Texas Declaration of Secession

Texas

In the course of reading Ta-Nehisi Coates’s readers, I came across a comment that reminded me of the reasons that compelled The Lone Star State to secede from the Glorious Union:

“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . .

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Is there a connection between the language of the Texas Declaration of Independence and the modern cause of White Nationalism? It was the false and debasing doctrine of negro equality that compelled Texas to secede from the United States and fight a war against the Union.

Here’s further proof that the wrong side won the War Between the States:

“In their unprecedented expansion of federal power and their effort to impose organization upon a decentralized economy and fragmented polity, these measures reflected what might be called the birth of the modern American state. On the eve of the Civil War, the federal government was “in a state of impotence,” its conception of its duties little changed since the days of Washington and Jefferson. Most functions of government were handled at the state and local level; one could live out one’s life without ever encountering an official representative of national authority. But the exigencies of war created, as Sen. George S. Boutwell later put it, a “new government,” with a greatly expanded income, bureaucracy, and set of responsibilities.

Emancipation, ending the personal sovereignty of master over slave, made all Americans equally subject to the authority of the national state. A government whose regular army in 1860 numbered only 16,000 introduced conscription (with the opportunity to avoid service by paying $300 or, as in the South, providing a substitute) and found itself training, equipping, and coordinating the activities of millions of men. The federal budget, amounting to $63 million in 1860, rose to well over $1 billion by 1865. At war’s end the federal bureaucracy, with 53,000 employees including new Custom House officials, internal revenue agents, clerks, and inspectors, was the largest employer in the nation.

The Union victory in the War Between the States had the effect of (1) enslaving everyone (North or South) to the consolidated Yankee Leviathan in Washington, (2) destroying the rights of the states and established the dominance of the central government, (3) destroying the spirit of the Constitution, (4) destroying the racial basis of American citizenship, (5) making the federal government the largest employer in America, (6) enthroning the corporation and (7) abolishing slavery to create BRA thereby creating The Black Undertow which had no previously existed.

The Yankee idea of “freedom” meant taking freedom away from Whites, taking away their property, taking away their lives, taking away their constitutional rights, and placing them under the tyrannical rule of “African-Americans” and a military dictatorship maintained by the Union Army.

About Hunter Wallace 9148 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

49 Comments

  1. An elected convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Texas joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861. Governor Sam Houston refused to recognize its legality:

    “Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas….I protest….against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.”

    After leaving the Governor’s mansion, Houston traveled to Galveston. Along the way, many people demanded an explanation for his refusal to support the Confederacy. On April 19, 1861 from a hotel window he told a crowd:

    “Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

    He was proved to be right.

  2. One benefit of the South winning the war would have been that most Blacks would have stayed south of the Mason Dixon line where they belong. The United States today would have a black population of less than three percent today maybe lower if the border state slave owners would have sold their slaves to the Confederates.
    The loss of territory from the South leaving could have been made up for by the USA invading Canada. The western hemisphere could have been a great White empire in the north, brown Latin America to the south with CSA being the black majority but White run buffer state in between. Stopping Southerners from creating their multi-racial slave empire was a great mistake for the entire White race.

  3. Again, this is the false dichotomy, which Southern slaveholders held to as much as abolitionists- “Blacks are either fully equal to whites or slaves.” Abolitionists- “So we have to make blacks completely equal.” Slaveholders- “So we have to maintain slavery.” The true alternative- the actual social and ethnic system that existed in the North until around 1965- has been sent down the memory hole.

  4. “One benefit of the South winning the war would have been that most Blacks would have stayed south of the Mason Dixon line where they belong. “

    I say we can still do it. Give Louis Farrakhan his own country. Ship those niggers back to the lowland South of Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and especially southern Alabama, where they belong and let them have their own fetid, swampy, and pestilential country. That neck of the woods isn’t much use for anything else.

  5. The beauty of letting the South go in 1861 would be whites would be still in charge of blacks but we in the North wouldn’t have had any political connection to them. Blacks forming their own nation now would quickly go dysfunctional and we would be sucked into running it for them like Detroit and Haiti.

  6. They can always farm. Plus they have so much more white blood nowadays than the Haitians that they are smart enough to get by tilling all that land around the lower Chattahoochee River and other such places in their new country.

  7. The blacks already have a homeland: the North. Thanks to Lincoln, something like 46 percent of them live there now. It won’t be long before the Hispanics join them. The Supreme Court should weigh in on SB 1070 anyday now.

  8. “The blacks already have a homeland: The North”.

    Hey, I’ll appreciate you to kindly not throw YOUR waste over the fence into MY yard! 🙂

  9. Chris,

    Before the war, Southern slaveowners would come to the North to catch runaways. In several Northern states, this so outraged Yankees that they passed personal liberty laws to keep blacks in the North.

    Who made the North a beacon for the free negro? The Yankees invited them to come settle there. This is mentioned in the Texas Declaration of Causes.

  10. The Yankee-Black-Jewish idea of “freedom” means taking freedom away from Whites, taking away their property, taking away their lives, taking away their constitutional rights, and placing them under the tyrannical rule of Yankees, Blacks, and Jews.

  11. One benefit of the South winning the war would have been that most Blacks would have stayed south of the Mason Dixon line where they belong.

    Nah. Quite the opposite. As the South industrialized, they would have encouraged Blacks to flee to Yankee Judea, where Yankees and Jews awaited them with open arms. They’d have faced being sharecroppers and servants in a White Supremacist Jim Crow South on one hand, or joining BRA in Yankee Judea. They’d have emigrated in droves.

  12. I say we can still do it. Give Louis Farrakhan his own country. Ship those niggers back to the lowland South of Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and especially southern Alabama, where they belong and let them have their own fetid, swampy, and pestilential country. That neck of the woods isn’t much use for anything else.

    Nah. Better to kill two birds with one stone. Yankee Judea worships and welcomes Blacks, and creates and promotes BRA. So we ship all the Blacks to Yankee Judea. Specifically, New England. A match made in heaven.

  13. Prussiancroat: You need to get your medication balanced. As soon as technology made the niggers useless to the Southern planters they would have shipped all of them to the North to live among the Yankees as free men. The reason that the cities of the North are infested with niggers is that they feel more comfortable around Yankee Negrophiles.

  14. Apparently there is a great black migration again, this time back to the South.

    “In all, about 57 percent of U.S. blacks now live in the South, a jump from the 53 percent share in the 1970s, according to an analysis of census data by William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. “

  15. “Most functions of government were handled at the state and local level; one could live out one’s life without ever encountering an official representative of national authority.”

    NO WONDER people used to call this country, ‘heaven on earth.’

    It was the closest thing going…..

  16. Following on Kunta Kinte (Jonathan Tremaine) in that JewTube video, it would appear, Gentlemen, that neither the North nor the South wants the black man, and that the desire of our ancestors is still unfulfilled- namely, the removal of African slaves (whether free, intelligent, or even candidates in office) is our #1 priority.

    To this end, I suggest a simple strategy which Ms. Sanger laid out: either forced sterilization of all negoid females as well as lower IQ males; or emigration of resident Negroes, and immediate repatriation into Mexico of all Hispanics of non-Whhite origin. Within ten years, we would reverse the trends of the Blood-smutters. And, within forty years, you would see a huge decrease of the entire non-European gene pool in this land- created for, and destined to be ‘for US, and OUR Posterity”… ALONE.

    Abortion is murder; but the choice to be free, fertile, yet out of our homeland is a valid and humane choice that easily can be given the Black, if the desire to indiscriminately procreate cannot be restrained. If men and women of Negroid stock (but only those) who are intelligent and moral can be ameliorated to co-exist with our Native Stock, such people might be the ‘Great White hope’ of the rescuing of their own kind, when they are shipped back to Africa, to be the next generation of rulers of the Dark Continent. These men and women can follow the “Obama, SR. path of repatriation”, and ‘saving’ their native lands as the real ‘Kings and Queens’ of Africa.

    But to keep them here, as they are, separate yet never equal, on the dole, and engendering a grievance mentality, merely to perpetuate the further existence of BRA, is an impossible situation, that can never be rectified. IT is a complete failure, and must be ripped out of this world, root and branch.

  17. Rude-l, you sound just like the Yankee abolitionists who funded John Brown’s futile attempt to create another Haiti in the South. Attempting to “purify” the South won’t “purify” the North. Living cheek by jowl with feral negroes while pretending that they are your equals is a distinctly Northern idea, you know. The North continues to reap what it has sown in Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, and other large cities. The new Yankee project is to turn the South into Brazil. Can you see your future?

    Deo Vindice

  18. Hunter, you continue to do great work exposing the root of our present discontent: Yankee utopianism and its lasting damage. After a half century of Yankee Empire hegemony across the globe, we can see the ill effects.

    Western Europe was force fed Yankee utopianism in the wake of WW2. Now we have a deracinated Europe fast being overwhelmed by immigration from the MidEast and Africa.

    What happened when the Puritans abandoned their religion to create any of the new “made in America” religions such as Unitarian Universalist, Mormon, or Pentecostal? American forms of Christianity are all tainted by Yankee utopianism. Its a bit of a moot point since Yankee utopianism infiltrated the Catholic and mainline Protestant churches after the war as well.

    The UN, a “super United States” is also a creature of Yankee utopianism. As is the “welfare-warfare” philosophy that governs BRA. It was born in New England, like all other Yankee utopian ideas. I could go on, but you get the point…

    Deo Vindice

  19. Who said they were going to be “equal.” What they will be is gone. Out of the North, the West, and out of Appalachia.

  20. Playing Roots Backwards: Blacks moved by the millions to the North because we are one big country with no internal restrictions on where one can live. The South being an independent nation would have been subjected to immigration restrictions. Businessmen in the 1870s and 1880s wanted to flood California with Chinese coolie labor and rank and file White men put a stop to it, I imagine a similar result if an independent South tried to dump their negro problem on the North.

  21. @Apuleius

    The Catholic church is universalist by its very definition. It took the Irish & German Roman Catholics less than 10 years living in the United States, and they were waging war on the Southern States.

  22. prussiancroat: Ah thinks dem nigroes move up north for de free stuff and de white hoes.

    If you had lived in Detroit in the 50’s, 60’s or 70’s you would know that is true.

    They had been showing up on Greyhounds and boxcars many years before I was born, but, judging from what I saw, I can tell you that most of them made the trip because they had heard from relatives already living in the North that Yankee Honkeys were easier to get over on than those hard-nosed Crackers down home.

    Yankees, who had never been in close proximity to large numbers of the descendants of cannibals that Southerners had kept in line fore centuries, decided that they knew so much about niggers that they were qualified to tell the whole world how to deal with them. They crushed the South, turned loose the biped livestock, then held up hand picked Octoroons, Quadroons and Mulattoes as proof that the Africans were the White man’s equal in every way.

    When it became apparent that niggers were not equal to White men the Yankee politicians were already in way too deep to walk it back, so they became proficient at manipulating their primitive news sources to hide the truth and paint a cheery picture.

    Most Northerners weren’t in on the Yankee power play. They were just nice people who believed the bullshit they read in the newspapers and welcomed those poor down-trodden Blacks out of kindness. They didn’t know that the average nigger will equate kindness with weakness. They didn’t know that welcoming niggers with open arms is viewed by the jungle beast as the equivalent of greasing your butt and grabbing your ankles.

    The bottom line is this: Northern cities and suburbs are in the shape they are in because YOUR forefathers invited them.

    Now, what are you willing to do to get rid of them?

  23. Playing Roots Backwards: Northerners welcomed blacks with opened arms? Besides a few fanatics here and there white northerners moved as far away as possible from blacks.Southerners have lived cheek to jowl with blacks for four centuries and haven’t minded it as long as they don’t get too uppity. This is a wise policy when 30 to 40 percent of your population is black you have to keep them under strict control. Jazz, blues and rock and roll where all invented in the South and are the result of mixing of both White and black musical tastes another result of being so close to so many blacks.

    White people in the North seem to prefer to live as our ancestors in Europe lived in an all White environment and if we are to be the boss of non-whites we want those non-whites far away in their own lands.

    Getting back to the previous point if the South was an independent country it would have been subject to immigration restrictions. Any northern capitalist/do-gooder alliance trying to take in blacks from the South would have been stopped just as the attempt to flood California with Chinese coolies was stopped.

  24. Well prussiancroat, it may shock you to learn that the magical negroes of the North did not magically teleport themselves there. They were indeed welcomed with open arms as a manifest demonstration of the “superiority” of Northern folk. The Jazz Age happened up North in the big Northern cities. The Cotton Club was in New York during the so-called “Harlem Renaissance,” after all.

    @Earlmundo
    Among those who believe in objective truth, the catholicity of truth is seldom in doubt.
    I can play word games, too. Pretty hard to equate the Catholic church, a medieval institution, with Yankee Unitarian universalism, a product of the so-called “Enlightenment/Great Awakening”–that’s a bit of a stretch no matter which end of the time-space continuum you inhabit. The “oh look somebody else just used the same word” equivalence argument you are making is too thin.

    We all know that the Yankees ruthlessly exploited the Irish and German immigrants right off the boat to prosecute their war against the South. The New York draft riots were the result of resentments by these groups. The Yankee Empire now uses Mexican “immigrants” today against to dispossess native Americans. Looky there, I just rehabilitated another word distorted by disingenuous Yankees.

    Deo Vindice

  25. Just a thought. Do any of you know who Emma West is?
    The revolution is happening on you tube. 13 million views of “my tram experience”
    in 12 days, 300,000 comments. Another 5 million views on the top 4 knock off channels.

    Pro Emma comments now out number anti-white comments.

    Suggest move your troops now or will mis revolution. Quick stop you tube “my tram experience – The Mantra response” for munitions.

  26. Long before the Yankee Puritans landed in New England the Catholic church pronounced “Sublimus Dei (also seen as Sublimus Deus and Sublimis Deus) a papal bull promulgated by Pope Paul III on June 2, 1537, which forbids the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (called Indians of the West and the South) and all other people. It follows the decree issued by Charles V of Spain in 1530 in which the King prohibited the enslavement of Indians.[1]”

    The South also ‘ruthlessly’ attempted to exploit their immigrant population.

    “The Nueces massacre was a violent confrontation between Confederate soldiers and German Texans [1] on August 10, 1862 in Kinney County, Texas. Many Germans in Central Texas were first-generation immigrants from Germany. They tended to support the Union and were opposed to the institution of slavery. Gillespie and other central Hill Country counties had voted against secession. Because of these sentiments, the Confederate States of America imposed martial law on Central Texas.”

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

  27. Playing Roots Backwards: Blacks moved by the millions to the North because we are one big country with no internal restrictions on where one can live. The South being an independent nation would have been subjected to immigration restrictions. Businessmen in the 1870s and 1880s wanted to flood California with Chinese coolie labor and rank and file White men put a stop to it, I imagine a similar result if an independent South tried to dump their negro problem on the North.

    Nah. Yankee hearts bleed for oppressed Blacks. All we’d have to do (given Southern independence) is oppress them and the Yankees would welcome them with open arms.

  28. Apuleius: Blacks didn’t move North cause anybody welcomed them they moved for the same reason anybody else moves hundreds of miles away from their home for jobs and because their allowed too. We were one big country North and South and so they moved up north cause they could, with no one blocking them. The USA and CSA being different countries would have blocked all or most blacks from moving north in fact many slaveholders in the border states would have moved south or sold their slaves to southerners after CSA independence.

    Just so I am clear Yankee abolitionists were as bad as Hunter makes them out to be but they were always a small extremist sect with little popular support the upheaval of the Civil War let them get control of the government for about ten years Americans both North and South got sick of their insanity and booted out of power that’s why Reconstruction ended. Prohibition was another example of Yankee extremism that the people got sick of and booze was legalized again.

    The period between 1900-1930 was marked with rising Klan membership both in the north and south, eugenic research and immigration restriction legislation, no Yankeeism there. What changed from that time period to now was FDR’s New Deal and WWII both of which southerners supported that is what enthroned the jews not only in America but throughout the West. Yankees were at best the junior partners in this crime spree giving the Hebrews some goy-cover for what they were doing. Sixty-five years later southerners haven’t learnt a thing they still love “the good war” and now they are all set for war in Iran, promoted not by New Dealers but this time by Neo-conservatives.

  29. yankees do like their war’s of aggression on White folk. We got one here advocating them invading Canada vs the CSA.

  30. @Apuleius

    Yes, your Roman Catholic co-religionists are invading the US from Mexico, and your Roman Catholic politicians are welcoming & aiding them.

    In the 1850’s you Catholic bastards were hardly off of the boat, and your were pushing the party of Lincoln and war with the South. That’s a historical fact sonny.

  31. phil white: If you would start going through the OD links you would find that many of them linked to the Emma West story way back when it was still news. Rather than spending a lot of time over at Jew Tube, I rely on the guys who run the sites who like White folks to link us to anything worthwhile throughout the web. If you actually read the comments on OD you would see that readers also provide links to pertinent videos on a fairly regular basis.

    If you are old enough to be on this site, then you are probably too old to hang out on youtube. My youtube handle is MOOJEED. Look me up. I spent most of my time suspended for arguing with nigger-lovers who commented on racially provocative videos. I stopped trying to spread the truth on youtube when I realized that two-thirds of the people that I was arguing with were teenage kids who had been indoctrinated into the Negrophile Doctrine in their public schools.

    Maybe you should give liveleak and kaotic a try.

  32. Desmond,

    I’ve had a friend of mine email me the following article before to correct misperceptions of German disloyalty to the Confederacy:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/09/letter-from-texas-gott-mit-uns/

    The first test of Texas German loyalty to the South was in the presidential election of 1860. It was a four-way race, with John C. Breckenridge representing the Southern Democrats and supported by secessionists; John Bell representing the Constitutional Union party, which hoped to hold North and South together by retaining states’ rights; Stephen A. Douglas representing the regular and Northern Democrats; and Abraham Lincoln for the Republicans.

    No Texas German voted for Lincoln. Of the ten Texas counties that gave Bell and/or Douglas at least 40 percent of the vote, only one—Gillespie—had a substantial German population. Gillespie County voted against the secession candidate by only 52 percent. The other 17 heavily German counties, including Comal (which was the most populous and most German one), voted almost entirely for Breckenridge. For that matter, the least secessionist area, western Gillespie County, gave a larger percentage of its votes to Breckenridge than did any non-German western county. A fear, common in all the western counties, of frontier isolation in the face of savage Indians accounts for its hesitation toward secession.

    Upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, Comal and Gillespie Counties called for a state convention to discuss secession, as did the Neu-Braunfelser Zeit­ung, which reminded Germans that, just as they had renounced their allegiance to European despots, they should do the same to Yankee ones. All other German newspapers called for secession, except for one, the smallest, which called for caution and deliberation before such a step. Every German delegate at the Texas Convention voted for immediate secession.

    On February 23, 1861, the question went to the citizens of Texas. Of the 17 German counties, only five voted against secession. Five of them favored it by 90 percent. Comal County—again, the most populous and most German—did so by 73 percent. In Fayette County, which had a large Anglo Unionist element and a Unionist newspaper, only 10 of the 400 German voters voted against secession. Of the 29 Texas counties that had a substantial unionist vote, only 5 had any German population to speak of.

    Once the war broke out, Texas Germans joined the Confederate Army in droves. As early as December 1860, Lindheimer had urged the Germans to organize military companies of minutemen to “protect the rights of the South.” By the middle of July, two volunteer infantry and two cavalry companies had been formed in New Braunfels—one led by the mayor, Gustav Hoffman, a former Prussian officer. Before the military draft was instituted, two thirds of the enfranchised population of Comal County were armed and in the field.

    Gustav Schleicher organized units that would fight nobly in the Red River Campaign. Many of the first companies in Galveston were German to a man. The first Houston company to appear in the field was German. Most of their flags were embroidered “Fuer die Constitution” and “Gott Mit Uns.”

  33. prussiancroat,

    The Jews were already out of control before FDR. See the Jews vs. Madison Grant or the Jews vs. Henry Ford. The New Deal also did almost nothing to undermine Jim Crow. In fact, W.E.B. DuBois was despondent about the future of blacks in the early 1930s.

    The Second World War changed everything. It liberalized White racial attitudes in the North and West. In the South, racial attitudes were unchanged by the war. The attack on Jim Crow actually strengthened racial attitudes here.

  34. The anti-Confederates in the South were typically Scots-Irish in Appalachia in places like East Tennessee and North Alabama who resented conscription and disruption of the highland subsistence economy.

    As in the American Revolution, the Scots-Irish fought on both sides in the War Between the States against whoever they perceived as being the greater threat, and most viciously against each other. East Tennessee was a Unionist stronghold, but Middle Tennessee was strongly pro-Confederate.

    The Confederate Army was a Scots-Irish army though. Irish Catholics and Texas Germans fought for the Confederacy. While there were no “Black Confederates,” there were Indians and Tejanos who fought for the Confederacy:

    http://www.amazon.com/Tejanos-Gray-Fronteras-International-University/dp/160344243X

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

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

    A total of 7,860 Native Americans participated in the Confederate Army, as both officers and enlisted men[2]; they were mostly from the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations.[3] The Union did not incorporate Native Americans into its regular army . . .

    Leaders from each of the Five Civilized Tribes, acting without the consensus of their councils, agreed to be annexed by the Confederacy in exchange for certain rights, including protection and recognition of current tribal lands. . . .

    At Fort Towson in Choctaw lands, General Stand Watie officially became the last Confederate general to surrender on June 25, 1865.

  35. Hunter; The South’s attitude towards communism hadn’t changed either but the South’s support for FDR and WWII helped communism triumph in China and Eastern Europe anyway. The South in helping to destroy Germany resulted in the Southern racial system also being destroyed, this mistake is rarely admitted by any Southerners even those born years after the end of the war. The South being wrong about WWII doesn’t mean it was wrong about the Civil War but let’s admit our errors and drop the self righteousness.

  36. Hunter; The South’s attitude towards communism hadn’t changed either but the South’s support for FDR and WWII helped communism triumph in China and Eastern Europe anyway.

    The South wasn’t anymore supportive of WW2 than other parts of America. The only reason the South appears more supportive of the war is because Irish and German Catholics, who were hostile to Britain, were concentrated in the North and West.

    Last time I checked, FDR was from New York and the previous Democratic nominee Al Smith was also from New York. In the last 150 years, there have been all of seven presidents from the South: Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

    Three of those presidents – Andrew Johnson, Harry Truman, and LBJ – only became president because their predecessor had died in office and were left beholden to their parties. Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia, but he was the president of Princeton and the Governor of New Jersey.

    Two other Southern born presidents – Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – were elected by Northerners. George W. Bush was a Yankee who went to Yale who was transplanted to West Texas which is part of Texas that considers itself part of the Southwest.

    The South in helping to destroy Germany resulted in the Southern racial system also being destroyed, this mistake is rarely admitted by any Southerners even those born years after the end of the war.

    Who destroyed the Jim Crow system? It was the North and West that became more liberal in the Second World War. The South actually became less liberal. The destruction of the Jim Crow was entirely the handiwork of the Northern controlled federal government.

    The South being wrong about WWII doesn’t mean it was wrong about the Civil War but let’s admit our errors and drop the self righteousness.

    Where does the notion come from that “the South” was wrong about WW2? The Democratic Party and the Republican Party were both dominated by the North in the twentieth century.

    That’s why the Democratic Party always ran Northerners for president and Southerners for Vice President.

  37. @ Hunter You had a large Germanic population, often called the Dutch, or Pennsylvania Dutch, who were early settlers of much of Virginia, Maryland & the Carolinas. This German population was also 99% Protestant. they had fled the German states to escape from the armies of the Pope, and the Catholic monarchs of Europe. This Germanic population is different from the 1848ers who were for the most part Roman Catholics, and, or socialists. The 1848ers were your Lincoln Republicans.

    What you are saying about the Texas Germans, is similar to the “Dutch” in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. (They built a memorial to the colonial German settlers, and to make things easy to understand they called them Germanics rather than Pennsylvania Dutch. LOL) It does take some explaning that the Shenandoah Valley was pioneered by Pennsylvania Dutch.

    The same for the Scotch-Irish Protestants, big difference in politics between them and the 1848 Potato famine Irish. Even to this day in Ireland.

  38. Hunter; The South is always for war more than other parts of the country and they were in favor of WWII as well, just like the South is now in favor of war with Iran. Yankeeism is dead since at least Plessy vs Ferguson if not before. Yankees caused alot of damage but people got sick of their nonsense and kicked them out of power WWII is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in. Let me say again the South should have been allowed to leave in peace, Southerners would have been given control of their own destiny and the United States would have gotten rid of 75-90% of it’s black population a win/win for everybody.

  39. Hunter; The South is always for war more than other parts of the country and they were in favor of WWII as well, just like the South is now in favor of war with Iran.

    Not always.

    The South was strongly supportive of the Mexican War. Yankees generally opposed the Mexican War. OTOH, Yankees were very supportive of the War Between the States, whereas other groups in the North were more opposed to it.

    The polls show that “the South” was the most supportive region of WW1 and WW2. This is only because the Irish and Germans lived in the North and West and were more opposed to the war because they were anti-British. The New York Irish had attempted to invade Canada in the Fenian Raids.

    Yankeeland (not to be confused with Germans and Irish Catholics) had always been a cultural satellite of Britain and were the most determined group to get America into WW1 and WW2. This is disguised by the presence of so many German and Irish immigrants in the North.

    In the North, the war against the Axis Powers was fought in the name of liberal ideology. In the South, it was based on nothing more than patriotic sentiment (i.e., rallying around the flag). Eugene Talmadge, the Governor of Georgia, was denounced by Yankees as a demagogue who called him the “Fuhrer of Sugar Creek.” Theodore Bilbo was called “the Mussolini of Mississippi.”

    Germany had plenty of Southern admirers like Sen. Theodore Bilbo author of Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=gP3DbiRcbPAC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=the+fuhrer+of+sugar+creek&source=bl&ots=69tF3x1SIp&sig=WcqGrLSUciPiuYBViIxFQeHQfmk&hl=en&ei=F5_lTs_nJaPViALYqtWqBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=the%20fuhrer%20of%20sugar%20creek&f=false

    “In 1938, he offered an amendment that would deport all black Americans to Liberia, telling the Senate, “Race consciousness is developing in all parts of the world. Consider Italy, consider Germany. It is beginning to be recognized by the thoughtful minds of our age that the conservation of racial values is the only hope for the future of civilization … the Germans appreciate the importance of racial values.”

    Yankeeism is dead since at least Plessy vs Ferguson if not before. Yankees caused alot of damage but people got sick of their nonsense and kicked them out of power WWII is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in. Let me say again the South should have been allowed to leave in peace, Southerners would have been given control of their own destiny and the United States would have gotten rid of 75-90% of it’s black population a win/win for everybody.

    It would be more accurate to say that Yankeeland experiences periodic bouts of utopian manias that result in the liberalization of White racial attitudes whenever a major war is fought against another White civilization that is perceived as being “illiberal” in some way.

    This was the case during the American Revolution with Britain which led to a wave of egalitarian sentiment that resulted in the abolition of slavery in the Northeast. It was also the case in the War Between the States against the Confederacy which resulted in the Reconstruction Amendments.

    The war against Nazi Germany (which was carried on in the Cold War with the Soviet Union) had the most lasting and damaging effect. It sparked a massive wave of racial egalitarianism in the North which peaked in the 1960s with the destruction of the Jim Crow South.

    It is always the same with Yankees: a major war against another White country in the name of liberalism (Britain, Dixie, and Germany) followed by disillusionment and retrenchment which is only punctured when there is another major war against a White power that can be criticized on egalitarian grounds.

  40. Southerners were also far from happy with FDR:

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

    Talmadge governed as a conservative, and vehemently attacked the liberalism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, singling out policies favorable to blacks,[4] the farm programs, and relief programs such as the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps. He tried to build a region-wide coalition. making a national speaking tour in preparation for a challenge to FDR in 1936. His Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, organized a convention in Macon, Georgia, in January 1936 that brought together fragments of the old Huey P. Long coalition. Talmadge pledged to defend the “sovereignty of our States and local self-government” at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. But Roosevelt, who visited Georgia often, was more popular with the poor farmers. Unable to run for re-election in 1936, Talmadge chose to challenge Senator Russell in the primary, but Russell defeated Talmadge by a landslide, and Talmadge’s presidential hopes collapsed.[5]

    Talmadge returned to the Governor’s office in 1940, emerging as the leader of racist and segregationist elements in Georgia.[6] Responding to reports that Walter Cocking, a dean at the University of Georgia, had advocated bringing blacks and whites together in the classroom, he launched an attack on the university, charging elitism, and called for the regents to remove Cocking and purge the university of Communists, “foreigners” (non-Georgians), and subscribers to racial equality. The university board of regents at first refused Talmadge’s demands for dismissal of offending faculty members, but after the Governor restructured the board, the dismissals took place. This intervention into academic affairs caused the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to remove accreditation from the Georgia state universities, and it contributed to Talmadge’s defeat by Ellis Arnall in 1942.

    During Arnall’s term, the state legislature lengthened his term to four years and prohibited him from seeking re-election in 1946. Talmadge ran for Governor and used the United States Supreme Court’s Smith v. Allwright decision as his main issue. Talmadge promised that if he were to be elected, he would restore the ‘Equal Primary’.

  41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Ed_Smith

    Ellison DuRant “Cotton Ed” Smith (August 1, 1864 – November 17, 1944) was a Democratic Party politician from the U.S. state of South Carolina. He represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1909 until 1944.

    Smith opposed the woman’s suffrage movement, and specifically the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tying the amendment to black suffrage, he warned on the Senate floor “Here is exactly the identical same amendment applied to the other half of the Negro race. The southern man who votes for the Susan B. Anthony Amendment votes to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment.”

    At the 1936 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Smith walked out of the convention hall once he saw that a black minister was going to deliver the invocation. Smith recalled, “He started praying and I started walking. And from his great plantation in the sky, John C. Calhoun bent down and whispered in my ear – ‘You done good, Ed.'”

    In 1944, Johnston again challenged Smith in the Democratic Primary. During the campaign, Johnston, now Governor of South Carolina, was strongly supportive of Roosevelt’s foreign policy,[4] but was now lukewarm towards the New Deal and was able to the snatch the “flag of white supremacy” from Smith by boasting how he changed the state’s laws to keep blacks from voting.[4] During the campaign, presented himself as an aged and tired old man and during at least one debate with Johnston,[4] he spoke for only a few minutes and then played a recording of a speech he had made six years earlier.[4] After hearing word of his defeat on his 2,500 acre farm near Lynchburg,[4] Smith stood up in frustration and said “Well, I guess I better go out and look at the pigs.”[4]

  42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olin_D._Johnston

    Johnston was elected Governor of South Carolina again in 1942. He won a narrow victory in the Democratic primary, and ran unopposed in the General Election. The outbreak of World War II meant that labor issues would not be as prominent in Johnston’s second term. During his second term, Johnston signed laws which attempted to circumvent the Smith v. Allwright decision by making the South Carolina Democratic Party a private organization. He served until his resignation on January 3, 1945 in order to accept his U.S. Senate seat.

    Johnston was elected to the Senate in 1944, defeating “Cotton Ed” Smith in a rematch of their 1938 race. Johnston was re-elected three times, serving in the Senate until his death in 1965. He served for several years as Chairman of the now-defunct Post Office Committee. Johnston was not as conservative as most other Senators from the Deep South, retaining a populist position on many economic issues. Unlike most Southern Democrats, Johnston opposed the anti-union Taft-Hartley labor law in 1947 and he voted for both the War on Poverty and Medicare in his last full year in office, 1964. However, like all other politicians from the Deep South during this period, Johnston was orthodox on the “race question”, opposing all civil rights legislation.

  43. RECONSIDERING ROOSEVELT ON RACE: HOW THE PRESIDENCY PAVED THE ROAD TO BROWN, by Kevin J. McMahon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004

    McMahon constructs this argument using primarily civil rights decisions that culminated in BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954 and 1955). He suggests that these decisions are the by-product of an institutional mission, one embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court and shaped by the judicial policy of FDR, that southern democracy was incompatible with the vision of a thoroughly liberal Democratic party. In other words, FDR was driven by the demands of intra-party management rather than race per se. Nonetheless, as McMahon makes clear in his conclusion, Roosevelt was more proactive on issues of race than usually assumed among scholars. McMahon argues that had FDR allowed southern Democrats to shape judicial policy in racially exclusive fashion, then the U.S. Supreme Court would not have challenged segregation when it did. Thus, this work makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the political climate and reality of the New Deal era as well as informing our explanations of judicial policy and the rise of the modern civil rights movement…

    McMahon suggests that FDR was timid with regard to the federal judiciary until 1935 when the Supreme Court struck down key parts of his recovery program while invalidating the Wagner and Social Security Acts. This sets up a confrontation with the High Court. Of course, much of this discussion will be familiar to readers of the Law and Politics Book Review. What McMahon contributes, however, with his explicitly historical-institutionalist framework is the observation that Roosevelt’s commitment to the federal expansion of rights hinged on the state of his vexing relationship with the South and what McMahon terms “southern democracy.” It was clear that FDR needed Southern Democrats to get elected (and re-elected). Yet many Southern Democrats were supportive of the Court’s pre-1937 interpretation of the relationship between government and the economy, as well as federalism. [To the South, the conservative Court served as a shield against the nation’s emerging urban and ethnic majority, as a means of holding the power in the states instead of sending it to Washington, as an instrument for keeping the future at bay.]
    Southern Democrats in Congress also wielded considerable influence in Congress, and their support was necessary if Roosevelt was to enjoy legislative success. To some extent, then, McMahon is suggesting that the courts became the emphasis for progressive reform on race because it was not likely to happen in Congress. More significantly, though, McMahon posits that legal realist thought meshed with FDR’s desire to challenge orthodoxy, including the orthodoxy of apartheid in the American South. The courts were intentionally the vehicle for change, and McMahon boldly argues that FDR’s judicial policy was about more than validating the New Deal. It was also about dismantling southern democracy in a favor of a more inclusive, egalitarian version.

    http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mcmahon1204.htm

    Again there is the sad realization that Southerners overwhelmingly supported a president bent on destroying Southern democracy, not through leegislation but through the advent of a progressive court.

  44. Again there is the sad realization that Southerners overwhelmingly supported a president bent on destroying Southern democracy, not through leegislation but through the advent of a progressive court.

    The sad realization is that the destruction of the Confederacy meant that the South was doomed to becoming the minority section in the Union where the North and West – which had the majority of the population – would always be the dominant power in both major political parties. Henceforth, the South would held hostage to the North and West and would always find itself choosing between “the lesser of two evils.”

    In the Democratic Party, that meant the Northern wing of the Democratic Party (empowered after the Depression discredited Hoover and the Republicans in the North) which under FDR was well on its way bringing African-Americans and Jews into the fold (traditionally they had been Republican voters) and launching its attack on the South that would break out into the open with the Dixiecrat Revolt in 1947.

    The subordination of the South to the North in the Democratic Party can be seen in the choice of Southerners for Vice President (Al Smith/Joseph Robinson in 1928, FDR/John Nance Garner in 1932 and 1936, FDR/Truman in 1944, Truman/Alben Barkley in 1948, Adlai Stevenson/John Sparkman in 1952, Adlai Stevenson/Estes Kefauver in 1956, Kennedy/LBJ in 1960).

    The were two occasions when the Southerner became president in this period: when FDR died in office in 1945 and when JFK was assassinated in 1963.

    Who exactly was the South supposed to vote for? Maybe for Wendell Willkie of “One World” fame? Maybe Thomas Dewey whose running mate was Earl Warren? Maybe for Dwight Eisenhower who put Earl Warren on the Supreme Court and who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law after forcing integration on Little Rock?

    The Republican Party was the party of “civil rights” from Abraham Lincoln to Barry Goldwater.

Comments are closed.