Confederate History Month 2012: James DeBow on White Non-Slaveholders

Louisiana

James D.B. Debow, the publisher of DeBow’s Review (a leading secessionist organ based in New Orleans), explains why White non-slaveholders had an interest in “the present sectional controversy”:

“The non-slaveholder of the South preserves the status of the white man, and is not regarded as an inferior or a dependant. He is not told that the Declaration of Independence, when it says that all men are born free and equal, refers to the negro equally with himself. It is not proposed to him that the free negro’s vote shall weigh equally with his own at the ballot-box, and that the little children of both colors shall be mixed in the classes and benches of the schoolhouse, and embrace each other filially in its outside sports. It never occurs to him that a white man could be degraded enough to boast in a public assembly, as was recently done in New-York, of having actually slept with a negro. And his patriotic ire would crush with a blow the free negro who would dare, in his presence, as is done in the free States, to characterize the father of the country as a “scoundrel.” No white man at the South serves another as a body-servant, to clean his boots, wait on his table, and perform the menial services of his household! His blood revolts against this, and his necessities never drive him to it. He is a companion and an equal. When in the employ of the slaveholder, or in intercourse with him, he enters his hall, and has a seat at his table. If a distinction exists, it is only that which education and refinement may give, and this is so courteously exhibited as scarcely to strike attention. The poor white laborer at the North is at the bottom of the social ladder, while his brother here has ascended several steps, and can look down upon those who are beneath him at an infinite remove!”

Note: It is truly comical that I have to spend my time debunking something as absurd as the fantasy of the Rainbow Confederacy.

I would rather spend my time illustrating the finer points of Confederate political theory. Unfortunately, we have to start by swimming against the tide of 20 years of disingenuous multiculturalist propaganda.

This entry was posted in Dixie, History, Louisiana, Negroes, Race Realism, Race Relations, Racism, White Supremacy, Whiteness. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Confederate History Month 2012: James DeBow on White Non-Slaveholders

  1. Denise says:

    I don’t mean to highjack any threads – but what do youse guys make of this?

    http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-thousands-may-lose-internet-july-181324701–finance.html

  2. Wayne says:

    Thanks for the article, Hunter. I’ve used your posts a ammo over and over on other sites I comment on. They are spot on and the only come back from the “respectables” is a) Ignore b) Accuse of being a KKK member.
    Your info on the Red Tails fable came in handy just the other day when I debunked some brainwashed, zionist, colorblind “respectable” who claimed out of hand that they were “the best of the best”.

  3. John says:

    Interesting points. DWL often mention that poor whites in the South
    were Stark mad to fight on behalf of wealthy slaver owners who were basically impoverishing
    them through cut price labour.

    It seems that skilled labour was naturally the preserve of whites. Semi skilled labour same. Poor whites had of course universal suffrage so they could
    effect change in a dispute of a political nature or sue a wealthy man and get a fair deal.
    Slavery was only useful for very tough field work or for utterly debased servant work.

    So really poor whites were simply fighting to keep sullen violent blacks away from them at work, school and play. It’s all very simple really. Some Western and Midwestern Union people were also fighting to keep Slave black populations bottled up in the south too.

  4. Playing Roots Backwards says:

    Here’s some trivia that I discovered today. The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which permitted states to develop their “Separate But Equal” doctrines, stood as the law of the land for 58 years from 1896 until 1954.

    The Supreme Court decision that overruled Plessy v. Ferguson was Brown V. The Board of Education (Topeka, KS). The Jews at the NAACP had already filed lawsuits that resulted in federal court decisions in Maryland, Kentucky and several other places that had chipped away at state’s rights, but it was the Brown decision that opened the floodgates for integration in every state at the point of a bayonet.

    Here is my point: The Brown v. The Board of Education decision is 58 years old this year.

    If 58 years was long enough for Plessy, then it is sure as hell long enough for Brown.

    If Romney can give Obama the boot, and if that old four-eyed Jew bitch on the high court will be kind enough to retire or die, then maybe we will have an opportunity to undo some of the poor decisions of the past 6 decades.

    Of course, all bets are off if Mitt appoints Jesse Jackson to replace the scrawny Sheeny. Don’t rule that out.

  5. Vox Validus says:

    There never was a rainbow confederacy how utterly preposterous.

  6. John says:

    Hey Hunter,

    Idea for a Glossy magazine title:

    The Cavalier.

    Censor types would miss the implication for a while. This would play quite well into the sort of historicism you are into. The Norman, Panache, born to the saddle born to the fight. It would also allow a slightly devilmaycare delve into the Confederate mindset. Your opponents could be easily branded as Puritan. Get a Franz Hals portrait of the laughing cavalier up juxtapose it with a portrait of Forrest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>