Posted by wintermute on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:14 | #

At last, we come to the English Question.

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:15 | #

And I should add to that, the most important event in American History was the English Civil War.

Sources and links to follow.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:41 | #

Oh boy, a Civil War thread. I can’t think of any other subject which leaves me more inclined to jump out of the water and snatch down the bait. I’m busy at the moment, so my commentary will be brief.

Prindle notes that the moment when the First Reconstruction of the South ended, American Liberalism was born. The Liberals equate their policies with virtue; opposition to their policies is sinful. They seek to control public discourse; they persecute dissenters. They isolate, slander, and demonize ‘heretics’; or worse.

That’s exactly what it was - the First Reconstruction. The second one is what we know as the “Civil Rights Movement.” Go back and look at the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was one of the most sectional votes in American history.

At last, we come to the English Question.

Clyde Wilson calls it “The Yankee Problem in America.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html

“To fully understand what the Yankee is today – builder of the all-powerful “multicultural” therapeutic state (with himself giving the orders and collecting the rewards) which is the perfection of history and which is to be exported to all peoples, by guided missiles on women and children if necessary – we need a bit more real history. . .

If this were true, then anything that stood in the way of American perfection must be eradicated. The threatening evil at various times was liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating, marriage. Within the small area of the Burnt Over District and within the space of a few decades was generated what historians have misnamed the “Jacksonian reform movement:” Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from the Angel Moroni; William Miller began the Seventh Day Adventists by predicting, inaccurately, the end of the world; the free love colony of John Humphrey Noyes flourished at Oneida; the first feminist convention was held at Seneca Falls; and John Brown, who was born in Connecticut, collected accomplices and financial backers for his mass murder expeditions.

It was in this milieu that abolitionism, as opposed to the antislavery sentiment shared by many Americans, including Southerners, had its origins. Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural rights. It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America’s divine mission to establish Heaven on Earth. It was not the Union that our Southern forefathers seceded from, but the deadly combination of Yankee greed and righteousness.

Most abolitionists had little knowledge of or interest in black people or knowledge of life in the South. Slavery promoted sin and thus must end. No thought was given to what would happen to the African-Americans. In fact, many abolitionists expected that evil Southern whites and blacks would disappear and the land be repopulated by virtuous Yankees.

The darker side of the Yankee mind has had its expression in American history as well as the side of high ideals. Timothy McVeigh from New York and the Unabomber from Harvard are, like John Brown, examples of this side of the Yankee problem. (Even though distinguished Yankee intellectuals have declared that their violence was a product of the evil “Southern gun culture.”)

General Richard Taylor, in one of the best Confederate memoirs, Destruction and Reconstruction, related what happened as he surrendered the last Confederate troops east of the Mississippi in 1865. A German, wearing the uniform of a Yankee general and speaking in heavily accented English, lectured him that now that the war was over, Southerners would be taught “the true American principles.” Taylor replied, sardonically, that he regretted that his grandfather, an officer in the Revolution, and his father, President of the United States, had not passed on to him true American principles. Yankeeism was triumphant.

Since the Confederate surrender, the Yankee has always been a strong and often dominant force in American society, though occasionally tempered by Southerners and other representatives of Western civilization in America. In the 1960s the Yankee had one of his periodic eruptions of mania such as he had in the 1850s. Since then, he has managed to destroy a good part of the liberty and morals of the American peoples. It remains to be seen whether his conquest is permanent or whether in the future we may be, at least to some degree, emancipated from it.”

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:42 | #

And the English Civil War was the product of the Norman Conquest - made perversely possible by the 300 *ecclesiastical* knights that formed the loyal and cohesive nucleus of the Norman army (in what we might refer to as a “Faustian Pact” with the local episcopacies) - where, elsewhere, feudal arrangements decentralized martial authority in France.

So, how do we account for the church of the gentle Jesus of Nazareth providing brutal warriors for the conquest, by Christians, of other Christians?

Sounds like more Whorin’ goin’ on to me.

Where’s Petr, BTW?

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:56 | #

Brother Petr is still spreading the Good News at my old forum (in case you were wondering, this is the artist formerly known as “Fade.”) Many of us have since relocated here:

http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/

Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:11 | #

Sounds like more Whorin’ goin’ on to me.

Can you enlighten me on what you’re referring to
as whoring, NN?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:12 | #

Wintermute,

In what sense is one of these inverted Anglo-Saxons an “Aryan” - a “Good European” - an heir of “Helas”?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:26 | #

As in the “Whore of Babylon” - getting it on with the Kings and Princes of the Earth?

An ecclesiastical knight is a bizarre phenomenon from a world-historical perspective - a product of the unprecedented politicization/prostitution of a Church - leading, in this case, to the Investiture Controversy and another bizarre such episode with a Church-afforded army, highlighted by the events at Canossa.

Posted by William on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:33 | #

Prindle is quoted by Robert Reis and thence by the poster above as saying, “People with that attitude do not merge with anybody; they assume overlordship of subservients. The same is true of the Semites [both Jews and Moslems] who believe they have the mandate of god to rule mankind.  These are facts no one will dispute, you just have to apply them.”

Alex Linder said it better when he explained why some Jewish Semites fear an invasion of Muslim Semites into our countries:

“Muzzy might do what Izzy done done.”

The specious separation of our people into some perennial bifurcated system formed over centuries cannot reasonably be assessed responsibility for all the things that Robert Reis thinks that Prindle thinks.

=================

PS: Neither Timothy McVeigh nor the Unabomber were of Puritan descent or of East Anglian descent, or immersed in Puritan culture unless that term is stretched into some term like phlogiston, that can mean everything and nothing.

=================

Inasmuch as Robert Reis is listed as the author of the posted piece, who might he be?

.

Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:53 | #

Scimitar,

Are you familiar with the Southern/Norman Yankee/East Anglian suggestion of the above peice?

It would be interesting to know if this really was an intra-English feud that carried over to the New World. We would need some sources.

To think an East Anglian identity was still present in Yankees and a Norman identity present in Southerners is fascinating.
I thought the Norman aspect of English identity was long-lost as a result of their small numbers and easy intermarriage, (excepting Ireland).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:49 | #

William, “Prindle” bears the same relation to the man Reis as “John Standing” does to GW.

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:00 | #

In what sense is one of these inverted Anglo-Saxons an “Aryan” - a “Good European” - an heir of “Helas”?

N,

They’re not. Hence “the English Question”.

I include “the New England Question” as a subset of the above. Hence Pound’s nickname for the beast, Yankee-Judea.

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:14 | #

To think an East Anglian identity was still present in Yankees and a Norman identity present in Southerners is fascinating.

Though there are aspects of overt identity, it is more accurate to think of the transmission as a character structure, an enduring pattern of beliefs, expectations, and behaviors which remain stable, even when outward forms have fallen away.

One way into this labyrinth is David Fischer’s magisterial Albion’s Seed:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p114_Rosit.html

Fischer’s basic thesis is that although less than 20% of the present U.S. population has British antecedents, our British genesis is still the dominant factor determining our culture. This formative British culture, however, was not monolithic. America still reflects the regional, religious, and class divisions of 17th and 18th century Britain.

According to Fischer, the foundation of American culture was formed from four mass emigrations from four different regions of Britain by four different socio-religious groups. New England’s constitutional period occurred between 1629 and 1640 when Puritans, most from East Anglia, settled there. The next mass migration was of southern English cavaliers and their servants to the Chesapeake Bay region between 1640 and 1675. Then, between 1675 and 1725 thousands of Quakers, led by William Penn settled the Delaware Valley. Finally, English, Scots, and Irish from the borderlands settled in Appalachia between 1717 and 1775. Each of these migrations produced a distinct regional culture which can still be seen in America today.

Some review excerpts for The Cousins’ Wars, by Kevin Phillips:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_25_50/ai_53548491

The Cousins’ Wars is, in effect, two books. One is a thick book examining the links between three Anglo-American revolutions-the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War. The other is a slim essay seeking to explain why the two-headed entity of Anglo-America achieved global dominance in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

As to the first subject, the notion that the American Civil War was another round in the conflict between Puritan “Roundheads” and southern “Cavaliers” is a cliche, but one with a kernel of truth, according to Phillips. The English Civil War pitted “Cavaliers with Celtic allies versus Puritan England”; the U.S. Civil War pitted “Cavaliers with Southern Celtic stock allies and Northern Irish sympathizers against Yankee Greater New England.” A similar pattern manifested itself in seventeenth-century North America during the English Civil War, as Puritan New England supported Cromwell and Cavalier Virginia became a refuge for royalists.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/02/07/reviews/990207.07brookht.html?_r=1&oref=login

In ‘‘The Cousins’ Wars,’’ he takes his method farther back in time, and to both sides of the Atlantic, to examine the causes and outcomes of three wars that, he argues, shaped Anglo-American civilization: the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the American Civil War. The result is the king of campaign memos, a 700-page brief for Oliver Cromwell, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Its overarching story—of High Church cavalier aristocrats, repeatedly losing to dissenting republican entrepreneurs—might be subtitled ‘‘The Emerging Puritan Majority.’’

Phillips’s template is the contest, beginning in 1642, between King Charles I and Parliament. Geographically, Parliament was strongest in London and lesser commercial cities, Puritan eastern England and parts of the Midlands, while Charles I drew on southwestern England and Britain’s Celtic fringe. Phillips stresses that the war also touched England’s colonies, as thousands of Puritans who had fled to New England to escape the High Church regime of Charles’s bishops returned to fight on the parliamentary side. Parliament’s victory culminated in the strongman rule of Oliver Cromwell, and then was undone by the restoration of Charles II in 1660. But the Glorious Revolution of 1688 established Protestantism and a chastened royal house.

In the 1760’s, the monarchy began to stir again, provoking restiveness in the 13 colonies. Phillips notes, as every careful historian does, that the American Revolution was also a civil war. More controversially, he sees the regional patterns of patriot and Tory allegiance as replays of the loyalties of 17th-century England. Post-Puritan New England was one hotbed of American resistance; the Presbyterian Ulstermen of the back country were another. Southern planters, despite their many cavalier habits and poses, were a third, resenting policies like the threatened establishment of Anglican bishops in the New World (they wanted to control their parishes themselves). Tory ranks included transplanted Scots (especially Highlanders) and wealthy urban Anglicans. Some of these loyalties survived in the first American party system of Republicans and Federalists.

By the time of the American Civil War, Phillips concedes, the connections to old England had become fainter. The Confederate cavalry officer J. E. B. Stuart was a descendant of Pennsylvania Ulstermen, not of English royalty. Still, the two sides imagined connections even where they were lacking: Stuart wore golden spurs and thought of himself as a latter-day Prince Rupert. And the real connections were strong enough. Abolitionism began in the 1840’s religious ferment of Greater New England, when, as Emerson noted, ‘‘Dunkards, Muggletonians, Come-outers, Groaners’’ and all the Puritan fringe sects walked again.

More later.

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:32 | #

Timothy McVeigh from New York and the Unabomber from Harvard are, like John Brown, examples of this side of the Yankee problem.

I agree with William, above. Not only is McVeigh not a product of Puritan or Quaker spheres of influence, he is a reaction against those spheres of influence. Clyde Wilson goes too far in that case.

The Unabomber is also something potentially new in social psychopathology. Unlike abolitionists or other breakdown products of the Low Church tradition, the Unabomber is not trying to hasten a Second Coming, whether secular or religious. He is using violence to avert an imagined catastrophe. While that is concievably an inversion of millenarianism, when you add the fact that he was fairly schizoid (isolated, good at math) and was the subject of some fairly horrific psychological experiments at Harvard (I mean besides the curriculum) he may genuinely represent something new, that I would class with Earth First and tree spiking, popular during the eighties. A posited Second Coming, and a return to Eden, are very different things. It would occur to a Judaicized mind, and often does, that we should take immediate political action to “immenitize the eschaton”, in Voegelin’s phrase. I can’t see them, like Deep Ecologists, trying to head off or prevent some negative future state of affairs. I have a strong feeling that Earth First and the Unabomber represent different phenomena than what we see in Progressivism, Abolitionism, etc.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:45 | #

PF,

I have heard this theory before. Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of it. In my view, the differences between the North and South have more to do with history, religion, and geography than anything else. As noted above, Massachusetts and Plymouth were founded and settled by religious dissidents from England. The Southern colonies were more commercially oriented; rice and cotton in South Carolina and Georgia, tobacco in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.

In New England, Congregationalism was predominant. In the Southern colonies, Anglicanism was the established church before the American Revolution. The Great Awakening that bowled over the North wasn’t nearly as popular in the South. For many years, the South was far less “churched” than the North during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Yankees were always pilloring Southerners like Jefferson at the time for their lack of religiosity. Religion was taken less seriously here. Just the opposite state of affairs prevails today, but that is another long story.

The author above is entirely correct about the Puritan New Englanders seeing themselves as a “chosen people” or a “city on a hill” with something of a mission to make the world over in their image. Another typical Yankee trait is their infatuation with liberal abstractions. They have always been notorious for this. During the nineteenth century, Boston was widely regarded in the South as a “city of notions.” Northerners were thought to be:

“For all that, it was presumed that Northerners were avaricious, brusque, rapid, religious (and probably hypocritical), disciplined, diligent, self-improving, less courteous to women, less hospitable, uncharitable towards social inferiors, condescending towards outsiders, self-righteous, less adept at politics, and more prone to ideological enthusiasm.”

O’Brien, Conjectures of Order: Intellectual Life and the American South, 1810-1860, 38

And cold and materialistic. Caroline Gilman writing in the antebellum era on how Southerners interacted with those beyond their own culture: “though secluded, their hospitable doors are open to friends, and the frequent traveller brings to their tranquil abodes the softened echo of the world.”

Yancey on the cultural differences between the North and South:

As Yancey sketched out the characteristics of each section, he all but depicted the North as the Rev. Beman writ large - cold, hard, determined, humorless, and businesslike. New England offered colonial settlers a landscape barren and unyielding in summer, cold and inhospitable in winter. Survival depended upon a keen mind, utilitarianism, and stern denial of indulgence. All culture and qualities emerged from this conflict with nature: a unity of purpose among its inhabitants, and the need for pragmatic education. These characteristics, Yancey explained, were embodied in the common school of New England. “This species of education has given the North unity of purpose and design in the material forms of its civilization.” These schools represented “a monied interest,” and reaped great dividends over time by producing factories and fisheries. But these qualities, Yancey explained, came with a cost. Northerners’ materialism, he told Alabama’s youth, came “at the expense of the sentiments, which give . . breadth and scope to character and intellect - and which are absolutely necessary to a proper balance of character.”

In stark and happy contrast, Yancey’s South was like the mother he never had - warm, loving, nurturing, enabling. For the Cavaliers and Huguenots whos settled the colonial South, nature “invited them to repose upon a bosom that, warmed by a southern Sun, teemed with all the elements necessary to national growth.” Southern soil, with its “never tiring fertility,” produced more than enough for all, and with but little effort. Unlike their unhappy counterparts in the North, southerners had no need for the “association of labor and capital.” Instead, “individual independence of thought and movement” flourished. “Leisure - contemplation - enlarged the faculties of his mind.” With no need for the Yankee’s economy, with money not the “great end of life’s struggle,” free from care and giving full reign to “genial influences, society became a pleasure - hospitality a general virtue.” Despite his own relentless concern for money and his disdain for leisure, Yancey truly believed that these ideals characterized his region and rendered it superior to the North.

For Yancey, one of the great differences between North and South concerned how each had come to view women. Although Yancey himself in 1845 had publicaly advocated modernizing and expanding women’s rights, a decade later and with a new perspective on the sections and their people, politics, and values, Yancey now condemned the North for a meddling spirit that undermined women’s truth worth. “That same spirit, which would turn everything into gold . . . has invaded the sphere of woman.” Yancey contended that northern men had desexed women, had “brushed the down from her cheek, and raised the stiff beard in lieu.” Materialism in the North condemned women as worthless in their vocation as mothers and thrust them into the workplace. Horribly, northern society had led women to believe “that the rights of man are also woman’s rights, and that the editorial chair - the medical - the legal and clerical professions should be filled by her, as well as by men.” Northern women had mounted the speaker’s platform and joined in “public harangues,” and some wore “Bloomers,” ready “for bestriding a fence or a saddle as utility shall demand.”

In happy contrast, Yancey found southern white women, like most everything in the South, happy and content in their domestic sphere. The southern white woman was loving, gentle, retiring - still a woman. She kept her home sacred, a sanctuary from man’s rough world. For Yancey the home provided opportunity and challenges both sufficient and important enough to command her full attention and time. And as the outside world turned ever more contentious and foreboding, Yancey’s faith in old-fashioned southern patriarchy increased in proportion.

According to Yancey, patriarchial white southerners improved upon nature’s munificence by incorporating African slavery. “Owing to the existence of African slavery in the South, the laws of labor were fixed - permanent - under perfect control.” Slavery, in fact, worked so harmoniously within the reigon that to disturb that institution in any way at all “would uproot the foundations of society.” Therefore, “Conservatism became ingrafted” on white southerners’ minds, as well as a “habitual reverence for law and order - and a fixed dislike of change.”

Eric W. Walther, William Lowndes Yancey and the Coming of the Civil War, 195-197

More on Yancey’s views:

He vowed that southerners opposed racial mixing, “and are opposed to elevating the negro to the social level of the white man, and do not want the negro introduced into either their blood, liberty, or rights.” He then asserted - as Stephen Douglas had for years - that the party of Lincoln desired “to elevate the negro by depressing the white man to his level.” White southerners could yield to the north on tariffs and other issues, but not on slavery, “the tool of our industry, the source of our prosperity.” Yancey ended his tirade by swearing, “We stand upon the dark platform of southern slavery, and all we ask is to be allowed to keep it to ourselves. Let us do that, and we will not let the negro insult you by coming here and marrying your daughters.” The crowd roared its approval.

Ibid, 260

He was prescient here:

“But before diabolical Republicans could enslave white southerners, Yancey predicted, southerners would emulate George Washington and “take the banner of liberty and plant it on the mountains of Augusta, and there we will entrench ourselves as a body of freemen.” Republicans, highly disciplined, led by eminent and able - if heinous - men, had proclaimed an “irrepressible war” on slavery, sought to “give freedom to everything in human shape upon the face of the earth,” would disregard constitutional protections for slavery, and would base their government upon their “wild, insane, revolutionary, and incendiary notions.”

Ibid, 258

That last phrase about giving “freedom to everything in human shape upon the face of the earth” and basing government on “wild, insane, revolutionary, and incendiary notions” was prophetic. Even 150 years ago, Yancey could see where their ideology would ultimately lead, even though I doubt even he could have forseen the day when homosexuals would be getting married in Massachusetts and “queer theory” would be taught in our universities.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:19 | #

Too bad we lost the Civil War. If we had won, we would have had “Founding Fathers” like this:

“Rehashing the condemnation of race relations in New England that he had spouted in Congress fifteen years before, Yancey scoffed, the Bay State allowed blacks to practice law and to vote. In the South, he boasted, “we have a white government; yours seems to be a mulatto government.” America’s founders never designed that. On the contrary, Yancey lectured, the founders knew that whites were “the master race.” . . .

As he had done in Boston, at Syracuse again Yancey zealously defended slavery and attacked its foes. When the founding fathers said all men were created equal, Yancey insisted that they meant those among “the dominant race, the ruling race, the Caucasian race, the white race, their own race.”

Ibid, 266

“Wild, impracticable and false notions, as to the equality of the human race, got abroad both here and in Europe,” he explained, because the world had so long suffered from absolute despotism, “that the rebound of opinion went far beyond the line of truth.”

Ibid, 232

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:51 | #

In that case the the Revolutionary War pitted high and low church English (Puritans and Cavaliers and even the Irish) in alliance with the Catholic French against the Germans (Hanoverians). If only Howe had crushed Washington on Long Island, things would have been so much simpler.

Curiously, one M.P. who sat for a pro-American constituency was Gen. William Howe, who in 1775 was given the job of beating George Washington; Phillips is not the first historian to claim that Howe’s sympathies hobbled his performance.

Posted by Half-Yankee on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:38 | #

Scimitar,

Yankees were always pilloring Southerners like Jefferson at the time for their lack of religiosity. Religion was taken less seriously here.

Would you mind giving some examples of the “pilloring”? I think John Adams was no more religious that Jefferson.

The author above is entirely correct about the Puritan New Englanders seeing themselves as a “chosen people” or a “city on a hill” with something of a mission to make the world over in their image.

Delete the part of the sentence that starts with “with something”. “Puritans” wanted to reform themselves and their church, not “the world”. New England Puritans never had “something of a mission to make the world over in their image”—certainly not through active intervention, anyway. I’m curious if you’ve ever actually bothered to read the “city upon a hill” sermon, or do you know it only through the speechwriters of those scions of colonial New England JFK and Ronald Reagan?

And cold and materialistic.

Not unlike how Mexicans see Americans.

I don’t think it would hurt any if white Americans today were more “cold, hard, determined, humorless, and businesslike”.

re: wintermute

Based on his name and appearance and what I know about migration patterns I’d say there is about a 99% chance Ezra Pound (who was born in Idaho, incidentally) was himself substantially of colonial New England stock.

Repeating “Yankee-Judea” ad nauseam and quoting book reviews does not constitute an argument.

Posted by Half-Yankee on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:05 | #

It’s interesting how the likes of Clyde Wilson attack the Yankees of 150+ years ago for alleged hyper-religiosity when at present the South hosts America’s biggest concentrations of “Christian Zionists” and rapture believers.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:05 | #

======================
WM,

In what sense is one of these inverted Anglo-Saxons an “Aryan” - a “Good European” - an heir of “Hellas”?

NN,

They’re not. Hence “the English Question”.

I include “the New England Question” as a subset of the above. Hence Pound’s nickname for the beast, Yankee-Judea.
======================

Then why would you have us think of ourselves as “English”?

Anglo-America fell to the Jews like a whore with wheels for heels - only the *Germans* were able, briefly, to cleanse themselves.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:16 | #

==================
Delete the part of the sentence that starts with “with something”. “Puritans” wanted to reform themselves and their church, not “the world”. New England Puritans never had “something of a mission to make the world over in their image”—certainly not through active intervention, anyway. I’m curious if you’ve ever actually bothered to read the “city upon a hill” sermon, or do you know it only through the speechwriters of those scions of colonial New England JFK and Ronald Reagan?
==================

Once you’ve reformed “yourselves and your church,” guess what you’ll be doing next.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:29 | #

=================
It’s interesting how the likes of Clyde Wilson attack the Yankees of 150+ years ago for alleged hyper-religiosity when at present the South hosts America’s biggest concentrations of “Christian Zionists” and rapture believers.
=================

“At present” the countervailing cultural influence of a cultivated aristocratic upperclass has been absent for a century-and-a-half.

The weeds have thus grown thick and tall hereabouts.

Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:20 | #

Re: Scimitar

I have heard this theory before. Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of it. In my view, the differences between the North and South have more to do with history, religion, and geography than anything else.

Lacking any quotations on the explicit presence of Norman identity in the South and East Anglian in the North, I think the suggested connection to a supposedly age-old English feud, is tenuous. I’m not even sure if historical sources confirm the reality of the feud in England, it seems even there it was discussed in cultural rather than group-identity terms.

Unlike their unhappy counterparts in the North, southerners had no need for the “association of labor and capital.” Instead, “individual independence of thought and movement” flourished. “Leisure - contemplation - enlarged the faculties of his mind.” With no need for the Yankee’s economy, with money not the “great end of life’s struggle,” free from care and giving full reign to “genial influences, society became a pleasure - hospitality a general virtue.”

Southerners are a people who I feel I would respect greatly, if I had gotten to know them as they were, instead of through American television. American television demonized Southerners so subtly, and yet so consistantly, that one feels onesself poisoned with a kind of reflexive dislike for their manners and ways. Even though, the two Southerners I knew in my life were unusually kind and admirable, and when I travelled through on a trip, the women were obviously beautiful and everyone smiled and did seem happier than elsewhere. Everyone was kind to me, and seemed more restful and stable than other people I got to know in America.

Unfortunately, this whole Redneck thing on American TV, the guy in overalls who says “Get her done” and the constant association of the South with the word ‘in-bred’, makes Southern culture out to be some kind of anti-culture. Have you tackled the demonization and slander of the South in any of your blog entries? I’ll have to check. I’m sure its a topic which has occupied your thinking at some time.

Posted by Maguire on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:34 | #

“Repeating “Yankee-Judea” ad nauseam and quoting book reviews does not constitute an argument.”

Especially when the actual facts of the matter are opposite.  The southern elites were 100% in bed with the Rothschilds and International Jewry.

“when at present the South hosts America’s biggest concentrations of “Christian Zionists” and rapture believers.”

The South has always been susceptible to philo-semitism.

““We stand upon the dark platform of southern slavery, and all we ask is to be allowed to keep it to ourselves. Let us do that, and we will not let the negro insult you by coming here and marrying your daughters.””

This was another southern planter aristocracy lie.  They also demanded the unlimited ‘right’ to spread their subsidized negro breeding and workfare program throughout all the territories of the West not yet admitted as States. 

iow spread the negro in preference to white European immigrants like my paternal great grandfather.

That’s why this Constitutional amendment which passed out of the US Congress on March 2, 1861 was insufficient:

“No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

This had already been ratified by Ohio and Maryland when a Jew pulling a cannon lanyard created ‘facts on the ground’ at Charleston, SC on April 12, 1861.  The rapid Ohio ratification was especially significant.  It constituted a direct repudiation of the politics of Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio, one of the most prominent Senate abolitionists.

Too bad we don’t have that amendment today, huh?  ‘States Rights’?  There they were, 100% conceded up front.  The money grubbing no talent shabbas goy planters of the South preferred spilling white boys’ blood to real states rights.

Scimitar, I’d have great empathy if the subject were the post-Reconstruction South.  But that monstrosity known as the Antebellum South?  It will never wash.  ALL of the justifications put forth in its defense are rooted in the same double talk that Neocon Jews use today to justify their present war policies.

Personally I have great difficulty detecting differences between the policies of the Antebellum South then and Neocons like Trent Lott today.  Both favored ‘free trade’ brokered by Jews and unchecked non-white immigration, reproduction and domestic labor.

Where a 21st Century Confederacy would stand on the Zionist Question is hypothetical.  But the actual relations with the Zionist Entity of another negro labor dependent agrarian economy, South Africa, provides a good clue.

Posted by Maguire on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:09 | #

“Repeating “Yankee-Judea” ad nauseam and quoting book reviews does not constitute an argument.”

A better argument is to examine who the main diplomatic backers of each side were during the conflict.  In the case of Judah P. Benjamin’s Confederacy these were:

1.  The philo-semitic British Empire (Conservative Party dominated by Benjamin Disraeli);

2.  Napoleon III of France (the physical residence of Judah P. Benjamin’s ‘Creole’ wife and child from before 1861) and;

3.  Franz Joseph’s Jew-ridden Austro-Hungarian Empire. 

The federal government’s major European diplomatic supporter was Czar Alexander II of Russia, himself a frequent target of Jewish intrigues and violence.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:06 | #

It’s interesting how the likes of Clyde Wilson attack the Yankees of 150+ years ago for alleged hyper-religiosity when at present the South hosts America’s biggest concentrations of “Christian Zionists” and rapture believers.

Because that wasn’t always the case. Just the opposite was true. New England was the most deeply religious, evangelical region of the United States into the early twentieth century, not unlike the Bible Belt today. It was the South that was more secular. This changed due to a combination of Catholic immigration from Europe and evangelical missioniaries that were sent to the South to convert the natives. New England missionaries were also diligently at work in Africa during this period.

Would you mind giving some examples of the “pilloring”? I think John Adams was no more religious that Jefferson.

I had in mind especially the controversy over the French Revolution in American during the 1790s. The Federalists loved to portray Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans as atheistic Jacobins.

Delete the part of the sentence that starts with “with something”. “Puritans” wanted to reform themselves and their church, not “the world”. New England Puritans never had “something of a mission to make the world over in their image”—certainly not through active intervention, anyway. I’m curious if you’ve ever actually bothered to read the “city upon a hill” sermon, or do you know it only through the speechwriters of those scions of colonial New England JFK and Ronald Reagan?

I have to disagree with this. Above all else, Colonial New England wanted to be seen in England as a shining example of purified religion and morality. The Puritan experiment wasn’t simply about bringing “true religion” to the New World. They had not given up on their hope of a general reformation. This sort of fanaticism is why they were driven out of England in the first place. Locke famously wrote against extending toleration to Puritans and Catholics on the grounds that they were religious subversives.

WM would extend this sort of mentality to the English in general. I would have to disagree with him here as well. The English went off in another direction after the Restoration. Anglicanism was not like Puritanism. New England was widely regarded in Britain during the eighteenth century as being a hotbed of insurrectionary theories and religious fanaticism.

Not unlike how Mexicans see Americans.

The Germans, British, and French looked upon America in much the same way during the nineteenth century. For example, during the California Gold Rush, there were all sorts of German satires about Yankees running off to the West in the pursuit of gold only to find ruin and isolation.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:21 | #

Neither France or England ever recognized the Confederacy. Both were cautiously supportive of the project because they had a clear geopolitical interest in weakening the American Union. The British, for example, considered the U.S. a threat to British America. The French had put a European emperor on the throne of Mexico. Actually, the biggest supporter of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was Canada. Jefferson Davis was warmly received there after the war.

Sorry, but screaming “Jew” all the time isn’t persuasive. It doesn’t adequately explain the history of American race relations. No one familar with Judah Benjamin and Charles Sumner respectively suffers from any confusion that the former (the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1875) was more of threat to American racialism than the latter. The real fanatics in American during that period - William Lloyd Garrison, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, John Brown, etc. - were not Jewish.

The Jews were not responsible for Reconstruction and the regime of negro equality that was imposed on the entire country during that period. The credit in that case squarely belongs to our “new birth of freedom” and “higher law” and “irrepressible conflict” and “city upon a hill” neighbors to the North. Read the glowing write-ups of Black Republicanism and Lincoln by Eric Foner and his crowd. It wasn’t until 1890 that they finally gave up on that utopian project and only then because of they grew weary of the implacable resistance they were facing from the Klan/White Line and because their minds had turned back to greed.

Posted by Maguire on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:40 | #

“the U.S. Civil War pitted “Cavaliers with Southern Celtic stock allies and Northern Irish sympathizers against Yankee Greater New England.””

In every war there are two immutable groups; those doing the fighting and those doing the talking.  Among the talkers I include biological degenerates like the race mixer and probable bi-sexual/homosexual Thaddeus Stevens, as well as the pro-Jew Southern planter elites who exempted themselves by statute from the Confederacy’s conscription of white working class boys.

The physical course of the US Civil War, which forms the foundation of all the talkers’ podiums, can never be understood until one understands the demographics and settlement patterns of European immigration to North America from 1816 to 1860.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:52 | #

Edit: my post should read “that the [later] (the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1875) was more of threat to American racialism than the [former].”

Lacking any quotations on the explicit presence of Norman identity in the South and East Anglian in the North, I think the suggested connection to a supposedly age-old English feud, is tenuous. I’m not even sure if historical sources confirm the reality of the feud in England, it seems even there it was discussed in cultural rather than group-identity terms.

PF,

I am also highly skeptical of this theory. It is true though that the notion that Southerners were “Anglo-Normans” whereas Northerners were “Anglo-Saxons” became commonplace in the Antebellum South. I can provide plenty of quotes to this effect. This wasn’t the case during the eighteenth century when Southerners like Jefferson glorified the “Anglo-Saxons” who had immigrated to America to “escape the Norman yoke.”

More than anything else, I would follow W.J. Cash and attribute this to 1.) the prosperity of old Southwest cotton culture, 2.) the need Southerners felt to ethnically distinguish themselves from Northerners, and 3.) the influence of nineteenth century European romanticism, in particular, Scott’s lionization of the Middle Ages. “The Chivalry,” as they were widely referred to at the time, were huge Scott fans; quintessential romantics. By the 1850s, Southerners had shed themselves almost completely of the liberal republicanism of the American Revolution and developed their own tradition of illiberal republicanism.

Southerners are a people who I feel I would respect greatly, if I had gotten to know them as they were, instead of through American television. American television demonized Southerners so subtly, and yet so consistantly, that one feels onesself poisoned with a kind of reflexive dislike for their manners and ways.

Ah yes, the “cracker” stereotype. There are such people in the South, but every nation has its degraded underclass. During the nineteenth century, these people were known by various names. “Dirt eaters” was one of the more common. They tended to live in the pine barrens and the hill country. During the Civil War, they were a menace to the Confederate war effort and tended to side with the Union.

It is odd that these people are now so often portrayed as “real” Southerners. The truth is that they have always lived on the margins of our society. Real Southerners were men like John C. Calhoun, Robert E. Lee, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, William Lowndes Yancey, James Monroe, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Robert Toombs and so forth. Then again, it is not like Jews have any deep roots in this country, so it figures they would throw in haughty Charlestonians and New Orleans urban imperialists with the worst of back country hillbillies.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:20 | #

The South has always been susceptible to philo-semitism.

Southerners had no reason to dislike Jews until quite recently.

1.) Few Jews lived in the South. Southerners generally had no first hand experience with them. Personally, I never encountered a Jew in real life until a few years ago.

2.) Those who did tended to be merchants in the cities who tended to go along with the status quo and provided valuable commercial services. This is a major source of embarrassment for American Jewry today. Southern Jews were just as involved in slavery and segregation as anyone else. For many years, believe it or not, Jews were a “model minority” in this country.

3.) The menace to Southern race relations throughout American history, more than anyone else, has always been the liberal whites of the North: the William Lloyd Garrisons, the Charles Sumners, the Kennedys, the Thaddeus Stevens, the John Browns, the Hubert Humphreys, the Earl Warrens, etc. Only recently have they been joined by Eastern European Jews in the twentieth century.

During the Civil Rights Movement, Southerners simply folded the Jewish “Freedom Riders” into the box “outside agitators” they had always been accustomed to dealing with. They made no distinction between “Yankees” and “Jews” because they saw them as one and the same force. There was a lot of truth to this. Look at the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 90%+ of Southerners voted against it. 90%+ of Northerners voted for it.

Some might complain about “Jews controlling the media.” During the 40s, 50s, and 60s, this wasn’t perceived as a problem in the South because few Southerners paid any attention to Hollywood or the Northern press. We overwhelmingly got our news from local newspapers controlled by segregationist editors. That’s why there was such implacable resistance to the Civil Rights Movement.

This was another southern planter aristocracy lie.  They also demanded the unlimited ‘right’ to spread their subsidized negro breeding and workfare program throughout all the territories of the West not yet admitted as States

As a wedge to help breakup the Union. What sense does it make to secede from the Union over slavery in the territories? By seceding from the Union, the South lost access to all the territories. What’s more, Southerners had won in the Dred Scott decision: slaveowners already had the legal right to settle the territories, so there was no problem. The truth is that the South Carolinians - the biggest fomenters of secession - weren’t really in favor of westward expansion at all.

What they resented more than anything was precisely that the Union was growing - due to hordes of European immigrants - and they were losing influence within it. They clearly saw the writing on the wall and didn’t want to be swamped as a minority in a Union controlled by the North, as was the case from 1861 to 1933. In a smaller Southern Confederacy, South Carolina could play a starring role it once played in the early American Republic. This explains why Calhoun, for example, could oppose the annexation of Mexico and why South Carolinians also tended to oppose the annexation of Cuba in the 1850s.

iow spread the negro in preference to white European immigrants like my paternal great grandfather.

In hindsight, looking at what European immigrants did to racialism in the Midwest and New England after 1861, I can’t say I blame them. The negro could be controlled. He knew his place and wasn’t a threat to the status quo at all.

The same cannot be said for European immigrants and their ridiculous “democracy.” I refer in particular to the radical liberal Germans who settled in the Midwest after the failed European revolutions of 1848. Many of these people became the biggest supporters of abolitionism and all sorts of subversive causes. They were instrumental in repealing the black exclusion laws in states like Ohio and Illinois.

That’s why this Constitutional amendment which passed out of the US Congress on March 2, 1861 was insufficient:

Of course. The war wasn’t about slavery at all. Slavery was perfectly secure within the Union. What was changing though is the balance of power as the North grew in population.

This had already been ratified by Ohio and Maryland when a Jew pulling a cannon lanyard created ‘facts on the ground’ at Charleston, SC on April 12, 1861.  The rapid Ohio ratification was especially significant.  It constituted a direct repudiation of the politics of Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio, one of the most prominent Senate abolitionists.

Refresh my memory: what Jew was this? South Carolina isn’t exactly notable for being a hotbed of international Jewry. Neither is Alabama or Mississippi for that matter. The truth is that Southerners had simply grown weary for any number of reasons. The John Brown raid and Bloody Kansas crystallized this sentiment. Looking at what happened between 1865 and 1877, I can perfectly understand why they wanted out of that association.

Too bad we don’t have that amendment today, huh?  ‘States Rights’?  There they were, 100% conceded up front.  The money grubbing no talent shabbas goy planters of the South preferred spilling white boys’ blood to real states rights.

This is laughable. It was the North that invaded the South, not the other war around. Few Southerners desired a war. They were simply exercising what they believed to be their constitutional rights, as they had done in the Revolution. The North could have always let the Confederacy go and there would have been no bloodshed at all. Britain let Australia and Canada go without incident.

No, the responsibility for the war, not to mention the destruction of state’s rights in America, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Lincoln administration. Oh, btw, the Lincoln and Grant administrations were perfectly judenrein, but that didn’t stop them from imposing n***** equality on all of America now did it? It took us over forty years to mitigate the damage that had been done during Reconstruction.

Scimitar, I’d have great empathy if the subject were the post-Reconstruction South.  But that monstrosity known as the Antebellum South?  It will never wash.  ALL of the justifications put forth in its defense are rooted in the same double talk that Neocon Jews use today to justify their present war policies.

As a Southerner, this notion that the Jews are responsible for all of America’s racial problems has always confused me. It is a cop out. Was it Jews who invaded the South, destroyed the Confederacy, and imposed n***** equality on all of America during Reconstruction? Were Jews responsible for the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Force Act, or the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1875 - when not a single Jew sat in the U.S. Congress? I don’t recall armed Jews herding negroes into the state legislatures of Mississippi and South Carolina to rob those states blind for corrupt railroad interests.

Did the Jews force almost every state in New England and the Midwest to repeal their state anti-miscegenation, black exclusion, and segregation laws by 1900? What about all those Northern state laws that banned “vilification of racial minorities” and “racial discrimination” in housing, education, and employment?  Oh wait, let me guess, a vague “Rothschild” was behind it all. Sorry, but that simply doesn’t wash.

How was the Antebellum South a “monstrosity”? In every state, the negro was in his place. He had virtually no political rights or civil rights like he did in many New England states (where he was “free” to intermarry with white women in Massaschusetts, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York). The slave trade was abolished decades before the American Civil War and was outlawed under the Confederate Constitution. The Border/Upper South was ridding itself of slavery and had whitened considerably by the Civil War.

What’s more, above all else, Southerners had largely abandoned what was left of their liberal sentimentalism in favor of illiberal republicanism. Racial attitudes had hardened considerably. No one was under any illusions that the South was not a “white man’s country.” A reverse process occurred in the North - which steadily grew less racialist, less republican, more liberal.

Personally I have great difficulty detecting differences between the policies of the Antebellum South then and Neocons like Trent Lott today. Both favored ‘free trade’ brokered by Jews and unchecked non-white immigration, reproduction and domestic labor.

This is nonsense.

1.) John C. Calhoun opposed the annexation of Mexico. BTW, if it had been up to New England and the Midwest, we never would have annexed Texas or the Southwest. In fact, we never would have bought Louisiana from Napoleon. The border of the United States would be the Mississippi River today. Where did Southerners favor “unchecked non-white immigration”? The slave trade had been illegal for over fifty years before the Civil War broke out.

2.) The South, unlike the North, had an economy based upon cash crop agriculture. In such a context, “free trade” made perfect sense; Southerners could buy cheaper manufactured goods from Britain and sell their produce abroad. It is true that protectionism helped build up American industry during the late 19C/early20C.

What is often forgotten however is that 1.) this utterly impoverished the South after 1865 and 2.) we reaped no benefit whatsoever from it. The benefits accrued exclusively to New England and the Midwest. It was a programme that impoverished the rest of the country. Hence, the spread of populism and progressivism in the South, Mountain West, and Great Plains states (support for “free silver,” the income tax, and debt repudiation, etc.).

Ever since our trade laws were liberalized under FDR and his successors, the South has thrown off its poverty. The Sunbelt is now, in fact, the most economically dynamic region of the United States.

It is also ridiculous to compare Trent Lott to John C. Calhoun or William Lowndes Yancey. The former is an anti-racist and integrationist. The latter were both outspoken racialists and supporters of slavery.

Where a 21st Century Confederacy would stand on the Zionist Question is hypothetical.  But the actual relations with the Zionist Entity of another negro labor dependent agrarian economy, South Africa, provides a good clue.

From the American Revolution to the Second World War, the South didn’t have much of a “Jewish Problem.” On the contrary, we had a “Yankee Problem.” This was true as early as the 1790s when Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia stirred up all sorts of criticism from Northern abolitionists in the North who supported racial equality. The Pennsylvania Aboltion Society under the presidency of Benjamin Franklin strongly condemned it. It wasn’t until 1810 that the hereditarian cause finally won out.

During the Madison and Monroe years, the project of ridding America of negroes and sending them back to Africa was ALWAYS an Upper South project, a fancy of the Virginians in particular. Northern liberals wanted them to stay and give them “freedom” and “equality” and “rights of man.” I’m somewhat amused how you critique the Antebellum South, at least the Upper and Border South, in the terms of its own ideology.

It is no coincidence that Lincoln supported this. He was a man of the Border South himself in the tradition of Henry Clay of Kentucky - a presidential candidate who could unite unite all factions of the GOP in New England, the Midwest, and the Border South. His views were not shared by the Charles Sumners and Thaddeus Stevens with whom he associated with.

Posted by William on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:13 | #

Time Is Fleeting…

But we have time for this fishing trip to catch the Great Red Herring.

And we will still have time for a Great Snipe Hunt, too!

Then we can look for the Tiny Red-Headed Pygmy and for the Miniature Mammoth Survivors in Siberia.

What fun.

Posted by h-y on Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:42 | #

Scimitar,

Just the opposite was true. New England was the most deeply religious, evangelical region of the United States into the early twentieth century, not unlike the Bible Belt today. It was the South that was more secular.

Granted, New England was settled by people who on average took religion more seriously, and this tendency lasted into the 19th century. But, if you’re trying to claim that at any time anything less than the overwhelming majority of southerners were professed Christians, then I have to disagree. Southerners were simply less literate and less consistent in their beliefs. 

I had in mind especially the controversy over the French Revolution in American during the 1790s. The Federalists loved to portray Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans as atheistic Jacobins.

In other words, Jefferson was being attacked for perceived sympathy with French radicals. Anyway, it’s strange you try to pass off Jefferson’s religious views as those of the typical southerner.

I have to disagree with this. Above all else, Colonial New England wanted to be seen in England as a shining example of purified religion and morality.

Yes. They did what they did in part to serve as an example to their co-nationals. That’s rather different than having a “mission to make over the world in their image”.

They had not given up on their hope of a general reformation. This sort of fanaticism is why they were driven out of England in the first place.

The Church of England was their church and I don’t see how they were any more “fanatical” than any other Protestant reformers. Nor were they “driven out” of England.

Locke famously wrote against extending toleration to Puritans and Catholics on the grounds that they were religious subversives.

Locke’s parents were Puritans. Locke’s own religious views seem to have been rather unorthodox. I doubt what you write above is accurate, but feel free to prove me wrong.

The Germans, British, and French looked upon America in much the same way during the nineteenth century.

Nope. I like the Mexican comparison better. Or maybe southern Italy vs. Italy. European anti-Americanism is its own thing.

As you have acknowledged, antebellum southern self-perception was in large part Romantic myth. Real differences existed, but we’d expect someone like Yancey, especially with his personal history, to discount the good and exaggerate the bad traits of northerners. Without Yankee Eli Whitney, it’s unlikely southerners would have had the economic surplus to start imagining themselves as “The Chivalry” in the first place.

Posted by William on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:23 | #

Well, I think part of my question was answered. One Robert E. Reis has an article about Jews on The Birdman and on Vanguard News Network today.

Posted by R.E. Prindle on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:15 | #

Your point William.

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:22 | #

h-y,

Granted, New England was settled by people who on average took religion more seriously, and this tendency lasted into the 19th century. But, if you’re trying to claim that at any time anything less than the overwhelming majority of southerners were professed Christians, then I have to disagree. Southerners were simply less literate and less consistent in their beliefs.

No, I am not. Obviously, Southerners were Christians as well. My point was that Southerners took religion less seriously than New Englanders did into the twentieth century. It was a less salient aspect of their sense of identity. There has since been a reversal. Even though Southerners and Northerners alike are Christians, the South is now the most religious part of the country.

Massachusetts was founded by religious dissidents. Virginia and South Carolina were not. New England was also more densely settled than the South; Southerners were more spread out over the countryside, and as a consequence of this, were less likely to attend religious services than their counterparts in the North.

In other words, Jefferson was being attacked for perceived sympathy with French radicals. Anyway, it’s strange you try to pass off Jefferson’s religious views as those of the typical southerner.

I never suggested that. I was arguing that there was some truth to the charge that Southerners were less religious during the early republic. Another example of this would be the Great Awakening during the early eighteenth century. New England was utterly bowled over by it. This sort of religious enthusiasm tended to taper off further to the south.

Yes. They did what they did in part to serve as an example to their co-nationals. That’s rather different than having a “mission to make over the world in their image”.

It’s funny you should mention that. Quite a coincidence, I was just pursuing Emerson:

“How much more are men than nations . . . The office of America is to liberate, to abolish kingcraft, priesthood, caste, monopoly, to pull down gallows, to burn up the bloody statute book, to take in the immigrant, to open the doors of the sea and the fields of the earth . . . This liberation appears in the power of invention, the freedom of thinking, in readiness for reforms.”

The Church of England was their church and I don’t see how they were any more “fanatical” than any other Protestant reformers. Nor were they “driven out” of England.

The Puritans were Anglicans?

Locke’s parents were Puritans. Locke’s own religious views seem to have been rather unorthodox. I doubt what you write above is accurate, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Locke qualified his principle of religious toleration with three major exceptions: the Catholics (for their loyalty to the Vatican), atheists (whom he thought could not be trusted), and the various Protestant sects who rejected toleration (who aspired to overthrow the government to impose their sect’s worldview):

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

“These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?

Nope. I like the Mexican comparison better. Or maybe southern Italy vs. Italy. European anti-Americanism is its own thing.

Not really. There are several accounts of Anti-Americanism which emphasize how it is a cumulative tradition. I’m familar with several books as well about the history of 19C U.S.-French and U.S.-German foreign relations that make the same point.

As you have acknowledged, antebellum southern self-perception was in large part Romantic myth. Real differences existed, but we’d expect someone like Yancey, especially with his personal history, to discount the good and exaggerate the bad traits of northerners. Without Yankee Eli Whitney, it’s unlikely southerners would have had the economic surplus to start imagining themselves as “The Chivalry” in the first place.

My excerpt was skewed for the sake of brevity. Yancey himself grew up in the North and for that reason became something of an exaggerated Southerner. Another example of this would be Mississippi’s most famous fire-eater, John Quitman. Yancey admired many of the characteristics of Northerners, in particular, their industriousness and their interest in intellectual life. He was always priding himself about how he was “such a Yankee” on his farm outside of Montgomery. Yancey criticized Northerners for getting their news from newspapers, but he himself avidly read newspapers and wrote articles in them all the time. You’re also right about his personal life. His troubled relationship with his stepfather was without a doubt a major influence upon his views.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not Yankee-baiting here. We Southerners should always be modest when we speak of others. The South also has flaws of its own. I find myself more impressed by the critiques from both sides than their accounts of their own virtues. Here’s one:

“”If you must die,” proclaimed God’s terrorist, “die like a man.” No other Yankee better personified one southern monster image: the northern wild individual, serving only infatuated abstractions. Nor did any other Yankee better exemplify another southern satanic conception: the fanatical New England puritan, declaring holy war against every erring human impulse, including his own. . . .

Famous New England intellectuals kept Brown’s spirit on the march. Ralph Waldo Emerson declared that Brown “will make the gallows glorious like a cross.” Henry David Thoreau breathed that “some eighteen hundred years ago, Christ was crucified.” Now, an “angel of light” shone from the gallows. Wendell Phillips shouted that Virginia “is a pirate ship,” and “John Brown sails the sea,” commissioned “to sink every pirate he meets on God’s ocean.” The most famous Yankee abolitionist (and, ironically, one of the most famous American pacifists) had the last word. “I am prepared to say: ’success to every slave insurrection at the South and in every slave country,’” intoned William Lloyd Garrison.

That northern applause for a midnight assassin struck Southerners as appalling, insulting, indicative of a more horrifying northern enemy than most Southerners had suspected. Since John Brown had become the ultimate wild individualist, his Yankee cheerleaders seemed proponents of unrestrained license, while the South seemed the center of social control.” (Freehling, 207-217)

At the same time, Southerners could be incredibly slovenly, idle, loose with money, uninterested in learning, overly emotional, tyrannical over blacks, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration, hotheaded, etc.

Something you may find interesting: in his recent treatment of the origins of the American Civil War, William Freehling (excerpted above) discusses how John Brown and Henry Wise came to admire each other:

Brown and Wise both displayed emaciated frames, unruly hair, and burning eyes. Each dressed in disheveled homespun. Both strutted with the vanity and imperiousness of would-be kings. Each respected the other’s sincerity. Wise dismissed some Southerners’ notion that Brown was insane. This Yankee’s alleged lunacy, said Wise, was just the North’s conventional antislavery fanaticism. Brown dismissed some Virginians’ conviction that Wise was an unprincipled demagogue. The spellbinder’s seductive bombast, thought Brown, was just the conventional proslavery fanaticism. Ralph Waldo Emerson exclaimed that these “enemies became affectionate . . . If circumstances did not keep them apart, they would fly into each other’s arms.”

Wise reaffirmed his affectionate respect for his enemy in a remarkable postwar incident. In 1865, the prewar governor sought to evict a schoolmarm from his prewar farm. The intruder turned out to be one of John Brown’s daughters, come south to educate blacks, including Wise’s ex-slaves. When a bystander mocked Wise for falling beneath a contemptible raider’s offspring, the defrocked rebel whirled on his tormenter. “John Brown,” exclaimed Wise, “John Brown was a great man, sir. John Brown was a great man!”

Wise considered Brown a great man because the Connecticut Yankee shed all northern disguises, stripped away all northern opportunism, leaving only Yankee conviction, straight up and true blue and a shock for all the world to see. Wise had studied Brown very carefully in prison. In his report to the Virginia legislature on his findings, he called the raider’s unvarnished hatred of the South a challenge that must be met. “We cannot suffer such insults,” warned Henry Wise, “without suffering worse than the death of citizens - without suffering dishonor, the death of a State.”

Freehling, 217-218

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:34 | #

It is interesting to note Virginia’s passage, largely at the behest of Virginia Quakers, the passing of “act to authorize the manumission of slaves” in 1782.

This law, which remained on the books until 1806, was a sharp departure from the laws that preceded it and those that would follow: masters wishing to free female slaves between eighteen and forty-five and males between twenty-one and forty-five could do so, without seeking individual approval by the legislature. Significantly, the law contained no provision demanding that freed former slaves leave the state. Yet the law did not attempt a systematic, state-sponsored program of emancipation, channeling emancipation exclusively through private individuals under certain defined conditions.

The law’s limitations notwithstanding, the 1782 manumission law allowed whites to free their slaves [some say as many as 10,000] and blacks to buy their freedom, thus fostering the emergence of much larger free black communities than existed in the colonial period.

Which apparently proved its undoing. Manumission saw the gathering of large free black populations in parts of Virginia and the insurrections in Haiti posed a threat of uprising in Virginia. Interestingly, the 1806 change in the act did not revoke manumission entirely, allowing it to continue with the added stipulation that free blacks not be allowed to own guns and left the state immediately.

Those wacky Quakers, influencers of Garrison (Lundy) and Wilberforce, and purveyors of reciprocal altruism based on the Golden Rule. They didn’t call Philly the city of brotherly love for nuttin’ honey. Now of course Philly has a black Mayor and Police Commissioner and the Negros in North Philly are engaging in another ‘summer of the gun’.

Jeff Davis’ revenge.

Posted by hy on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:30 | #

Scimitar,

The Puritans were Anglicans?

In a word, yes.

Puritans wished to reform the Anglican church from within by removing its remaining Catholic elements (Bishops, vestments, and so on). The result would have been not unlike the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The Puritan Massachusetts Bay settlers of 1629-1642 had religious views distinct from those of the Pilgrims who founded the Plymouth colony in 1620. The latter were separatists while the former were not. Obviously, once in America, the Puritans organized their churches along Congregational lines and at some point ceased to be Anglicans, though I’m not sure of the details and don’t really care about 17th-century (or any) theology.

and the various Protestant sects who rejected toleration (who aspired to overthrow the government to impose their sect’s worldview):

It’s not clear to me Locke is referring to Puritans, and apparently I’m not alone. A quick search finds William Rees-Mogg stating:

He also warned against trying to tolerate certain doctrines that 17th-century Protestants attributed to the Jesuits. These included the teaching that “faith is not to be kept with heretics”, and that “kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms”. Locke thought that “a Church has no right to be tolerated” whose members have to obey a foreign prince because that would mean that the ruler allowed “his own people to be listed, as it were, as soldiers against his own Government”.

 

There are several accounts of Anti-Americanism which emphasize how it is a cumulative tradition.

I don’t doubt it. What I’m disputing is that European anti-Americanism has the same causes and manifestations as southern anti-Yankeeism. But I don’t see any reason to debate this point.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not Yankee-baiting here. We Southerners should always be modest when we speak of others. The South also has flaws of its own.

And I certainly would not claim “Yankees” were perfect. But, as someone whose father is of colonial New England descent, I don’t consider them to be unworthy ancestors. It’s perfectly natural that you identify with the South. What I find unnatural is northern white nationalist types identifying with the South.

What Kevin MacDonald has to say about Puritans is worth reading. So is The Yankee Exodus by Holbrook.

re: wintermute at OccD,

I can’t be bothered to respond in a separate post, but I’m curious why wintermute thinks cattiness is the proper response when someone bothers to correct his errors. Did he learn this noble behavior from Ezra Pound? Pythagoras?

I think he needs to stop being so touchy and stop being such a fucking nerd.

It’s not like I pointed out that he keeps misspelling “conceivably”. Blaming New England for NYC is a pretty significant mistake, and one which should not pass without comment. Besides being factually wrong (NYC is not located in New England), the settlement patterns were totally different, and Boston was always the intellectual and financial heart of New England.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:22 | #

=========================
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not Yankee-baiting here. We Southerners should always be modest when we speak of others. The South also has flaws of its own. I find myself more impressed by the critiques from both sides than their accounts of their own virtues. Here’s one:

  “”If you must die,” proclaimed God’s terrorist, “die like a man.” No other Yankee better personified one southern monster image: the northern wild individual, serving only infatuated abstractions. Nor did any other Yankee better exemplify another southern satanic conception: the fanatical New England puritan, declaring holy war against every erring human impulse, including his own. . . .

  Famous New England intellectuals kept Brown’s spirit on the march. Ralph Waldo Emerson declared that Brown “will make the gallows glorious like a cross.” Henry David Thoreau breathed that “some eighteen hundred years ago, Christ was crucified.” Now, an “angel of light” shone from the gallows. Wendell Phillips shouted that Virginia “is a pirate ship,” and “John Brown sails the sea,” commissioned “to sink every pirate he meets on God’s ocean.” The most famous Yankee abolitionist (and, ironically, one of the most famous American pacifists) had the last word. “I am prepared to say: ’success to every slave insurrection at the South and in every slave country,’” intoned William Lloyd Garrison.

  That northern applause for a midnight assassin struck Southerners as appalling, insulting, indicative of a more horrifying northern enemy than most Southerners had suspected. Since John Brown had become the ultimate wild individualist, his Yankee cheerleaders seemed proponents of unrestrained license, while the South seemed the center of social control.” (Freehling, 207-217)

At the same time, Southerners could be incredibly slovenly, idle, loose with money, uninterested in learning, overly emotional, tyrannical over blacks, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration, hotheaded, etc.
=======================

This is to speak of innocent vice, if it is even that, as the counterpoise to vicious, homicidal, anarchic fanaticism.

The Yankees are rightly damned without repost worthy of a hearing.  Slavery is the foundation of civilization - today as it was yesterday.  Yankee dollar/oil hegemony has secretly enslaved the Third World, in Asia and in South America, to the maintenance of the Greater Judean empire, allowing the meliorist fanatics of the present day to comfort and inflate themselves in self-righteous denunciation of slavery, while engorging themselves on its product.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:48 | #

NN:

Are you condemning slavery or merely suggesting we acknowledge its existence?

Would you rather the roles be reversed or that we abolish the practice?

Or are you just commenting on the hyper-moralists of the North and their sickening brand of hypocrisy?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:24 | #

DJ,

I’m acknowledging slavery and I’m commenting as you suggest.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:41 | #

NN:

You also brought up Nietzsche and the idea of barbarism as a necessary precursor to a flourishing civilization and I wonder if you could postulate what kinds of practices would qualify in a ethnically pure state for white Americans (assuming you are an American). That is, could we possibly have some sort of rehash of a Norman conquest where the South - lead by aristocratic, anti-Anglian elite - rises up and punishes the North for its misdeeds? Or maybe some sort of revolt of educated Generals?

I guess I’m simply wondering what kind of men/actions it would take to destroy the foundations of our post-industrial, liberal, technocratic empire of scoundrels.

I’m beginning to think violence (divers and sundry) is the only possible way to achieve our goals (although I’m not advocating it because that is illegal and dangerous) especially in light of the existence of large numbers of anti-white, whites that dominate the discourse.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:58 | #

“Educated generals” - Seven Days in May - military government.

I wonder.

I’ve always assumed, until the advent of the Bush dictatorship, that the civilian population of Greater Judea would not cooperate with a military government - such would be the influence of naive notions about “democracy” and “liberty”.

But now - in the wake of the Idiot Act and Bush’s autocratic proclamations as to his power - I’m not so sure that a coup is doomed in principle.  But the obstacle of educating some “generals” remains.  Know any likely candidates for instruction in the facts of life?

In any case, the crypto-anarchist Asian powers, Russia and China, will finish off the present regime during the current century, destroying everything quite literally, and reducing us to survivalists, a’la the expectations of the “Cold War,” decades ago.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:01 | #

  Know any likely candidates for instruction in the facts of life?

No… But perhaps we could try to reach some of the younger officers through activist outreach on open bases, although I’m not sure we have enough time for that strategy.

destroying everything quite literally, and reducing us to survivalists

I share your pessimism and am working on my escape plan and eventual move to Northern Idaho/Wyoming/Montana in between posts and lurkdom.