French Regrets: Civil War Memory In France

How do we explain the existence of this hideous New York butch lesbian greeting us every night on national television?

France

In the aftermath of the War Between the States, the French came to regret their failure to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy. The defeat of the Confederacy was reinterpreted as an epochal defeat for France, Europe, and Western civilization.

The following excerpts comes from a fascinating book by Philippe Roger called The American Enemy: The History of French Anti-Americanism. It explains how the term “Yankee” became a pejorative synonym for American in  Europe.

There is a discussion about the rise of the Yankee, how the Yankee became synonymous with the American after the War Between the States, and how the Yankee woman became a dominatrix and lascivious sovereign over the henpecked American man in a perverted society, which had menacing imperial ambitions as its gaze turned toward Old Europe.

When General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, the project of Western civilization in North America effectively came to a crashing end. BRA must be seen in the context of other radical utopian social movements that swept Yankeeland in the years that followed.

After liberating the negro and elevating African-Americans over Whites in the Southern states, the same Radicals turned their attention to the next three great reform movements: civil rights, temperance, and women’s suffrage.

That is why the 14th Amendment (negro citizenship), the 15th Amendment (anti-discrimination), the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage) and the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) are now part of the Constitution.

“The return to the Civil War after a twenty-year latency period was an inaugural moment for the anti-American discourse, which chose as its star actor its preferred villain, the Yankee. This was because, for the French commentators of the 1880s, the war’s most tangible outcome was less the abolition of slavery (they would take pleasure in saying that emancipation had destroyed the South without improving the black’s situation) than the “Yankee” takeover of the United States’ entire territory and wealth. Beyond the ideological differences, the North’s victory was retrospectively analyzed as a failure for France. Anti-Americanism was anchored in regrets over a lost opportunity. Just recently, General Robert E. Lee’s capitulation had been nothing more than the forgettable epilogue to a very foreign war. Now, all of a sudden, doubt was taking hold. What if the whole chessboard of the world had changed? Those were the questions gnawing at the tardy chroniclers of a war that had been lost not only by the South, but, it would seem, by France as well.

One regret tormented the French: their nonintervention. The republican Gaillardet’s 1883 conclusions fell in line a posteriori with Southern propaganda and the official imperial press: France ought to have thrown all its efforts into helping the South win, thereby dividing the Union. Moreover, “strictly speaking, the South was constitutionally in its rights, by the federal pact and the very act of American independence.” The former Jacobin did not shrink from the most nitpicky legalism, and his republican regrets look just like the emperor’s most cautious wishes. Napoleon III was not accused not of collusion with the South, but of timid weakness toward the North: “Once Napoleon III had come to share England’s [anti-North] views, what should the two European powers have done? Not just recognize the Southern Confederacy’s independence … but also form a defensive and offensive military alliance with the Confederacy to force the North into peace.” Alas! Instead of taking this “straight and courageous path, England and France followed a different one, one that was pusillanimous and convoluted.” This was a considerable revision and a spectacular change of perspective. During the war, liberal associations and militant republicans had bitterly reproached the imperial government for its overly favorable stance toward the “slave owners” and overly reserved one toward the North. Now the accusation was reversed: the empire should have intervened on the South’s behalf and used all of France and England’s military might to tip the scales! Instead, the two countries’ inertia had allowed a fearsome reunion of the divided states to take place, under the North’s iron rule.

But it got worse. France and England were not equally responsible for the fiasco. Great Britain was obviously the loser in the situation, insofar as a reunited United States with immense resources would become its industrial competitor, hamper its trade, and before long make claims to being a great naval power. In the long run, though, the negative outcome for England would be offset by a phenomenon Gaillardet considered essential – and one that would become a French obsession in the last decade of the nineteenth century: the American continent’s Anglo-Saxonization. The new, post-Civil War United States’ imperialist impulse would be combined with the Anglo-Saxon race’s rise to power within the Union itself … Crushing the South was a decisive step in the plan for domination. But it was just one step. As early as 1865, the conquering race had started look farther afield. It was already eyeing other prey.

In 1900, that was all over. The coexistence of very different connoted uses belonged to a forgotten past. Not that there was perfect agreement about the referent; the leeway for person interpretation remained fairly wide. (Lanson’s Yankee, for instance, is synonymous with “nouveau riche”; he is “the billionaire who has not yet cleaned himself up, the business-man who, in the struggle for money, starts seeing money as the only goal in life.”) But the very possibility of a positive use was ruled out. In fact, the inexorable shift to the pejorative had started in the 1860s. The Civil War had three main effects. Until then, the Yankee had been a geographically hazy figure, found in New England or else the “North” of the United States, or even the entire North American continent; he was now assimilated with the “Northerner,” as opposed to the “Southerner.” At the time, pro-South war propaganda definitively gave the word a negative connotation. While Lincoln’s America was singing “Yankee Doodle,” only the North’s enemies used the word Yankee in Europe. (Its supporters said “the Union” or “Federals.”) Monopolized as it was by hostile pronouncements, the term was definitively taken out of all noncontentious circulation. In the end, the last stage of an evolution spurred on by the Civil War was that the North’s victory led the French to retool the word’s meaning. The Yankees (Unionists) had become the masters of the whole country, so all of (white) America would be considered “yankee country.” We have observed this with the early anti-Americans of the 1880s: Yankee designates, with denigrating overtones, the North American in general. The word’s prior multiplicity of meanings was consolidated and stabilized: Yankee had become the generic pejorative for the Homo americanus nordicus, excluding the Indians and the blacks. . .

The fact was that in less than a generation, the American woman, still discreet in the works of writers like Gaillardet and absent from those of Mandat-Grancey, had taken center stage in French descriptions and analyses. The feminist movement and “suffragism” certainly had a hand in this, at least indirectly. It is hard to confirm, other than militant literature, most French texts written before 1914 do not mention the topic. Le Correspondant, generally attentive to all things American, flippantly evoked “the gynocratic movement,” confirming that in America it had “its most important base of operations. That is where its general staff holds its deliberations and where its assault columns against male tyranny receive their orders.” But on the whole, the French press did not bring up the topic, not even ironically. Most books about America gave it no space at all. Male chroniclers’ probable lack of interest or enthusiasm was coupled with the unshakable conviction that woman was the “real sovereign of the great Republic,” as Urbain Gohier would repeat ten years after Crosnier de Varigny.

North America was a gynocracy. This affirmation was dogmatic or at least axiomatic in France as of the 1890s. The American woman’s supremacy was thus twofold. The superiority of her “type” also corresponded to the empire she had taken over the opposite sex. The same cliche was tirelessly repeated, somewhere between fascination, fear, and reproach: the American woman ruled over the country just as she governed her home. The American man was her servant, or even her slave. The Yankee husband was not master of the house. He was lucky if he was not treated too badly! What Frederic Gaillardet had once called the “republican duchess” had moved up from the footstool to the throne. And she occupied it as a despot rather than a sovereign.

Joan Walsh of San Francisco regularly appears on CNN and MSNBC

The omnipotence the French saw American women wielding did not make them laugh, even at the husbands’ expense. This was not time for sly witticisms or colorful pleasantries; this upside-down world did not enchant its explorers. … But it was clear that their heart was not in it – that they feared the American woman was setting a bad example, and a contagious one. …

The author of La Femme aux Etats-Unis firmly believed that “the ‘dame,’ not satisfied with having also conquered the New World, is well on the way to Americanizing the old one. ” One more push and that born dominatrix would substitute the right to flirt for the rights of man and the citizen, because “the freedom to flirt is as sacred and inalienable in the United States as are the immortal principles of 1789 are in our country. …

“Mrs. Flora Thompson wants to colonize France – and probably Europe, too. Here, she is imprudently betraying the secret wishes of the most notorious of her imperialist compatriots, who not only dream of making the Old World the outlet for their industrial overproduction, but also a vacation spot! The question is whether Europe will comply.

On this point, the French clearly failed to get the joke. That Le Figaro‘s correspondent could transform a New York socialite into a Valkyrie of yankeesme speaks volumes about the place American women held in belle epoque France’s imagination. . .

Was this La Belle Epoque Frenchman talking about Maureen Dowd?

A type within a type, the East Coast American woman, the supreme stage of Yankee femininity, was an icy sphinx: “There is a type of East Coast American woman, neither young nor old, with golden spectacles, I will particularly remember, as I met several examples. She has thin lips, any icy gaze, an impassive face. We can easily see in this New England gorgon the Frenchman’s classic nightmare: an unpleasant cross between the Americano-Puritan and the prudish Englishwoman “with thin lips.” The anti-Miss Betsy …

Ten years later, the 1920s would bring along the Fitzgerald era, of emancipated flappers, short hair, and crazy ideas – a little too crazy for the French. The American girl’s excessively liberated attitude rekindled blame and censure: she still embodied the “type’s perfection,” but now she was tyrannical, egotistical, arrogant, and all the more pernicious because she was desirable and cynically deployed her flagrant sexual freedom.

A run-of-the-mill scene of carousing – the Americans do not know how to throw a party, so they get drunk – is suddenly broken by an obscene and strident streak: “Miss Diana gets up; she lifts her short skirt up to her face. She dances the most Negro steps, in white underpants. The underpants twist and gape. I see tufts, her shady crotch, her genitals. I get a joyless eyeful.” This is a strange dive into American femininity’s heart of darkness – there is even the indispensable racist touch of “Negro steps” animating the white Diana’s pallid body.

So the American man was not having much fun. That was a known fact in France in the late nineteenth century. His home was a contentious place where he suffered his daily martyrdom of resignation. Fortunately, he was not really wanted there, and his occupations, which kept him working long hours at the office, reduced his sufferings. But was he completely innocent? At the end of the nineteenth century, more than one French traveler suggested that the American man deserved his misfortune, or that at least, because of various shortcomings, he had his part in conserving the status quot that set the wife up as domestic tyrant. Some went so far to question his desire for women. To the question, “Is the American a good husband”? Jules Haret responded with this tactful parable: “A man says: I love to read and he reads two or three books a year. Do we really think he loves it? No. However, he believes it, and he is sincere.”

For the Frenchman describing it, the American man’s situation did not arouse any notable commiseration or sympathy. Perhaps because the same man – a docile and self-effacing husband, a domestic serf deprived in his own home of all the sexual and/or gastronomic satisfactions that could justify marriage – turned back into a menacing predator once he left the house: vir americanus horribilis. Never trust a man would around his wife’s finger. When he unleashed on the outside world the energy he did not use in his private life, the maritally subjugated Yankee became a fearsome overlord. Though self-effacing and shy, unrecognizable in his domestic setting, as soon as he was outside he turned into a wild beast, recognizable at a glance.

Update: The latest news is that California, which just recently passed the DREAM Act to further expand the rights of illegal aliens to in-state tuition, is being forced to cut $1.4 billion dollars to K-12 education and $600 million dollars to higher education.

The state of Massachusetts, which has created its own miniature version of BRA by reelecting the negro Deval Patrick as governor of the Bay State, has passed “a transgender civil rights bill” that will make Massachusetts the 16th state to treat “transgendered people” as “a protected class.”

Two great victories for the illegal alien freedom movement and the homosexual rights freedom movement! Now you see why the CSA had to go to war!

Note: The whole “Men’s Rights movement” or the “Game movement” is inexplicable outside of the indispensable context of the triumph of the women’s suffrage movement and twentieth-century feminism which was another radical utopian social reform movement based in the Northern states.

Antebellum Southerners would have found the whole concept of “Men’s Rights” ridiculous. Like Roman culture, Southern culture was patriarchial and anti-egalitarian and was based on the “mastery” of the Southern White man over his dependents, namely his women, children, and negro slaves.

That’s a topic we will explore tomorrow in our review of Gone With The Wind which was set in Antebellum Georgia.

About Hunter Wallace 9533 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

32 Comments

  1. Hunter- This column (once some typos are fixed) is, I believe, a needed antidote to the comments that decry your pro-Southern stance as a tired old horse, which doesn’t ‘deserve to be brought up at any and every opportunity’; for, in looking at things from outside the USA, we clearly see an IDEOLOGICAL and RELIGIOUS ‘sea change’ in the Yankee mindset, after the War between the States, that has poisoned the entire well of American thought and discourse ever after.

    That change (like the Papal ideological heresy a thousand years before) -1860/ 860AD) accomplished much the same thing with the division/forced reunification of the North and South, as did the division and shaky reunification of Charlemagne’s Empire in Gaul morphing into something called the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ within a generation or so of the latter’s death. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

    [And, may I also include in this turn away from what had gone on, to what forged the tentacles of modernity, i.e., the rise of filioquism? -And that, precisely for having been born north of the Pyrenees in the bosom of Charlemagne’s court, among barely literate Gauls, when compared to the Greeks in Byzantium, or even the Orthodox Romans in Rome…]

    To read these comments from 1880’s France should have been a part of the studies I did when I was immersed in French Language and culture in college- but again, you teach me, (post-doctorally, as it were) with news items such as this. OF COURSE the French and the English would have found sympathy with the South- it was the same culture! Whereas the Mercantilist nabobs of New England are nothing more than the ‘bean counters’ of the shtetl, whitewashed to appear regenerate to the French and English, and even to their own compatriots Jefferson and Franklin (both of whom spoke French, as cultured gentlemen should…).

    Reading these comments, I am reminded of Sondheim’s paean to pointillism, in his work, ‘Sunday in the Park with George.’ In that show, two very crass, very overdressed (tackily) and VERY overweight ‘Americans’ are shown among the Parisians, and the caricature would be funny if it were not so true- nouveau riche hicks, stuffing themselves with French Pastries, and talking much too loud, thinking their money gave them ‘class,’ when all it actually does, is make them even (if possible) MORE BOORISH.

    The next picture from these insights, is of the Lesbian Victorian- those dour spinsters, dressed all in black, looking down self-righteously on all their charges, only to let the hairpins drop (like the witch in those old Bugs Bunny cartoons) when in the arms of another as ugly as she. Ugh. And we Americans don’t even know how many of ‘them’ the Unitarian, apostate North gave us! cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Lee_Bates

    I believe that, the more you write about this, the more you will awaken those of us who partake of that ‘older, kinder, more chivalrous culture’ known as the South – even if we live in the North- and will enable us (perhaps for the first time) to see that it ALONE is the ‘true America’ we left behind us, over 100 years ago, to follow the siren song of the ‘lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.’ (A good seasonal sermon I found here on that topic – http://www.padfield.com/2003/keep-out.html )

    Thank you.

  2. The Northern White man is a tragic victim in this story. He must feel like he is under siege from from all sides. Especially in his own household.

    It is difficult for Southerners to grasp the Jewunion (the residents of South Florida excepted) because the Jews are nowhere near as powerful here as they are elsewhere. Because Southerners are far more likely to be Christian conservatives, they demand Christian conservatives represent them in Congress, and this reduces the Jewish ability to gain a foothold here.

    But what must the world look like to the White man who lives in the North or West? The Whites in Los Angeles live under a Jewish Hollywood aristocracy. They are represented by Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein in the Senate.

    In the Northeast, Connecticut has two Jewish senators. New York and New Jersey have two Jewish senators. New York City has a Jewish mayor. Vermont has a Jewish senator.

    In the Midwest, Wisconsin just recently had two Jewish senators, now it has one. Michigan has a Jewish senator. Minnesota has a Jewish senator (Al Franken) who replaced a Jewish senator (Norm Coleman). Pennsylvania only recently rid itself of Arlen Specter.

    So, it is easy to see why Northern WNs are so obsessed with Jews, whereas Southerners are less interested in the Jewish Question, and more interested in the threat posed by Hispanics and African-Americans.

    The Northern WNs are not wrong about Jewish power in their section, as it exists today, but they are far off the mark in understanding how the Jews rose to power in the Northern states.

    Certainly, a huge part of it has to be the decline of the Christianity in the North. In the South and West, Christians demand Christians represent their interests, which indirectly acts as a buffer to Jewish power (even if Christians are philo-Semitic toward Israel) but this is not the case in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and the Left Coast, where Jews directly govern Northern Whites as Jews.

    Another huge part of it is undoubtedly women’s suffrage. Women are half the electorate. They lean toward the Democratic Party. That is a major factor that tilts Northern politics toward the Left.

    Christianity has collapsed in the Northern states. There is a cultural black hole in the Northern states. It is the religious and cultural collapse of Yankeeland which is very reminiscent of the religious and cultural collapse of England. Jewish power is a symptom of this.

    The Catholic Church has collapsed in the Northern states to a large degree too. So you have millions of ex-Protestants and ex-Catholics participating in the degenerate American culture up there and millions of radicalized revolutionary Jews with enormous wealth.

    Northern Whites are not necessarily evil. It is a case of Christian religious impulses getting knocked off their Christian religious moorings and those utopians impulses and sentiments being channeled into heretical crank secular millenarian ideas like creating a heaven on earth whether it be the communist utopia or gender equality or BRA’s racial utopia.

    As you said, it all goes back to the collapse of the faith. Once the faith collapses, the culture collapses. Once the culture collapses, the people collapse. They find themselves living under alien oligarchies who exploit them.

    The South doesn’t have any secret sauce. It is more conservative because it is more religious. It is more racially conscious because there are more blacks. Dixie was a slave society, not a free society.

    That’s why the South is still to this day the most distinctive part of the country.

  3. Wow, excellent stuff here Hunter.

    One thing I want to add though, is that I don’t think secession should be the goal; but rather, a complete Southern political, cultural, philosophical and spiritual seizure of the Union. However, that takeover fails, the closer it came to fruition, the better position we’ll be in if secession is necessary.

    Basically, the Southern weltaunschauung must triumph over the Yankee’s worldview. Show that the South was right, and lead the country accept a more Jacksonian, Jeffersonian (Thomas or Davis) view of America to replace the Lincoln/FDR/Obama view.

    There are plenty of decent aspects of local cultures in the North that can easily survive a nationwide shift to Southern principles; in fact the better of them will probably thrive much better with conservative Southern principles. We need to gather copperhead allies in the North who see that Yankee principles will destroy what good is still left in their own local cultures.

  4. I love how HW sticks to the White Yankees and interprets Jewish power as a symptom of the former’s treachery. It’s a real breath of fresh air in contrast to the Jewish obsessed WNtards.

  5. @ Hunter

    The White man in the pre-Civil War South had a keen understanding of his civil rights—more so than in the North.

    For example none of the Southern States, that I know of, had property qualifications for voting. Were as property qualifications were widespread in the Northern States.

    Remember the old saying (before your time)—“Free, White & 21”.

  6. @ Hunter

    Who made the video? Real funny sticking Robert E. Lee’s slave in the Stonewall Camp.

    Btw, there are about a dozen SCV camps named after Stonewall Jackson, or for one of the counties that supplied the troops for the Stonewall Brigade in VA & WV. Not counting re-enactors.

  7. Great article and great blog. I am from the North and moved here to Georgia because the South represents who I am far better than Jersey did. 😛 (Not to mention I was sick of the snow, high taxes, high cost of living and low quality of life). I’m a Christian conservative.

  8. It’s rich to read about the French maligning Yankees vis-a-vis feminism when a cursory review of the French revolution will find a bounty of French feminist literature and appeals to woman’s equality including advocates of free love.

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

    “whereas Southerners are less interested in the Jewish Question, and more interested in the threat posed by Hispanics and African-Americans.”

    And why are Southerners threatened by these two groups? Who was the legal power behind the civil rights movement? Who are the groups that are hugely disproportion supporters of open borders, a position held for at least a century, the enables unfettered ingress of Hispanics to the South?

    “Another huge part of it is undoubtedly women’s suffrage. Women are half the electorate. They lean toward the Democratic Party.”

    Possibly it’s because the right to vote was supported by a Democratic President.

    “On January 12, 1915, a proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for women’s suffrage was brought before the House of Representatives, but was defeated by a vote of 204 to 174. Another proposal was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. During the previous evening, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the amendment. It was passed by the required two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Wilson again made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote.

    There was considerable desire among politicians of both parties to have the proposal made part of the Constitution before the 1920 general elections, so the President called a special session of the Congress so the proposal would be brought before the House again. On May 21, 1919, it passed the House, 42 votes more than necessary being obtained. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after a long discussion, it was passed with 56 ayes and 25 nays. ”

    Goodness, a Scotch-Irish, son of the South, who signed the Fed into law, declared war against Germany with enormous support of his Southern constituency, appointed the first Jewish SCJ, his chief advisor Louis D. Brandeis, whose coterie of Jews litigators, under the auspice of Brandeis, pushed for minority rights in the treaty of Versailles, on the foundation of lies of Polish pogroms; installed the Jewish founded Weimar Republic, and pushed for the enfranchisement of women. And this crowd demonizes Lincoln for his duplicity. Too funny.

  9. And why are Southerners threatened by these two groups? Who was the legal power behind the civil rights movement? Who are the groups that are hugely disproportion supporters of open borders, a position held for at least a century, the enables unfettered ingress of Hispanics to the South?

    Yankees, Jews, “DWLs,” the North, etc.

    Possibly it’s because the right to vote was supported by a Democratic President.

    The culmination of a struggle for women’s suffrage that had consumed seventy years of movement activism and which was began in the Burned Over District in New York State in 1848. It was always a Yankee utopian social movement. Its biggest supporters were abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison.

    Goodness, a Scotch-Irish, son of the South, who signed the Fed into law, declared war against Germany with enormous support of his Southern constituency, appointed the first Jewish SCJ, his chief advisor Louis D. Brandeis, whose coterie of Jews litigators, under the auspice of Brandeis, pushed for minority rights in the treaty of Versailles, on the foundation of lies of Polish pogroms; installed the Jewish founded Weimar Republic, and pushed for the enfranchisement of women. And this crowd demonizes Lincoln for his duplicity. Too funny.

    (1) Woodrow Wilson was the Governor of New Jersey and the president of Princeton University.

    (2) Woodrow Wilson departed from his predecessors by resegregating the White House. The White House had been integrated since Abraham Lincolk took over.

    (3) The South voted down the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

    (4) Southerners backed the Democratic Party, not because they particularly hated Germany, but because supporting the Republican Party (the party of negro equality, feminism, high tariffs, and civil rights) wasn’t an option in the American political system.

    (5) Jews and “African-Americans” were Republican voters before they joined the Northern Democracy starting under FDR of New York State. It wasn’t until Goldwater though that “African-Americans” defected from the Party of Lincoln en masse.

    (6) The Jews flooded into the Northern states (like the millions of other European immigrants and later “African-Americans”) to work in the industrial economy that was its pride and joy.

    (7) The Yankees can look North to Canada to find a people who are even more liberal than themselves on major social questions. Here is Woodward on Canada:

    “Consider for a moment what U.S. politics and society might be like if the Dixie bloc never existed, or if the Confederacy had peacefully seceded in 1861. You don’t have to stretch your imagination, because this very scenario has been playing out north of the U.S. border.”

    More on women’s suffrage:

    “The struggle for women’s suffrage was conceived and fought by reformers in Yankeedom and the two nations with the deepest attachment to identity of conscience: New Netherland and Midlands. The historic initial meeting of women’s rights advocates was held in Yankee Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. It was followed two years later by the first National Women’s Rights Convention, staged in Worchester, Massachusetts, and backed by a broad pantheon of male Yankee luminaries, from newspaperman Horace Mann and abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison to the writer Wendell Phillips and Unitarian philosopher William Henry Channing; it was no coincidence that every one of its next ten conventions was held in one of the three aforementioned nations. When the Nineteenth Amendment finally passed in 1919, state legislators representing these nations and the Left Coast quickly ratified it; those in the Dixie bloc did not. The women who led the long struggle were also from three northeastern nations, including Susan B. Anthony (daughter of Massachusetts Quakers), Lucy Stone (Massachusetts-born, Oberlin educated), Elizabeth Cady Stanton (descended from early Dutch settlers and born, raised, and educated in Yankee upstate New York), and Carrie Chapman Catt (born in Yankee Ripon, Wisconsin, educated in Midland Ames, Iowa).

    While the Dixie block fought to keep things as they were or return them to the way they used to be, Yankeedom and especially New Netherland and the Left Coast were becoming increasingly tolerant of unusual experiments and countercultural movements . . .

    Each coalition underwent an internal civil war in this period: in the Dixie bloc, African Americans rose up against segregation and the caste system, while the four nations of the Northern alliance faced a youth-led cultural uprising. Both of these destabilizing events started as homegrown phenomena led by disaffected people from within each bloc abut soon drew intervention from outside their respective regions. In the first uprising – the civil rights movement – the northern nations’ assistance provided decisive, as it marshaled federal power and troops to force whites in Tidewater, Appalachia, and especially the Deep South to dismantle their cherished racial caste system. In the second “uprising” – the sixties cultural revolution – Dixie-based political leaders intervened in the Northern-alliance-based cultural shift by opposing the young revolutionaries from the Left Coast, New Netherland, and Yankeedom, whose agenda was diametrically opposed to everything the Deep South and Tidewater stood for.

  10. In todays world the French leadership is anti-white. Like scuz ball crap Sarkozy, a jew White Race Hater. He even made comments that Whites should not be allowed to marry in their own race! La Pen is OK and Bridget Bardow the early 60s Bikini Girl! Sarkozy wants to put a world tax on all bank withdrawals—2 or 3 percent! Did Italy in War Between States support South? On Truth From God.com Who Is God—click OTHER ARTICLES there is at bottom a good article entitled JEW INTERVIEW.

  11. “The Northern White man is a tragic victim in this story. He must feel like he is under siege from from all sides.”
    preach it cousin! may you burn away the filth and free the southern gentleman once again! give the men in the north something to aspire to other than niggerdom!

  12. I love how HW sticks to the White Yankees and interprets Jewish power as a symptom of the former’s treachery. It’s a real breath of fresh air in contrast to the Jewish obsessed WNtards.

    Know a man by his priorities. Yours: protecting Jews, at the expense of Whites and Yankees.

  13. “And why are Southerners threatened by these two groups? Who was the legal power behind the civil rights movement? Who are the groups that are hugely disproportion supporters of open borders, a position held for at least a century, the enables unfettered ingress of Hispanics to the South?”

    Yankees, Jews, “DWLs,” the North, etc.

    I’d be interested in seeing those numbers. We already have Jews broken out here:

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1509/
    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1510/

    So we know that Jews are a necessary condition; we know that sans Jews, our side would be winning the legislative battle. Throw in the 40% of the Forbes 400 who are Jews and you have a lot of money to buy votes for the other side, too, so without that Jewish money we’d be decisively winning the battle.

    But go ahead and break out Yankees vs. Southerners if you want, and see what results you get. But your assertions (“Yankees, Jews, “DWLs,” the North, etc.) wither in the face of numbers and logic.

    P.S., a smiling “fuck you” to “Ugh,” who named himself after the reaction he elicits from people in real life, no doubt.

  14. Hunter writes:
    ” The South voted down the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.”

    And voted overwhelmingly in favor of the damnable 18th!

  15. Svigor,

    If you subtract Jews from the equation, you get “The Prostrate State: South Carolina Under Negro Government.” Are Jews necessary to create BRA?

    No, it was the Yankees who created BRA. They were the ones who liberated the slaves, who made blacks citizens, who created the very concept of “civil rights,” who changed the Constitution to eliminate the racial basis of American citizenship, who even dissolved the states and enfranchised blacks to rewrite our state constitutions.

    Jews, Jews, Jews … less than 200 White men in South Carolina voted to rejoin the Union. It was conquered by the Union Army which “liberated” the slaves. The 14th Amendment disenfranchised the Confederate leadership. The 15th Amendment extended BRA nationwide.

    Jews, Jews, Jews … that’s why BRA exists we are told. There is a monument in front of the Alabama state legislature in Montgomery that shows otherwise.

    Why are there so many Jews here in the first place? Millions of revolutionary Jews from Germany and Eastern Europe moved to New York City and other parts of the Northern states. They moved there to work as a “cheap labor force” like Italians and Poles.

    Why were they allowed in there? Why was anyone allowed in there? We didn’t have that problem. If we were an independent country, we wouldn’t have that problem. It would be their problem.

  16. Me neither.

    I once had a Polish girlfriend. Anyway, the problem was there was no distinction made between revolutionary Jews and the Swedes or the Irish, and now the revolutionary Jews are here and they have enormous wealth, influence, and power.

  17. ” the problem was there was no distinction made between revolutionary Jews and the Swedes or the Irish”

    Then you don’t know many Irish! They were the backbone of the pro-slavery copperhead Democrats during the Civil War and I know damn few of them now who date niggers. As for the Swedes, most of them haven’t even met a nigger as they don’t even live near them (even in Minneapolis or Seattle.)

  18. Very rich thread that I shall have to read later … always later.

    You know what shocks me most about Maddow? That she isn’t a Jew. I predict her notoriety will grow in years to come. She may make another more serious bid for the Senate.

  19. I work overseas and foreigners have called me yank a time or two. I set them straight.

    I think a poster got something wrong, the South had tougher voting requirements. At one point to vote in my state you had to be free, White, 21, a Man, meet a minimum property requirement, own a musket/ belong to the state militia, and be a member in good standing in a local church.

  20. “I work overseas and foreigners have called me yank a time or two. I set them straight.”

    I doubt that you did.

    To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
    To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
    To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
    To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
    To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
    And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.
    – E.B. White

  21. Napoleon III was a coward. He is the reason Mexico is a majority Mestizo State and their Emperor Maximillian during the 2nd Mexican Empire was executed. Mexico should have become a Confederate Sanctuary and the work was being done by ex-confederates working with Emperor Maximillian to bring in more Whites from Europe. Maximillian believed it was his mission to re-stabilize the country; bring in enough Whites to make Mexico a stable Western Society. When Napoleon the III who was supporting him pulled his troops away in 1867 after the US threatened him over the Monroe Doctrine, the country was lost and Benito Juarez succeeded with his Republican Revolution. The Mestizo invasion that we have to today is thanks to the Yankees.

Comments are closed.