankees are not responsible for this, nor are they responsible for Pelosi and Reid in the House and Senate.

    The Jews are responsible. They are controlling our minds.

    This Jewish mind control forces almost 70 percent of Whites in Vermont and 60 percent of Whites in Oregon to vote for Obama while only 10 percent of Whites in Alabama and 11 percent of Whites in Mississippi felt compelled to make that choice.

    Blacks were auctioned for high prices because the Southern elite wanted them. And by their slave system, they enriched themselves and impoverished their own people.

    The Southern people were impoverished after the War Between the States destroyed the Southern economy, the South’s major cities like Richmond, Atlanta, and Charleston, after the carpetbaggers had descended upon the South like vultures in Reconstruction, and after decades of Republican control of the White House and Congress from Lincoln to FDR.

    Nobody here, to my knowledge, has defended Yankee slavers, reconstruction, or Thaddeus Stevens. Why do you lump all Yankees together, as though we were all lefty scum?

    No one objects to calling out the Jews for their misbehavior. Why is that?

  40. Jews are controlling White minds. I’s just dismayed at the relentless evidence thsat White mids are so weak, and so gullible.

    It’s all done via media. There IS no Northern/Yankee culture outside of Make a Buck/Jerseylicious, on Talmudvision. I actually SEE this in in day to day life. The Whites I know, n my lilly White beautiful rural region, believe WHAT EVER Beck tells them. If they are GOP. If they are Dems – and there are a of of Dems around here – and they do whatever the Democratic controllers tell them to do. I mean WHATEVER. Servile slaves, they are. But MEAN. Vicious, and mean.

    Hunter – speaking as a Yankee by birth – do EVERYTHING you can to get secession. EVERYTHING. It’s a battle ot the death. Life or Death.

  41. HW at 6:53 AM: You write as if we lived in some kind of republic or democracy. When the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed, we were assured that it would not change the racial demographics of the U.S. The people, South or North, did not choose to turn SoCal into Mexico, or Lewiston, Maine, into Somalia. The immigration issue alone ought make it clear how much say the people have in their governments. Most people have no idea what’s going on behind closed doors, and a lot of reporters are paid to keep it that way. The people, ultimately, are responsible for their rulers, if only because they pay for their crimes, but as a practical matter the average White American is about as culpable for the state of things as the average Russian.

  42. Discard,

    You write as if we lived in some kind of republic or democracy. When the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed, we were assured that it would not change the racial demographics of the U.S. The people, South or North, did not choose to turn SoCal into Mexico, or Lewiston, Maine, into Somalia

    We can’t sit here and honestly pretend there are not real differences between the North and the South on immigration: Southerners in Congress voted against the Immigration Act of 1965, against the IRCA amnesty of 1984, against the Immigration Act of 1990, against “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” and against the DREAM Act.

    So what we are wondering down here is why can’t the Northern states vote against Barack Hussein Obama? Why can’t they vote against the DREAM Act? Instead, every single representative in the House from New England voted for the DREAM Act, which passed the House under Pelosi?

    If we can vote 9 to 1 against Obama in Alabama and Mississippi, why can’t the Northern states? Why can’t they stop themselves from voting for Democrats who support amnesty for illegal aliens? Why can’t they take our side for a change?

    What about California? Over 50 percent of Whites in California voted for Obama. How on earth can you turn the tide when Whites are voting for racial suicide out there?

  43. The picture of Southerners as backwards stems from the fact that the South had a much lower literacy rate than the North, a consequence of the relative lack of public schools

    This appears to be something of a myth. The Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 1 By Eric Alan Hanushek, Finis Welch p.75 suggests that S. Whites had a literacy rate, in 1850, of 91.5% compared to N. Whites at 96.9%. This compares with English Canada at 93%, 85%: Prussia (can read and write) 61%: France (can read) 52%: England (can read and write). It’s unclear that S. Whites were any less literate than there Northern counterparts.

    http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/why_the_germans_why_the_jews#c116364

  44. HW at 7:18 and 7:56 AM: The first African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, the year before the Mayflower landed in New England. Virginia, not Massachusetts, was the first slave-owning colony. Matters of primacy aside, the South was the place where African slavery thrived, where fortunes were built on African labor, where the wealthy chose to own Negroes. As you wrote, “…Dixie was a caste based society for 300 years, unlike the North.” Nobody has said that the North did not have slavery, or that some Northern sea captains didn’t make their fortunes in slave running. But the South was the slave culture, the place where slavery did not die out, because their ruling class chose to make it so. This tar baby was theirs. If any historical guilt exists, the South will need to bear the bulk of the weight. Myself, I don’t believe in historical guilt. I don’t hate the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, but if any of them want to weep and wail over Hiroshima, they’d better address the wrongs of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Just as Southerners with historical grudges ought face their own (non-existent in my view) responsibility.

    Regarding Southern education: As I pointed out at 4:05 AM, the typical Northern school was not one of Horace Mann’s factories, but a local institution, controlled by a locally elected school board. My father went to such a school. His high school had two teachers, and 18 (I think) students in his graduating class, hardly an education factory. What, exactly, is wrong with learning to read, write, and do arithmetic? Well, it does make it harder for the rich to cheat you. Have you ever read Jesse Stuart? He was a writer and schoolteacher from Greenup, Kentucky. He once wrote about a farmer whose child, a student of Jesse’s, pointed out that he was being regularly cheated on his dealings with the local miller. The Southern elites opposed public schooling because widespread literacy and numeracy make it harder to exploit people.
    As for education catering to the needs of an aristocratic, leisured, political class, could they not spare a little bit of their wealth to help out their racial kin? Pay a few property taxes? As if being familiar with the Greco-Roman classics and English political theorists and the art of rhetoric requires that your social inferiors be ignorant. Were John Adams or Oliver Wendell Holmes unacquainted with the classics? Did the presence of so many literate farmers in Massachusetts somehow hinder their learning? The Southern elite opposed education because it gave them a huge advantage over the common man. Their attitude was very similar to modern liberal elites, who, since they can’t abolish the public schools, settle for ruining them by integration. Their own kids, of course, go to private academies, like the Southern planters had for their children.

    Southern wealth: If the South was so much richer than the North in the 1850s, why were 81% of the bank deposits of the whole country in the North? Because the planter class was land and slave rich, and cash poor. The richest of them were absentee owners who left the actual operation of their farms to hired overseers, while they went to parties and balls in Atlanta or New Orleans or wherever, just like the British aristocracy they admired so. Rather than tending to business and making a profit on their crops, they borrowed money and mortgaged their land, which is why their money went to Northern and English banks. Nigger rich, you could say.
    Furthermore, the number of millionaires is no measure of wealth, it’s a measure of wealth distribution. Isn’t the wealthiest man in the world a Mexican, the guy who owns all the cell phone networks?
    The Southern small farmer was much poorer than his Northern counterpart, and always had been. His house and barn were small and poorly built, his fences ill-mended. The country roads and bridges were badly constructed and maintained. I wasn’t there, but I take the word of Grady McWhiney and Forrest McDonald, eminent Southern historians. A man who has to bust his ass just to feed a family, because the rich have taken the best land and because he has to compete with slave labor, hasn’t the time or resources to keep up his property. Union soldiers from the Western armies were always shocked when they first saw the Southern farms, so much shabbier than their own. The WBTS destroyed much of the South, but it was pretty poor to begin with.
    Lastly, the internal improvements of the North before the War were paid for either by private investors or state governments. Southern Congressmen refused to approve spending on infrastructure, rightly figuring that it would simply be a wealth transfer from the South to the North. That’s why the transcontinental railroad was only financed in 1862.

    If the historical animosities were revived in the 50s and 60s, why are you so willing to continue them? Desegregation happened 30 years before you were born, I lived through it, not you. My high school had turned to shit by the time I returned from the service. Every day, the buses brought the black occupiers to my neighborhood. If you want historical animosities to die, don’t roll in them. You read three books on Reconstruction written by Jews, and now its Damn those Yankees time.

    The South had no plan to end slavery. Jeff Davis’s after the fact musings are meaningless. What did he say when he owned slaves? Where were they planning on selling them, and what price could they have gotten? Slavery was abolished in Latin America, even Brazil, by the 1880s, much earlier in Mexico. The fact is, they were making money, or borrowing it, while the sun shined. There was no clean way out, for anybody. That’s what makes it a tragedy, instead of a crime. The North, hypocritical as it was, had the option of selling their slaves down South. Dixie did not. Gradual emancipation, as some of the Southern Founders had in mind, would still have left the South awash in dumb Blacks. Forced repatriation, cruel but necessary, remains the best option.

  45. HW at 6:54 PM: I don’t pretend that there are not real differences. I think that they are more a matter of class than of regional origin. I don’t deny that regional origin plays a large part, but I think that social class counts for more. When I was in the service, there was no North/South divide that I could see.
    The racial egalitarians are overwhelmingly from the educated classes. They largely think as they do because they’ve been taught that it is the right way to think. The Reds took over higher education a long time ago. But note how many of them talk multi-cult, and live White. Have you ever seen one of those free papers in newsracks around college campuses or in upscale neighborhoods? Full of leftist politics and ads for luxury goods and services? The cognitive dissonance can make your ears go blind, but these people are trained. Many of them are genuinely nice people, honestly motivated by decent instincts. They’re not evil, they’re confused. Don’t some commenters here use the phrases, “Those who can see” and “Racially aware”? These people can’t see and they’re not aware.
    Think about the Southern weakness for military adventures abroad. How do Southern politicians vote on war and arms? Are Southerners bloodthirsty apes? I mean the White ones? No, but just as clever manipulators talk educated liberals into supporting national suicide in the name of fairness, Neocons take advantage of the South’s laudable respect for the martial virtues. The South has an advantage in their practical knowledge of Negroes. Yankees who have gained that same knowledge do not vote for Blacks.
    Recall your criticism of White Nationalists who managed to offend every possible ally by insulting Christianity, the flag, mom and apple pie? Yankees, Americans of English ancestry who live outside of the South, are your best possible ally.

  46. Discard,

    the first African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, the year before the Mayflower landed in New England. Virginia, not Massachusetts, was the first slave-owning colony.

    This isn’t true.

    The first blacks were sold by Dutch traders in Virginia, but their status was indeterminate for many years. They were probably indentured servants like the Whites who had been brought to Virginia and Barbados.

    Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery.

    Matters of primacy aside, the South was the place where African slavery thrived, where fortunes were built on African labor, where the wealthy chose to own Negroes.

    This is true.

    Slavery thrived in the South because we have a subtropical climate here that allowed us to grow cash crops like race, tobacco, and long staple cotton. It was not because Northerners had any special sauce. Slavery existed in the North until the American Revolution.

    As you wrote, “…Dixie was a caste based society for 300 years, unlike the North.” Nobody has said that the North did not have slavery, or that some Northern sea captains didn’t make their fortunes in slave running.

    (1) It was New England that brought the overwhelming majority of slaves to America. It was the navigation section of the Union. I’m referring to Americans here, not to the Dutch, Spanish, or English.

    (2) New England’s economy was based on the slave trade and exports to the West Indies.

    But the South was the slave culture, the place where slavery did not die out, because their ruling class chose to make it so. This tar baby was theirs.

    Slavery finally died out in the North in the 1830s and 1840s – after slavery had existed there for two hundred years, then suddenly the North became morally indignant about the issue, after selling their own slaves to the South to preserve their own capital.

    If any historical guilt exists, the South will need to bear the bulk of the weight. Myself, I don’t believe in historical guilt.

    The North bears virtually all the historical guilt. If Yankees had simply been content to mind their own business, slavery would have died out in the South like it had died out in the North, and we would have rid ourselves of blacks peacefully.

    Why couldn’t the South have solved the problem in the same manner as the North? Why was immediate abolition required? Why couldn’t the matter have been dealt with rationally like it was already being dealt with in Kentucky and Missouri and Maryland?

    I don’t hate the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, but if any of them want to weep and wail over Hiroshima, they’d better address the wrongs of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Just as Southerners with historical grudges ought face their own (non-existent in my view) responsibility.

    Slavery existed in the North for two hundred years. The North got rid of slavery by selling its own slaves to the South, not by deporting them back to Africa.

    If the North had left the South alone, then the Upper South would have sold its slaves to the Lower South (this was already happening) and the Eastern Slaves would have exported its slaves to the Western South (this too was already happening), and the Western South would have exported its slaves to Latin America, thereby ridding ourselves of blacks in the long run.

    Regarding Southern education: As I pointed out at 4:05 AM, the typical Northern school was not one of Horace Mann’s factories, but a local institution, controlled by a locally elected school board. My father went to such a school. His high school had two teachers, and 18 (I think) students in his graduating class, hardly an education factory.

    When Alexis de Tocqueville came to America, one of the things that struck him most about the American colonies was how the North was a conformist society that got all of its ideas from public schools and newspapers. They had a hive mind mentality up there

    What, exactly, is wrong with learning to read, write, and do arithmetic?

    There is nothing wrong with learning to read, write, and do arithmetic. There were schools in the South at the time. We didn’t need mass public education though because we were a rural society. We didn’t need to systematically brainwash millions of foreign immigrants into “assimilating” into the Yankee worldview.

    Well, it does make it harder for the rich to cheat you. … The Southern elites opposed public schooling because widespread literacy and numeracy make it harder to exploit people.

    The North’s free labor capitalist system was and always has been and still is based upon exploiting people. It is also far more tyrannical because the mass media and public education are the primary instruments which are used to brainwash the masses.

    As for the myth of exploited Southerners, back in those days, the typical White Southerner owned and farmed his own land, and paid no income taxes. He was a self sufficient yeoman farmer. He was really and truly “independent of the system,” unlike his degraded posterity who are totally dependent upon massive corporations and government spending for his livelihood.

    As for education catering to the needs of an aristocratic, leisured, political class, could they not spare a little bit of their wealth to help out their racial kin? Pay a few property taxes?

    Public education was nothing more than a tool for Yankee capitalists to dominate and exploit the masses by brainwashing them into their stupid ideology. The purpose of public education was not to educate the masses. It was to strip them of their culture and turn them into mindless conformist drones.

    That is why the Ku Klan Klan became notorious for burning down the public schools. The Reconstruction governments in the South made the creation of a public school system their top priority. The priority of the public school system was to teach “tolerance” to Southern children.

    Hey, guess what? That’s exactly what happens in our public schools today where MLK and Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth are lionized as heroes.

    As if being familiar with the Greco-Roman classics and English political theorists and the art of rhetoric requires that your social inferiors be ignorant. Were John Adams or Oliver Wendell Holmes unacquainted with the classics?

    John Adams, do you mean the progenitor of the Alien and Sedition Acts? Adams was a typical Yankee in that he wanted to control public opinion through censorship and centralization of the government.

    Did the presence of so many literate farmers in Massachusetts somehow hinder their learning? The Southern elite opposed education because it gave them a huge advantage over the common man.

    The Southern common man was a yeoman farmer who self sufficient in almost every conceivable way. He was distrustful of elitist schemes like public education. It was actually the Southern common man that created the Ku Klux Klan to attack the Yankee public schools.

    Their attitude was very similar to modern liberal elites, who, since they can’t abolish the public schools, settle for ruining them by integration. Their own kids, of course, go to private academies, like the Southern planters had for their children.

    Before the War Between the States, New England had a integrated public education system that was supported by taxpayers. Blacks were citizens of New England states. They had voting rights. They could marry White women.

    It doesn’t take a 20/20 investigation to figure out that “the New England way” became synonymous with “the American way” after the Republican victory in the War Between the States.

    Where did free market capitalism come from in the South? Where did this degenerate ideal of equality come from? Where did liberal democracy come from? Where did the quack theories in taxpayer funded public schools come from?

    When did it come here? How did it come here? Why did it come here?

    Southern wealth: If the South was so much richer than the North in the 1850s, why were 81% of the bank deposits of the whole country in the North? Because the planter class was land and slave rich, and cash poor.

    The North was the poorer section of the Union that used its growing numbers in Congress to tax the South and redistribute our wealth to the North. That is why it was the part of the country that relentlessly drove to increase the power of the federal government.

    The richest of them were absentee owners who left the actual operation of their farms to hired overseers, while they went to parties and balls in Atlanta or New Orleans or wherever, just like the British aristocracy they admired so.

    Good for them.

    The absolute last thing that was desirable here was the North’s ideal of aristocracy: that is, whoever was the most successful at acquiring their wealth through the capitalist system rose to elite status, men like Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan.

    How did the Jews become so powerful in America? They followed “the New England way” to elite status in the Northern states.

    Rather than tending to business and making a profit on their crops, they borrowed money and mortgaged their land, which is why their money went to Northern and English banks. Nigger rich, you could say.

    Furthermore, the number of millionaires is no measure of wealth, it’s a measure of wealth distribution. Isn’t the wealthiest man in the world a Mexican, the guy who owns all the cell phone networks?

    It shows you where the revenues of the federal government are coming from. In the 19th Century, it was the South that funded the federal government. The Union couldn’t afford Southern independence. It would have bankrupted the North.

    The Southern small farmer was much poorer than his Northern counterpart, and always had been. His house and barn were small and poorly built, his fences ill-mended. The country roads and bridges were badly constructed and maintained.

    That’s because the Scots-Irish have never been like Yankees in that respect.

    I wasn’t there, but I take the word of Grady McWhiney and Forrest McDonald, eminent Southern historians. A man who has to bust his ass just to feed a family, because the rich have taken the best land and because he has to compete with slave labor, hasn’t the time or resources to keep up his property.

    How were yeoman farmers competing with slave labor? It is a Yankee myth that slavery impoverished the average White Southerner.

    How do we know this? Because when slavery was abolished by the Yankees and their Glorious Union which made negroes our equals, the yeoman farmers lost their land and become sharecroppers. The South was poorer in the 1920s that it had been in the 1860s.

    Union soldiers from the Western armies were always shocked when they first saw the Southern farms, so much shabbier than their own. The WBTS destroyed much of the South, but it was pretty poor to begin with.

    Oh, the Union soldiers!

    The Union soldiers who destroyed virtually all our railroads here, who ravaged our farms, who burned down our bridges, who annihilated the infrastructure of the South, who burned down several of our biggest cities, who plundered and looted virtually every town, city, and homestead they came across, and who decapitated the foundation of our economy destroying billions of dollars in capital, and who invaded our country, conquered us, ended our independence, and as a cherry on top, saved the Union to make blacks our equals!

    Lastly, the internal improvements of the North before the War were paid for either by private investors or state governments.

    They were paid for by taxing the South and spending the money in the North. That’s why the South hated “internal improvements.” It still hates government spending today for that reason.

    Southern Congressmen refused to approve spending on infrastructure, rightly figuring that it would simply be a wealth transfer from the South to the North. That’s why the transcontinental railroad was only financed in 1862.

    The North’s tariff policy, of course, was designed to cripple the South to prop up Yankee industry. After decades of “economic nationalism” and “anti-slavery,” the South was poorer and more miserable than it had ever been in all of its previous history.

    If the historical animosities were revived in the 50s and 60s, why are you so willing to continue them?

    Yankees are allied with Jews, with Hispanics, with Asians, and with Negroid-Americans … AGAINST US. Why is Barack Hussein Obama in the White House? Because the Northern states put him there. Why is Eric “My People” Holder suing Alabama and South Carolina with Mexico? Because the Northern states put him there.

    Desegregation happened 30 years before you were born, I lived through it, not you. My high school had turned to shit by the time I returned from the service.

    Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Northern Congress voted 9 to 1 for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They had to vote as a 9 to 1 bipartisan supermajority to overcome a Southern filibuster that lasted for 57 days.

    Every day, the buses brought the black occupiers to my neighborhood. If you want historical animosities to die, don’t roll in them. You read three books on Reconstruction written by Jews, and now its Damn those Yankees time.

    Don’t blame the Yankees.

    No, they are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the Barack Hussein Obama presidency. They are not responsible for gay marriage, for second-wave feminism, for abortion, for the Civil Rights Movement, for women’s suffrage, for the counterculture, etc.

    The North voted 9 to 1 for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The North voted for the DREAM Act last year. It was voted down in the South. The North voted for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Immigration Act of 1965.

    Don’t blame Yankees.

    Even though are allied with blacks, not with Southern Whites, even though the system we got today is the same exact one they imposed on us in Reconstruction, we are not supposed to blame them.

    It is the Jews fault. The Jews are responsible for 60 percent of Whites in Oregon voting for Obama. He might have got 10 percent of the vote in Alabama, but that is just how Jewish mind control works.

    The South had no plan to end slavery. Jeff Davis’s after the fact musings are meaningless. What did he say when he owned slaves?

    In 1860, slavery was dying in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Virginia, and Missouri. Those states were exporting their slaves to the Lower South. That is why West Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky are three of the whitest states in America.

    Where were they planning on selling them, and what price could they have gotten? Slavery was abolished in Latin America, even Brazil, by the 1880s, much earlier in Mexico.

    Of course it was.

    The shattering defeat of slavery in the Confederacy by the Union Army guaranteed the extinction of slavery in Brazil and Cuba. It guaranteed that blacks would become citizens of those countries and they wouldn’t be transported back to Africa because Yankees and their likeminded philanthropic British allies found that to be “inhumane.”

    The fact is, they were making money, or borrowing it, while the sun shined. There was no clean way out, for anybody.

    I disagree.

    We could have gotten rid of blacks. We could have dealt with that issue. The presence of blacks in the South wasn’t nearly so bad as being in the Union with Yankees.

    That’s what makes it a tragedy, instead of a crime. The North, hypocritical as it was, had the option of selling their slaves down South. Dixie did not.

    Yes, the North sold its own slaves to the South. Then it demanded immediate abolition of slavery in the South. Then it made blacks citizens for the sole purpose of using them as Republican voters to dominate the Union.

    Gradual emancipation, as some of the Southern Founders had in mind, would still have left the South awash in dumb Blacks. Forced repatriation, cruel but necessary, remains the best option.

    “Forced repatriation” died in the 1830s when the Yankees began to identify anti-slavery with abolition. Then it died when the Union won its glorious victory and made blacks citizens.

  47. Discard,

    I don’t pretend that there are not real differences. I think that they are more a matter of class than of regional origin. I don’t deny that regional origin plays a large part, but I think that social class counts for more. When I was in the service, there was no North/South divide that I could see.

    It looks to me like the North has never been like the South: in terms of anti-miscegenation laws, segregation laws, its economic system, its political system, its crazy obsession with utopian social movements, and its present infatuation with Obama, the North is still unlike the South.

    The racial egalitarians are overwhelmingly from the educated classes. They largely think as they do because they’ve been taught that it is the right way to think. The Reds took over higher education a long time ago.

    So there were no racial egalitarians here before “the Jews” took over? How did blacks become American citizens then? How can you explain blacks ruling Whites in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina? How can you explain anti-discrimination laws like the 15th Amendment? How could you explain blacks having citizenship in New England before 1860?

    Many of them are genuinely nice people, honestly motivated by decent instincts. They’re not evil, they’re confused. Don’t some commenters here use the phrases, “Those who can see” and “Racially aware”? These people can’t see and they’re not aware.

    If we separated ourselves from the North, those people would finally cease to be our problem. Those people are destroying our culture. The overwhelming majority of them live in the Northern states.

    Think about the Southern weakness for military adventures abroad. How do Southern politicians vote on war and arms? Are Southerners bloodthirsty apes? I mean the White ones?

    Let that be our problem.

    If we dissolved the Union, Southern military adventures wouldn’t be your problem. You could establish a national boycott of Israel in the name of human rights while sponsoring diversity to settle in Minnesota and Maine.

    No, but just as clever manipulators talk educated liberals into supporting national suicide in the name of fairness, Neocons take advantage of the South’s laudable respect for the martial virtues. The South has an advantage in their practical knowledge of Negroes. Yankees who have gained that same knowledge do not vote for Blacks.

    Why is Barack Hussein Obama sitting in the White House? Why is Eric Holder suing us here in Alabama? It is because the Northern states voted for him in 2008. They are going to vote for him again in 2012.

    Recall your criticism of White Nationalists who managed to offend every possible ally by insulting Christianity, the flag, mom and apple pie? Yankees, Americans of English ancestry who live outside of the South, are your best possible ally.

    Are they really our best possible ally?

    From my perspective, it looks more like they are allied with Jews, Hispanics, and “African-Americans.” They have certainly done everything in their power to ensure that our borders remain open, that blacks are subsidized by White taxpayers, and that blacks lord over us, and to demonize any and all expression of White racial identity.

    Next year, the Yankees will again demonstrate that they are allied with Al Sharpton, Abe Foxman, and Luis Gutierrez by voting for Barack Hussein Obama in 2012.

  48. I think Hunter’s comments, while many of them are brilliant show his idealized viewpoint of what he believes about Southern Society Pre-1861. The fact is although I would strongly prefer it to what we have now, IT WAS NOT PRO-WHITE, IT WAS PRO-SLAVERY. The two are not mutually the same thing.

    The South before 1861 did not have the same beliefs about Race-Mixing it had after 1877. In fact it was extremely inconsistent from one state to another, as each state set their own blood percentage laws to reckon nonwhite status. In most states, a person who was 1/8 or less Negro was legally white under the law. North Carolina itself did not outlaw voting for Negroes until 1835 and did not outlaw interracial marriage until 1838. Alabama never outlawed interracial marriage in its antebellum days and although pure Negroes would have never approached a white woman, mixed blood Creoles did cohabitate with and marry white trash. Louisiana legally banned miscegenation in 1724 but it wasn’t enforced universally, leading to mixing as well.

    Interracial marriage between Whites and American Indians was unenforced as well, in fact both Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry endorsed interracial marriage between whites and Indians, believing it would assimilate the savages Henry even going so far as to offer tax breaks for white men to do so.

    The nightmare of all this mixing was not addressed until after the evil war when YANKEE EUGENICISTS introduced the One-Drop Rule. The South had before that point reckoned Negritude by blood percentage and your own truthfulness. Ben Tillman’s brother George said this in the South Carolina Legislature in 1895.

    “If the law is made as it now stands respectable families in Aiken, Barnwell, Colleton, and Orangeburg will be denied the right to intermarry among people with whom they are now associated and identified. At least one hundred families would be affected to my knowledge. They have sent good soldiers to the Confederate Army, and are now landowners and taxpayers. Those men served creditably, and it would be unjust and disgraceful to embarrass them in this way. It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of… colored blood.”

    Would a Free Southern Confederacy have addressed the race mixing problem? The Bourbons who were in charge seemed not to care about them, it was the Populists afterward who fought for ALL WHITE PEOPLE. As racial science improved, I think ideas would have changed yes, however to look back at 1861 and say it was perfect is wrong although IT IS STILL A TRILLION TIMES BETTER THAN NOW!!!

  49. As for the The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, it was assembled in 1854 as the Knights Of The Golden Circle in Lexington Kentucky and its headquarters was in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Pulaski Tennessee founders story is a whole lot of rot sold to the idiots. The word kuklos is circle in Greek, meaning Knights of the Circle it was the same group. It was an extension of Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

    Masonic Friends in the Northern states funded and armed the Klan, you want to tell me a bunch of broke Southern soldiers showed up and with barely enough money to eat were able to build an Invisible Empire? More lies, the Invisible Empire was already there and had been for years. The First Klan even had Jewish and Catholic members. Even one Klan book claimed Yankee Officer and President William McKinley was associated with them. Doubtful but who knows.

    The Second Klan in 1915 was concerned with a national approach and with the Immigration boom after 1870, addressed Immigrants and Negroes both. In the North, where the overall Negro population was herded into the cities usually in a Jewish area, they were largely incapable of mayhem as they were in Dixie. Obviously its focus would be on the larger danger of Jews. Its focus on Prohibition was heavy in the South as most members were Southern Baptists and Baptists are rabid prohibitionists even today. They went through the woods busting and beating up moonshiners.

    Neither the First Generation nor the Second Generation Klan liked bombing or killing, they preferred beatings and intimidation, which worked well. The Black Legion, which were a group of Nighthawks who formed their own group, began bombing and killing people mostly in Michigan until the FBI popped them in 1936. They even burned down Father Coughlin, the Nazi Priest’s Church. Yankee Klan members taught the Southern boys how to throw bombs. They even made a movie with Bogart about them in 1936.

    There has not actually been a Ku Klux Klan since 1944, when the IRS seized the copyrighted name and the organization for back taxes. Since then all there is is small groups using the moniker.

Comments are closed.