Mile Post 370

Mile Post 370
Mile Post 370

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Guest Post : Rewriting History

This letter is a response to Black Students attending Oxford as Rhodes Scholars wanting to remove the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes.  It should be read on every campus in the U.S. as well.

I have no idea whether this "letter" is true or not.  One can only pray that it is.  It's far past time that someone, anyone respond in this manner, if not these words.  As the only group of people who find a reason in their religion and culture to enslave and kill those who aren't of their mindset, shouldn't we collectively be against Muslims and their backward religion, culture and mindset, rather than trying to rewrite history and immolate western culture and everything in it?  As William Wilberforce gave his life to end slavery in England, abolitionists in America readily died for that cause over 150 years ago, and slavery only exists in the unenlightened Arab-Muslim culture, I find it ironic that Black Americans are trying to use race as a cudgel against white Americans that haven't had the opportunity to own a slave in over 150 years.  And along the same lines, racism has been eradicated in 99.9999% of White America.  It only exists in Black America any more.


Dear Scrotty Students,

Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.
This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeurs*. If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”

Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Adam Smith, Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.

And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the short lived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.

You’ll probably say that’s “racist”. But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.” Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; the #blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”. At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.

Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colour blind.

 We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations. We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect.

That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!”  No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless.

This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what?  Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here.  And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop?  As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed.  The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives.  Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution?  Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India:  was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?”

Actually, we’ll go further than that.  Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous.  We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and the Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in places like Mali and Syria.  You are murdering history.

And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs?  Your #rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!
Great.  That’s just what Oxford University needs.  Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy.  Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.

And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university.

Understand us and understand this clearly: you have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you.

Oriel College, Oxford
*Autres temps, autres moeurs – Other times, other customs: in other eras people behaved differently.

Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University, was on the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday on precisely the same topic. The Daily Telegraph headline yesterday was "Oxford will not rewrite history".

Patten commented "Education is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice"

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Guest Post: Nationalism versus Globalism

Getty Images
Appeared in: Volume 12, Number 1
Published on: July 10, 2016 
When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism
And how moral psychology can help explain and reduce tensions between the two.
Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and professor in the Business and Society Program at New York University—Stern School of Business. He is the author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Of Leadership, Racism, Lynch Mobs and Trial By Media

Roger Simon of PJ Media opined in a column, the current US Representative to the United Nations and former Governor of South Carolina would make a great President.  

But if character matters, should, then Governor, Nikki Haley even have her current job, after capitulating to the "Lynch Mob" that demanded the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the South Carolina Capital Grounds?  

Isn't this singular action, THE DIRECT PREDECESSOR to the removal of ALL CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS?  Didn't this singular action empower the Socialist Left's current rampage against history, who's only end can be (in this order): 

  1. To delegitimization anyone even tangientially associated with slavery, 
  2. To end the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, giving states with disproportionally large populations (e.g. New York, California, Illinois) de facto control over the Presidential Elections, 
  3. To delegitimize Donald J. Trump as POTUS and 
  4. To destroy the Constitution of the US and the ideal of "more perfect union."  
Isn't giving in to the uncontrollable wants of a hot tempered mob (in this case) to remove a statue EXACTLY THE SAME as supporting a lynch mob, or worse, to justify the Muslim Demand of ANY ACTION to "defend" the name of their prophet against the slander of a cartoon?

  • If the cause was justified, shouldn't then Gubernatorial Candidate Haley have addressed it on the campaign trail, before taking office?  
  • Shouldn't the newly elected Governor Haley have addressed the Confederate Battle Flag issue after taking office?  
What I see in Governor Haley's actions are the moves of an opportunist politician, who'd rather remain a popular figure, than take an unpopular stand on the issue of being Manipulated by the White Guilt Cudgel.  Here's why:  When the NAACP, SPLC and other Liberal Groups who purportedly represent Black Americans decided to be opportunists and use the Dylan Roof shooting to try to incite a race war as a White Guilt Cudgel, trying to make ALL white people feel guilty for hating Black Americans, she folded.  

Haley is no more of a leader than President Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln did not believe in equal rights for the Negro (the Latin word for Black or Dark) Race and would not even waste any political capital, addressing the Abolition of Slavery, until after Lee and the Confederate Armies were defeated at the battle of Gettysburg, the turning point of the War Between the States.  

How is trying to remove history (heritage) and casting guilt on the majority of a country's citizens by calling them "Racists," different from the Discrimination that Black Americans experienced before the Civil Rights Movement?  It's not.  It is the formerly oppressed minority discriminating against all White Americans, 
none of which EVER OWNED A SLAVE. 

America was founded by Christians, as a Christian Nation.  The Constitution and declaration of Independence references this not because we wanted a national religion, but because the benefits of a Christian Culture included civility.  Christianity's true adherents have the ability to forgive as well as  the spiritual gift of self-control.  Today, it has become fashionable to denigrate the Christian Religion, and to try to destroy both the Philosophy and Culture of Christianity.  Our country has come "full circle," embracing the dark side of our human nature, which is despotism.  Rather than forgiving and forgetting the This is what Alexis de Tocqueville described when he wrote the following passage:  "When these men attack religious opinions, they obey the dictates of their passions and not of their interests. Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a peHHople who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?"

As a Southerner (whose most famous War Between the States ancestor was Union General, Ambrose E. Burnside), I'm tired of the worn out generalization that you (privileged white Southerners) all owned slaves.  Pardon me for interrupting your moral victory party, but only the richest plantation owners owned slaves.  Most farmers in the south were small family operations.  The War Between the States ended over 150 years ago, with the Union being preserved, against Constitutional Exceptions to break away from it.  Slavery has been outlawed for nearly as long.  As for my family:
  1. My Ulster-Scot paternal ancestors came to America after the war's end.  
  2. My maternal ancestors came to the McIntosh coast of Georgia, about 100 years earlier, as indentured servants to pay for their passage from Scotland.  
  3. Once again, only the richest Southerners with plantations owned slaves.  My ancestors were farmers, they owned only enough land for them, their families to work, and later, for sharecroppers to work the land.  
To me (and many other Southerners), the Confederacy and its battle flag are equivalent to the Declaration of Independence and the Gadsden Flag.  It's a rebellious,"in your face" statement to those who would rule over and against us, that we might heed a call to arms again, if circumstances against us become dire.  It's Governor and Presidential Candidate George Wallace, telling Michigan voters in 1972 "We don't need any pointy-headed politicians in Washington telling us how to live our lives."  It's part of the reason why Donald J. Trump was elected as President of the United States.

Most "White" Southerners got over racism about 50 years ago.  In that time, the "N-word" has been removed from the vocabulary of most decent people and especially white people.  The only place it is used anymore is among blacks, when insulting other blacks.  We've elected a dark skinned bi-racial Arab African American to be President of the US.  Twice.  Despite his Communist Views, his complete lack of ANY qualification of be the Chief Administrator of the Law and Despite the fact that he chose to enforce laws that helped his causes and to not enforce any laws which did not help his causes.  Many of the older generation, with their prejudices, have died off.  And "Equal Rights" (and even preferential treatment to "equalize opportunities for minority racial populations in America") have been around for 50 years.
    We believe that Dr. Martin Luther King was correct in saying that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  Most Christians, who practice "loving our neighbors as ourselves," don't see skin color differently than we see hair color.  If we have anything left that someone could mistake as Racist, it's our problem with cultural behavoirs, (allowed and encouraged by goverment programs, that cost us money and involuntary servitude due to debt and) that erode our cultural values.

    While Dylan Roof's vision of starting a race war was horrific, hateful and flawed, was it any different or less incendeary than "the reverend" Al Sharpton's whipping up lynch mob protests in Sanford, Florida and Ferguson, Missouri, Former President Barack Obama's speech, with it's line about "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon (Martin)," or his Department of Justice ignoring black on white voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia or putting a "bounty" on the head of Police Officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael  Brown (in self-defense)?  These words and actions were ALL DESIGNED to create racial tensions ( a cold racial war) and even Lynch mobs (a hot racial war).  The Media Apparatchik of the Democrat Party has been only too helpful.  They are guilty of stirring up trouble and trying to incite a racial war.

    Which leads me to my final point:  If a person violates the law, he must be tried according to the law, and not in the media and court of public opinion, which is in essence, a Lynch Mob.  While Dylan Roof got his day in court, the News Media had already hyped the case so much as to make finding an unprejudiced jury almost impossible to find.  While the crime was horrific, reporting on anything other than the facts of the crime (e.g. interviewing witnesses on camera) prejudices any potential jury pool that might judge him based on the merits of the case that a prosecutor would need to convict the accused.  Without impartial witnesses, an accused defendant might go free because of a mis-trial, based on a prejudiced jury pool.

    Thursday, August 31, 2017

    Guest Post: Cal-Exit

    Today's post is from a topic that's about 1 month old; The proposed Cal-Exit.  With the "unfortunate" dual conservative victories of the BrExit (Great Britain deciding to leave the European Union - or what was once simply billed as "the European common market," where no tariffs whole be charged to member states, but morphed out of control into a "union of countries designed to compete with the United States) and the Election of Donald J. Trump as the President of the United States (single-handedly "undoing" what Barack Obama and his acolytes had done to America during the 8 years they ran the country - into the proverbial ditch), the liberal left, primarily in coastal California have decided enough is enough:  They can't all go to Canada, so they'll just take their state, damnit, and leave the US.  Here is Brion McClanahan's "Southern viewpoint" of that concept.


    California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has given the green light for CalExit proponents to begin collecting signatures for a California secession ballot initiative in the 2018 general election.

    This is good news. California is the logical place to begin having a conversation about secession, and every red state American should be actively supporting the proposal.
    As California goes, so goes Oregon and Washington, and in the not so distant future perhaps Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Maybe Hawaii might finally get the chance to regain its independence.
    One can dream.
    What would this mean for red state America?
    Imagine a world without Senators Pocahontas, Crazy Bernie, Diane Feinstein, or Kamala Harris?
    Add to that list Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and even Susan Collins and the Congress becomes a much more hospitable place.
    Imagine all the red state people living in peace with no Deep North or West Coast hell.
    It’s easy if you try.
    Would the Congress be perfect? No. There would still be a host of neocons taking up space. They can be more problematic than the Democrats in regard to foreign policy, but certainly issues such as immigration, the welfare state, taxes, fiscal restraint, healthcare, abortion and a host of other hot button topics would take a decided turn in the direction of real federalism.
    The Senate would be split 51-31 and the House 220-126. Those are not super majorities but close.
    The left would be reduced to an insignificant other in red state politics. In fact, you could envision a mass exodus of American pinkos pulling up stakes and moving to the grand west coast socialist utopia or its cousin in the Deep North.
    Red state America would look a lot more like real America. Chuck Thompson quipped the North would be better off without the red states. I think it’s the other way around. Heck, many Southerners might even like the United States flag again. It would be free from the stain of Yankee invasion.
    The irony, of course, is that only the North could pull this off in modern America. Their “treasury of counterfeit virtue” allows them the ability to say good riddance to the hayseeds in fly over country. Always being on the “right side of history” gets you bonus points in the world of emotivist politics.
    And it was the North not the South that agitated for secession first. Oliver Ellsworth and Rufus King told John Taylor of Caroline they wanted out in 1794. Taylor was shocked, but perhaps he should have asked how Virginia could help. It would have solved nearly eighty years of unnecessary conflict and kept New England from bloviating about secession in 1801, 1804, 1815, and 1848. They just never had the stones to pull it off. As usual, the South acted while New England debated.
    The key word, though, is “unnecessary.”
    Wouldn’t it be better to leave one another alone rather than trying to bully each other into submission?
    We were supposed to learn that lesson in primary school (that’s what it used to be called before Red Republican Carl Schurz gave us “kindergarten” and the Yankees “elementary school”) or from our mothers and grandmothers. Maybe the anti-secessionists never got the memo.
    Either way, decentralization is the more humane and polite thing to do. If we can’t see eye to eye, a peaceful divorce is preferable to a hostile marriage.
    Family court is full of these stories. Every American gets it on a personal level, so why can’t it be expanded on a larger scale?
    The answer is that Americans have been taught that secession is illegal and the “Civil War” solved the issue. Even the CalExit folks believe that it would require a constitutional amendment to secede.
    Tell that to the founding generation, Ellsworth and King among them, who thought secession was not only moral but entirely legal and possible. Just read the Declaration of Independence.
    Some suggest this would weaken security or destroy the American financial sector and ruin the economy.
    News flash, the American economy is already in the tank. Federal bankruptcy is not too far in the distant future.
    As for security, wouldn’t it be possible for these new confederacies to work out a mutual protection pact if any were invaded by a foreign power? Red state Americans have spilled a lot of blood in wars throughout United States history, most of which did not concern their immediate wellbeing.
    So red state America, here is our opportunity to rid real America from the cancer to the west and north.
    The California attorney general has gotten the ball rolling. Red state America should not only push it along, it should become the most vocal CalExit cheerleaders.
    Give me an S E C E S S I O N. What’s that spell? Secession!
    After all, Dean could become president of some northern confederation.
    It could keep him. We’ll keep our guns and Bibles.
    And we’ll wave at one another, peacefully, across the border.

    Thursday, August 17, 2017

    Guest Post: Is “White Supremacy” an Exclusively “Southern” Ideology?

    Today's Blog Post comes from the free thinking Southerners at the Abbeville Institute (

    Is “White Supremacy” an Exclusively “Southern” Ideology?

    Gettysburg Address
    “We abhor the doctrine of the “Types of Mankind;” first, because it is at war with scripture, which teaches us that the whole human race is descended from a common parentage; and, secondly, because it encourages and incites brutal masters to treat negroes, not as weak, ignorant and dependent brethren, but as wicked beasts, without the pale of humanity. The Southerner is the negro’s friend, his only friend.” George Fitzhugh, 1854
    On April 23 (judging by the pictures) five idiots—probably all FBI informants—showed up at Stone Mountain, GA to hold a “white supremacist” event.  All waved what appeared to be newly purchased Confederate Battle Flags.  These knuckleheads were met by a mob of violent “protestor” knuckleheads—probably all on a Marxist organization’s payroll—who started throwing rocks at police and igniting fires.  Eventually, the riot squad was called in, arrests were made, and order was restored, but not before pictures of the “white supremacist” kooks waving Confederate Battle Flags were plastered all over the Internet.
    The message was clear: the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of hate and white power.
    In other words, that flag represents exclusively Southern traits.
    But is either position correct?
    If you listen to the mainstream media or historical profession you would think so.  Many almost go to hysterics to “prove” that the root of Southern society was “hatred” for black Americans.  The Confederacy was simply an extension of that fact.  The common narrative is that the South has had a three-century long monopoly on racism in the United States.  The North, on the other hand, was the happy land of free thinking, benevolent, egalitarian, civic minded statesman fighting for equal rights and social justice.
    There is one problem with this particular story.  It is based on a romantic, Utopian vision of Northern society and culture, the true “lost cause myth” in American history.  Both that North and that Northerner were almost as rare as a Unicorn in both antebellum and post-bellum America.
    Were antebellum Southerners racist?  Absolutely, but no more so than antebellum Northerners.  Were post-bellum Southerners racist?  Again, absolutely but no more so than post-bellum Northerners.  Did antebellum Southerners consider blacks to be an inferior, “child-like” race?  Yes, but so did antebellum Northerners.  Racism as we understand it today was an American trait for most of American history.
    “White supremacy” was in fact a popular idea in the North both before and after the War, perhaps even more popular there than in the South.
    The proof is readily available.
    Several historians in the 1960s—most conspicuously Leon Litwack in North of Slavery and Eugene Berwanger in The Frontier Against Slavery—sought to outline the hypocrisy of Northern attacks on the South during the Civil Rights era.  These were not pro-Southern ideologues but dedicated academics who wanted to describe the complex history of race relations in America.  That story has been lost in current mainstream history or explained away by revisionists in an attempt to salvage the good name of their Northern heroes. Abraham Lincoln, for example, may have been a racist in his youth, even up to the time he was elected President in 1860, but he changed during the four years of war.  And even if he didn’t, Lincoln and the Republicans should be given a pass because they advocated the end of slavery.  You see, it is far easier to demonize the South than to accept guilt in the comprehensive American legacy of racism and slavery.  One act of political and military expediency, which is how Lincoln classified the Emancipation Proclamation, makes up for years of vitriolic racist language.
    As for examples of Northern “white supremacy,” there are far too many to list, but here are several.
    David Wilmot, the Pennsylvania Democrat who introduced the Wilmot Proviso in 1846—a rider to a defense bill that would have excluded slavery in any territory acquired by the United States in the War with Mexico—wrote this about the Proviso: It was “the cause and the rights of [the] white freeman [and] I would preserve to free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and own color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor.” He later wrote privately, “By God, sir, men born and nursed of white women are not going to be ruled by men who were brought up on the milk of some damn Negro wench!”
    The radical abolitionist Benjamin Wade of Ohio, famous for advocating the execution of Southern secessionists, the confiscation of Southern lands, the arming of former slaves, and as co-sponsor of the Wade-Davis Bill of 1864, said this when he arrived for the first time in Washington D.C. in 1851: “On the whole, this is a mean God forsaken Nigger rid[d]en place. The Niggers are certainly the most intelligent part of the population but the Nigger smell I cannot bear, yet it is in on and about every thing you see.”  He then complained that the food was “cooked by Niggers, until I can smell & taste the Nigger.”  Several years after the War, Wade said that he was “sick and tired of niggers.”
    Jacob Brinkerhoff, an Ohio Democrat, said in 1846 that, “I have selfishness enough greatly to prefer the welfare of my own race to that of any other and vindictiveness enough to wish…to keep [in] the South the burden which they themselves created,” of course meaning black slavery and a large population of black Americans.
    A Wisconsin resident, fearful of extending voting rights to black Americans, thought that giving suffrage to blacks would give them permission to “marry our sisters and daughters, and smutty wenches to [marry] our brothers and sons.”
    William Sawyer at the Ohio convention for revision of the state constitution in 1850 said, “the United States were designed by God in Heaven to be governed and inhabited by the Anglo-Saxon race and by them alone….[Blacks were] very little removed from the condition of dumb beasts—they wallowed in the mire like hogs and there was nothing of civilization in their aboriginal conditions.”
    William H. Seward of New York, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, said blacks were a “foreign and feeble element, like the Indian, incapable of assimilation [and] unwisely and unnecessarily transplanted to our fields.”
    John Fairfield of Maine avoided dinners with Congressional colleagues in Washington D.C. because he did not like “black odoriferous niggers” around.
    An Ohio Republican pleaded with Democrats to stop “shouting Sambo at us.  We have no Sambo in our platform…We object to Sambo.  We don’t want him about.  We insist that he shall not be forced upon us.”  The Republican Party, he claimed, was created for the benefit of the white race alone.
    James Harlan, a United States Senator from Iowa, asked in 1860, “Shall the Territories be Africanized?” to which he answered that he favored territorial extension only for the white race.
    Lyman Trumbull of Illinois said in 1859 that, “We the Republican party, are the white man’s party.  We are for the free white man, and for making white labor acceptable and honorable, which it can never be when negro slave labor is brought into competition with it.”
    The Iowa Republican Party used “WE ARE FOR LAND FOR THE LANDLESS, NOT NIGGERS FOR THE NIGGERLESS” as their campaign slogan in 1860.
    A Kansan writing to the New York Tribune in 1855 summarized the sentiment of most Northern Republicans and Democrats:
    First, then be not deceived in the character of the anti-Slavery feeling.  Many who are known as Free-State men are not anti-Slavery in our Northern acceptation of the word.  They are more properly negro haters, who vote Free-State to keep negroes out, free or slave; one half of them would go for Slavery if negroes were to be allowed here at all.  The inherent sinfulness of Slavery is not one thought by them.  One-third of the Free-State party is made up of men who act from convictions of conscious—the remaining two thirds are Free-State men from conviction that the profits of Freedom, derivable in the shape of customers would be greater than if slavery existed.
    While many Union soldiers eventually accepted abolition as a war aim, a large percentage bristled at Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.  One Ohio private declared, “we did not enlist to fight for the negro and I can tell you that we never shall…sacrafise [our] lives for the liberty of a miserable black race of beings….Abolitionism is traitorism in its darkest collar.”
    A Union lieutenant colonel from New York wrote, “I did not come out to fight for the nigger or abolition of Slavery. [Lincoln] ought to be lashed up to 4 big fat niggers & left to wander about with them the bal[ance] of his life.” Another New York soldier wrote, “I’m no nigger worshipper.”
    During the War, a Pennsylvania newspaper suggested, “The producing classes, the mechanic, laborer, etc., had better cut the throats of their children at once than hand them to ‘impartial freedom,’ degradation and amalgamation with negroes.”
    A New York newspaper reported that, “Filthy black niggers, greasy, sweaty, and disgusting, now jostle white people and even ladies everywhere, even at the President’s levees.”
    A Northern newspaper editor, Dr. J.H. Van Evrie, claimed during the war that, “The equality of all whom God has created equal (white men), and the inequality of those He has made unequal (negroes and other inferior races) are the corner-stone of American democracy, and the vital principle of American civilization and human progress.  We should announce that the grad humanitarian policy of progressive and civilized America is to restore subgenation all over the American continent.”  Van Evrie changed the name of his newspaper to The Caucasian during the War and was one of the most vocal proponents of “white supremacy” in the nineteenth century.  He was from New York.
    In all Midwestern states in the 1850s, referendums extending voting rights to blacks were defeated by crushing majorities, and in several of these states, blacks were not allowed to establish residency.  This was commonplace.  Even Northeastern states adopted harsh policies toward blacks before the War.  Many of these policies had waned by the 1850s, but their legacy ensured that the free black population of New England would remain low for most of its history.  Massachusetts prescribed whipping for any non-resident free black who stayed in the State longer than two months.  Connecticut denied blacks residency in the colonial period.  There were strict policies regarding black property ownership in all New England states in the colonial period and free blacks had to carry passes to travel.  Even into the 1850s, Pennsylvania debated allowing free blacks to settle in the State.
    It must also be said that free black Southerners could vote in Southern colonies and some Southern states into the early nineteenth century.  The same was not true for the North.  Black Northerners could not vote in 19 of 24 Northern states at the end of the War in 1865, and before 1860 Northern blacks could not serve on juries.
    Alexis de Tocqueville described the situation for black Northerners as thus in his Democracy in America: “So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.”
    While the situation in the post-bellum period seemed to be better in the North, some of the most brutal race riots and lynchings took place on Northern soil in the early-twentieth century.
    The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s did not wave the Confederate Battle Flag, but instead displayed Old Glory at every rally.  The U.S. flag was the only one on parade during a large Klan march in Washington D.C. in 1925.  Their dream was a progressive America devoid of black residents.  The last “grand wizard” of the 1920s Klan was from Indiana.  He was later convicted of rape and when denied a pardon by his good friend the Governor of Indiana, he exposed several leading Indiana politicians as members of the Klan, many of them Republicans.
    The lynching of Will Brown in Nebraska in 1919 was one of the most brutal and heinous in American history.  He was beaten, hung, shot, and burned by a mob.  This lynching was part of a series of race riots in Northern cities during the summer of 1919, often called the “Red Summer Race Riots.”
    The infamous photo of the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith was taken in Indiana in 1930, many miles from the Mason-Dixon.
    The worst of the 1968 race riots were in the Northern cities of Chicago and Detroit.
    Race riots broke out in Boston in the mid-1970s over forced busing, a policy Bostonians gladly accepted for their Southern brothers but violently rejected in their own backyard.
    Last time I checked, none of these States were part of the old Confederacy, and none has a history of “Confederate imagery.”
    The most iconic image from one of the 1976 Boston race riots was of a white Bostonian beating an unarmed black attorney with the U.S. Flag.
    I don’t recall the Confederate Battle Flag ever being used as a physical weapon against black Americans.
    Rally around the U.S. Flag, boys!
    Of course, anyone could reasonably claim that the U.S. flag in these instances was being used out of context, that its meaning was hijacked by the Klan and other Northern racists.  Some even admit that the U.S. flag has flown over far more racist events than the Confederate Battle Flag—even over slavery for ninety years—but because that flag today represents something else to most Americans, it should not viewed as a symbol of “hate.”
    That is the same claim made by the vast majority of those who currently fly the Confederate Battle Flag.  Isn’t it ironic?
    To these Southerners, the flag’s meaning has been distorted, abused, and stolen by “white supremacist” groups like those who showed up at Stone Mountain.  The leader of the Brazilian group dedicated to the preservation of Confederato history (relocated Southerners after the War) calls the Battle Flag a “symbol of love,” meaning a love for his family, its traditions and history, and its people. To other Americans, the flag is a symbol of self-determination, of the Jeffersonian tradition of self-government and resistance to tyranny, a distinctly American tradition.   The Battle Flag was displayed in Europe during waning days of the Cold War as a dissident gesture to the Soviet Bloc governments.  A modified form has been adopted by the leaders of the Ukrainian separatist movement today.
    The opening quote by proslavery advocate George Fitzhugh may seem odd to the modern reader.  Fitzhugh did not believe white and black Southerners to be equal—far from it—but there is a touch of humanity that a modern American would not expect to find from such a “hate filled” man.  Hate would be the incorrect word to use to describe the white antebellum Southern attitude toward black Americans.  Superiority, yes, but not hate.  By the eve of the War in 1861, Southerners commonly recognized the humanity of slaves.  The preeminent historian Eugene Genovese wrote in his seminal Roll, Jordan, Roll, “The white South, almost with one voice in the late antebellum period, denounced cruelty to slaves and denied that much of it existed.  Here and there, yes, one could find it; to a significant or noteworthy extent, no. Northerners who knew the South well often agreed.”  Following the War, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, infamously known for his “Cornerstone Speech,” urged the State of Georgia to accept black Southerners as equal before the law as a sign of “gratitude.”
    In fact, Southerners realized that they lived in a much more racially diverse region than the North.  That is why Fitzhugh could claim that the Southerner was “the negro’s…only friend.” The historian Jennifer Weber noted in her study of Northern Copperheads that “no prominent Copperheads ever discussed or even acknowledged the fact that racial mixing was well established in American life, having taken place for generations on Southern plantations.”  Northern Republicans labeled the Democrat Party the “Mulatto Democracy” because they believed Democrats favored “bleaching the darkies…the best blood of the Democracy [ran] in the veins of the ‘peculiar property.’”  Indeed, the free black population of the South was larger than that of the North in 1860, even though the Northern population, counting the Midwestern states, was nearly twice the size of the South. Many of these Southern “free people of color” were mulattoes.
    White and black Southerners had lived together for over two hundred years by 1854, and nearly four hundred years by 2016.  Their common history has not always pretty or peaceful, it was even exploitative (so was nineteenth-century Northern industrial wage labor) and unfortunately sometimes brutally violent, but there was a familiarity between these groups of people that escaped Northern Americans, both then and now, a familiarity that Northerners wished to avoid.  “Free Soil, Free (white) Labor, Free (white) Men!”  De Tocqueville again noted in his Democracy in America, “In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.”  This is why in 1895 Booker T. Washington could ask white and black Southerners to “cast down your buckets where you are,” and why he characterized his white “mentor” as a typical “Yankee woman.”  Washington was a Southerner first and foremost.  He never complained about voting in Macon County, Alabama.
    One off the more interesting pictures from the “white supremacist” rally at Stone Mountain was of a black protestor, identified only as “Miss Black Woman,” wrapped in a Confederate flag.  Ostensibly, she did this to thumb her nose at the white power crowd, perhaps even to incite their rebuke.  The people I know who honor the Confederate flag would have given her a hug and invited her to supper.  Just as with the Confederatoes in Brazil, their support for the flag is one of love.
    Genovese wrote in Roll, Jordan, Roll that, “Blacks and whites in America may be viewed as one nation or two or as a nation within a nation, but their common history guarantees that, one way or another, they are both American.”  Genovese was correct, but he missed one important point.  Most black Americans were and are not just American, but Southern. Many are moving back to the South after years in Northern cities for that reason.  The South is home.
    Racial reconciliation is a laudable and desirable goal, but removing, renaming, or re-contextualizing Confederate symbols, or worse outright vandalism, is not going to achieve any type of resolution to the American—not just Southern—legacy of racism.  Fully understanding the complex relations and history of white and black Southerners including the good, not just the bad and the ugly, could be better achieved without a Reign of Terror style purge of anything deemed “racist” by the self-appointed gatekeepers of “truth” in America today.
    There are many Northern symbols and heroes that would need a thorough re-contextualization as well.  When that process begins, perhaps more Southerners would be open to a discussion of their symbols, but I have yet to see a call for the renaming of Yale or Brown University, of Faneuil Hall, of the removal of the Lyman Trumbull statue from the Illinois Statehouse, the furling of the U.S. flag, or a “re-contextualization” of the Lincoln memorial with information about his support for colonization or with an added inscription of his own words: “I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…” or “I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position.”
    For those who need interpretation, that would be called “white supremacy.”

    About Brion McClanahan

    Brion McClanahan is the author or co-author of five books, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her (Regnery History, 2016), The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, (Regnery, 2009), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012), Forgotten Conservatives in American History (Pelican, 2012), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes, (Regnery, 2012). He received a B.A. in History from Salisbury University in 1997 and an M.A. in History from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He finished his Ph.D. in History at the University of South Carolina in 2006, and had the privilege of being Clyde Wilson’s last doctoral student. He lives in Alabama with his wife and three daughters. More from Brion McClanahan
    As I said in an earlier post, "This has reminded me of the words of my college history professor, Dr. James H. Sasser, who taught me two very important truths of life, so long ago:  
    1. "History is nothing more than "his story," referring to an author's view point which might not necessarily be the truth and
    2. The winner gets to write the history.  
    The truth doesn't necessarily have anything to do with history."

    The reader will observe, based on current events,  that the War Between the States (or more correctly, the War for Yankee Domination and Control of America, referring to the excellent Colin Woodward book, American Nations) never has really been resolved.  Northerners in general and Yankees in particular believe that Southerners (whether from the Deep South or Greater Appalachia) are uneducated, uncouth and unenlightened and that they need to be taught by them, our betters.  Especially about racial relations, but in fact, the tendency towards racism is universal.  It is partially fear based on economics and partly loathing of cultural customs.

    No sale, no thanks!

    Please go the hell back home, taking your holier than thou attitude and plan for re-educating us with you.  It seems that we get along better with "people of color" than you do.  We can handle our disagreements by ourselves, without your "expertise."