Confederate History Month 2012: Robert Barnwell Rhett on Democracy

South Carolina

Continuing with this series …

“Here is a subject in which passion, and feeling, and religion are all involved,” he added perceptively. “All the inexperienced emotions of the heart are against us; all the abstractions concerning human rights; all the theories of political dreamers, atheistic utilitarians, self-exalting and self-righteous religionists, who would reform or expunge the bible, – in short, enthusiasts and fanatics of all sorts, are against us.” Only those who really understood the nature of the black race and had seen the practice of slavery firsthand in the South could understand them, he maintained …

Rhett felt that emancipation was part and parcel of the evil that emerged in France in the previous century, for the Enlightenment was not the only evil it helped to visit upon the world. The misguided push for universal rights and against slavery was “born in atheism, and baptized in the blood of revolutionary France,” and it accomplished its purpose. “It has never failed,” he said, “and never will fail, in accomplishing its purpose, where the slaveholder does not control his destinies.” …

Worse, universal suffrage, will give to those who have no property, the absolute control of the property and legislation of the country.” “ Then the Yankees would learn the truth, “in all its horrors, that the despotism of numbers may be the most terrible that can scourge a fallen people.”

Rhett and others like him were thinking along the same lines as far back as the 1830s. They were drawing the same conclusions about the future course of liberalism which led them to embrace secession.

Note: Can you imagine Rhett attending a Pete Seeger concert?

This entry was posted in American South, Conservatism, Dixie, History, Negroes, Race Realism, Race Relations, Racism, South Carolina, Whiteness. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com Fr. John+

    It goes back further than this. Filioquism sundered the West from the East, in 1100AD.

    I now realize that the existence of serfs until the 19th Century in Russia, was actually the outworking of keeping the hierarchic structure of society in place, via Orthodoxy.

    Serfs are not slaves, but the ontological/ideological correspondences are there to see.
    Had we not had the filioque, and yet still imported slaves, they would be still on the plantation to this very day- where they belong.

    What a tangled web, is that ‘…and the son’ added to creed.

    “The filioque is the outward, efficacious, and visible symbol of an inward and metaphysical depravity.” – Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
    Wow.

  • Eric Hale

    Fr. John: you are so right, as usual. Good stuff.

  • http://www.southernnationalist.com/blog/ PalmettoPatriot

    Southern nationalists were and remain firmly against the Enlightenment and all the evils (such as all the chaos unleashed by the French Revolution) that came from it. Rhett was clear on this.

  • Lynda

    The Nasi of the Great Synagogue of Mulheim founded the Amerstamsee Wisselbank to monetize the debt of the Belgium and Netherlands after these Protestant nations carved themselves out of France. So these nations were founded on usury from the beginning – which the Church forbids – both Eastern and Western Patriarchates. The Wisselbank even wrote the textbook on derivatives.

    The Reformation is mired in religious terminology but the nuts and bolts of it is: wars of secession that were financed with loans from the Jews.

    Next the Nasi of the Amsterdamsee Wisselbank financed Oliver Cromwell when the Parliament had the Leveller / Puritan numbers to fight Charles I of England for the Supremacy. Even though England was Church of England under Charles I, the monarch was still obliged to rule under Magna Charta to the extent this was possible.

    Granted, the parties of that organic unity of Church and State in England were the See of Rome, the English monarch, the bishops appointed by Rome, the nobles and the Parliament. But even after Henry VIII seized all Church properties in England and demanded an Oath of Supremacy, some aspects of Magna Charta were still workable.

    The constitutional monarchy of Magna Charta ably defended by Sir (Saint) Thomas Moore, the Chancellor of England – especially with regard to the liberties of the House of Commons against the House of Lords (under the Oath of Supremacy) was no longer in force by the time of the English Civil War – but some aspects of it did remain, such as the convention of Parliament under the Great Seal.

    But it wasn’t finished enough for the Leveller and Puritan Parliamentarians in England under Cromwell. They fought Charles I for the Supremacy. They raised the New Model Army with loans from the Jews – the Nasi of the Amsterdamsee Wisselbank and they plunged England into bloody Civil War from 1640-49. It is clear that English titles were collateral on those loans with the terms of the loans continaing a mandate for all titles in England, Ireland and Scotland.

    As soon as the regicide of Charles I was accomplished, Cromwell invaded Ireland 1649 and Scotland 1650 with the New Model Army.

    After the failure of the Commonwealth of England and its Committe of Public Safety (think Jacobin France) there was Restoration of the English Stewart monarchy and some form of return to Parliamentary government under Magna Charta.

    With the accession of James II of England / James VII of Scotland it was clear that the King was not going to use the Royal Perogative (under the limits set out by Magna Charta) to give permission for a bank like the Amsterdamsee Wisselbank which were the terms of the loans made to the English Parliament. And the Pope had just re-iterated in his Apostolic Constituion that Catholic states were prohibited from permitting the Jews to engage in usury.

    Even though James II was coronated at Westminster Abbey by the Church of England; as a Roman Catholic he had been privately annointed as King of England by the Church. The prohibition of Rome was binding on him as a Catholic monarch. And it was clear the Nasi did not see the settlement of their loans upon all titles of Ireland and Scotland under a Stewart reign.

    Therefore, they cooked up the invasion of Dutch Stadholder Prince William of Orange with the English Parliament and the Scottish Convention of Estates dominated by the Kirk. Abandoned by the English army under the control of the Parliamentarians, James II fled for his life throwing the Great Seal of Magna Charta in the River Thames.

    King Willie, who was the agent of the Nasi, of course exercised the Royal Perogative for the founding of the Bank of England to monetize the debt of the Parliament to the Jews for their bloody Civil War they had executed upon England, Ireland and Scotland.

    The Nasi who owned the Consuls of the Bank of England became ‘the Crown’. England was now set upon a foundation of usury. The Bank was set up to monetize their Corporation of the City of London and administer its asset: England – a nation of tenants owned by a bank.

    King Willie then invaded Ireland to settle the debt of the Crown over Ireland. But James Stewart , King James II, fought the Williamite forces in Ireland with both French and Irish forces to save Ireland from the fate that had been settled upon England.

    And at Dundee Law 1689, the Jacobites under John Graham, Laird of Claverhouse (Bonnie Dundee in the famous poem by Sir Walter Scott) raised his standards as a signal to James that the Highlands were with him. Although Ireland was lost at the Battle of the Boyne 1689 with all estates forfeit to the Bank of England, it would take another 50 years for the Crown to settle the Parliamentarian debt upon Scotland, with the cause of the Scottish nation lost to the Jews and the Bank of England at Culloden 1746.

    Those populations were nations of tenants after those dates with all land titles forfeit to the Crown (the Nasi – those who own the Consuls of the Bank of England). Since the Act of Succession, the monarch of England is a mere representative of the Crown. And nothing of the traditional monarchy and parliamentary government under the monarchy as set out in Magna Charta (England) or the Declaration of Arbroath (Scotland) remains. These all operate under the Crown and according to the policies of the Crown.

    So Ireland after the Battle of the Boyne – the new aristocracy (noble houses intermarried with Judaics) get land and title. There is a tax on every house, every window of every house, every butterchurn, every plow, every spindle, every tool of trade and the harvests are exported out of the country. Ireland is depopulated with entire counties bound over for transport to the Crown venture of America or to the penal colonies in Australia. After Culloden, the Highlands are cleared to pasture the Cheviot sheep with great burning and loss of life in Ayrshire, Sutherland, Cameron etc and these populations are removed. Then, in England with the Act of Enclosure, the Commons are denied to peasants on the landed estates and entire English populations are dumped into the industrial slums of Sheffield, York or sent to the coal mines in Wales or bound over for transport to the new world.

    It is very clear that the Nasi of the Crown inaugurated their Revolution against the Catholic nation states in France 1789 – throwing down both throne and altar of that nation. In that Revolution, the slaves of the French colonial possessions in the New World – Haiti were freed and they were enabled to genocide the White French population.

    The Revolutions of the twentieth century were revolutions against all Christian populations and nation states in order to carve up the world into power blocs that could be banged together in the world wars. We are now in the true Zionist or globalist phase of the same revolution, organised and financed by the same banking families that established the Crown over the United Kingdom in 1689.

    The Crown is the monarchy of the Judaic Imperium and it rules here through its Federal Reserve subsidiary of the Bank of England.

  • http://www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com Fr. John+

    And the Crown of England does so, precisely because it still has the filioquist (romanist) heresy at its’ base.

    Both the Puritans and the Papists have this error in their pneumatology, and in their philosophy. The Only solution is to return to our common pre-schism roots theologically. You cannot fix a faulty theological paradigm, especially one based on Thomistic filioquist Romanism.

  • Stonelifter

    The Word of God is such an easy thing to understand; then people screw it all up

  • Lynda

    Fr John,

    The Crown is not the British monarchy of whatever persuasion. The British monarchy ended with James II King of England / VII of Scotland who ruled under what was left of Magna Charta and the Declaration of Arbroath. James Stewart was annointed privately by the Roman Catholic Church to reign as the monarch of England, Ireland and Scotland. The next day he was coronated at Westminster in the cermonies of the Church of England.

    What holds forth from that time of the Act of Succession of William of Orange is a mere ‘agent’ of The Crown. The Act makes this clear. The current heir apparent is Jewish as is Kate Middleton. Their Ketuba was written in Israel.

    The Crown founded the Corporation of the City to administer nations conquered by the Parliamentarians in the England Civil War under the terms of the loans from the Amsterdam Wisselbank owned by the Nasi (the Princes of the Jews) from the Great Synagogue of Mulheim. The Crown owns the Consuls of the Bank of England to monetize the debt of nations England, Scotland, Ireland conquered by Cromwell’s New Model Army. The BoE later went into the apex of the Bank of International Settlements.

    The Crown is not the monarchy of Britain; it is The Crown of the Judaic Imperium.

    America was founded by the Social Masonry of The Crown to be an asset of the Corporation of the City. The Founding Fathers were all masons of the York and Scottish rites. This does not mean that the dispossessed of the wars of The Crown who came to the Americas or were deported to the Americas did not have their own vision of the founding documents and establish the culture of White nations here. Indeed, all of American history has been the struggle for that vision.

    What is here meant is that unlike Magna Charta (England) and Declaration of Arbroath (Scotland – still the best constitution ever written) was not part of that foundation. There was no established church in the USofA because after the Act of Succession and later in the US there was no separation of Synagogue and State.

  • HarryO

    Fr. John I am uninterested in a dispute with you but what in heaven’s name is all this business about “filioquism, Romanism.”

    We were exclusively a Protestant nation at our founding and remain predominantly so today. Does it not behoove you to with just a modicum of reasonable deference respectfully acknowledge this?

    This very weird obsession with the “filioque” clause in the Nicene creed is, well, weird – especially in this venue. If you don’t mind, I subscribe, as a Protestant in a Protestant nation to the Nicene Creed as it has come to us since the 5th century. Beyond this, what in the world has it to do with the thematic fare here a OD?

  • Pingback: The Path of the Righteous is Beset On All Sides By Pinkos, Pastors, and Polecats | Spirit/Water/Blood