Dear Dan,

I would be quite interested to hear you give your working definition of “an unreconstructed Southron.” Also, I would like to hear your ideas on what “an unreconstructed Southerner” are.

I have defined the dictum of Reconstruction to be this: “The South must allow the full social and political equality of all peoples living in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.” Our people have resisted and stood against this dictum for over 300 years, but during the last 35 years, a large percentage of them have accepted it.

To accept this dictum is to be reconstructed, IMO. Is this your understanding of the situation? From statements you have made in the past and from looking at the web page of your radio show, it seems to me that you have accepted at least a large part of the Reconstructionist dictum. Yet you still refer to yourself as “an unreconstructed Southron.” I would like to give you the opportunity to explain this seeming discrepancy.

Yours truly,

Dennis Wheeler

#2 Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler — Dec. 29, 1997

dennisw”mindspring.com allowed as how:

> “I would be quite interested to hear your working definition of “an unreconstructed Southron.” Also, I would like to hear your ideas on>what “an unreconstructed Southerner” is.

They would, of course, be the same.

> “I have defined the dictum of Reconstruction to be this: “The >South must allow the full social and political equality of all peoples >living in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.”

An interesting definition, but one that doesn’t have anything at all to do with the historical realities of reconstruction. If your definition had been true, then the north would have been in dire need of “reconstruction” themselves, don’t you think?

In reality, reconstruction was the systematic looting of the South by its Yankee conquerors, and the corresponding attempt to eliminate the South as a political and cultural entity. The only equality desired by reconstructionists was an equal share of the loot for the carpetbagging vermin who preyed on defeated Dixie.

> “Our people >have resisted and stood against this dictum for over 300 years, but >during the last 35 years, a large percentage of them have accepted it.”

At this point you’re obviously not talking about historical reconstruction, but have a racial axe to grind. Let me speak plainly, then. I have no racial agenda. I believe that a Southron (or a Southerner, if you prefer) is one who shares our Southern culture (and there is a Southern culture, make no mistake about it), our Southern traditions, and our love of the South. That person may be white, and then again, he may not. I’ve known good Southrons who were black, and I’ve known despicable scalawags who were white. (Come to think of it, I’ve seen posts from both on this very newsgroup.) To prefer the bad white to the good black seems to me simply stupid.

> “To accept this dictum is to be reconstructed, IMO. Is this your >understanding of the situation?”

Obviously not. The dictum you describe exists only in your imagination, and also, notably, of the imagination of our Yankee oppressors who wish to justify their barbarous treatment of the South and Southrons by claiming a noble end. I believe it to be a vile fabrication.

> “From statements you have made in the >past and from looking at the web page of your radio show, it seems to me >that you have accepted at least a large part of the Reconstructionist >dictum.”

Sorry, Dennis, but I won’t play. There was racial division in the old South just as there was in the north, and neither side was particularly remarkable for its racial tolerance. The Yankee found it unprofitable to keep slaves earlier than the Southern planter did, and he took the opportunity to sell his slaves south while he could, but he was hardly zealous for racial equality. No, the idea that the separation between north and South is strictly racial is a Yankee canard which I refuse to accept. Come to think of it, the refusal to allow the Yankees to define who we are is yet another example of being unreconstructed.

> “Yet you still refer to yourself as “an unreconstructed >Southron.”

Loud and long.

> “I would like to give you the opportunity to explain this >seeming discrepancy.”

Again, I don’t allow the Yankee to define the terms. The perseverance in the fight for preservation of Southern culture and Southern independence in the face of Yankee attempts at cultural genocide is, I believe, sufficient justification for my use of the term “unreconstructed”.

#3 Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett — Dec. 30, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

I’m certainly glad that you see the refusal to allow the Yankees to define who we are as an example of being unreconstructed. If you’ll notice, in my message, I did not mention the word Yankee. That is because what the Yankee was or is has no bearing on what the Southerner was and is.

You, on the other hand, have spent a great deal of time defining a Southerner in terms and in comparison to what a Yankee is or was. Still,

The fact that the Yankee was not what you call racially tolerant is irrelevant to what a Southerner is.

The fact that the Yankees were in dire need of “reconstruction” is irrelevant to the things commonly held and practiced among Southerners.

The fact that there was racial division in the north is irrelevant to the fact that there was racial division in the South.

The fact that the Yankee found slavery to be unbeneficial before the Southern planter did is irrelevant to the fact that in the South it was both found to be beneficial and practiced right up to the end of the War.

You have attributed to me “the idea that the separation between north and South is strictly racial” and you have called it “a Yankee canard which I refuse to accept.” But I have not posited that the separation between north and South is strictly racial. I have not defined anything in terms of what took place up north. I have only defined the South in terms of the historical record of the actions of my people.

By your own admission, the record is clear. 1) Negro slavery was practiced in the South. 2) The Southern people of the antebellum era were not what you call racially tolerant. 3) The South did not hold to the belief that we must allow the full social and political participation of all peoples living in the South. 4) There was racial division in the South.

So you have not demonstrated that I “have a racial axe to grind,” but rather have acknowledged that my beliefs are in line with those of my people of the antebellum era.

As for the Reconstruction period, my understanding is that you have divorced it from any philosophical pursuit; and hold that it was essentially the act of hooligans or something like that. You wrote: “reconstruction was the systematic looting of the South by its Yankee conquerors, and the corresponding attempt to eliminate the South as a political and cultural entity.”

Now my understanding of Reconstruction, and perhaps someone can correct this if it’s not correct, is that it was begun in earnest after 1868, when the Southern congressmen would not ratify the 14th amendment. The prevailing theory prior to that was that “states cannot secede, only evil rulers can.” Therefore, it was held that the Southern states had never left the union and Southern congressional delegations were reseated in Washington after the War.

Now it took a two-thirds majority to pass an amendment, and the South held a veto power in that regard. And when our men would not pass the 14th amendment, then they were removed from Congress, the troops moved into the South with a vengeance, our state legislatures were forcibly removed from office and replaced with Negroes and scalawags who would do Washington’s bidding.

At this time a systematic attempt was made to mold the Southerner into accepting the idea that he must accept the Negroes as political and social equals.

If someone has a better grasp of history than I do, then I hope you will join in this discussion.

After our state governments were overthrown and replaced by Negroes and scalawags, the former Confederate soldiers “and their younger brothers,” under the leadership of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, formed the Ku Klux Klan to surrepititiously drive the Reconstructionist troops from our land. It took them nine years to succeed and the last of the Yankee troops left South Carolina in 1877.

At that point, General Wade Hampton was asked by the Democrats to run for governor of South Carolina. He said he would under the condition that he would run on a pro-white Straight Out Ticket. He did. He won. And this started the process of implementing the Jim Crow laws to minimize black voting strength and to erect social barriers to the integration of the two peoples.

No less a man than Robert L. Dabney had counseled the people to do this. He told them that the new constitution forbid voting exclusion by race, but had left open loopholes such as property ownership. He said most Southern men who didn’t own land would gladly give up their right to vote if it would mean that the vast majority of blacks couldn’t vote, either. This practice was initiated throughout the South and held sway in Dixie until the Civil Rights War of the 1950s and 1960s. (BTW, Jim Crow saved America from the implementation of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act for nearly 90 years.)

The Civil Rights campaign has aptly been called “the Second Reconstruction.” For at that time, a renewed attempt was begun to make the Southerner bow to the dictum that “we must allow full social and political participation to all peoples in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.”

This time, sadly, they have succeeded in great measure. And again, I think it is unfair to say that I have a “racial agenda” and that you don’t. I think it is more fair to say that my ideas are in line with those our people have always held to. I think the record is clear on that point.

While it’s true that the overwhelming majority of Yankee soldiers were not fighting the War to impose equalitarianism on the South, nonetheless, it remains true that the result of their collective efforts did just that. It’s like the German defendants at Nuremburg saying they weren’t fighting to spread National-Socialism but were just following orders. Well, that’s probably true for many of them. But the result of their collective efforts was spreading National-Socialism whether or not it was the purpose of the individual soldiers to do so.

So it was in the War of Northern Aggression. Most Yankee soldiers were not consciously spreading equalitarianism. But that was the result of their efforts. Dr. Thornwell of South Carolina could see this as early as 1862: “They who join the unhallowed crusade against the institutions of the South will have reason to repent, that they have set an engine in motion which cannot be arrested, until it has crushed and ground to powder the safeguards of life and property among themselves.”

Jefferson Davis understood it as early as 1861. In his resignation speech before the U.S. Senate, he began: “[Mississippi] has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.”

So the fact that the Yankee soldiers were not crusading for a belief system that would ultimately crush their descendants as well, is no evidence that they were not spreading equalitarianism with their fighting. And whereas you have said the “dictum you describe exists only in your imagination,” the record shows it was well understood by the South even before the War began.

While denying an ideological element in the War, you have introduced an ideological element into the peoplehood of the Southerner. Between 1725 and 1775, 225,000 Scotch-Irish migrated to the Carolinas. And prior to that 40,000 Cavaliers had come to the Tidewater, Virginia area. Basically all Southerners can trace their ethnic lineage back to these two immigrant groups, although there have certain additions, such as the Cajuns, through political necessity.

You have defined the Southern people essentially as “anyone who loves the South and shares our Southern culture,” if I understand you correctly. This is a very subjective criterion. In fact, it is a definition of the concept “people” unknown to human history. The closest parallel concept I can think of happens to be the current idea in the United States that “an American is anyone who comes here and shares our democratic values.”

It seems to me that you have simply taken the current American definition and “Southronized” it, but that is a judgement of your motives and I can’t be sure of them until you declare them.

From a Christian and Biblical standpoint, a “people” is a large group of families and clans that have a distinct history and ethnic lineage. If you dispute that, I’ll be glad to back it up.

And historically, the Southern people have held the same concept. We are an ethnic people, like the Japanese, the Germans, the Norwegians, the Kurds, the Palestinians, the Russians, etc. And far from this being an idea that exists only in my mind, the historical record is clear. We have held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace.

Again to quote Dabney: “The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.”

And we shouldn’t leave out Robert E. Lee: “The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race, and I hope will prepare and lead them to better things.”

And Lee later stated: “I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get rid of them…I have always thought so!”

These are just two quotes out of thousands from which I could choose. But I think you would be hardpressed to come up with any evidence whatsoever to lend credence to your perspective that the Southern people are not an ethnic people but an ideological construct of individuals who share our culture, which you have left undefined.

Let me hear from you,

Dennis Wheeler

#4 From Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler –Dec. 30, 1997

dennisw”mindspring.com allowed as how:

> “I said: “1) Negro slavery was practiced in the South.” You said: “as it was in the north. I said: “2) The Southern people of the antebellum era were not what you call racially tolerant.” You said:”Nor were the Yankees.” I said: “3) The South did not hold to the belief that we must allow thefull social and political participation of all peoples living in the South.”

And neither did the Yankees hold to the belief that they must allow full social and political participation of all peoples living in the north.

>” 4) There was racial division in the South. “

As there was in the north.

> “So you have not >demonstrated that I “have a racial axe to grind,” but rather have >acknowledged that my beliefs are in line with those of my people of the >antebellum era.”

But not particularly of antebellum SOUTHERNERS. The racial positions you’re talking about were those of Yankees as well as Southrons, and can therefore hardly be considered Southern positions.

> “As for the Reconstruction period, my understanding is that you have >divorced it from any philosophical pursuit; and hold that it was > essentially the act of hooligans or something like that.”

Something like hooligans, yes, but something more. The point wasn’t simply to loot the South, although that was a powerful incentive, but also to eliminate the South as a cultural and political entity. The overt looting has by and large stopped, the effort to eradicate the South has not.

>”After our state governments were overthrown and replaced by Negroes and >scalawags, the former Confederate soldiers “and their younger brothers,” >under the leadership of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, formed the Ku >Klux Klan to surreptitiously drive the Reconstructionist troops from our > land.”

General Forrest did not participate in the formation of the Klan, but joined after it was fully established.

> It took them nine years to succeed and the last of the Yankee >troops left South Carolina in 1877. At that point, General Wade Hampton >was asked by the Democrats to run for governor of South Cairina. He >said he would under the condition that he would run on a pro-white >Straight Out Ticket. He did. He won. And this started the process of >implementing the Jim Crow laws to minimize black voting strength and to >erect social barriers to the integration of the two peoples.:

The political barriers against black suffrage were certainly there. The blacks were the tools of the Yankees, after all, and held in scant regard by anyone, Southron or Yankee. The social barriers went much, much further back, and once again, were hardly unique to the South

> “While denying an ideological element in the War, you have introduced an >ideological element into the peoplehood of the Southerner.”

Not ideological, cultural. It is our culture which makes us unique. By your standards, there is nothing at all to distinguish us from the Yankees who’ve ground our country into the earth. Strangely enough, you seem to have no quarrel at all with the Yankees, and use a definition of “Southern” that would include white Yankees as easily as it would white Southrons. You direct your annoyance toward the blacks, who were simply the cat’s paws of our Yankee oppressors. It’s rather like blaming the gun for having shot you rather than the man who pulled the trigger.

> “Between 1725 >and 1775, 225,000 Scotch-Irish migrated to the Carolinas. And prior to >that 40,000 Cavaliers had come to the Tidewater, Virginia area. >Basically all Southerners can trace their ethnic lineage back to these >two immigrant groups, although there have certain additions, such as the >Cajuns, through political necessity. You have defined the Southern people >essentially as “anyone who loves the South and shares our Southern >culture,” if I understand you correctly. This is a very subjective >criterion.”

It is indeed. If we change it to your criterion, which seems to be “anyone who believes in separation of the races” then you have to include everyone of any background who happens to hold a grudge against black people.

> “In fact, it is a definition of the concept “people” unknown >to human history.”

Hardly! “Peoples” are typically those who share a language, a territory, and a cultural background. Otherwise, how would you identify then at all? How could you tell a Ukranian from a Russian, or a Magyar from a Frenchman?

> “The closest parallel concept I can think of happens to >be the current idea in the United States that “an American is anyone who >comes here and shares our democratic values.” It seems to me that you >have simply taken the current American definition and “Southronized” it, >but that is a judgement of your motives and I can’t be sure of them until >you declare them.”

I thought I’d declared them quite clearly. If not, then let me clarify them now – a Southron is one who adheres to Southern culture, who lives in the South or at least considers it home, who speaks our language, who understands our ways, and who considers himself one of us. Now that’s pretty exclusive stuff, isn’t it? It excludes the Russian and the Yankee (of whatever color or ideology), it excludes the Mexican and the Nigerian and yes, even the Korean. It only includes – us.”

> “From a Christian and Biblical standpoint, a “people” is >a large group of families interesting. St. Paul tells us that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond, nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. But I don’t suppose Paul’s “ideology” figures much in this discussion, does it?

>” and clans that have a distinct history and >ethnic lineage.”

If that be the case, what clan did Jesus come from? His ancestors, as I recall, included Chaldeans (Abraham), Moabites, (Ruth) and probably other non-Jewish forebears that we don’t know about. It seems that the people who gave us the Bible weren’t nearly as strict about racial purity as you are.

> “If you dispute that, I’ll be glad to back it up.”

> “And >historically, the Southern people have held the same concept. We are an >ethnic people, like the Japanese, the Germans, the Norwegians, the Kurds, >the Palestinians, the Russians, etc. And far from this being an idea >that exists only in my mind, the historical record is clear. We have >held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace.”

And again, you use a racial policy that would dissolve any distinction between us and any other culture that happens to exist in North America. Sorry, Dennis, but I personally don’t have anything in common with the Yankees.

> “Again to >quote Dabney: “The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing >except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can >prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history >shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.”

Dr. Dabney was a great man, but I don’t happen to accept his every word as holy writ. The interesting thing is that he was writing in defense of slavery, which institution is the reason blacks were here in the first place. More than a little strange, eh?

> “And we >shouldn’t leave out Robert E. Lee: “The blacks are immeasurably better >off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The painful >discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a >race, and I hope will prepare and lead them to better things.” And Lee >later stated: “I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get >rid of them…I have always thought so!” These are just two quotes out of >thousands from which I could choose. But I think you would be hard >pressed to come up with any evidence whatsoever to lend credence to your >perspective that the Southern people are not an ethnic people but an >ideological construct of individuals who share our culture, which you >have left undefined.”

Again, if we are simply an “ethnic people”, then there is nothing to distinguish us from any one else on this continent, and we might as well sit down, shut up, and become little Yankees.

Dan Bennett, Unreconstructed Southron DIXIE RISING, Tuesdays at half-past-noon, WNAH 1360 AM in Nashville Saturdays at 20:30 Central (Sunday 02:30 UTC) WWCR, 5.070 MHZ http://members.tripod.com/~secesh/index.html

#5 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett –Dec. 30, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

Thank you for the fine reply. I’m afraid I have to say you began by continuing to define the Southerner in terms of the Northerer. I said: “1) Negro slavery was practiced in the South.” You said: “as it was in the north.

I said: “2) The Southern people of the antebellum era were not what you call racially tolerant.” You said:”Nor were the Yankees.” I said: “3) The South did not hold to the belief that we must allow the full social and political participation of all peoples living in the South.” You said: “And neither did the Yankees hold to the belief that they must allow full social and political participation of all peoples living in the north.” I said: ” 4) There was racial division in the South.” And you said: “As there was in the north.”

My point was that I am defining the Southern people’s beliefs by their actions and practices, not by the actions and practices of the Yankees, as what the Yankees did was irrelevant to what our people did. Yet you have ignored this and continued to define our beliefs in terms of Yankee beliefs, as though one was predicated on the other.

If the Japanese practice hari-kari and our people do too, you can’t defend our people’s actions by saying: “The Japanese did, too.” One is irrelevant to the other.

What I’m interested in defining is the historic beliefs and practices of the Southern people. For the moment, I have no interest in what the Yankees did. And as I look at the record, the four activities described above are a fair characterization of the activities of the Southern people.

Your points about these not being typical or representative of the Southern people because the Yankees did them too is both moot and irrelevant. These activities define in large measure the beliefs and actions of the Southern people. This is our history.

Now you can argue against the morality of our beliefs and practices if you so desire. You can take sides against our people, their beliefs, their actions, and their struggle. But I have a difficult time in seeing how you do that and continue to call yourself “unreconstructed,” when it was these very beliefs and actions that Reconstruction was meant to destroy.

Now it is obvious from the quotes I gave yesterday from Jeff Davis and Dr. Thornwell that the South generally understood this philosophical aim of the War and the Reconstruction. You have offered no evidence against this point, yet you still deny it vehemently.

The crux of your position relies on your statement: “The racial positions you’re talking about were those of Yankees as well as Southrons, and can therefore hardly be considered Southern positions.” But that’s like saying Iraq is not a Moslem country because Iran is a Moslem country so being Moslem is not unique to Iraq.

The truth is that both North and South, the United States at large, were founded on these principles, beliefs, and actions. A radical philosophy had sprung up in the North that demanded these principles be overthrown. Southern Negro slavery was the first flashpoint in the battle. T he battle continues to this day. After slavery was abolished; then Negro suffrage; then civil rights, affirmative action, quotas, etc.; now the abolition of all Southern symbols, monuments, etc.; and as Dean Fowler pointed out today in message #689, once that battle is won, then it will be a direct attack on whites.

Jefferson Davis understood this very plainly. Dabney understood this very plainly. Thornwell understood this very plainly. I understand it very plainly. But for some reason, you don’t seem to understand it.

You later wrote: ” The overt looting [of Reconstruction] has by and large stopped, the effort to eradicate the South has not.” My understanding of this is that the overt looting was merely a byproduct of fallen men (Yankee soldiers) being in the position of stealing things with both ease and no retribution to follow. That has now ended. Yet the effort to eradicate the South continues because we have always stood against the dictum of Reconstruction: Allow equal political and social participation of all peoples in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.”

The Equalitarian religion demands our eradication because it cannot accomplish its ends with us in the way. But obviously, your understanding is quite different. I would be interested to hear you put forth a position as to why the eradication of the South continues today.

I’ll comment on the issue of the identity of the Southern people in my next post.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

#6 Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler — Dec. 31, 1997

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:21:34 -0600, dennisw”mindspring.com wrote:

>My point was that I am defining the Southern people’s beliefs by their >actions and practices, not by the actions and practices of the Yankees,”

And my point was that you fail to make any appreciable distinction between us and the Yankees, since the things you note as significant about the South were also things we have in common with the north. It’s like saying that the difference between the north and South is that we both eat bread; it doesn’t tell you anything.

>”as what the Yankees did was irrelevant to what our people did.”

Once again, if what you’re defining as “Southern” was also common to the Yankees, how is it Southern?

>”Yet you >have ignored this and continued to define our beliefs in terms of Yankee >beliefs”

I have contrasted “Southern” with “non-Southern”. I can’t work with a definition of “Southern” which includes Yankees as well, and I don’t see how you can either, at least not and make any sense.

>”, as though one was predicated on the other. If the Japanese >practice hari-kari and our people do too, you can’t defend our people’s >actions by saying: “The Japanese did, too.”

Nope, bad analogy. If hara-kiri was practised by many non-Japanese cultures, then it wouldn’t be particularly Japanese, would it? If racial discrimination is practised by the Yankees (and it is, with great enthusiasm) then it isn’t particularly Southern, is it?

> ” One is irrelevant to the >other. What I’m interested in defining is the historic beliefs and >practices of the Southern people.

We hold a number of beliefs and customs that are uniquely ours. Racial prejudice, I’m happy to say, isn’t one of them. That occurs wherever fallen humans behave like fallen humans.

> ” For the moment, I have no interest in >what the Yankees did. And as I look at the record, the four activities >described above are a fair characterization of the activities of the >Southern people.”

But again, in no way unique. Sorry, Dennis, you can’t say that we’re identified by the red hat we wear if everyone else wears a red hat as well.

> “Your points about these not being typical or >representative of the Southern people because the Yankees did them too is >both moot and irrelevant.”

So what you’re saying is that racial separation is uniquely Southern even though the Yankees do it too, right? Hoooookey dokey, whatever you say…

> “These activities define in large measure the >beliefs and actions of the Southern people. This is our history. Now you >can argue against the morality of our beliefs and practices if you so >desire.”

Indeed I do. You could make the case that many Southerners have traditionally drunk to excess and behaved badly in other ways, and that doesn’t make that behaviour acceptable.

> “You can take sides against our people, their beliefs, their >actions, and their struggle.”

OUR people? Again, you’re try to make something that is NOT in any way uniquely Southern and make the the basis for our culture. That is utterly nonsensical.

> “But I have a difficult time in seeing how >you do that and continue to call yourself “unreconstructed,” when it was >these very beliefs and actions that Reconstruction was meant to destroy.

Once again, that contention is utter and complete hogwash, however oft repeated.

> “Now it is obvious from the quotes I gave yesterday from Jeff Davis and >Dr. Thornwell that the South generally understood this philosophical aim >of the War and the Reconstruction. You have offered no evidence against >this point, yet you still deny this vehemently.”

You could have offered similar quotes from Gorilla Abe Lincoln, and I suppose have used them to support the notion that he really supported the Confederacy. That is if you were really that keen on swallowing camels.

> “The crux of your position >relies on your statement: “The racial positions you’re talking about were >those of Yankees as well as Southrons, and can therefore hardly be >considered Southern positions.”

Bingo! Give the man a cigar!

> “But that’s like saying Iraq is not a >Moslem country because Iran is a Moslem country so being Moslem is not >unique to Iraq.”

If you were trying to say that the difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq is a Muslim country, you’d be making precisely the strange sort of argument that you’re presenting here. If you’re going to claim that something is peculiarly Iraqi, you’re going to have to come up with something besides Islam, because is has that in common with most of the Middle Eastern states. In the same sense, if you;’re going to come up with something uniquely Southern, then it’s going to have to be something other than racial prejudice, since that is as common to the rest of humanity as it is to Southrons.

> “The truth is that both North and South, the United States >at large, were founded on these principles, beliefs, and actions.”

You’re telling me that the US was founded on the principle of keeping the blacks down? That’s quite a stretch, isn’t it?

> “A >radical philosophy had sprung up in the North that demanded these >principles be overthrown. Southern Negro slavery was the first >flashpoint in the battle. The battle continues to this day. After >slavery was abolished; then Negro suffrage; then civil rights, >affirmative action, quotas, etc.; now the abolition of all Southern >symbols, monuments, etc.; and as Dean Fowler pointed out today in >message #689, once that battle is won, then it will be a direct attack on >whites. Jefferson Davis understood this very plainly. Dabney understood >this very plainly. Thornwell understood this very plainly. I understand >it very plainly. But for some reason, you don’t seem to understand it.”

Perhaps because you’ve rolled it into so many other essentially unrelated areas that it no longer makes any sense. I don’t believe, for instance, that Dabney, Thornwell, or Davis believed what you;re saying at all. They believed the the institution of slavery was defensible, that much is obvious, but there is no indication whatsoever that they believed it to be the sine qua non of Southern culture. No more do I believe that denial of civil rights to anyone based on their ancestry is the basis of Southern culture. I personally find the idea ludicrous.

>”You later wrote: ” The overt looting [of Reconstruction] has by and >large stopped, the effort to eradicate the South has not.” My >understanding of this is that the overt looting was merely a byproduct of >fallen men (Yankee soldiers) being in the position of stealing things >with both ease and no retribution to follow. That has now ended. Yet the >effort to eradicate the South continues because we have always stood >against the dictum of Reconstruction: Allow equal political and social >participation of all peoples in the South or be racists, bigots, and > hatemongers.”

Again, a definition of “reconstruction” which I not only reject out of hand, but find absurd. It presupposes that the War of Yankee Agression was precisely to free the slaves, and the reconstruction simply an effort to enfranchise the blacks, which is precisely what the Yankee myth presents as their justification for attacking the South and for carrying on reconstruction.

>”The Equalitarian religion demands our eradication because >it cannot accomplish its ends with us in the way. But obviously, your >understanding is quite different. I would be interested to hear you put >forth a position as to why the eradication of the South continues today.”

Simply because Southerners are too independent, too Christian, too recalcitrant, and simply too different to be easily digested by the Empire. The Empire demands that everyone be the same, and all completely subservient to imperial authority. Southerners a are continual hair in that soup, and will remain so as long as they remain Southerners.

> “I’ll comment on the issue of the identity of the Southern people in my >next post.”

It appears that will be simple – white folks. Just out of curiousity, do you feel that Jews can be Southerners, or are they somehow not white enough?

#7 Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett; Dec. 31, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

Now I think we’re getting somewhere. You wrote: “And my point was that you fail to make any appreciable distinction between us and the Yankees, since the things you note as significant about the South were also things we have in common with the north.”

You are putting the cart before the horse. You define a thing first, then compare it. It seems you have the words “define” and “distinguish” confused. Simply, to define a thing is to “state the meaning of; determine the essence of.” To distinguish a thing is to “identify as different.”

You are demanding that the definition of the South identify it as different from the North. So you are using the wrong word and the wrong concept. Honesty compels us to define the South first, then compare it to the North; then describe the distinguishing characteristics.

You also wrote: ” I have contrasted “Southern” with “non-Southern”. I can’t work with a definition of “Southern” which includes Yankees as well, and I don’t see how you can either, at least not and make any sense.”

Here you are proving my point. You are not defining the South, you are contrasting it to the North. These are different concepts. Your presupposition that you can’t work with a definition of Southern which includes Yankees is dishonest on two counts. First, I have not given a definition which includes Yankees and so you are misrepresenting my perspective again. Second, it puts you in the position of determining what truth is before an investigation has been undertaken. This puts you in a moral dilemma.

You need to do the honorable thing, Brother Dan, and investigate the truth, then let it tell you where to go next, rather than imposing restraints on the truth and holding the truth must fit certain parameters or be rejected.

You also wrote: “If racial discrimination is practiced by the Yankees (and it is, with great enthusiasm) then it isn’t particularly Southern, is it?”

Sorry. You’re wrong again, sad to say. You are comparing and contrasting instead of defining.

You also wrote: “We hold a number of beliefs and customs that are uniquely ours. Racial prejudice, I’m happy to say, isn’t one of them. That occurs wherever fallen humans behave like fallen humans.”

Here is further prima facie evidence that you have accepted the Reconstructionist moral philosophy and denounced the Christian position. “Racial prejudice” is one of the Reconstructionist’s buzzwords designed to overthrow the Christian moral order of the South. You have accepted it as a valid moral concept. This demonstrates anew your Reconstructed heart.

Please define for us “racial prejudice.”

In a previous post, I wrote: “These activities define in large measure the beliefs and actions of the Southern people. This is our history. Now you can argue against the morality of our beliefs and practices if you so desire.”

And you responded: “Indeed I do. You could make the case that many Southerners have traditionally drunk to excess and behaved badly in other ways, and that doesn’t make that behavior acceptable.”

Thank you for that frank and sincere answer. I appreciate the fact you have finally admitted that you argue against the moral beliefs and practices of the Southern people and have compared our historic racial policy to moral transgressions such as excessive drinking. It took a long time for me to get you to admit that you believe our ancestors were essentially immoral in their social policies. Thank you. However, honesty compels me to add you have still not accepted that these were our ancestors’ social policies.

You also wrote: “You could have offered similar quotes from Gorilla Abe Lincoln, and I suppose have used them to support the notion that he really supported the Confederacy.”

The fact that Lincoln was inconsistent in his policies and practices, that he didn’t understand where his policies and activities would lead, in no way impacts the beliefs of Southern leaders and the Southern people who understood very clearly where Lincoln’s actions would lead. For you to deny that Lincoln’s actions have brought on the South exactly what the men I quoted said it would, shows — something, I’m not sure what.

You also wrote: You’re telling me that the US was founded on the principle of keeping the blacks down? That’s quite a stretch, isn’t it?”

I’m not clear on what you mean here. If you would be so kind as to enlarge or explain, I would appreciate it.

You also wrote: “I don’t believe, for instance, that Dabney, Thornwell, or Davis believed what you’re saying at all. They believed the the institution of slavery was defensible, that much is obvious, but there is no indication whatsoever that they believed it to be the sine qua non of Southern culture. No more do I believe that denial of civil rights to anyone based on their ancestry is the basis of Southern culture. I personally find the idea ludicrous.”

Davis obviously believed that the Yankee war effort was an attempt to enforce equality of the races. I agree and you disagree. Thornwell saw that the logical end of the Yankee philosophy would grind them to powder as well as us. I believe that and you deny that any such philosophy was being advanced.

Dabney said that if ever the blood of the heroes of Mannassas was mixed “with the vile stream of African blood,” it would produce a race of men before whom no tyrant would ever tremble. I believe that. But you do not.

Also, I would be interested to hear what civil rights you believe that I would deny to “anyone based on their ancestry” that is different from the beliefs of these three men and the Southern people generally.

You also wrote: “[The eradication of the South continues today] simply because Southerners are too independent, too Christian, too recalcitrant, and simply too different to be easily digested by the Empire. The Empire demands that everyone be the same, and all completely subservient to imperial authority. Southerners a are continual hair in that soup, and will remain so as long as they remain Southerners.”

That’s a pretty good answer as far as it goes. As you know, I write a newsletter for a living. It’s my job to analyze the precious metals markets and the companies that mine or want to mine gold and silver. Sometimes I’ll get a letter from a subscriber saying what I said was true but wasn’t penetrating enough to warrant them paying for a newsletter.

In your perspective on why the South remains under attack, you have stated the truth, but not the whole truth, not the penetrating truth. Why is it that an empire demands everyone be the same and all completely subservient to imperial authority? What is the philosophy and religion behind such a policy?

The French Revolution in the early 1800s, the Abolitionists War Against the South in the mid 1800s, and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the early 1900s, were three theaters of the same war. The War of Equalitarian Conquest. The Equalitarian religion, which has operated since Nimrod, desires the unity of mankind. God has divided the peoples into ethnic units called peoples or nations to keep the Equalitarians from success. Breaking down the ethnic and racial barriers in the South, which was just one manifestation of our Christian underpinning, was essential to their victory.

We have been too Christian, too recalcitrant, and too independent, as you say. But one of the cornerstones of these three traits, is the one you argue so vehemently against. And it happens to be the one which was under the most virulent attack and remains so to this day.

Happy New Year,

Dennis Wheeler

#8 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett — Dec. 31, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

I think you’ve given a definition of the Southerner that is not all bad. In some ways, it’s pretty good actually. Here are just a few points I’d like to comment on:

First, you have defined a “people” as those who share a language, a territory, and a culture. And that’s pretty good. But you left out “bood relationship.”

The Greek word translated as “people” in the New Testament is “laos.” In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the Bible, laos is defined ad “(a) the people at large, especially of people assembled, [Matt. 27:25] …, (b) a people of the same race and language, [Rom.15:11, Rev.5:9] …” (Page 844)

The word “nation” in the New Testament is the Greek word “ethnos.” It should not be difficult to see the ethnic connotation of that word. In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance this word is defined as “a race (as of the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan):”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “nation” as, “An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory. In earlier examples the racial idea is usually stronger than the political; in recent use the nation of political unity and independence is more prominent.”

I’m not denigrating the items you listed as important to the concept of “people” or “nation.” It’s just that I believe you left out one very important item — blood relationship.

Even God’s division of the languages at the Tower of Babel must be viewed through the prism of ethnic distinction if it’s to be understood. And so Keil and Delitzcsh: “The differences to which this event [Babel] gave rise, consisted not merely in variations of sound, such as might be attributed to differences in the formation in the organs of speech (the lip or tongue), but had a much deeper foundation on the human mind. If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human language into different national dialects must be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up.”

The purpose of God’s acts at the Tower of Babel was to confuse the languages of mankind and thereby divide mankind into separate peoples, who would naturally form families and perpetuate themselves. It was not only a difference in the lips and the way words were formed, but also of the conceptual mindset. The fact that a human can learn a different language than the one he/she was born to speak. and can move to another location and speak the local language, does not give mankindvthe right to arbitrarily decide which culture and people it wants to belong to.

So ethnicity and blood relationship remains a large part of peoplehood from a Biblical and Christian perspective. And the South, being a Christian nstion, has followed these principles.

Second, you wrote: “If we change it to your criterion, which seems to be “anyone who believes in separation of the races” then you have to include everyone of any background who happens to hold a grudge against black people.”

This is untrue and you should not falsely characterize my position. That shows a moral flaw in your character. But the point I want to focus on is your perception that I believe a Southerner is “anyone who believes in separation of the races” The truth is, this is such a large part of our culture, you cannot separate the Southerner from it.

This is why the first point of this discussion, the perspective of our forefathers, covered in my previous post, is so vitally important. You cannot separate the Southerner or the Southern culture from a belief in the separation of the races and have it still be called anything resembling Southern culture, let alone “unreconstructed.”. Up to the time of the Civil Rights Movement, the Second Reconstruction, the time when millions of the Southern people began to become Reconstructed, this separation of the races was practiced in all or our institutions, including the churches where it was both taught and practiced. Like I said before, we’ve held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace.

This has been our perspective as far back as Thomas Jefferson at least: “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people (Negroes) are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”

It now remains for you to show that this belief in the separation of the races is not an integral part of Southern culture. I’m looking forward to see what you come up with.

BTW, I think your exposition and exegesis of St. Paul’s teaching was quite deficient. I think we should have a complete thread on “The Ethnic and Racial Teaching of St. Paul.” Maybe I’ll do something on that subject soon.

Let me hear from you,

Dennis Wheeler

#9 Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler

Dec. 31,1997

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:11:15 -0600, dennisw”mindspring.com wrote:

>”I think you’ve given a definition of the Southerner that is not all bad. >In some ways, it’s pretty good actually. Here are just a few points I’d >like to comment on: First, you have defined a “people” as those who share >a language, a territory, and a culture. And that’s pretty good. But you >left out “blood relationship.”

I don’t believe that it obtains when talking about Southerners unless you’re inclined to “de-Southernise” anyhone who isn’t of Anglo-Celtic ancestry. You can sure reduce the numbers that way, but saw off a lot of people who are staunchly Southern, including most of the people in Louisiana.

Beyond that, are we conveniently tossing together those whose ancestours are Scots and those whose ancestours were Sassenachs? That’s rather a stretch in itself, isn’t it? We talk as though they were all one people, but they are not, and never have been. Same with the Irish; don’t roll them in with the Brits unless you’re looking for a fight. Ditto the Welsh, albeit to a lesser degree. They may look homogeneous from here, but don’t let that fool you. By and large, they traditionally don’t even like each other.

> “The Greek word translated as “people” in >the New Testament is “laos.” In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the >Bible, laos is defined as “(a) the people at large, especially of people >assembled, [Matt. 27:25] …, (b) a people of the same race and language, >[Rom.15:11, Rev.5:9] …” (Page 844) > >The word “nation” in the New Testament is the Greek word “ethnos.” It >should not be difficult to see the ethnic connotation of that word. In >Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance this word is defined as “a race (as of >the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one >(usually by implication pagan):”

>>The Oxford English Dictionary defines “nation” as, “An extensive >aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common >descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people, >usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite >territory. In earlier examples the racial idea is usually stronger than >the political; in recent use the nation of political unity and >independence is more prominent.”

> >I’m not denigrating the items you listed as important to the concept of >”people” or “nation.” It’s just that I believe you left out one very >important item, blood relationship.”

It appears that most of the sources you’ve cited above also left that out, so I appear to be in good company there. And again, the reason for that is simple – it’s almost impossible to keep track of “blood relation” without making up arbitrary rules about who is “kin” to whom. Thus you find the Scot suddenly kin to the Englishman who’s brother to the Irishman who’s cousin to everyone else who happens to have the same colour of hide. Silly.

> “Even God’s division of the languages at the Tower of Babel must be >viewed through the prism of ethnic distinction if it’s to be understood. >And so Keil and Delitzcsh: “The differences to which this event [Babel] >gave rise, consisted not merely in variations of sound, such as might be >attributed to differences in the formation in the organs of speech (the >lip or tongue), but had a much deeper foundation on the human mind. If >language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts >of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human >language into different national dialects must be sought in an effect >produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, >conception, thought, and will was broken up.”

I.E., people’s thought patterns, and hence their culture, is effected by the language they speak. Sociology 101. And that, of course, argues for the kinship of all those who speak the same language, which isn’t a direction in which I expect you want to travel.

> “The purpose of God’s acts at the Tower of Babel was to confuse the >languages of mankind and thereby divide mankind into separate peoples, >who would naturally form families and perpetuate themselves. It was not >only a difference in the lips and the way words were formed, but also of >the conceptual mindset. The fact that a human can learn a different >language than the one he/she was born to speak. and can move to another >location and speak the local language, does not give the individuals of >mankind the right to arbitrarily decide which culture and people it wants >to belong to.”

I don’t see anything forbidding that “right” to anyone, but in any case, race has nothing whatsoever to do with language. The language you are “born to speak” is the one taught you by your parents, your “mother tongue”, as it were. In the case of almost everyone born in the US, that language is English, and that much we have in common. The English that we speak in the South is distinct from that spoken in the rest of the US, but it is common to all here, whatever their race.

So again, I can’t see that this is advancing your position at all, quite the contrary.

> “So ethnicity and blood relationship remains a large part of peoplehood >from a Biblical and Christian perspective. And the South, being a >Christian nstion, has followed these principles.

> >Second, you wrote: “If we change it to your criterion, which seems to be >”anyone who believes in separation of the races” then you have to include >everyone of any background who happens to hold a grudge against black >people.”

> >This is untrue and you should not falsely characterize my position. That >shows a moral flaw in your character.”

Spare me comments on my character; I don’t believe you qualified to offer them. As for mischaracterising your statements, I don’t believe that I have done any such thing, I simply believe that you;’re trying to avoid the logical end of your arguments. That appears to me somewhat less than honest.

>”But the point I want to focus on >is your perception that I believe a Southerner is “anyone who believes in >separation of the races” The truth is, this is such a large part of our >culture, you cannot separate the Southerner from it.”

Hogwash, pure and simple. You have thus far said that a great many times, and offered no evidence for it except to note that a good many Southerners believed in racial separation. A good many surely did, but you have not demonstrated that such a view was or is uniquely

Southern, or that it was the basis for Southern culture. In fact, I would make so bold as to say that it was far les a factor in Southern culture than in Yankee. Blacks and whites have always been in closer proximity in the South than in the north, and the black influence on the culture (especially in food and language) in the South is quite marked. As a black activist once noted “Up north, they don’t care how big you get as long as you don’t get too close. Down South, they don’t care how close you get as long as you don’t get too big.

> “This is why the first point of this discussion, the perspective of our >forefathers, covered in my previous post, is so vitally important. You >cannot separate the Southerner or the Southern culture from a belief in >the separation of the races and have it still be called anything >resembling Southern culture, let alone “unreconstructed.”.

That is simply untrue. While many Southerners have believed in inequality of the races, almost none have called for separation of the races. That is primarily a Yankee phenomenon. That was Lincoln’s philosophy, not Davis’s.

> “Up to the >time of the Civil Rights Movement, the Second Reconstruction, the time > when millions of the Southern people began to become Reconstructed, this >separation of the races was practiced in all or our institutions, >including the churches where it was both taught and practiced.”

Funny, I seem to remember something about Robert E. Lee, the greatest Southerner (and the greatest American) of them all, praying beside a black man at the altar at the Anglican church he attended in Richmond. Perhaps he wasn’t Southern enough for your standards, eh?

> “Like I >said before, we’ve held one racial policy from George Washington to >George Wallace. > >This has been our perspective as far back as Thomas Jefferson at least: >”Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these >people (Negroes) are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two >races, equally free, cannot live in the same government Nature, habit, >opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is >still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation >peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, >and their place be filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary > it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect > held up.”

>>It now remains for you to show that this belief in the separation of the >races is not an integral part of Southern culture. I’m looking forward >to see what you come up with.”

I consider the fact self-evident. You, for your part, have yet to establish that there is anything particularly Southern in racial discrimination, except that you say so. Sorry, that isn’t enough.

> “BTW, I think your exposition and exegesis of St. Paul’s teaching was >quite deficient.

Since I offered nothing more than St. Paul’s own words, I’m at a loss to determine what deficiency there may have been, unless you take issue with the great apostle himself. If so, then that is of course your affair.

Dan Bennett – Unreconstructed Southron

#10 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett — Jan. 1, 1998

Dear Dan Bennett,

In a previous post I gave the definition of three words showing from the Bible and the Oxford Dictionary how that “blood relationship” is part of a nation and a people. Your response began: “It appears that most of the sources you’ve cited above also left [blood relationship] out, so I appear to be in good company there.”

I thought you would understand that “race” and “blood relationship” held enough common content to be considered synonyms for our purposes. Evidently, I was wrong; you didn’t understand it. Or, you were just being dishonest again?

I was trying to be polite. All things considered, I should have said that the point you left out in your original definition of a people was “race” and then given the three definitions. Maybe I should not be so polite in the future.

At any rate, all three of the definitions include the word “race” in them and prove conclusively that “race” is an integral part of a people or a nation. Let me give them again so you won’t miss the truth this time now that you have more understanding of the topic at hand. The New Testament defines a people with the Greek word laos, which is defined as “(a) the people at large, especially of people assembled, [Matt. 27:25] …, (b) a people of the same race and language, [Rom.15:11, Rev.5:9] …”

Did you get that? “a people of the same race….”

The word nation used in the New Testament is the word ethnos which is defined as “”a race (as of the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan):”

Were you able to follow that? An ethnos is “a race (as of the same habit)…”?

And the Oxford English Dictionary defines the English word nation as “An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people….”

Now that wasn’t too difficult, was it? The English word nation is defined a ” … a distinct race….”

I hope you really did miss it the first time and weren’t just being dishonest again.

You also wrote: “People’s thought patterns, and hence their culture, is effected by the language they speak. Sociology 101. And that, of course, argues for the kinship of all those who speak the same language, which isn’t a direction in which I expect you want to travel.”

I would have to ask on what basis you make the assertion that people’s thought patterns, and hence their culture, is affected by the language they speak? What support do you have to offer on this point? I can easily see how the reverse is true; that language is the product of a people’s thought patterns. This is the proper interpretation of the Bible passage detailing the division of languages. But although I’m not disputing your point that a person’s thought patterns are affected by the language they speak, I am aware of no evidence supporting this.

You also wrote: “The language you are “born to speak” is the one taught you by your parents, your “mother tongue”, as it were. In the case of almost everyone born in the US, that language is English, and that much we have in common. The English that we speak in the South is distinct from that spoken in the rest of the US, but it is common to all here, whatever their race. So again, I can’t see that this is advancing your position at all, quite the contrary.”

You have two errors in this paragraph. But one is so important that it dwarfs the other. Still, I will detail both of them. First, you have given an exalted position to language in defining a people. You have left out the racial aspect which I have shown that the Bible teaches to be crucial. The fact that a person or a people learn a language that is not natural to them, does not bestow nationality onto him or them.

The story of the prophet Daniel, along with Shadrak, Meshak, and Abednigo, comes to mind. They were among the Jews deported to Babylon. They were taught the Babylonian language and given Babylonian names. Still, they remained Jews, not Babylonians. You might read that story; My conclusion is easily demonstrable.

Another story is that of Abraham, who moved from Ur to Canaan. Undoubtedly he learned to speak the language of Canaan. Yet when it came time to get a wife for his son Isaac, he sent his servant back to Ur to get a woman from his own people.

So your point that a common language bestows a common nationality is in error.

Your second error is not so serious, but nonetheless real. To hold that the English of the blacks in the South is more similar to the language of the Southern people than is the English of European peoples in other parts of America is erroneous. Now, there are some parts of the U.S. in which the European’s language is quite dissimilar to ours. But your sweeping statement that we speak a common and distinct form of English in the South remains erroneous.

You also wrote: “Blacks and whites have always been in closer proximity in the South than in the north, and the black influence on the culture (especially in food and language) in the South is quite marked.”

You have made a true statement here. But it is not the whole truth. The close proximity of blacks and whites in the South was made possible by the political and social system of white supremacy we had here. Under the slave system and the Jim Crow, blacks were no threat to white political and social supremacy. The two did not marry and form families. They did not socialize as equals. They did not worship in churches as equals. The children didn’t attend schools as equals.

And as long as this system of white social and political supremacy remained in place, close physical proximity was possible with a minimum of problems.

After the War, the North imposed racial equality between the two peoples. Nine years later the Southerners wriggled off that hook and then set up Jim Crow, again a system of white political and social supremacy.

It remained the job of the Civil Rights Act, the Second Reconstruction, to force us together as equals. Those who have been reconstructed in heart and mind, like yourself, accept this new system as valid, good, and a positive development in the South. Those, like myself, who remain unreconstructed, see it as the disastrous policy that Thomas Jefferson warned it would be nearly two centuries ago.

You also wrote:”While many Southerners have believed in inequality of the races, almost none have called for separation of the races. That is primarily a Yankee phenomenon. That was Lincoln’s philosophy, not Davis’s.”

I see here for the first time you are representing the terms “inequality of the races” and “separation of the races” as different concepts. Perhaps that is valid. I don’t consider this as a substantial difference and would like to hear from you why it is of importance.

My take on the situation is that because the inequality of the races was so ingrained in the laws and the mores of the Southern people, and w {cut off – restore later}

The Southern People and Equality of Opportunity

Introduction

The South Was Right is a very misleading book that dishonestly portrays the facts and issues pressing on the Southern people today. The book is not a handbook or guide for effective or honest Southern political activism; it is a dishonest distortion, a plausible lie; told to make the Old South and the Confederacy appear palatable to today’s equalitarian society.

While the authors (called Kennedy from here on out) point out the immoral, violent, and hypocritical nature of Abolitionists and equalitarians,. they never attack the equalitarian philosophy. No. In fact, whenever Kennedy speaks in moral terms, it becomes plainly evident that it is from exactly the equalitarian perspective against which our forefathers fought in the War for Southern Independence.

Still, Kennedy makes it clear he hates the Yankees. This reminds me of a line by the English poet Dryden in The Hind and the Panther:

“To abhor the makers, and their laws approve,

Is to hate traitors and the treason love.”

I propose and will show that the Confederacy seceded and fought a war because the North intended to apply to the blacks the tenets of the Declaration of Independence pertaining to all men being equal and in possession of certain rights, the “self-evident” phrase.

You won’t find this mentioned in The South Was Right despite the overwhelming body of evidence that substantiates it. And it is exactly this main tenet of Yankee equalitarianism that Kennedy wants to build a new South upon. This I will show.

The Plausible Lie

I want to quantify the plausible lie that is advanced in The South Was Right. It is this: “Everything in the Old South that is objectionable to today’s equalitarian society can be excused because the Yankees and others did the same things and even worse things. The view of history that the Yankees have taught to America is untrue and by gaining a correct perspective of the facts of history, one can come to see that the Old South really did not practice a socio-political system or way of life that people can reasonably condemn today, even by today’s standards.”

This plausible lie is an argument that the South is to be forgiven of all its transgressions because, after all, “everybody was doing it.” In The South Was Right, there is no polemic defense of the Old South in moral terms. Again, when Kennedy does express moral absolutes, they can easily be seen to be Jacobin and equalitarian in nature, as opposed to Christian and biblical in nature.

The False Use of Facts

Kennedy uses true facts to advocate untrue positions. In so doing, he leaves out facts that are pertinent to the issue at hand. In Anglo-Saxon society, the truth is held to contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth as well as the truth of the selection of facts given.

When Kennedy uses quotes by Southerners that express their opposition to slavery on one ground or another, but fails to include that despite their beliefs on slavery they were willing to fight to uphold the slaveowner’s right to own slaves, he is guilty of the false use of facts.

When he shows the Old South to be equalitarian in nature because a black boy lived in the Confederate White House with the Davis family, he is guilty of the false use of facts.

When he makes a case for the North being more segregated than the South, but fails to show that the South was based on a hierarchal social order in which blacks held the inferior position to the whites and were thus no competition to them, he is guilty of the false use of facts.

And when Kennedy advances causes for the War other than the cause of the War, he is guilty of the false use of facts.

The South Was Right is big on facts. But there are far too many instances of the false use of facts, wherein facts are used to prove something other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This I will show.

An Irrational Self-Determination

The plausible lie told in The South Was Right intentionally misrepresents the truth, distorts the historical record, and defends the Old South without defending the principles of the Old South that were under attack in the War For Southern Independence and today; namely, the right of the Southern people to self-determination unfettered by the political influence of blacks and others.

Kennedy grants that the South has a right to self-determination free from the influence of Yankees. But those of another race, who are even more incompatible with us than the Yankees, he gladly allows them to “share” our self-determination.

He goes so far as to include the blacks in the Southern people, the very thing the South fought against. This I will show.

Kennedy purports to believe in self-determination and independence for the South. And he makes a great legal and moral case for these things. But when taken together with other things he believes, the self-determination he advances is illogical and irrational. Kennedy wants independence from Washington. But he wants blacks in the South included in the body politic of the new nation.

There has been a Civil War and a Civil Rights War in American history. The side favoring the inclusion of blacks into the body politic has won both wars and the South has lost both wars. Since Kennedy wants to include the blacks in the body politic, what would the South gain by independence from Washington? None that I can see.

The South Was Right is a book that is hostile to the South; it undermines the South and the Southern movement today. Kennedy does the best he can under the circumstances. But he is responsible for the circumstances — his equalitarian belief system.

His book might win converts to a bastardized form of Southern nationalism through its false argumentation. But in the end, the tenets of this book will not stand. And any movement erected on its tenets cannot stand because those tenets are illogical, false, misleading, and contradictory. This I will show.

I. The Southern People

The first point we should cover concerns the nature and make-up of the Southern people. Who are the Southern people?

In The South Was Right Kennedy goes to great lengths to demonstrate how different the Yankees are from the Southern people. He quotes Professor Grady McWhiney: “But none of his critics have been able to refute Owsley’s basic theme of an Old South culturally dominated by plain folk whose ways were quite distinctive from those of Northerners.” (pages 22-23)

Kennedy states: “Dr. McWhiney wrote that the War for Southern Independence was not so much a war of brother against brother as it was a war of culture against culture.” (page 23)

He discusses the views on this topic of Anthony Trollope, David Hackett Fischer, John Adams, and George Mason. And then concludes this discussion by writing: “Thus we have the evaluation of the cultural differences between the North and the South made in colonial times by one of the Founding Fathers, a Virginia Anti-Federalist, an evaluation made at the time of the war by a foreign observer and two contemporaneous scholars, one from the North and one from the South. Notice that regardless of the time frame or their origins, all four described the North and South as culturally different and as distinct peoples.” (pages 24-25)

In Kennedy’s view, the Yankees and the Southerners are different peoples. So far, so good. This is true and proper.

The rub comes in his perspective that blacks and whites in the South are a part of the same people. Kennedy makes statements such as: “Both black and white Southerners suffered as a result of our second-class economic status.” (page 38) And also: “The issue of slavery, like the issue of race, has been used to keep the people of the South fighting one another while allowing the victors to enjoy the fruits of their victory. But never let us forget that the real issue of the war as the South saw it was liberty and freedom.” (page 117)

And another quote: “Both black and white Southerners were needlessly subjected to the terror of starvation by terrorist acts of United States troops. From Virginia we find one of many examples of the sufferings borne by black Southerners….” (page 143)

From these statements and others, it is clear that Kennedy views both blacks and whites in the South as the same people, although he never addresses the issue didactically nor makes any syllogistical case for his position. For this reason I can’t really respond to his argument that the blacks in the South are part of the Southern people. For he makes no such argument. He simply assumes this as fact and goes on from there.

A. Are the Blacks Southerners?

One of the best ways to deal with an argument is to reduce it to the absurd by showing the absurd nature of the logical ramifications of the argument. In the field of logic this is called reductio ad absurdum. Kennedy’s position that Yankees are a different people from Southerners but blacks living in the South are the same people is quite easily shown to be an absurd proposition.

First, Kennedy argues briefly that the Southerners are Celts and the Yankees are Anglo-Saxons. (page 23) This is both doubtful and dubious. But if we grant it as true for the moment, we must see that the blacks living in the South are not Celts. They are therefore something other than Celts, something other than Southerners.

Second, the physical, psychological, and emotional differences between the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons is not nearly as wide as those differences are between the Celts and the Africans.

Third, concerning culture, history, and tradition, the same conclusion must be drawn. The culture, history, and traditions of the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons, while different, hold much more in common than does the culture of either of them compared to those of the Africans.

Fourth, Kennedy makes many statements about how the South and the Southerners are blamed for slavery, racism, and a host of other sins. While true, these things certainly cannot be said of the blacks living in the South.

Fifth, Kennedy complains again and again about the corrupt, tyrannical, despotic government in Washington. True Southerners agree with him. The blacks living in the South certainly don’t agree with him. They love the government in Washington. It holds their complete allegiance. It is their agent for appropriating the wealth of the Southern people to themselves through various welfare programs and civil rights laws that make them privileged characters in the workplace and in the society.

This should be clear from the results of the latest election. Blacks thought that their man in Washington, Bill Clinton, was in trouble. So they turned out en masse to save him from the evil whites of the Republican Party. Messages posted on the League of the South staff listserver bear witness to the fact that this event caught the attention of both Dr. Hill and George Kalas.

And sixth, the blacks and whites have lived in the South for nearly 400 years and remain easily distinguishable from one another. There has been virtually no blood admixture between them in legitimate society. They tend to live, worship, and socialize apart, not together. They are easily distinguishable physically, mentally, emotionally, aptitudinally, and in many other ways. By only the most Clintonesque twist of the truth can they be called the same people group.

B. Let the Confederates Speak

Besides these factors, I can say that the place “where the rubber has met the road” in the South’s struggle against tyranny and injustice, has been the issue of social and political equality for the blacks living in the South. The North has constantly tried to force the South to grant this equality to the blacks and the South has resisted at great cost.

I will cover this more fully later, but let me give a few quotes that demonstrate that one of the points of conflict that led to war was that the North intended to apply the tenets of the Declaration of Independence that pertained to all men possessing equality to the blacks. The South would have none of this.

In The South Was Right, Kennedy prints the farewell speech of Jefferson Davis to the United States Senate. Davis told the Senate why the South was withdrawing from the Union. His words were these: “It has been a conviction of pressing necessity — it has been a belief that we are to be deprived, in the Union, of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us — which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. The Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were asserting that no man was born, to use the language of Mr. Jefferson, booted and spurred, to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal, meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families; but all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed.”

Continuing: “They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it, that, among the items of arraignment against George III, was, that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves. Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for raising up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to severe their connection with the mother country? When our constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable; for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men — not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower cast, only to be represented in the numerical portion of three-fifths.”

I give Kennedy kudos for not editing this speech, but printing it as it was given. Nonetheless, it undermines his position that the blacks and the whites in the South comprise a single people. (Please keep this speech in mind, it will also be shown to undermine more of his positions as you read on.)

Other statements also show that the conflict centered around the equality and oneness of the blacks and the whites in the South. Alexander Stephens stated: “The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population among us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature’s great law; philosophy taught that order as the normal condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the “corner-stone” on which it was formed.”

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

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

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

While these are hard statements and difficult to read, they are the perspective of the Confederates. The sentiments expressed in The South Was Right do not express the sentiments of the Confederates. They express the sentiments of the Yankee Abolitionists against which the Confederates fought.

To claim allegiance to the South and the Confederacy we must either accept their beliefs as they come or decide on some logical and reasonable modifications given the change in today’s political and historical landscape.

The South Was Right does neither. It assumes the Abolitionist morality and, through a plausible lie, passes that off as the morality of the Confederacy.

II. Equality of Opportunity

The second point we should cover is that of “equality of opportunity.” This is one of Kennedy’s favorite themes. His entire case for the social institution he wants to install in his new South is built upon this concept. It is integral to his system.

What you should see concerning his idea of “equality of opportunity” are three things:

(1) It attacks the traditional Southern position in exactly the same place the Yankee Abolitionists attacked it in 1861,

(2) It proposes the same social order as proposed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s,

(3) It holds out as plausible the same foolish possibilities as were held out to the South by the liberals who wanted to end segregation in the 1960s.

In a nutshell, Kennedy takes the exact same position as the historical enemies of the South, repackages them, and tries to sell them to us again as something new and novel.

1. Revising Southern History

Attendant to these errors and hypocrisies are the mischaracterization of the South and the Confederates. He must drastically alter the historical South to make his liberal/Abolitionist scheme appear plausible. And in so doing, he performs the acts common to liberals, revising the South and its history, thus slandering its people and way of life.

Kennedy begins with a double standard, one for whites and a different one, a more lenient one, for blacks. He never states this double standard propositionally. But it is assumed and implied throughout The South Was Right. While never saying anything positive about Yankee founding fathers and the great contribution they made to the Constitution or the American way of life, Kennedy makes sure that he points out “our society has been influenced positively by the African-Americans.” (page 85)

Further, Kennedy makes this statement: “We have been forced to endure such insults as busing, racial quotas, minority set-asides, affirmative action plans, reverse discrimination, and a discriminatory South-only Voting Rights Act, just to name a few. All this (and so much more that space does not allow its printing) in the name of human equality, and still we are no closer to appeasing the gods of Yankee liberalism than when our political leaders first began their groveling.” (page 249) Notice that he lays no blame for these legal and social ills to the account of the blacks. His condemnation goes to the Yankees (whites). This is Kennedy’s double-standard in action.

To Kennedy, Yankees — Northern whites — are the worst vermin on earth. They are castigated as far worse than blacks, although he never directly compares the two. And racist Southerners — those who won’t go along with the plausible lie he has concocted, are next in line to be berated. The only blacks Kennedy criticizes are those of the NAACP, who do not view the world through the eyes of a raceless individualist.

The truth is that the blacks have been far more immoral throughout American history than even the Yankees. The blacks have done far more harm to the South than the Yankees, especially the past 35 years.. They are a far bigger problem for the South today than the Yankees.

But none of this fits the plausible lie Kennedy spins in The South Was Right. And so he presents only a selective rendering of the facts. And leaves the other facts unstated — such as black crime committed against Southerners and the denigrating effects black culture has exercised on Southern society since the Civil Rights Movement, although they bear on the situation with far more relevance than the ones he states.

Individual Liberty

Also, Kennedy revises the history of the traditional South by stating that it was a place that stood for individual liberty. Kennedy calls this “the individualistic heritage of the South.” His full quote is this: “This concept, equality of results, is in direct opposition to the traditional individualistic belief of our Southern heritage.” (page 247) I contest this perspective. The quotes I have given from Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, and the Texas Articles of Secession undeniably demonstrate that our people have carried a “group” identity with them that has been the touchstone upon which we have been attacked by the equalitarian United States.

It is the Yankee Abolitionists and later the Civil Rights proponents who held to a belief in individualism. Kennedy tacitly acknowledges this when he states: “The Northern liberals are now demanding that the central government provide equality of results. No longer satisfied with the concept of equality of opportunity, modern liberals, like the citizen of the former Soviet Union, are now preparing to reduce all to the equality of slavery.” (page 247) Notice that he understands that the liberals at first demanded equality of opportunity but are now moving to a further step of demanding equality of results. Now who, pray tell, was it that the liberals were remonstrating against when they worked for equality of opportunity? Who was it in 1861 and 1961 that refused to go along with this first step to tyranny and slavery? It was the South; in both instances. The South stood against these forces of liberalism, the first program of which Kennedy has now excepted as valid and proper.

Richard Weaver gave this quote from a Confederate general commenting on our effort after the War: “Into the strange personnel of the Confederate Army… poured fighting bishops and prayer-holding generals, and through it swept waves of intense religious enthusiasm long lost to history. And when that army went down to defeat, the last barrier to the secular spirit of science, materialism, and democracy was vanquished.”

It was the South that stood foursquare against democracy and the individualism it represented. Kennedy has revised our heritage and now has the South standing for the very issue she was attacked for standing against.

Kennedy bases his system of “equality of opportunity” on the words from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” These are the very words that the caused the South to leave the Union and fight the War in the first place. Remember the above-quoted words of Jefferson Davis: “She [Mississippi] has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.”

Therefore, Kennedy is trying to do to the South exactly what the North was trying to do to her that provoked the War for Southern Independence. He wants to apply this ideal of equality across the racial line; the exact matter that provoked the War.

It is this dishonest position that is integral to Kennedy’s system. He wants a raceless and individualistic social order, just like Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights liberals initially campaigned for. He has acknowledged this.

Evolutionary History

To buttress this position, he resorts to an evolutionary view of moral history. Kennedy writes: “What then did Thomas Jefferson mean when he penned the `self-evident’ phrase? In the early days of the American Republic, the term referred to equality before God and the law. It was an open attack against the then-prevalent concept of the divine right of kings. Later in the American setting, it came to mean equality of opportunity (i.e., that no one should be arbitrarily barred from the rights protected by law or from access to public services).” (page 248)

Notice that he makes no case for his conclusion that the meaning of the phrase changed from one thing to another. He just arbitrarily announces it has changed. Obviously, the phrase has not changed. If it’s meaning changed, then something must have occurred to change it. It did. The Yankee victory in the War for Southern Independence occurred. Their equalitarianism demanded that the meaning of the phrase change. Kennedy has bought into their philosophy. Therefore, in his mind, the meaning of the phrase has changed.

So Kennedy has taken the “self-evident” clause from the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged that it meant what the South said it meant, and now declares that it means what the North said it meant.

Kennedy needs to be told the same thing that the U.S. Senate needed to be told, and was told, by Jefferson Davis: “The Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were asserting that no man was born, to use the language of Mr. Jefferson, booted and spurred, to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal, meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families; but all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. There were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave….”

The phrase has not changed. The meaning of the phrase has not changed. What has changed is the philosophy of the country and this new philosophy cannot live with the true and accurate meaning of that phrase. And so a decree to change the meaning has been made. The decree is dishonest, another plausible lie. But the new dishonest meaning allows the equalitarians to rule with the semblance of a direct connection back to the founding fathers. Kennedy has now joined in the dishonest ruse with them and pushes their new ideal.

Never let it be lost on us, that Kennedy’s bait-and-switch on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence is exactly the point on which the North attacked the South in the War for Southern Independence!

Gandhi, King, and Kennedy

I would also add that when laying out his vision of a future South as a place of equality of opportunity, Kennedy appeals to the example of Mahatma Gandhi. “When Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, was pressed by certain Moslems to reserve a specific number of jobs for minorities regardless of their qualifications, he objected. Gandhi, who was probably this century’s purest (if not only) humanitarian spirit, declared his stand on quotas thusly….” (page 250) (Kennedy next gives a quote by Gandhi against the quota system in hiring government employees.)

Every Christian should cringe in agony from Kennedy’s perspective on Gandhi. We know that Gandhi was a godless pagan. We know that he too was an integrationist. And we know that tens and hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in ethnic wars because of his raceless individualism. And this is the model Kennedy would have us employ in a new South.

We also know that he was the model drawn upon by Martin Luther King. So it is now no wonder that Kennedy supports the same program as that of King; he salutes and reveres the same role model. And it should not go unnoticed that King’s program has also resulted in a terrible outbreak of violence, mayhem, and murder in the South. Since the blacks achieved the equality of opportunity, they have murdered thousands upon thousands of Southerners, raped thousands upon thousands of Southern women, and robbed millions and millions of Southern homes, businesses, and automobiles.

The South has become much more like Gandhi’s India since the program promoted by Gandhi, King, and Kennedy has been implemented.

2. Evolutionary Morality

Now how does Kennedy square these two incompatible positions, the desire for a raceless, individualistic social order with the South’s historic rebellion against the same? He revises morality. He holds to an evolutionary view of moral history in which mankind has somehow learned to overcome “racism.”

His words are these: “One fact that no historian can dispute is that nowhere in Europe or America were blacks granted the rights that whites enjoyed. The very nature of civilized society in that day would not allow for equal rights under the law. The principle of the innate worth of each individual was yet to be propounded.” (pages 116-117)

So here you see his attack upon the Bible and the Christian religion. He is saying that something has occurred since the time of the War to usher in a new morality to mankind. This implies that the revelation of ethics God gave to mankind in the Bible was incomplete. And it implies that people today are to be judged by a different standard than they were then. And it also implies that some event or chain of events has taken place since the end of the War that renders mankind liable to judgement under this new morality.

First, I dispute that any principle of morality has been discovered as new since the end of the War. The Christian Church has held the truth in its entirety for many centuries before that time. The innate worth of each individual was understood even from Old Testament passages, hundreds and thousands of years before the time of Christ.

Second, the thing that is new, the thing that is novel, is Kennedy’s philosophy. He has accepted the equalitarian philosophy of the Abolitionists. He has become reconstructed, despite his protests to the contrary. For he has accepted the Abolitionists’ basic presupposition: “The South must allow the full social and political participation of all persons living in the South regardless of race, creed, or color, or else be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.”

I invite Mr. Kennedy to explain to us what event or chain of events has taken place since the War that has ushered in this new morality. The only thing that I can think of is that the new Humanist savior, Martin Luther King, has come, died for our sins, and risen again and now all men are bound to obey his law. If Mr. Kennedy or anyone else can come up with some other plausible explanation, I would love to hear it.

I think the fact is that Kennedy has accepted the Abolitionist proposition that to withhold full social or political participation from any individual on the basis of race or religion is to deny the innate worth of that individual. And this position is fully refuted in Robert L. Dabney’s An Anti-Biblical Theory of Rights, so I won’t go into it here.

3. A New Social Order

Having seen that Kennedy attacks the South on exactly the same point the Yankees did in 1861, and how he holds forth the same program of raceless, color-blind individualism that Martin Luther King held forth, Let’s look at how he holds out the same foolish possibilities for the new social order that the liberals held out to the South in the 1960s.

Like all liberals, Kennedy wants to be judged by the “goodness” of his intentions and not the tragic results of his actions. He speaks at length against the policy of “equality of result.” Kennedy opposes socialistic programs such as quotas, affirmative action, minority set-asides, force busing, etc.

Here then is Kennedy’s moral polemic for the new South he wants to erect: “Equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and especially a realization that all people stand as equals before God are all important aspects of the Southern National political philosophy. (The latter is not meant as a theological statement but only to stress the point that all people are equally valuable and therefore not `expendable’ from an ethical perspective.) Results in each person’s life must depend upon the individual’s personal talents, skill, motivation, and intelligence.” (page 251)

Kennedy stops short of predicting how well his program will work or that the South will become a great nation within the family of nations because of his program. But you should never lose sight of the fact that Kennedy’s system is essentially a restatement of the rhetoric that Martin Luther King, Jr. gave us 35 years ago; he too wanted to build a color-blind society of raceless individuals. And the results have been disastrous.

The first problem with this is that the blacks and other minorities have no intention of acting like raceless individuals the way Kennedy envisions. He acts as if the South’s problems are presently caused by the North, when the truth is that the South’s problems today are caused by the fruit of the North’s victory, namely, the social and political equality of the blacks with the Southern people. (Add to this the terrible immigration policy that is bringing in millions and millions of other non-European peoples to the South.) They will not act like raceless individuals. They never have acted like raceless individualists. They continue to act in concert, using their votes to elect candidates that use their votes to appropriate everything the Southern people have to their own accounts.

The past 35 years have proven this proposition beyond a reasonable doubt. The elections of 1998 were but the icing on the cake.

Nonetheless, Kennedy holds out the same foolish possibilities that were held out to the South in the Civil Rights era: we can all act as one people and have equality of opportunity without enforcing an equality of result.

The second problem with his program is that trying to build a society is that it is at variance with the God-ordained program of separate peoples and separate nations instituted in Genesis 9-11 to keep mankind from uniting in defiance and rebellion against God and His Kingdom. Kennedy has about as much chance of success at building a new Southern society in equality with the blacks as he does of turning back the incoming tide with a broom.

This is exactly the system that has been in place for the past 35 years. It has not worked. It will not work. Kennedy’s ridiculous perspective that the racial problems in the South are caused by conspiratorial action by the Yankees is a simple cop-out, a way he can address the South’s problems without attacking the equalitarian social order instituted because of the Yankee victories in the Civil War and the Civil Rights War.

Finally, Kennedy does indeed put forth a few qualifications for voting. He wants the registered voter to be able to read and write, be a tax-payer, not be on the welfare dole, etc. He takes these guidelines from John Stuart Mill. But in reality, these qualifications are all enemies to the principle of equality of opportunity.

In truth, there is no equality of opportunity. There will always be inequities of talent, ability, family, etc. It is just a useless abstraction. So by equality of opportunity, Kennedy only means that it is wrong to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, creed, or color. Again, intrinsically, this is the same system we have in place now. It is a restatement of the Martin Luther King, Jr. position. It is the very system the South has despised and fought against through the decades. But now a son of the South has repackaged it and sent it to us as our salvation.

This is hypocrisy to the nth degree. It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.) for Kennedy to push this on us as though it represents the views of the South.

If he wants to believe it, fine. If he wants to construct a new political order based on it, have at it. But he needs to remove his perspective that he stands for the principles of the Confederates or the historic South. That is a lie. He stands against the principles of the Confederates and the historic South. For Kennedy to display the Confederate Battle Flag in conjunction with his system is a slander against the men who fought under that banner.

True Southerners are duty bound to oppose him in his nefarious efforts.

Slavery and Racism

The two main attacks the Yankee Abolitionist and his modern-day descendants have leveled against the South have been in the areas of slavery and racism. Any attempt to show the South was right must face these attacks head-on to be of any value.

Kennedy fails in his defense of the South on both issues. Instead of making any attempt to show that the equalitarian perspective on both slavery and race is wrong, he assumes their moral position to be the correct one and then spins a plausible lie as to why the South should not be saddled with moral blame and culpability for them.

Anyone and everyone must define the world according to the moral presuppositions and assumptions they hold as their core beliefs. Having shown that Kennedy’s essential presuppositions and assumptions are both Jacobin and equalitarian, it is not strange to find that when dealing with the topics of slavery and racism, he speaks to these issues from the perspective of an equalitarian. In The South Was Right, Kennedy makes no polemic moral defense of the Confederate’s position of slavery or the post-Confederate’s position on race and racism.

No. On slavery he gives a comparative defense, arguing that the North had as much moral culpability, if not more, than the South on the issue. Even if we grant his case to him, we are still left with the perspective not only is the North as guilty as the South in the matter of slavery, but the South is also as guilty as the North. And this is quite a long way from making the case that the South was right.

On the issue of racism, Kennedy’s first mistake is to accept the equalitarian’s concept and definition as valid. For once this is done, no logical defense is possible. So Kennedy resorts to a plausible lie. He attempts to show that the North was far more segregated than the South; that race relations were better in the South than in the North; and that the South really has no racial problem except that the Yankees have sought to drive a wedge between whites and blacks in the South — but the blacks themselves are virtually blameless in Southern racial problems. In so doing he necessarily revises the history of the South, which is dishonest. And he again makes moral condemnations of the North which must rightfully be applied to the South as well.

And so the net effect of his argument is that the South’s post-war racial policies were wrong and immoral. And this is hardly a reasonable argument for a book entitled The South Was Right.

Slavery

Kennedy’s chapter on slavery is entitled: Slavery; The Yankee Flesh Merchants. He begins: “Perhaps no other point can better demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Yankee myth of history than the issue of who was responsible for slavery in America, who made the profits from slavery, and who treated the slaves more compassionately. In this chapter we will explore these questions, and in so doing, explode some more Yankee myths.” (page 59)

This is the setting for the comparative morality he sets forth concerning the issue. The South Was Right never makes any propositional defense for the right of the Southern slave owner to own such property. No, he confines his narrative to showing how the Yankees were morally worse than the Southerners.

But in so doing, he also condemns the South because the South practiced African slavery; it profited from African slavery; it demanded its right to retain those slaves even in the face of war. Its best philosophers and ministers devoted much time and effort to defending slavery on Biblical and philosophical grounds. So if the institution of slavery is wrong and immoral in its own right, or if the institution of slavery as practiced in the South was wrong and immoral, then it certainly cannot be said the South was right..

This dilemma can be demonstrated in Kennedy’s statement: “Surely, if slavery was wrong in the South, it was wrong in the North.” (page 75) This is true. And so it is also true to say: “Surely, if slavery was wrong in the North, then it was also wrong in the South.”

Kennedy goes on to state: “…. we must come to a proper understanding of the slave question in America…. A study of the facts will show that the North was co-equally responsible for the system of slavery in America.” (page 61)

Here is the comparative morality in action. “The North was co-equally responsible for the system of slavery in America.”

Co-equal with whom? The South. Therefore, by logical extension, even though this is not his intention, any moral culpability that Kennedy shows toward the North on the issue of slavery must co-equally be attributable to the South.

He breaks his case down to four questions:
(1) Who first legalized slavery in America?
(2) Who first attempted to prohibit the importation of slaves?
(3) How was slavery abolished in the North?
(4) How were the freed blacks treated in the North?

And then he summarizes these four questions with another, over-arching question: “Who deserves the burden of guilt for the institution of African slavery in America?” (pages 61-62)

Notice his assumption here. It is unmistakable: Someone deserves moral guilt for the institution of slavery in America.

This is his core belief as expressed in The South Was Right. And in taking such a position, he necessarily condemns the South and the Southern slaveholder.

Next, Kennedy promises: “We will demonstrate that the South does not deserve the burden of guilt for African slavery in America.” (page 62)

But he never delivers on that promise. He makes no propositional defense of the South and its position of slavery at all. He merely attacks the Yankees for their hand in the matter. (And he does a pretty thorough job of thrashing the Yankees.) Nevertheless, Yankee culpability on this matter or any other does nothing to show the South does not deserve moral culpability for the same matter. Kennedy thus affirms the burden of guilt to the Southerner despite his intention to deflect it.

About the closest Kennedy comes to a moral polemic on the subject is this: “From the facts presented here, it is clear that the Southern people do not deserve the burden of guilt they have been forced to bear. There is enough guilt to go around. The blacks in Africa who kidnaped and sold their own kind into slavery and the Yankee merchants who traded rum and guns for blacks slaves in North and South America all deserve — yet do not receive — the larger portion of the guilt.” (page 78)

Kennedy’s entire argument is a sophism, ignoratio elenchi, missing the question. Concerning this type of false argument, the authors of Introduction to Logic. Copi and Cohen, write these words: “The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (literally, false refutation), is committed when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to proving a different conclusion. The premisses `miss the question’; the reasoning may seem plausible in itself, and yet the argument misfires as a defense of the conclusion in dispute.”

Kennedy’s argument seems plausible in itself, but it does not establish that the South was right. It misses that question — ignoratio elenchi.. His premisses prove the North was wrong. But logically, it condemns the South for slavery just like the Yankee Abolitionists did. And this should not be surprising, having accepted their presuppositions of equality, Kennedy has no other choice than to lay out a case that condemns the South.

I want to explain why this is so important. But before I do, let me dispel the notion that such a line of argumentation is necessary in the current political climate. One Southern nationalist leader, Dr. Michael Hill, the president of the League of the South, in a letter to his organization’s members in the spring of 1998, wrote: “The day of Southern guilt is over — THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT — and let us not forget that salient fact. NO APOLOGIES FOR SLAVERY should be made. In both the Old and New Testaments slavery is sanctioned and regulated according to God’s word. Thus, when practiced in accord with Holy Scripture, it is NOT A SIN. Our ancestors were not evil men because they held slaves. This issue is our Achilles Heel, and the only way to deal with it is to confront our accusers boldly and without guilt. After all, what we are really upholding is GOD’S WORD. Let us fear Him, and we’ll fear no man.”

Now THAT was a defense of Southern slavery! THAT was a statement you can read and say “The South was right”! But you will never find any such statement in The South Was Right. You will never find anything there but facts that when applied logically and consistently indict the South for the institution of African slavery.

(In truth, Kennedy alludes to a Biblical argument concerning slavery, but he never makes one. His words are these: “The biblical foundation for the slave-master relationship was deeply rooted in America, being practiced by both Southerners and Northerners. The fist defense of slavery in America was made by the Puritan Fathers of Massachusetss, and that defense was based on principles founded in both the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible. Such notables as Cotton Mather and Judge John Saffin voiced their approval of the institution of slavery in Massachusetts, basing their arguments on the Bible. The idea that slavery was a moral system based upon biblical standards was held by Americans from Georgia to Maine.” (page 83)

By his allusion to a Biblical argument, Kennedy is actually advancing an historical argument that must go something like this. Many ministers and divines from the early years of America, from both the North and the South, advanced Biblical arguments in support of slavery. Therefore, the South was right for maintaining slavery since so many Christians and Christian institutions supported it.

The fact that this is an historical argument and not a Biblical one can be seen in his next statement: “Today, of course, we do not see slavery in that light, but it was held so by Americans both North and South during the early part of our history.” (page 83)

Kennedy never passes judgement on the merits of the beliefs of the early Americans, North and South. He believes it is sufficient to now sluff off their views as untenable for us today. Logically, this is insufficient. Either the early Americans were right or they were wrong. The Bible has not changed. Their teachings were either accurate or they were inaccurate.

This is important because once the North underwent the philosophical shift of equalitarianism which produced Kennedy’s boogey man, the Yankee Abolitionists, the North began to assert that slavery was wrong, while the South clung to the position that it remained legitimate. And it was on this very issue that the North attacked the South and the South resisted. For Kennedy to walk away from this issue as though it needs no resolution shows that he either doesn’t understand very much about the nature of the matter he is discussing or is dishonest and finding the Southern position on this issue untenable, he wants to dishonestly shift attention to another issue.)

Kennedy falls into a trap that has plagued the South since before the War for Southern Independence — a refusal to argue the issue on fundamental moral principles. Yet whereas others have stopped short of throwing in with the Abolitionists’ position, Kennedy plays it to the wall. Robert L. Dabney made a very enlightened statement not many years after the War when he said: “There were two courses, either of which might have been followed by our politicians in defending our Federal rights against Abolitionism. One plan would have been to exclude the whole question of slavery persistently from the national councils, as extra-constitutional and dangerous, and to assert this exclusion always, and at every risk, as the essential condition of the continuance of the South in those councils. The other plan was to meet that abstract question from the first, as underlying and determining the whole subject, and to debate it everywhere, until it was decided, and the verdict of the national mind was passed upon it.

“Unfortunately, the Southern men did neither persistently. After temporary resistance, they permitted the debate; and then failed to conduct it on fundamental principles. With the exception of Mr. Calhoun, (whom events have now shown to have been the most far-seeing of our statesmen, notwithstanding the fashion of men to depreciate him as an `abstractionist’ while he lived.) Southern politicians usually satisfied themselves with saying, that the whole matter was, according to the Constitution, one of State sovereignty; that Congress has no right to legislate concerning its merits; and that therefore they would not seem to admit such a right, by condescending to argue the matter on its merits…. A moment’s reflection should have shown that the decisive question was the abstract righteousness of the relation of master and slave.”

And it is this decisive question that Kennedy answers in accordance with the position of the Yankee Abolitionist; namely, that slavery is an intrinsic evil and moral guilt is to be assigned to the participants.

Now why is this issue important? Do we want to re-institute slavery in our day and time? Or am I just trashing Kennedy for no important reason? No and no.

Dr. Hill’s statement goes to the heart of the matter. Slavery as an institution was begun, or at least predicted, by God in the book of Genesis. Slavery is upheld as valid in two of the 10 commandments (#4 and #10). Slavery as an institution was practiced widely during the time of Christ and the Apostles of the Christian church and not one time did either Christ or the Apostles say a word against the institution. The Apostle Paul upholds the validity of a Christian slaveholder’s rights as a master. Also, Paul commands the slaves to give honor and obedience to their masters, both Christian and non-Christian.

So the larger principle at stake is the veracity of the Bible and the Christian religion. For Kennedy to assume the integral evil of slavery is to attack the foundation of the Christian religion.

Again, this goes back to Kennedy’s basic assumptions, which are equalitarian in nature. What else can an equalitarian believe except that slavery is intrinsically immoral? Nothing else, obviously.

Also, if slavery is evil as an institution, then our forefathers are to be blamed and condemned. If you want to argue that “everybody was doing it,” then that is not an accurate or honest argument. The Yankee Abolitionists weren’t doing it. They made great polemic arguments against the institution of slavery.

Also, Great Britain had freed the slaves throughout its colonies some decades before. The Jacobins in France, who came to power at the beginning of the century, were definitely opposed to slavery.

So the argument that slavery was a universal practice, while never a reasonable defense, is in this case simply untrue besides.

I’ll close this section with a quotation by Robert L. Dabney that shows the necessity of upholding the lawfulness of the Southern slaveholder’s practice, a thing that Kennedy not only fails to do, but condemns:: “Our best hope is in the fact that the cause of our defense is the cause of God’s Word, and of its supreme authority over the human conscience. For, as we shall evince, that Word is on our side, and the teachings of Abolitionism are clearly of rationalistic origin, of infidel tendency, and only sustained by reckless and licentious perversions of the meaning of the Sacred text. It will in the end become apparent to the world, not only that the conviction of the wickedness of slaveholding was drawn wholly from sources foreign to the Bible, but that it is a legitimate corollary from that fantastic, atheistic, and radical theory of human rights, which made the Reign of Terror in France, which has threatened that country, and which now threatens the United States, with the horrors of Red-Republicanism.

“Because we believe that God intends to vindicate His Divine Word, and to make all nations honor it; because we confidently rely in the force of truth to explode all dangerous error; therefore we confidently expect that the world will yet do justice to Southern slaveholders. The anti-Scriptural, infidel, and radical grounds upon which our assailants have placed themselves, make our cause practically the cause of truth and order” (Both quotes by Dabney’s were taken from the Introduction to A Defense of Virginia.)

From this we can infer that Dabney’s position, which is my postion and ought to be your position, is that Kennedy’s position is based on a fantastic, atheistic, radical theory of human rights. It is a rationalistic belief, springing from infidelity and supported only by perversions of the Bible. It produced the Reign of Terror in France, and has now produced the Reign of Terror known as the Civil Rights Movement in America.

Racism

One of Kennedy’s most telling statements is this: “The Yankee establishment works overtime painting the South with slavery and racism. It does this while wrapping itself in robes of self-righteousness and declaring to the world how glad it is that the Yankee is a pure soul never having indulged in any such form of evil.” (page 57)

Kennedy’s chapter that deals the most with the subject of racism is entitled: Racial Relations in the Old South. Again, no argument is made that the South was right in its beliefs and policies concerning race and black/white relations.

Having realized that he is making no moral argument to support the Old South, I looked diligently to find out if he states what point he is making. I was able to patch a few statements together and become confident that these statements comprise Kennedy’s stated argument.
First, he writes: “The contribution to the development of the North and the South by black Americans is a subject that for too long has been played down.” (page 84)
Second: “As we look at the life and contributions of the black men and women of the Old South, we will prove their worth and loyalty to the South.” (page 85)
Third: “Yes, the life and death of President Jefferson Davis displays to all who are open-minded enough to look, how different the relationship between slave and master actually was as opposed to the way in which it is far too often depicted.” (page 106)
And fourth: “No other issue in American history has been abused more than the history of African servitude in the South. People who dare to speak about slavery in a light other than that demanded by the neo-Abolitionist left will find themselves an outcast from modern `PC’ society.” (page 114)

Just as a matter of logic, let’s grant to Kennedy each of these four propositions for the moment. Still, if all four propositions are true, none of them individually, nor all of them collectively, serve as any advocacy for the rightness of the Southern slave system nor the racial practices and policies after Reconstruction, known as “Jim Crow.”

So his arguments are again shown to comprise a sophism, ignoratio elenchi. His arguments are plausible in themselves, yet they do not prove the stated proposition, The South Was Right.

On the contrary, when you analyze the moral statements Kennedy makes concerning race and racism, you must logically conclude that the South was wrong. He doesn’t conclude that in his book; he saves his condemnations for the Yankees. But as a matter of logic, if the Yankees are to be condemned for racism, then so is the South. Kennedy has proved nothing.

I will grant to Kennedy that blacks made great contributions to the life and history of the Old South. I will grant that relations between the races were good, that there was a great love between the two peoples. I will grant that without their aid, our effort in the War would not have lasted nearly as long as it did, nor had as much success as it did. Yet attacks on the South on these issues are merely sideshows. The center ring of attack on the South has been that it would not admit nor allow social and political equality for the blacks.

Until you defend the South in the place it has been attacked, you have not defended the South at all.

Proving His Points

Kennedy works to prove one of his points with the following words: “A Northerner saw a group of Mississippi farmers encamped with their slaves near Natchez after hauling their cotton to market. Here they assumed a `cheek by jowl’ familiarity with perfect good will and a mutual contempt for the nicer distinctions of color. This type of relationship could not be enforced with a whip, but it existed and was based on respect and love.” (page 87)

The all-important issue which Kennedy fails to address is that the society in which this “cheek by jowl” coziness between whites and blacks took place was underpinned with a legal system of white social and political supremacy. An incident such as this shows how well such a system works. (But this was certainly not the point Kennedy was making.)

There was no political and social rivalry between blacks and whites like we have today in our equalitarian society. The two peoples could live in the same location without rancor because, and only because, of this lack of competition between them. They existed in a superior/inferior relationship. And this was the framework which allowed them to get along together so well.

Kennedy attempts to explain the facts in a different manner, though. And this is part of the plausible lie he tells in The South Was Right: “The Abolitionist concept of Southern society placed the master on top and the black on the bottom of society. In reality, the structure of Southern society was not vertical, but rather circular. Each person could feel as if he or she were a little ahead of someone else in society. The white master felt better off than the white middle class, the slave felt better off than the poor white, and the white felt better off than the slave. Each group sensed that there was a group ahead and behind him in society as if they were standing in a circle. This allowed each group to respect another group without the fear of losing its place in society. Thus arose the closeness that has been reported by the Yankee about antebellum Southern society.” (page 100)

This is wacky stuff to be sure. The issue of superior/inferior is something that must be dealt with. Kennedy decided to deal with it in the manner expressed above. Notice that antebellum Southern society is described in subjective terms instead of objective terms. This is a tactic of evasion. In truth, he can only suppose what each member or group of society was feeling. He has no way of knowing the subjective mental and emotional states of the various groups.. The objective fact remains that in antebellum Southern society the white man was on top and the black man was on the bottom.

Even poor whites could vote and marry other whites. These things were denied to the blacks. The whites were citizens; the blacks were not. This description of a circular society is ridiculous. It is a dishonest attempt to stand up for the South without challenging the equalitarian morality of the society to whom he is appealing.

This concept of a hierarchal social order, in which blacks and whites existed in a superior/inferior social structure, was at the heart of Jefferson Davis’ farewell speech to the U.S. Senate quoted in Part One of this book report: “When our constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable; for there we find provision made for that very class of persons [blacks] as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men — not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower cast….”

The Texas articles of Secession stated the same principle: “They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy — the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races and show their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States….”

This was the point of attack against the South by the North, the hierarchal social order. For Kennedy to flinch at the point of attack, and to concoct some plausible lie in place of the truth, and to fail to defend the South on this point, is to fail and fail miserably at showing the South was right.

The only reason I can think of that Kennedy would resort to such a tactic is that in his heart, he truly believes the Abolitionist dogma of equality. And so he thought he needed to concoct a plausible lie concerning the societal structure of the antebellum South because he could not bring himself to defend the superior/inferior social structure the antebellum South actually employed.

Now Kennedy has no trouble in recognizing the superior/inferior social order of the North. He writes: “Even in Lincoln’s home state of Illinois, blacks were banned from moving into the state! In reality the North offered blacks only semi-freedom somewhere between a white man and a slave, but they were always in an inferior social and legal position.” (page 77)

To describe Northern society in terms of the superior/inferior relationship between the blacks and the whites but to deny it in regard to Southern society is simply dishonest hypocrisy on Kennedy’s part. No other words or concepts can accurately describe his actions. Many otherwise fine Christian men subscribe to the ideas of his book and his system. This system is dishonest, hypocritical, halting between two positions, and perverse. No Christian can adopt Kennedy’s perspective and remain free of the moral taint that goes with it.

One Mistake Leads to Another

Kennedy’s wilful misunderstanding of the South’s hierarchal societal order and its importance taints his perspective on a variety of issues. When Kennedy talks about “the black Confederate soldiers” (a concept I will deal with more fully later), but fails to incorporate the notion that these fellows served within a system of superior/inferior relations with the whites around them, he is misrepresenting the South. When Kennedy talks about a black boy living in the Confederate White House after being “adopted” by the Davis family, but fails to mention that he lived there within the context of a superior/inferior relationship with the whites who lived there, he is misrepresenting the situation.

And when Kennedy talks about how 70% of the slaves testifying in The Slave Narratives stated their general satisfaction with the slave system, but fails to mention that their estate existed within the structure of a superior/inferior relationship to their white masters, he is misrepresenting the truth itself.

Here the words of Martin Luther from the 1500s: “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”

Kennedy flinches at this point of superior/inferior relations. And this is the very point of attack upon which we must remain strong if we are truly to defend the South and the Confederates. There is just no way around it. And this is exactly why people who hold to equalitarian principles in their hearts can never make good Confederates in our day and time.

One more time for emphasis, the point of attack against the South was not that the slaves weren’t happy; that was a side issue. The point of attack against the South was not that blacks and whites didn’t get along well; that was a Yankee lie used to marshal force against the South. The point of attack against the South was that the blacks were not equal in their social and political status vis a vis the whites. The Yankee Abolitionist could not stand this arrangement. His theory of human rights would not allow it. This is the point of attack upon which the South must be defended by those who would take her cause as their own.

“Rally ‘Round the Lie, Boys”

It is fashionable in some Southern circles to sidestep this crucial issue; to dodge it, to explain it away. I have come to view The South Was Right as the guide for those who would defend the South through misrepresenting it. That is why I am attacking this central premise so strongly.

One more point needs to be made. Kennedy is not content to misrepresent the societal structure of the Old South to make it palatable to today’s equalitarian society. No, he goes even further and stands truth on its head and makes a mockery of it. Look closely at his statement: “The Abolitionist concept of Southern society placed the master on top and the black on the bottom of society.” (page 100)

This description of the Old South is fairly accurate. Kennedy attributes it to the dishonest and mistaken perspective of the Abolitionist. His false attribution is dishonest.

In The South Was Right Kennedy spins a plausible lie that has logically lead many of its readers to repeat that lie as the truth. There are many instances Kennedy uses to demonstrate that the Yankees were the real segregationists; the South was more integrated than the North, etc..

And so many of his followers charge me and others with taking the Yankee perspective when I speak the truth concerning slavery, race relations in the Old South, and other matters. Recently, I placed an add for this book report on the internet newsgroup alt.thought.southern. One of the replies came from a Kennedy supporter. It went like this: “Why don’t you call it [this book report] “A Sheet-Wearer’s Perspective”? That’d be more honest. Your white racialist homeland is in Idaho, Wheeler. Why don’t you go there, instead of trying to sell your old Yankee line again? Go burn a cross, Klan-boy.”

In The Great Southern League Race Debate [ http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/debates/sldebate/ ], we saw a lot of this type of misrepresentation take place. For instance, one fellow wrote: “I assert that whatever one’s political or social opinions in regard to race may be, whatever one thinks of any particular black person, the Yankee sentiment of blind, fearful, ignorant racial HATRED is beneath the dignity of any God-fearing man who truly wishes to honor the Confederate cause.”

[I do not advocate that the Southern perspective was blind, fearful, ignorant racial hatred; but many Southern advocates believe that it was. Yet they won’t acknowledge that the South lived with a superior/inferior racial relationship. Instead, these fellows attribute this ideal to the Yankees.]

Another example of this plausible lie being advanced by Kennedy’s followers is this: “Dear Dennis, I have followed your posts on this subject with great interest. You are obviously very intelligent and have just as obviously done your homework. I think, however, that we must remember that the Southern position with respect to secession had everything to do with state sovereignty and little to do with slavery (race). That was the yankee position.”

And one more. One guy in the debate wrote: “If your statements were typical of the thinking of the majority of Southrons, the Yankees would be right. But your thinking is an anachronism, a relic from the 19th century….”

In that debate, as in this rebuttal, I have never, to my knowledge, made a statement that is not in line with the position of the Old South. The truth is that many in the Southern movement today despise the superior/inferior social order of the Old South. They really do believe the Yankee Abolitionist position of equality was morally right. And so arises the need for the plausible lie. This enables them to stand for Yankee moral principles but attribute them to the South while attributing “racial hatred” to the Yankees.

Many other examples could be given; I’ll let these be sufficient. This idea that segregation and white social and political supremacy is a Yankee idea and not a Southern idea permeates the Southern movement today. I have reason to suspect that the main impetus for this plausible lie comes from this book, The South Was Right. The plausible lie makes a mockery of truth and the South. The portion of the Southern movement that is advancing the plausible lie is on a go-nowhere treadmill. This is because no advancement can take place for the South until the Yankee equalitarianism that has permeated America is destroyed.

And the reason for this should be clear: No pro-Southern equalitarian can erect any social order that is in one wit better than the one Northern equalitarians erected and in which we now live. Therefore, no matter how many flags and monuments are saved in heritage battles, no matter how many pro-Southern politicians are elected to office, no matter how many new members are recruited into the ranks of Southern organizations, no effective change can be wrought in our society until the principles of Yankee Abolitionist equalitarianism are refuted and overthrown.

There is no way forward until we first go back to 1861. It is there we must begin. We must fight the same philosophical war over slavery and a hierarchal social order versus abolition and an equalitarian social order. This is the place the Constitution and the American way of life were overthrown. There will be no victory, not even a partial one, until this battle is fought and won by the South.

To argue for the South within the framework of the Yankee equalitarian moral system is like trying to fit square pegs into round holes. It is as dishonest as the system our conquerors imposed upon us. And it is dishonorable for Southern men to be dishonest in their presentation of the issues pressing on the South today.

The Use of the Word Racism and Related Concepts.

Having shown the nefarious nature of the plausible lie Kennedy advances to misrepresent the social order of the Old South, and having shown the negative effects this has brought to the morality of many within the Southern movement, let me now reprint some of those statements so you can see them as they appear in The South Was Right.

First: “…. when we look at the record [of Abraham Lincoln], we find that instead of a humanitarian we find someone guilty of the two unforgivable sins of modern times — a belief in white supremacy and a belief in a system of apartheid.

“Lincoln’s white supremacist ideas are a well-kept secret. (Let it be known at this point that these views are Lincoln’s and not the opinions of the authors.) In an 1858 debate, Lincoln made the following statement:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races …. I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

“…. when the reality of Lincoln the white supremacist is presented, we can expect the myth-makers to declare that it was not uncommon at the time. So Honest Abe joins the ranks of the Skin-Heads.” (page 27)

These ideas of Lincoln that Kennedy condemns are precisely the ideas of the people of the South. They didn’t want blacks voting or becoming jurors or holding office or marrying whites, either. In condemning Lincoln on these points, Kennedy is of logical necessity also condemning the South. He may only intend to show that “white supremacy” was the policy of Lincoln, but this policy was also the policy of the South, and an unintended consequence springing from Kennedy’s equalitarian assumptions must be his condemnation of the South.

Notice that he never refers to Jefferson Davis as a Skin Head. But if Lincoln is a Skin Head for his beliefs as expressed above, then that title would logically fit Davis as well.

Second: “The racial bigotry of the Northern population against black workers had the effect of barring blacks from social and economic advancement, thereby contributing to the ever-increasing poverty of free blacks.” (page 54)

Here Kennedy again demonstrates his equalitarianism. While he never spells out the premisses behind his proposition, it should be clear that he must hold that the blacks in the North were being held down by the whites. Perhaps they were when the situation is viewed within the context of the existing social system. But we must keep in mind a salient fact that Kennedy fails to incorporate into his discussion: the blacks could have never created a society in which they gained anywhere near the high standard of living they gained by living in a society fashioned by American whites.

After the War, when slavery and a hierarchal social order was no longer permitted in the South, the Southerners acted in a similar way toward the blacks, although there were differences owing to the different circumstances in play.

Kennedy attributes the actions of the Northern whites to “racial bigotry.” This belies his basic moral assumptions, which are equalitarian. I attribute their actions to a desire for self-preservation in view of a threat from a different and separate people in their midst. Northern whites perceived the danger of blacks living among them as equals, just as whites in the South did. No more, no less.

Third: “It appears there was a strain of race paranioa in the North that caused Northerners to fear a black peril, as if Northerners thought their fair states would be engulfed by hordes of free black men, women, and children…. This irrational fear of black people was not a phenomenon that appeared during the war. Northerners’ fear of black political power can be seen in their laws disenfranchising blacks. Remember, these are Northern states disenfranchising the black population even though the ratio of the black population to the white population was relatively insignificant as compared to that in the Southern states.” (pages 55-56)

Again we see Kennedy trying to show that “racism” was a Northern trait. This point has been picked up by many of his followers and used against me and others as we attempt to accurately portray the Old South.

But any condemnation toward Northern whites for their actions and attitudes toward the blacks is equally attributable to the whites of the South. We disenfranchised the blacks as we were able; we passed laws forbidding inter-racial marriage; we too feared black political power. And events have shown that this fear was anything but irrational.

One Final Point

I need to make one final point to tie two seemingly disparate truths together. You might reasonably ask: “How is it, Wheeler, that you say on the one hand that Northern whites practiced a social order with superior/inferior relations between themselves and the blacks, and on the other hand you say that the North intended to destroy the Southern social order of superior/inferior relations between blacks and whites?”

That is a fair question. As Davis stated in his farewell speech to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Constitution recognized the relationship between blacks and whites as one of superior/inferior. The appropriateness of this view held enough support throughout the country to make it a consensus. Around the turn of the century, especially in New England, contrary philosophical and theological forces began to make headway among the elite and some of the populace. These new forces called for the abolition of slavery and a social order of equality between the races.

(In his speech to the League of the South Annual Conference in Birmingham — July 1998 — LoS board member the Rev. Steve Wilkins made reference to this phenomenon: “With the turn of the 19th Century, the northeast became inundated with rationalism and all its ugly children, deism, unitarianism, and transcendentalism. The disenchantment with Christianity that was already growing in the region was only accelerated by the influx by immigrants who were infected with the heresies of revolutionary Europe….”)

This new philosophy did not gain acceptance in all of the North, or among all of the people, at the same rate of speed. In fact, even at the time of the War for Southern Independence, equalitarianism was still a minority view in the North. And this is the reason there was widespread resistance to the War in some quarters of the North.

But with the election of Lincoln, the Abolitionists gained a disproportionate influence in politics. The South could see clearly exactly where these Abolitionists were heading.

A similar phenomenon exists today in America with the country’s policy toward Cuba. Fidel Castro is a communist. He leads Cuba. American trade policies call for open borders and open trade except for “pariah” countries. Cuba does not qualify for “pariah” status given the established precedents which are admittedly vague and indefinite.

Still, Florida holds many Cuban voters. Both major parties view Florida as integral to any national political success. And thus the Cuban voters in Florida have gained a disproportionate political influence as neither party wants to cross them on their favored policy toward Cuba. and so Cuba remains closed to the United States because of the influence of a relatively few voters.

This example does not parallel that of the Abolitionists in every point. But it does show how that at times a minority can rule the majority.

Lincoln was elected without carrying one single Southern state. The driving force behind the Republican Party at that time was the Abolitionist faction. Dabney discusses this in his essay The True Purpose of the Civil War: “…. the real purpose was far other than the pretense — to enlarge and perpetuate the power of his [Lincoln's] faction. They had just seized the reins of Federal power by an accident, being in fact but a minority of the American people. This people had condemned it to a righteous exclusion from power for forty years. Its leaders were weary, envious and angry with their long waiting, and hungry for the power and the spoils of office…. At length, despairing of victory by its old tactics, it had thrown itself into the arms of the later born and despicable party of the Abolitionists, who had at last succeeded in their purpose of raising, in numerous States, their designed tempest of fanaticism. Thus the older and larger party gave itself away to the younger, smaller, and more indecent one; and by this traffic the two had won in November 1860.”

Dabney continued: “The manipulators well knew their danger from `the sober second thought’ of the American people. It was but too probable that the elements of justice and conservatism, unfortunately divided in 1860, would reunite in 1864 to restore the Constitution. Hence, `they had great wrath,’ because they knew their time was short. They knew that something more must be done to inflame the contest between fanatacism and conservatism, or their glorying would be short.

“The hasty seccession of South Carolina and the six Gulf States, although justified by the avowed revolutionary sectionalism of the new party in power, gave them their coveted opportunity. The conspirators said to each other: `Now we have our game. We will inflame fanaticism and sectional enmities by the cry of Union and Rebellion, and thus precipitate a war between the States…..’

“That this war was made, not to preserve a constitutional Union, but solely to promote the aims of a faction, is confirmed by these further facts…. For the Union, no war was needed. It was made solely in the interest of the Jacobin party.

“Argument is scarecly needed to demonstrate that the infamous reconstruction measures were taken, not in the interest of a true Union, but of this Jacobin faction. For their architects brutally disdained to conceal their object…. True; those measures placed the noblest white race on earth beneath the heels of a foul minority constructed of a horde of black, semi-barbarous ex-slaves and a gang of white plunderers and renegades. It infected the State governments of the South with corruption and peculation. It injected into suffrage, in the Southern States, a spreading poison, which gives a new impulse to the corruptions of the ballot, already current among themselves. But what did the Jacobins care for that? They had gained their end, more Jacobin Presidents, more class legislation, a sure reign for the plutocracy.”

The Abolitionists were a minority within a minority party. Still, because they could provide the margin of victory, they gained the political ascendency, forced a perilous war, tried to ruin the South in Reconstruction, and have since that time, gradually stamped their imprint onto every vestige of American social, political, and religious life.

It is a crying shame that 133 years after the War for Southern Independence, Southern advocates like Kennedy and his followers have now adopted their fanatical philosophy on the very issues upon which they attacked and brutalized the South.

Conclusion

I believe these quotes have shown clearly Kennedy’s attempt to paint the Northern whites as the repository of “racism.” His point is a dishonest point, in that the attitudes and actions of Northern whites were also the attitudes and actions of Southern whites.

Today, Kennedy’s followers try to show that because it was the North that was racist and segregationist, not the South, the neo-Confederate movement is to be inclusive of all religions and races and this is an accurate portrayal of the Old South as well.

Therefore, any true Southerner, who carries on in the tradition of the South on racial matters, can be branded as a Yankee racist, bigot, and hatemonger. This entire perspective stands truth on its head and makes a mockery of it. And The South Was Right is the place from which many of these nefarious and dishonest ideas emanate.

In his Birmingham speech, Dr. Michael Hill, president of the League of the South, said this: “The central creed of modern democracy is based on the false notion that all men are created equal, and all enjoy the same universal, mechanical rights of man. This Jacobinical creed is preached from the pulpits and taught in the seminaries of America as if it had its origins in God’s holy writ; nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.”

The problem the South faces today is not so much that its enemies believe this, but that many who would defend the South and act as an advocate for her believe this. The anti-Southern sentiments Dr. Hill attributes to the Jacobins express exactly the views promoted by Kennedy in The South Was Right on the very issues upon which the South was attacked by the Jacobins.

This I have shown.

No distinct people is more threatened than the European-derived peoples who constitute the American South. In 1861, the United States government waged a war of destruction and annihilation against the Southern people, a war provoked in part by abolitionists, who agitated ceaselessly for destruction of Southern whites by military force and armed servile insurrection. This call for their own murder met the only response any sane people could possibly make. The Southern people fought back, surrendering only when the weight of the invader became more than life itself could bear. While the factors influencing the political climate have changed in the intervening century, nevertheless it is self-evident that Abraham Lincoln’s war of aggression against people of his own blood, and for the benefit of those of another descent, is now being reenacted throughout the West.

By such means are a proud and brave people brought to ruin. Indeed, the situation today is far worse because it afflicts all of the West. Nowhere in the civilized world is there sanctuary from the dissolutive multicultural tendencies inflicted in 1865 only on the South. If we are to survive, this spiritual malignancy cannot stand. We, the Southern people, are resolved that, whatever the risks to ourselves, we must take those steps necessary to secure the existence of our people and a future for our children. Therefore, and to that end—

In the 131st year of our physical and spiritual occupation by the United States Government, we, the unreconstructed Southern people, do proclaim the following:

I. NATURAL RIGHTS OF A FREE PEOPLE

1. That we are a Christian people of Northwest European descent, with predominately Anglo-Celtic institutions, traditions, culture and heritage; wherever we may abide, we are bound by blood, loyalty and sentiment to the American South, comprising: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

2. That our historical and cultural identity was forged over a 400 year period of exploration, settlement and endeavor that created our distinct character, dialects, folkways, values and civilization. The War for Southern Independence was the crucible that transformed us into a people with a single purpose and destiny.

3. That we have an unalienable right to self-determination and to continued existence as a distinct people. These unalienable rights were bought with the courage, tenacity and sacrifice of ancestors who fought and died in the War for Southern Independence, the American Revolution, and in every American conflict where duty’s call beckoned.

4. That the ideals of liberty and sovereignty undergirding America’s founding were in large measure given voice by the genius and resolve of Southern statesmen; the transcendent principles they embraced, codified in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, have served as an enduring inspiration to all people who aspire to self-government.

5. That no power on earth is morally justified in depriving our people or our posterity of safety, independence or substance; to this end, separation and independent nationhood are morally just measures for securing the safety of a free people.

II. DISPOSSESSION OF THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE

6. That the hallowed battlefields and cemeteries of 1861-1865 bear silent witness to the destruction wrought by the United States government in league with Northern financial interests and social radicals for the purpose of subjugating and obliterating the Southern people, to wit: abolition, aggression, conquest, disenfranchisement, reconstruction and amalgamation.

7. That during the military occupation called Reconstruction, the South endured destructive physical, economic and social depredations by carpetbaggers, scalawags and freedmen; Reconstruction ended not because of federal benevolence, but by the indomitable resistance of the Southern people to their own dispossession, despite which the federal government continued its policy of economic exploitation until World War II, keeping much of the South in unrelieved poverty.

8. That we, as well as all Americans of European descent, are suffering a second, more terrible reconstruction, one that began in the late 1940′s with the schism in the Democratic Party over the “Civil Rights” plank, that escalated with the Brown school desegregation decision of 1954, and that achieved dominance with the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

9. That the moral and societal dissolution engendered by this Second Reconstruction was thrust on us through propaganda, deceit and force of arms by adherents of the Marxist, universalist ideology known as liberalism, an ideology alien to the Southern people, contrary to God’s laws, and destructive of all who are deceived by it.

10. That the tidal wave of Third World immigration unleashed during this Second Reconstruction imperils not only our right of self-government but our continued biological existence, as indeed it imperils all Western peoples.

11. That in furtherance of the illusion of a multicultural “Tower of Babel,” an unholy alliance of government, media and, regrettably, Christian churches in error are directing a relentless campaign of slander and abasement against our institutions, traditions, symbols, and history through destructive laws, dishonest reporting, and teaching of false universalist doctrines.

12. That the assertion of equality among races, sexes and moral belief systems is contradicted by every shred of natural evidence; as a people, we condemn inter-racial unions because they are destroying our society and our people’s very existence.

13. That much of the subjugation of the Southern people has been fostered by weak or inept Southern leaders who, due to venality, cowardice or lack of vision, refuse to confront the hard choices needed to preserve our heritage and our children’s future.

III. THE SOUTHERN CREED

14. That as Southerners, we affirm our faith in and devotion to God, Family and Country and to the traditions that have sustained our people for uncounted generations; Southern ideals of honor, chivalry, courage and discipline are timeless virtues, unchanged by the decadence of the modern age. While respecting freedom of conscience we are a Christian people, with Christian institutions.

15. That we believe equality is the sworn enemy of liberty, and we recognize a natural, hierarchial social order and adhere to a political system in which the best members of society are enabled to rise to positions of leadership and civic duty.

16. That the agrarian origin of the Southern people confers a deep affection for nature and for the land; responsible stewardship over nature’s bounty has ever been the duty of all Southerners.

17. That we respect traditional social norms defining the role of the family, the relationships between men and women, and the ideals of Southern Manhood and Southern Womanhood.

18. That we have a long and distinguished martial tradition that precludes soldierly participation by women or other races.

19. That kindred folk who marry into Southern families and adopt Southern ideals and traditions may become naturalized Southerners. We welcome kindred folk who, without benefit of family ties, adopt the Southern way of life; conversely, Southern nativity alone does not confer Southern nationality.

20. That while maintaining the integrity of Southerners as a distinct people and culture, we seek renewed fraternal ties with kindred peoples and friendly relations with all people of goodwill.

IV. RESOLVE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION

21. That we shall never accept the defeat of the Confederacy, the subjugation of our people, nor the eradication of our symbols as the final judgment of history, nor shall we accept alien domination of Southern churches, schools, media, commerce, industry, government, or, through these institutions, alien control of Southern life.

22. That defense and preservation of Southern symbols, monuments, relics and history are sacred charges to every Southerner; in defense of this heritage no honorable retreat or compromise is possible.

23. That the Confederate Battle Flag is the banner of the Southern people and stands preeminent as the most powerful symbol of liberty and Southern nationhood in a constellation of venerable Southern symbols. “Dixie” is the anthem of that nation, that we will stand when it is played and sing it with boldness and pride.

24. That those who love the South are committed to the health and prosperity of its people, the rejuvenation of its culture, the unbiased recording of its history, and the lifting of occupation and control of the South by non-Southerners.

25. That we pledge “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” to the creation of a secure homeland for our people and a future for our children, and we shall use all moral means, consistent with the right of self-preservation, to achieve that end.

That true Southerners, like our unreconstructed Confederate ancestors, have an abiding faith in Providence and the rightness of the Southern Cause, and that we do affirm that faith by adherence to the principles of this Declaration.

Signed this 12th day of October, 1996, at New Albany, Mississippi

Introduction

The Great Southern League Race Debate took place during the summer of 1996. I think it will prove to be a debate that impacts the Southern movement for decades to come as virtually all of the issues and arguments that affect the South were aired.

What the debate showed more than anything else is that the true and historic Southern perspective on race and ethnicity has become so unpopular in today’s America that even most Southern advocates are terrified that they will be linked to it. This has led to a spurious and counterfeit perspective of the South being adopted by many so that they can still stand up for the South but not be forced to confront its enemies on the same grounds and in the same manner our forefathers did.

Another malady has also driven its way into the South. The true and historic Southern position has been neglected for so long that a new generation of Southern activists have arisen that don’t even know what it is. Even many who love the South have been so swept away with the current of history that they no longer realize what it was their ancestors fought for.

These things will become manifest as you read this debate.

You will see this issue demonstrated as several people adopt a Libertarian view on race, as though if Washington will just leave things alone, matters will turn out all right. In truth, although things would be better if Washington were not actively pressing racial integration on the South, the matter wouldn’t be righted by a Libertarian policy alone. No, it will take the concerted political and social action by the South to protect herself from the Africans and other non-Southerners who live within the bounds of Dixie if the South is ever to become a viable nation again.

The Great Southern League Race Debate begins in the context of a serious political and social organization that has a stated goal of secession from Washington. That’s why I joined it. And when I found out what was being stated as standard operating procedure on the listserver, I knew immediately that some change of direction must occur or the movement and the organization was doomed to failure.

The debate was at times comical and at times surreal, but through it all ran the immensely serious matter that we were debating; what the South truly is and who the Southern people truly are. To the true and historical Southern advocate, very little in the world is more important than that.

– Dennis Wheeler

Preface

I waited until after the debate was over to put this together as I didn’t realize the importance of what was taking place as it occurred. Because of that, a few of the names of the people participating got lost. When reading an e-mail post which is an answer to a former post which may be an answer to an even more former post, it is sometimes difficult to tell who’s saying what or exactly what they’re talking about if you haven’t kept up with the posts as they were being delivered.

I have gone through them all and edited them with this in mind. I have touched very little of the content, but have inserted guideposts so that you can now come into the discussion and tell who was speaking at each point along with what things or previous statements they were referring to.

I have numbered the posts, so whenever you see a `#’ sign followed by a numeral, you will know that a new message is beginning.

I have also placed my own comments throughout the document to highlight the items that I thought were the most important and to provide you with some perspective as to what the significance of a current or upcoming event was or would be.

I hope this project proves to be a big help to the Southern movement and the South itself. With that said, read on of the Great Southern League Race Debate.

#1.Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:40:50 0500

To: MBerglin@aol.com

From: George Kalas

Subject: Re: CSA

Dear Mr. Berglin,

Thanks for your kind and enjoyable message. My wife and I both have Jewish ancestry within the past 4 generations of our respective family trees and though we are both Christians we share your abhorrence of groups like the KKK that practice bigotry and violence against those of the Jewish faith and blacks as well. One of the reasons I joined the SL is because I knew that the vast majority of Southerners are above such nonsense and that we have a wonderful culture that is not deserving of the sort of stereotyping and blanket condemnations that we’ve all had to endure.

Incidentally, it is funny that you hail from Minneapolis. A black gentleman from Minneapolis contacted me this week and advised me today that he is going to join the SL. So, I know of at least one soon-to-be SL member living in your fair city!

I’ve attached a copy of our membership application form and I hope you will use it very soon. We have several Jewish members that I know of from email conversations and I know you’ll be right at home here in the Southern League. Let me be the first to extend my welcome to your sir!

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#2.

From George Kalas to Michael ???.

Michael,

I have held a discussion for a couple of days with a conservative, traditionalist, black gentleman from Minneapolis, MN of all places. He agrees with our stands and accepted my invitation to join the SL. This is a great stride for us we’ve now recruited what may be our first black member (I suppose we might have others I am not aware of) and he’s a Yank to boot!

Looks like the BOD may need to accelerate it’s efforts to publish a tract explaining why the SL’s agenda would benefit black Americans as well as white Americans.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

The above post followed an exchange between George and Larry Davis, our first black member of the Southern League. Below is a post from George to Larry.

Dear Larry,

Thank you for your wonderful letter. I have to say that you and I are on the same wavelength and I agree with your observations about the North. It brings to mind an incident that my mother related to me about three years ago. She and her (now) ex-husband flew to Boston, Mass. on a house-hunting trip. While being driven about the city and the suburbs by a local Yankee friend of her “ex,” my mother was surprised that she saw few if any blacks. When she inquired as to why this was, Mr. Yankee replied that all of Boston’s blacks lived in just a few segregated areas of the greater Boston area.

My mother was incredulous and exclaimed that “I’ll be darned, y’all are segregated here!” and noted that Houston neighborhoods were far more integrated than Boston’s. This observation earned her a rather embarrassed silence from Mr. Yankee.

Don’t worry too much about the Southern Independence stand of the League our position has always been that while we would prefer complete independence, we are prepared to work within the present system to attempt to reform our federal government and to restore the Republic to what it once was and should be again. Many, many SL members are what we call “paleoconservatives” who support all of the League’s goals, but prefer to remain in the Union if possible.

There is also a very large contingent of true Southern nationalists, like myself, who believe reform to be a doomed effort and who advocate a complete break with Washington and a fresh start for the people of Dixie. The PaleoCons and the Southern Nats agree on 99.9% of the issues and philosophy and only differ on when it is appropriate to secede.

The PaleoCons, like Jefferson Davis, believe secession should be the last resort, but they staunchly protect the right to secede. The Southern Nats believe that Southern independence holds sufficient benefits for the South that it should be pursued as a goal and Southern secession should be pushed forward on that basis alone. I’m sure that political events over the next few years will determine which course is the best one to be followed. Let me be the first to welcome you into the Southern League.

I am so very pleased and happy to have made your acquaintance and it is good to see Americans from all backgrounds and regions coming into our movement as you now have. I do hope that we might meet at a Southern League event at some time in the near future. We have just recently completed our annual national conference in Montgomery, Alabama this past June so it might be at next year’s conference.

Please tell others about us and let me know how you think the SL can continue to reach out to members of the black community who might be interested in our movement as we work to build a coalition of Americans who will work to restore true liberty to our people.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

The above post was written by George Kalas as an answer to this post from Larry Davis.

At 09:45 AM 7/16/96 CDT, you wrote: “Hello again, George. I agree almost totally with your viewpoint, the one exception being perhaps the most important with respect to your organization: Complete Southern Independence from the United States. I can certainly see your reasons for wanting it from a morals standpoint as well as one of states rights; the term, “United States”, is fast becoming a contradiction in terms. Rather than see the country split again, I’d settle for the South whipping the “anything goes” North in a political “Cold War” whose outcome would restore the true Constitution as well as make the United States an honorable and morally decent country (for perhaps the first time in its history).

I don’t mean to dwell on the race thing, but I thought you may like to know (if you didn’t already) that a VERY common opinion which blacks have regarding the difference between whites of the North and whites of the South is that the Southern white lets you know where you stand, good or bad. This is not the case in the North where a lot of things happen behind your back. And it’s not just racial things.

In the North, dishonest politics is the rule, in both the political and corporate arenas. The North likes to portray the image of being honorable (freeing the slaves, pro-welfare, etc.), and in some ways it is. However, the North consistently fails to live up to the principles that they “supposedly” hold so dear. The powers of the day never really cared about slavery; General George McClellan was quoted as saying that he’d throw down his command if he thought the war was about freeing the slaves. It is said that Abraham Lincoln, though against slavery, wanted nothing to do with blacks.

In contrast, both Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet were against slavery. It was very observant of your organization to point out that the North was conducting genocide of the Native American at the same time it was portraying itself as “the good guys”.

As for welfare, it has been used as a tool of demotivation, demoralization, and containment; containment, since most welfare recipients can only afford to live in pre-designated housing – the projects where crime and low self-esteem run rampant.

Please excuse my babbling, I will join your organization if you’ll still have me. Though being born and raised in ultra-liberal Minneapolis, I spent over a year in Montgomery, Alabama and almost another year in Atlanta, Georgia. I have the South to thank for the many role models, both black and white, that have already led me to be a witness of the capability and integrity of the Southern people.

I will fill out the application and send it along with the appropriate fee to the address listed on the application.

Respectfully,

Larry Davis

#3.

From Stacy McCain to George Kalas.

July 17, 1996

Stacy McCain begins with a quote by George Kalas:

In a message dated 960716 14:02:37 EDT, you write: “Looks like the BOD may need to accelerate it’s efforts to publish a tract explaining why the SL’s agenda would benefit black Americans as well as white Americans.”

Certainly, you must point out the centrality of religion to the well-being of AfricanAmerican families, and that many blacks share with Southern whites a common culture of church-centered life. Of course, we also share many other cultural ties music, speech and cuisine, to name a few. And the economic and political benefit to black Americans of breaking away from the twin evils of welfare dependence and racially-oriented activism would be inestimable.

I have never understood those black or white who say that the South should necessarily be riven by racial antagonisms.

Robert Stacy McCain

#4.

From Dennis Wheeler to all.

July 17, 1996

Gentlemen,

I can’t say I share your enthusiasm over recruiting black and Jewish members into the Southern League. But before I criticize, let me ask you to clarify your thinking. George Kalas wrote: “This is a great stride for us we’ve now recruited what may be our first black member.”

What is it that makes recruiting a black member a great stride? At first blush, it seems you are turning him into a privileged character, somehow better than non-black members of the Southern League, for no other reason than the color of his skin. I don’t doubt he’s a fine fellow, it just strikes me that you are doing exactly what the system that has made Southern whites foreigners in their own land is doing. Please explain.

I would also appreciate an explanation of why it’s remarkable to recruit Jewish members into the SL. How is this a benefit that deserves a special announcement? I am curious about this.

Robert Stacy McCain wrote: “…. many blacks share with Southern whites a common culture of church-centered life. Of course, we also share many other cultural ties music, speech and cuisine, to name a few.”

While it’s true that many blacks attend church, by and large these are not churches that worship the true God in the manner He has commanded men to worship Him. Instead, these churches are mostly dispensers of an irrelevant emotionalism at best, and hotbeds of Marxist revolution at worst. While it’s also true that many white churches in the South have departed from the faith once delivered to the saints, many black churches are so characterized by spiritual ignorance and blindness to the point they are now embracing Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam. Also, a black man had comments printed on the listserver a few days ago saying how the churches were the instrument used by the NAACP to control the blacks and make them tow the party line.

You also say our music and speech are shared cultural ties, but I can’t for the life of me make heads or tails of that. If there’s any two places where the blacks and the whites of the South are diverse, it seems to me it’s in our speech and our music. I have a difficult time understanding most of what they say, as they speak a different dialect that is foreign to me. And black music, whether it be their peculiar brand of gospel, Michael Jackson rap, or gangster rap is quite different from anything that I or any of my friends spend our time listening to. I would appreciate a little explanation of how you believe we share these things as cultural ties.

Dennis Wheeler

#5.

From Ron Colson to Dennis Wheeler.

July 18, 1996

Dennis,

A racially exclusive movement is no more than an oxymoron. If we are not inclusive, we have no hope. This is not an evidence of being all things to all people. It is evidence that there are people from all races, creeds, and religions who share our values and love for liberty. It is going to take this diverse representation to open some eyes and ears among the general population.

I am about as un-politically correct as you are going to find, but I do not share your apparent conclusions on hard and fast differences between races and religious beliefs. I was thrilled to hear of Larry Davis’ interest in joining. I believe a great share of our problems have resulted from lowering standards to bring everyone together. Success will only come when all are encouraged (and allowed) to achieve their utmost so that we can come together at a higher level.

Would you have us exclude folks who share our values and desires for liberty because their skin is not the same as ours? Listen, if all blacks become educated, share a love for the Lord, and work toward restoring our “Republic of Republics”, I’ll gladly don a bright orange outfit, perfect my pronunciation of “Moan Back” (and even put my picture on a billboard sign with the message “COMING SOON TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD”).

Obviously I am not insinuating that all whites are educated & motivated any more than I would suggest that all blacks are the opposite.

And music. I see (and hear) about as many whites, as I do blacks, driving around with that rap crap turned up so loud that my Bronco rattles. And I was quite a fan of Charlie Pride.

Dennis, my work takes me into the homes of lots of black, and whites. I smell their food cooking and my mouth waters. We talk about a risen Savior, and I feel the presence of the Lord. We talk about the moral decay of this land and are equally sad. Our values are the same! We are the same! The outward appearance of such differences is the direct result of reconstruction. The solution has to include showing them the cause of our strife and bringing us together

The attitude that you seem to display here is not likely to bridge any gaps or accomplish the stated goals of this League. There’s nothing wrong with recognizing (and respecting) our differences. God, in his infinite wisdom, created us differently. I don’t know why, and I don’t care why. I (personally) believe it immoral to tamper with what God has created and therefore do not believe mixed marriages to be appropriate.

But, I don’t believe that different necessarily means better or inferior. I believe that we can, and must, work together if we are to have any hope of resurrecting the constitutional liberties our forefathers intended.

I’d say more but I get uncomfortable standing on a soapbox.

Ron Colson

#6.

From Dennis Wheeler to Ron Colson.

July 19, 1996

Ron,

I wish I could agree with more of what you said. You start off with this: “A racially exclusive movement is no more than an oxymoron. If we are not inclusive, we have no hope.”

I can’t agree with that and would point out to you this is (1) exactly the opposite of the ethnic principle the Confederates fought for, and (2) it is exactly the same principle that Martin Luther King, John, Bobby, and Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton fought and still fight for.

Exclusivity is what distinguishes a people. This is the principle of nationalism, which I thought was the ideal being carried forward by the Southern League. I went to the meeting in Montgomery and received a little blue piece of paper entitled Statement of Purpose. It begins: “The Southern League seeks to advance the cultural, social, economic and political well-being of the Southern people by all honorable means.” That’s what I try to do.

It now seems to me you are saying the Southern people have no hope unless they include other peoples. In fact, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that even the possibility of us existing without others is an absurdity. That certainly wasn’t the understanding of the Southern people in 1861. They were willing to go it alone. When Robert E. Lee prayed openly for independence and the day the South took up its rightful place at the table of nations, do you think he was asking God to institute a multiracial, one-man-one-vote democracy in the South where blacks and whites lived as equals in harmony and peace? I don’t think so. Also, instead of being a defender of Southern values and culture, you would have me to believe that ours is no better or different than the culture of the blacks. If that’s so, what is the point of advancing Southern culture? If our culture is no better than black culture, then why don’t we just join them? Then after using an exclamation point to say we (blacks and whites) are the same, you state: “There’s nothing wrong with recognizing (and respecting) our differences. God, in his infinite wisdom, created us differently. I don’t know why, and I don’t care why. I (personally) believe it immoral to tamper with what God has created and therefore do not believe mixed marriages to be appropriate.”

If we are the same, then how is it that God created us differently? And if we need to be inclusive, then why have you excluded mixed marriages? Where is the line to be drawn? You say my attitude won’t bridge any gaps, but here you are building a moat. I only say that to show you it must always be so. There is no other way for the world to work.

Let me hear from you.

Dennis Wheeler

#7.

From Charles (Pat) Upshaw to Dennis Wheeler.

July 18, 1996

Dear Dennis,

The most striking similarity to me between Southerners and blacks is the rape their respective cultures have suffered at the hands of the damn yankees.

There was a time, I believe, that black churches generally preached a true Gospel. Likewise, there was a time that white southern churches preached the same truth. Modernism, alas, has taken its toll on all of us.

While recruitment of a black may not deserve the kudos we’re heaping upon it, we must remember that a black man has had to endure much more of an assault upon his Southern heritage than any white man has. To have survived this assault, from church, government, (black) society, and quite possibly family deserves our respect. In other words, were I on the front lines, particularly in a defensive position, as we are, I would want this man in my foxhole.

I would also think that he has the intelligence and courage to voice our principles in places in which we could never receive a hearing.

I say, welcome.

Charles P. (Pat) Upshaw

#8.

From George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

July 19, 1996

Thanks for your inquiry. They are fair questions. First and foremost, we are not running an affirmative action plan here nor are we trying to recruit nonwhites and non-Christians who do not share our values solely for the sake of having some “tokens” on board. I have had many discussions with Michael Hill on this subject and there is a consensus that if a totally pro-South black or Jew or whatever wants to join the Southern League and they adhere totally to our principles, then there is no reason in the world for us to deny them membership.

The reason I think this is a great stride is because everything in our society tells folks like this to hate us. Both of these gentlemen have expressed nothing but support for our cause and I think it is remarkable, given the hateful propaganda out there, that there are still open-minded blacks and Jews in our society who will consider a SL membership even though we make no apologies for the Confederacy and our flags. Such people are an asset to our cause, as has been proven by the work of Jason Clay Russo and Mr. Nelson Winbush (a black SCV member) who both work tirelessly to defuse the old stereotypes that all whites in the South live to oppress negroes and Jews.

I realize that we may have some individual members of the SL who have, how shall I gently put it, *firm* views on race, and while those individuals are entitled to their personal opinions they must understand that the SL is a social/cultural/political movement that is seeking to advance our principles and issues with as many folks as we can. One does not have to be a Christian Anglo/Celtic Southerner to embrace our culture and our values. I welcome any man or woman who will.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#9.

From Gary Waltrip to all.

July 19, 1996

He begins with a quote by Dana Greenblatt in a post that she sent to Dennis Wheeler:

In a message dated 960718 18:13:16 EDT, you write: “If it’s the former, I hope that you realize how many blacks and Jews fought/served the Confederacy. I was raised in a Jewish home and recently became Christian. I cannot speak for all Jews, but when a Jewish person who did not have a Confederate ancestor joins our cause, it’s a pretty noteworthy occasion.”

I agree with Dana. There is no rule that says we should not welcome as brothers those members of black or Jewish background who support our Cause. Since most of the members of these ethnic groups tend to be hostile or openly antagonistic, it is easy to broad-brush them all as “the enemy.” That, however, would be a mistake.

Anyone who sincerely supports the South and the goals of the Southern League is my brother or sister and my friend. I do not hate anyone because of their ethnicity and I believe that such feelings are a waste of energy that could be put to better use on the service of our cause.

With that said, I would like to personally and sincerely welcome Larry Davis into our group and pledge to him the loyalty and friendship that is due by one brother to another and to offer my help and assistance to him at any time it may be needed.

Gary Waltrip

#10.

From Marion Lambert to Dennis Wheeler.

July 19, 1996

Dennis Marshall,

It is not my pleasure to question you, but sir, your historical premises, your applied logic, and your conclusions are sinisterly wrong.

You seem to operate under the understanding that the Southern nationalistic experience of 186165 was something other than a highly moral struggle to continue the concepts of the original founding fathers. Pure and simple that is what is was. And the economic tariff issue, the slavery in the territories issue, the states’ rights issue, all were small issues in contrast to the “cultural” differences between the traditionalist conservative agrarian South and the progressive modern Yankee empire-builders of the North. And the struggle and War which resulted from this immense cultural societal divide was played out on the ‘gameboard’ of Constitutional issues. Issues understood well by Lee, Davis, and the Southern mind of that time.

You suggest by implication that R. E. Lee was not fighting for a “multiracial” society and you suggest by like implication that he must have been fighting for “Exclusivity”, that is by your logical implication, racial. Apparently you have no knowledge of the motivations for Lee. You place him into your ‘box’ of moral smallness. Far greater is Lee, and by analogy the Cause of South, than your insight as displayed via this list.

And what is the South in your viewpoint? White people and white culture exclusive of others? That is not now nor has it been the reality of the South during the last 300 or so years. Particularly, during the period of Confederate nationalism of 186165. If you don’t understand the role of Blacks, Jews, American Indians, Mexicans, etc. in the mix of being Southern, then I am at a loss to educate you on such short notice.

That black groups have been at odds with our struggle to preserve our heritage and symbols is understandable, however wrong, when we view their postbellum treatment socially. That social treatment was the result of the Yankee destruction of Southern society, the Yankee intervention into the political and social fabric of the post-War South, and of the Yankee destruction of the evolutionary expiration of slavery.

Sir, if you want to be “exclusive” in this matter of Southern Nationalism, then exclude the Yankee mentality not the people of the South. Your enemy is Yankee, not someone of a simple racial or ethnic difference. Northerners can make good Southern League material but the Yankee can never.

We as White Southerners have much more in common with Southern Blacks than with the Yankee. Jews, Blacks, etc. have a place in this organization based upon their ideology. Our job as individuals and as politically astute Southrons is to educate and teach the common ground with fellow Southerners.

Just as with our Southern forefathers the fight we have today is highly moral and based on the same constitutional issues which the Yankee mind thought were settled at Appomattox.

Mr. Wheeler, I wonder at your understanding and I question your motives.

Marion Lambert

Southern League of Florida

[Editor's note: Marion sees the antebellum South as a place of multi-ethnic diversity. He sees today's problems as the result of Yankee actions that destroyed the diverse South. He argues that I am fighting the wrong enemy and proposing the wrong solution. And he works for a future that is politically and ethnically no different than it is today.

What he fails to realize or stir into the mix is that the antebellum South was based on the political and social supremacy of the Southerners, who were a European people.

Besides this, Southern society still stands today because after the War, the Southern people were able to erect legal and social safeguards that protected their supremacy to the point that Southern society could be continued.]

#11.

From Dennis Wheeler to Marion Lambert.

July 23, 1996

Dear Marion,

Thank you for the post. My great-grandfather fought in the Third Florida Regiment. He was from the Live Oak area. My great-grandmother received a confederate widow’s pension from the State of Florida into the 1900s. I have just returned to Atlanta from Sarasota, Florida where my parents celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Of the nearly 50 relatives in attendance, every one was a native Floridian.

My grandfather was a school principle for 52 years in Dade County and my father was a Baptist minister in Florida for nearly 40 years before retiring. I live in Georgia and write a newsletter on investing in precious metals and stocks of companies that mine gold, silver, and platinum. (The newsletter is called Precious Metals Digest and you can get a free sample copy by dialing 800-728-2288 and asking for one.)

I understand a lot more about the South, the Confederacy, and today’s struggle from a Floridian point of view than you give me credit for. Let me take a few of your points and scrutinize them. We may both learn something:

(1) You state the Civil War was “a highly moral struggle to continue the concepts of the original founding fathers. Pure and simple that is what is was.”

Accepting what you say as true, I would like to point out that this moral struggle contained an ethnic element. Robert E. Lee himself addressed it. He reduced the problem down to two views of the African, “Is he just a sunburned white man, or does he possess substantive differences that run far deeper?” [a loose paraphrase, I can get the actual quote if necessary]

The founding fathers had addressed it by allowing the states to deny the vote to the Africans. This ethnic principle was part of the conceptual ideal fought for by the Virginia militia in both the Revolutionary and Civil wars. It was also fought for by patriotic Southerners in the Civil Rights War of the 1960s. And to be legitimate Southerners with legitimate roots to our Confederate forbears, we too must take up this struggle.

(2) You further state: “You suggest by implication that R. E. Lee was not fighting for a “multiracial” society and you suggest by like implication that he must have been fighting for “Exclusivity”, that is by your logical implication, racial. Apparently you have no knowledge of the motivations for Lee.”

I spell it out this way: R.E. Lee was fighting for the system and way of life employed by Virginia at both the founding of the country and in 1861. And what was that system in regards to ethnic exclusivity concerning the political franchise? I’ll let you answer. In 1861, did the Africans in Virginia have the right to vote or did they not have the right to vote? In that sense, and others, Lee’s efforts were aimed at preserving the same exclusivity I am proposing.

(3) You are correct when you say that I “don’t understand the role of Blacks, Jews, American Indians, Mexicans, etc. in the mix of Southern culture.” I would like for you to tell me how and why they have been important.

(4) Next you state: “…. if you want to be exclusive in this matter of Southern Nationalism, then exclude the Yankee mentality, not the people of the South. Your enemy is Yankee not someone of a simple racial or ethnic difference. Northerners can make good Southern League material but the Yankee can never.”

You brandish the phrase “Yankee mentality” around like a gun. But what do you mean by it? If you mean “equalitarian ethnic integration” then I would of course agree with you. This was always the cornerstone of Yankee attempts at Southern destruction. It took them 100 years after the Civil War to accomplish this goal. And the South has lost more in the last 31 years than it did in all time from 18611964. And one of the biggest losses is our loss of national identity. Our ability to stand up as a people and declare our peoplehood. Someday you will not cower before the Yankees you hate, but will stand like a lion and proclaim that you are a Southerner, a blood descendant of the Confederate and Segregationist warriors.

Until then, if you are in no position to do so, then I would appreciate it if you at least not take pot shots at those of us who are.

Dennis Wheeler

#12.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

July 19, 1996

Dennis,

I have read your commentaries and I’ll tell you straight out that you are way out of line here. While no one will deny that there are significant, and in many cases, broad chasms of cultural differences between whites and blacks in contemporary America, that has nothing to do with the issues you have raised which can be specifically defined as follows: (1) Is the Southern League a white supremacist organisation? The answer clearly is no.

Though I was not here at the formation of the SL, I have been a member since February of 1995 and I have never heard nor seen anything in the literature of the SL that plainly and unequivocally states that we are a “whites only” organisation. In fact, I have received specific permission from our national leadership to post permanent notices on DixieNet denouncing racial hate groups and reaffirming that the SL is an organisation that welcomes anyone as a member who embraces *our* culture and *our* values. You don’t have to be a Celtic pureblood to apply you just have to agree that the Anglo-Celtic dominant traditional culture of the South is worthy of preservation and advancement.

All of us at one time or another have known people who’ve are attracted to cultures other than their own and I see no reason not to embrace any person who wants to carry forward our banner. I might further add that as DixieNet’s rebmaster I can vouch for the fact that our rapid growth in the past year has been directly attributable to the fact that we are not a hate group. Time and time again I receive email from new members telling me that this attribute of our corporate character is what tipped the scales for them and convinced them that we were an organisation that had a future and was worthy of support. We would be foolish to ever abandon the high road we have taken thus far.

(2) Are we being true to the ideals of our Confederate forefathers? I think so. Stonewall Jackson certainly had no problem with using Southern blacks to further the cause of our independence as is evidenced by the fact that large numbers of black Southerners served in his ranks during the War. General Patrick Cleburn, who was about as Celtic as they come, strongly urged the enlistment of Southern blacks as early as 1863. Likewise, Robert E. Lee strongly encouraged Jefferson Davis to raise black regiments for the defense of Dixie a request that was finally granted and a law was passed by the CS Congress making it possible but, alas, it was too late to do Dixie much good.

There are many more examples of loyal black support for Dixie and there were black members of the UCV in the years after the war.

While it is true that most, if not all 19th century white Americans believed themselves culturally and socially superior to blacks, that does not mean they all hated blacks and refused to work with them in common causes. Heck, the typical Southern farm in the South saw blacks and whites toiling side by side year in and year out in the struggle to make a living off the land. The familiarity between the races in the antebellum South was well-known and much remarked upon by Yankees who were disgusted by the easygoing Southerners.

Why should we wish to emulate Yankees and hate people and refuse their support solely because they are the *wrong* color. Seems pretty shortsighted to me. In my personal opinion, Dennis, you are simply allowing your own personal prejudices on the issue of race cloud your thinking. You are entitled to your opinion, but just be aware that the historical record does not support your simplistic and over-generalised view that the Southern cause was exclusively a racial one.

(3) Do we deny membership in the League solely on the basis of race? Again, the answer is no. Nowhere on our membership application do we ask what race an applicant is. If we were an exclusively white organisation then I think we’d make it clear on the application.

(4) Do we deny membership in the League on the basis of religious affiliation? Here again, the answer is no. While I may find the religious practices of others to be theologically offensive or incorrect, I again have no problem with accepting the aid and support of Southern sympathizers who are not of my faith. This is particularly true in the case of Jewish applicants since Christianity shares a common heritage with Jewry.

Ultimately, Dennis, you will have to come to the realisation that the SL is not a vehicle for waging a campaign to erect a racially pure homeland in the South for Anglo-Celts, but it is a vehicle for insuring that hostile elements of other cultural groups do not succeed in eradicating Anglo-Celtic Southern culture from the Southland. I am for my culture first, but I can do so in a manner that will be worthy of General Lee without malice and without hatred. Since we stand against these hatemongers of the Left the last thing in the world we should want to do is to *emulate* their ignoble example.

For the Cause,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#13.

From: Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

July 20, 1996

He begins with a quote by Dennis from a post written to Ron Colson.

In a message dated 960719 16:57:25 EDT, you write: “Also, instead of being a defender of Southern values and culture, you would have me to believe that ours is no better or different than the culture of the blacks. If that’s so, what is the point of advancing Southern culture? If our culture is no better than black culture, then why don’t we just join them?”

Southern culture has always included black people. They are Southerners too, at least the great majority of them who live in the South.

Gary Waltrip

#14.

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

July 20, 1996

Stacy begins with a quote from a previous post from Marion Lambert:

In a message dated 960719 19:07:17 EDT, you write: “Northerners can make good Southern League material but the Yankee can never.”

Stacy’s answer:

Something I’m having a hard time explaining to my Ohio-born wife, even though she went to school at Mount Vernon Academy in Ohio the same town where Vallandigham gave his famous speech in defense of the South!

Stacy gives a second quote from the same post: “We as White Southerners have much more in common with Southern Blacks than with the Yankee. The truth! Especially, this is true of hard

working churchgoing blacks in rural areas and small towns, who see how modern urban culture is deadly to their young people.” Jews, Blacks, etc. have a place in this organization based upon their ideology.”

Stacy’s response:

Dang straight. If the Martians landed tomorrow, that would be OK with me, so long as they believed in states rights, limited government, Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian ethic. But our luck, we’d get a bunch of Yankeefied Martian imperialists, just like in the horror movies.

By the way, has anybody here read the latest issue of New American. Some Yankee journalists showed up to cover a church fire in a little Texas town, went to the local newspaper office and said: “Take us to your racists.”

WOW!!!!

Robert Stacy McCain

#15.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

July 23, 1996

George,

Thank you for your complete response. I’m having a very difficult time, though, matching large portions of your response to anything I have written. In fact, it seems your response was not addressed to me at all, but was addressed to someone else, using my posts as a pretext.

I’d say you built two straw men from my words and then mowed them down.

STRAW MAN #1: The SL is to be a “whites only,” “white supremacist” organization.

There’s nothing in anything I said that could lead you to this conclusion, although whether or not there are nonwhites is of little importance to us as a nation in the long run. It seems to me you raised this bogus issue so you could knock it down. Well, it doesn’t hurt me. I’ll agree with you: The Southern League is not a white supremacist organization, nor is it a “whites only” organization.

You made another statement that I can live with: “You don’t have to be a Celtic pureblood to apply you just have to agree that the Anglo-Celtic dominant traditional culture of the South is worthy of preservation and advancement.”

I’m not sure exactly what the term Celtic means. I see the Southern people as composed of the ScotchIrish and the Cavaliers. The fact that those of other nations joined our ancestors in the Civil War effort is not of critical import in my way of thinking. What is crucial is that the Scotch-Irish and the Cavaliers have been forged in the fires of blood, faith, and war. We are now one people and one nation. Any blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Indians, and others who want to join us, must do just that, join us. We are the dominant group that defines Southern culture and the Southern people. Others may join us, but we remain what we are with or without them.

I think this is consistent with every other word I’ve written. So to construe my words to say I have advocated the SL to be a “whites only” organization is an unfair low blow.

STRAW MAN #2: We do not deny membership to people on the basis of race or religion.

Your position sounds like something out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than a noble ideal befitting the Southern people. Remember, it is God who separated mankind into different peoples, not me. I can’t do anything to undo the divisions that God has made within mankind. Neither can you. We both can either except them and live as though they are valid or we can deny them and act as though they are not valid.

All that aside, you never see me advancing any argument on the basis of race. Go back and review my posts, you’ll see that I don’t use the word. This is because I don’t believe in the concept. Race is a Darwinian word, never found in the Bible in any form.

The concept I advance is nation (ethnos, as discussed in the post on SL: A Blessing to the Nations). This is the reality because this is how God has divided mankind and interpreted His acts for us.

My point is that it is not a very important event to draft those of other nations into a Southern nationalist movement, which is how the Southern League has been explained to me.

At any rate, I don’t see my views as “way out of line.” They may be contrary to yours, they may be wrong, but they certainly represent a large percentage of the Southern League membership and I see no reason for the vituperative rebukes I have received for stating them.

I don’t make it my practice to question or judge the motives of others. I simply interpret their words and actions and judge them on their own merits. I accept that you are working for the benefit of the South, the Southern people, and Southern culture to the best of your understanding. And so I would ask you where you see Southern society heading? What kind of system do you see us developing if the Southern League is successful? Will it be a one-man-one-vote multiracial democracy like we have now differentiated only by different policies? Or do you see the necessity of the Southern people erecting a political color bar so that we alone will decide issues of political and cultural importance to us?

As I see it, the fact that not all 19th century Southern whites hated blacks as you say, nor the fact that Lee encouraged Jackson to raise black regiments, nor the fact that Southern whites were seen to toil side by side with Southern blacks goes to the heart of the matter. None of these shed light on the crucial issue. And that crucial issue is: Who will exercise political power for the Southern people? Will we alone determine our course, or will others participate in it with us?

In my view, the only correct answer, the only patriotic answer is that we will govern ourselves as a free people without the interference of others. While operating under the old Constitution, especially as it had been interpreted in the Dred Scott decision of 1857, it is absurd to believe that the Confederates ever entertained any idea of extending the voting franchise to the Africans that lived in the South. I don’t think so. After all, the Constitution counted the African slaves as 3/5 of a person, insofar as congressional district populations were concerned, and the Supreme Court had just unanimously agreed that the Africans were not part of the American body politic and were not intended to be partakers of the legal guarantees embedded in that document.

I will be very interested to hear your response to this point.

One last thing: George, you seem to be forgetting that there was a Southern war in between the Civil War and today; the Civil Rights War. After 1877, the Southern people erected a body of law to protect themselves from being unduly influenced by the Africans in political matters of their internal affairs. This body of law is historically referred to as Jim Crow. This was an attempt by the Southern people to preserve their nationhood and national identity.

This tactic won the approval of the United States Supreme Court in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson. The Southern people remained in control of their internal affairs until 1954 and the Brown v. Board of Topeka, Kansas decision began to strip control of our internal destiny away from us. The Civil Rights War was under way and the Southern people fought with every honorable means at their disposal to stop the Civil Rights movement.

These Southern heroes, known to history as segregationists, are just as much Southern patriots as any Confederate soldier. In fact, they were the direct blood and ideological descendants of our Civil War heroes.

You, George, are advancing a Southern nationalism that either ignores or condemns the actions of these Southern patriots. (At least, that’s the way I see it.) They fought to keep Atlanta, Montgomery, Raleigh, and other Southern cities under the control of Southerners. Lester Maddox and George Wallace were advancing the same ideals as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. To deny this is a gross error in my view.

George Wallace took a bullet in the defense of Southern culture. Lester Maddox received the rebuke and ridicule of much of Atlanta’s press and much of the national press. Jimmy Carter sold out all of the great principles and was a wanton traitor to his people. For this he became President of the United States and an honored place in humanist history.

The questions now are: “What will we do? Which side will we take? Will we forsake the sacrifice of Southerners who stood for our national exclusiveness or will we go along to get along?” I don’t see your ideas as anything unique which would mandate the existence of a Southern League. Your ideas seem like the conservative wing of the Republican Party to me.

I guess that’s enough for now. I look forward to your response.

Dennis Wheeler

P.S. I can email to anyone who wants it a copy of an exiting treatise written by myself and Gregory F. West. It is titled “The Theology of the Confederacy.” It was written in 1993 and would be well worth reading.

Just email me: dennisw@mindspring.com and ask for it.

#16.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

July 24, 1996

Dennis,

Hold on let me make sure I understand you correctly. You’ve just made a long and impassioned defense of segregation in the past and a plea for the reinstitution of segregation in the present and yet you are offended that I’ve interpreted your previous posts questioning the value of enlisting black and Jewish Southerons into the SL as a segregationist and white supremacist policy? I think thou doth protesteth too much.

In any case, I do understand the point you are making regarding a “nation” based on ethnicity, but I’ve always viewed the Southern League as an organisation that was advancing the idea of a “nation” based” upon a definable “culture” and as you know, cultures can be formed through the contributions of multiple ethnic groups as, indeed, was the case with Southern culture.

Frankly, my mind is divided on this question at present. On the one hand, I look at what passes for black “culture” today and am repelled by what I see because it is alien to my value system which is, in turn, a product of being raised within a traditional white Christian culture that stresses obedience to God, moral behaviour, honesty, hard work, thrift, respect for the rights of others, etc. and I see nothing but contempt for these values from the liberal black elites and their welfare followers. However, I recognise that not all blacks embrace the “hip-hop” culture and the liberal welfare culture that is pushed by Jesse Jackson and his ilk and I’m not prepared to write off modern black Confederates like the late Dr. Leonard Haynes and black SCV member Nelson Winbush solely because they happen to be of African descent.

I welcome any person of any ethnicity who can appreciate and embrace Southern culture and defend it from those who would seek it’s eradication. I guess you could say I’m more concerned with the preservation of the South’s culture than in herding black folks to the back of the bus again. I will agree with you that the Civil Rights revolution was anti-Southern and went way overboard in terms of infringing upon our rights of free association, property rights, etc. but it also must be admitted that many Jim Crow laws were petty and offensive to the sensibilities of any free man and that’s why the South lost that fight in the court of public opinion.

I don’t know about yourself, but I want to find a better rallying cry for Dixie than “let’s bring back segregation boys!” That dog won’t hunt and I can guarantee you that you won’t be able to build any mass movement in the South for Southern independence on a platform of reinstituting Jim Crow.

What would be the next step reinstituting slavery? What you propose would be a public relations nightmare and it would permanently marginalise this movement as a cultured, better educated and polite KKK without the bedsheets.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#17.

From David S. Reif to George Kalas.

July 25, 1996

George,

I have had conversations with Dr. Hill regarding the points you raise. I have also talked about the extremely thorny nature of race/ethnicity in building a movement. One must tread very carefully here. There is great power in these issues; but equally great danger.

The materialists (liberals) have set a whole trotline of booby traps for anyone who appeals to racial, gender, or ethnic sensibilities in the service of traditional values. Yet, does not do the same in the service of modernity (remember Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI case). They have possession of the playing field, you might say, so they are setting the rules.

The conversation with Dennis shows that this is a very frustrating area to be grappling with but it is the landscape we find ourselves in. The appeal of race or ethnicity is very strong. It all looks so easy. Just get all the whites or all the Celts together and one has an instant movement. The trouble with this approach is that it works. But not very well. Especially in the mixed environment with in which we exist. Again we find ourselves on someone else’s playing field. Modernity has given us a racial/ethnic jumble. With no “pure” ethnic base to draw upon, what’s a girl to do?

Because Multi-culturalism is an imposed system pushed by the Central government it is the embodiment evil. Yet if one looks around the South today, it doesn’t take too long to figure out that it ain’t all crackers an’ hillbillies. However, we do have a culture. And we do have political principles. And we do have art, lit, music, food, speech … all products of earlier forms but now transformed by time and place into a ethnicity in the present. That’s a lot of “stuff” to draw upon.

We are Southrons or Southerners because we hold those positions; today. Building an ethnic identity on that rather than racial or historic stereotypes seems to be a place to start.

I got ta go to bed. This old hillbilly gets tired. What do you think?

Deo Vindice,

David S. Reif

#18.

From Mike Broadwell to all.

July 26, 1996

The recent series of posts regarding the question of ethnicity and the SL have been revealing. What is interesting to note is the reaction to the letters of Dennis Wheeler, as well as the response of the Clemson student. Notwithstanding the latter’s justifiable anger at being misrepresented by his former girlfriend, the whole situation makes the point quite clearly.

Why should Mr. Wheeler be called “way out of line” and have his motives questioned for merely expressing ideas? The very constitution that our great Southern forebears fought and died for considered as foundational the right to free expression. Any sensible person knows they intended by this the free expression of political ideas. (Not table dancing, as our modern supreme court has ruled.)

I am not saying that Mr. Wheeler is being denied this right, but the general tone seems to be that he is on the edge of acceptability. If his ideas were addressed thoughtfully and clearly shown to be mistaken, this might be understandable. But the concern seems to be only how they will be perceived, not whether they are true or false.

The Clemson situation is even more telling. It is sad that this young man should be so fearful of repercussions from what would only be a practical joke in a healthy society. This sounds like a situation in the former Soviet Union more than in the “land of the free and home of the brave”.

The Olympics have shown what the approach to make everyone “just get along” will result in. That is the suppression of the real heritage and virtues of the South. The attempt to make different peoples fit one mold can only be accomplished through suppression. Is this not the legacy of the Northern conquest of the South, in the 1860′s and in the 1960′s as well?

If “diversity is our strength”, then why are there so many cops and soldiers guarding the Olympics? If this situation is acceptable, we really are fighting “the lost cause”. This is exactly why Dennis has said that the SL should be a movement of the Southern (i.e. Scots-Irish and Cavalier descended) people. We are not hostile to other peoples, unless they are hostile to our aspirations. But we are not beholden to them in any way, other than to treat them in accord with Christian forbearance. We love the South, first because it is ours, and second because we believe in the principles represented by it. These principles may be adopted by others. That should be a sufficient blessing. Why should we seek other’s validation of our principles, much less our life as a distinct people?

Our people and principles were shaped over centuries in Britain and the South. They can be lost in much less time. Can the principles be maintained when the people that forged them is gone, in body and in spirit? I for one do not want to find out. We must be free, and that means free from worrying about what favored minorities, or the press, or Bob Costa or any other self proclaimed do-gooder thinks about us. We must return to the source of that confidence displayed by the courageous men of the South. If they were wrong, we don’t need a Southern League.

Mike Broadwell

#19.

From: George Kalas to Mike Broadwell.

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 01:15:26 0400

Mike,

I find it easy to agree with your post because it is wholly in line with my thinking and that of the national office i.e. Southern culture was predominantly molded and shaped by our Anglo-Celtic/Cavalier forbearers and this is the culture that is under attack and that we are seeking to preserve. I think because we have taken this stand we quite naturally attract well over 98% of our members from that ethnic group alone.

However, we do have some members who fall into the other 2% and their membership in our organisation is welcomed because they adhere to our culture and help us advance our cause in a political realm that is inherently hostile to us and which enjoys the privilege of defining the playing field upon which we must compete for influence and power.

My whole objection over the course of this thread is to the attitude that says we should somehow erect barriers to membership for Jewish Southrons or black Southrons simply because they are not 100% like the rest of our members. I suppose you could do this and feel very smug about your ideological purity of thought and policy but you will never, ever achieve a mass movement for independence for Dixie if you blithely play into the hands of the liberals who are baiting “racism” traps for you all along the road to freedom. A little pragmatism is a healthy thing.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#20.

From Daniel Bennett to Dennis Wheeler.

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 15:58:20 UT

From: “Dan Bennett”

To: southernleague@polaris.net

Daniel begins with a quote by Dennis from a previous post:

“Remember, it is God who separated mankind into different peoples, not me. I can’t do anything to undo the divisions that God has made within mankind. Neither can you. We both can either except them and live as though they are valid or we can deny them and act as though they are not valid.”

Daniel’s response:

Could you be so good as to define “valid” as you’ve used it here? It sounds as though you’re espousing the sort of “racialist” position that one commonly sees in alt.politics. nationalism.white. Are you saying that the races should be separated? If so, why?

Daniel then gives a second quote by Dennis:

“My point is that it is not a very important event to draft those of other nations into a Southern nationalist movement, which is how the Southern League has been explained to me.”

Daniel’s response:

It appears that you’re using the term “nation” to describe ethnicity. If that is the case, I’ll have to ask you why we should NOT draft Southrons of various ethnic backgrounds into the League. What sorts of ancestry would make a person unimportant to win to our side?

Daniel gives a third quote by Dennis:

“At any rate, I don’t see my views as “way out of line.” They may be contrary to yours, they may be wrong, but they certainly represent a large percentage of the Southern League membership.”

Daniel’s response:

I’d be interested in knowing how you arrived at that conclusion, since it certainly hasn’t been reflected in the discussions here.

Daniel gives a fourth quote by Dennis:

“What kind of system do you see us developing if the Southern League is successful? Will it be a one-man-one-vote multiracial democracy like we have now differentiated only by different policies? Or do you see the necessity of the Southern people erecting a political color bar so that we alone will decide issues of political and cultural importance to us?”

Daniel’s response:

The question I have to ask here is: Who’s “us”? If “us” means white Southrons only, then not only am I out, but I’ll become a vehement opponent. You see, my wife is from Korea, and therefore, my children’s ancestry is half Asian. Part of the reason for my participation in the League is to try and provide a better place for my kids. But if you’d exclude them from participation because you don’t like where their grandparents came from, then we’re at cross purposes, aren’t we?

Racialism is a stupid idea at best. Carried to its logical extreme, it would require the government to maintain genealogies of all its citizens in order to determine who rated where in the racial pecking order. That is hardly the proper goal of the state, is it?

The proper purpose of government, IMO, is the defense of the God-given liberties of its citizenry. But unfortunately, many people see government as a means of enforcing whatever axe it is that they have to grind. That is, of course, the very thing that has brought the US gov’t to the sorry state it’s in today.

Daniel Bennett

[Editor's note: Here was one of the first blatant instances of "argument by rhetoric." You will see this over and over again as you read further. Unable or unwilling to argue the abstract point of what a Southerner is, Daniel personalized the matter and made disagreement with him an attack on his wife and children.

#21.

From: George Kalas to Daniel Bennett.

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 17:35:26 UT

Dan,

Well stated and I fully agree with what you've said. The Southern League is not a white racialist, white separatist or really a "white-anything" organisation. We are a SOUTHERN organisation and I'll welcome *any* man or woman who adheres to our cause. Those whose passion lies strictly within the realm of setting up a whites-only state somewhere in America might want to migrate to one of those whacko groups up in Idaho or Montana I would think.

For Dixie,

George (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) Kalas

#22.

Philip Underwood-Sheppard to Daniel Bennett.

Philip begins with a quote by Daniel:

At 03:58 PM 7/25/96 UT, you wrote: "The question I have to ask here is: Who's `us'? If `us' means white Southrons only, then not only am I out, but I'll become a vehement opponent."

Philip's response:

Me, too. Racialism =elitism, in my most humble opinion, a class based society. That sounds like I'm a communist, doesn't it?

Do the "us" control everything, and all others simply do what we tell them to? It is one thing to say we believe in Christian principles as a guide to the governing of our nation; it is another to say "white" principles need to be the guide. I know many white folk I would trust to govern me by their principles. And white culture doesn't necessarily mean Southern culture.

Philip then gives a second quote by Daniel:

Racialism is a stupid idea at best. Carried to its logical extreme, it would require the government to maintain genealogies of all its citizens in order to determine who rated where in the racial pecking order. That is hardly the proper goal of the state, is it?"

Philip's response:

In South Africa, it only required one to have 1/32 black descent to be removed from one's place of employment and sent to a camp for the racially impure. Sufficiently cleansed, the government could then govern the racially impure with benevolent laws that would maintain their own racial superiority. Is that what we are to become? Ignorant folk have racial attitudes I despise, but less so the racial attitudes of intelligent folk.

We have talked about genetics, environment, differences between blacks we like and blacks we can't stand, but if the Southern League is not big enough for blacks who agree with us, then count me out.

Most humbly,

Philip

Philip Underwood-Sheppard

Port Royal Island

Occupied South Carolina

#23.

From Gary Waltrip to Robert ???.

July 27, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Robert ??? from a previous post. The post to which he is referring in the body of his message is unknown:

In a message dated 960726 05:39:56 EDT, you write: "That is, the danger of "miscegenation" leading to "mongrelization" is a false danger. I am a Caucasian married to a Caucasian, we have 3 Caucasian children and hope to have more some day. Now, unless all 3 of my children (and any future children) should choose non-caucasian mates, the continuance of the Caucasian race is a given for many decades to come."

Gary's response:

Robert, thanks for some intelligent thought on this matter. Personally, I am getting a bit tired of some of the blatant bigotry that I hear coming out of some factions of the movement, and probably will not be too gentle with them in the future. As one who is "guilty" of mongrelizing the race by marrying an Asian and having an Amerasian son, I can only say "screw you" (sorry ladies) to the idiots who believe this tripe.

Maybe they can stir up a few more insulting stereotypes of Southerners by wearing sheets to wienie roasts, learning to play "dueling banjos" on their guitars, marrying their cousins, and making moonshine in their backyards. Maybe they can even have some of their front teeth pulled so they can smile just like a good ole boy.

My son is very handsome, has a 3.83 grade point average at an exclusive Catholic high school where you have to be the cream of the academic crop to get in (he is the CREAM of the cream of the crop); he is also a great baseball player, having been pulled up from Little League Senior Minors to Senior Majors, where he then made the All-star team. What a terrible result of his mongrelization! But because he has such a high IQ, I will have to ask Mr. Bilbo and his supporters to, the next time they get on a bus with my family, to please sit in the back, which is reserved for the cognitively deficient.

Sorry for getting hot, but I am sick of BIGOTS trying to take over this movement. You folks must have wandered into the wrong listserve. The Klan meeting is down the hall.

Gary Waltrip

#24.

From Charles Upshaw to Philip Underwood-Sheppard.

July 27, 1996

Dear Philip,

I agree with you 100%. It is the holier/smarter/better than thou attitude which sent the hoary beasts against us in 1861.

For good or evil, there is a certain laid back, live and let live tolerance within Southron culture. Not agreement or acceptance or approval but tolerance. Those elements of society of which we disapprove we try to change through prayer and proclamation and example, not at the point of a gun. Discriminating, concerned tolerance.

I think that most on this listserver and within the Southern League look upon what passes for black culture and shudder for the South. If we want a nobler, more refined South, we must use whatever means God's providence places at our disposal. That means that those blacks who feel as we do should be encouraged to join us and carry our message back to the Southern black community.

I love my land and want to see her restored to health.

We MUST discriminate - on the basis of sentiments and aspirations - not race.

Sorry, I seem to be rambling.

Humbly,

Pat Upshaw

[Editor's note: After Daniel had received these three congratulatory posts, it was time for me to answer him. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#25.

From Dennis Wheeler to Daniel Bennett.

July 27, 1996

Dear Dan’l,

Before I answer your questions let me state that I appreciate them and the cordial manner they were written. You are in disagreement with some of my positions; that was hard to hide. Still you are so far carrying on discourse in a gentlemanly manner and I appreciate that.

(1) I use the term “valid” in connection with the ethnic divisions God has made among mankind as meaning “still in effect and binding on men.”

My positi {lost at this point – someone remind me to fix later}

BTW, am I to assume you have accepted the dictionary definition of “racism” that I gave as a standard by which moral conduct is to be judged? You have offered nothing against it. I’d like to know where you stand on this.

Having said all this, even if my interpretation of Titus 1: 12,13 had been erroneous, it would not have proved your case. You have taken the position that racism exists as a valid concept. But disproving the example I used to argue against your position, would in no way prove yours. (By proving something is not blue, does not prove it is green.) Although this bores you, I would be pleased if you would make the effort to give some evidence for your position.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

#28.

[Editor's note: Chuck would not answer me directly. He was trying to maintain I wasn't worthy of his lofty attention. But the next day in a message to Mike Broadwell, he wrote the following paragraph.]

CB The passage I shared in another post (Titus 1:12-13 ) is a prime example of all this. I could really care less what Calvin said about the verse, he was human fighting his own war in his own day. What does the passage say to you with prayer and fasting? What does the “clear” meaning of the words in proper context say to you personally? No need to move to allegory or perhaps when the verse is clear as written

[Editor's note: Now there's a fine how-do-you-do. He mentions Calvin as some sort of authority, then he twists the Bible verse to mean exactly what it does not mean. And when I use Calvin to show how his interpretation of the verse was wrong, this guy says he doesn't care what Calvin said.]

#29.

To: Thomas Roche

August 31,

Thomas,

I’m awfully sorry about misstating your name. Please accept my sincerest apology. And thank you, Mr. Underwood, for pointing out the error.

Before I start, I’d like to give you a word of personal advice, for your own safety: “Don’t go to Mississippi.” I heard some of the boys talkin’ the other night. And after your last post, they are waitin’ for you down there. So, please, stay out of Mississippi.

(1) You wrote: “Is this OT history relevant? Are black folks clearly Hamites? In any case, Europeans are Japethites, and the Semites were the chosen line. You see where I am going here, if you want to resort to Genesis evidence to prove your points, you will need to be most careful.”

As a youngster, I was indeed taught that the blacks were the descendants of Ham and the curse of Ham was still valid. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. I believe Arthur Custance placed the blacks in the family line of Shem. My main points from Genesis are that God’s world order of separate peoples and separate nations were enunciated there first, and that a lot of information is given there to define a people and a nation.

Arthur Pink wrote: “Without these two chapters [Genesis 10-11], we should be without any satisfactory solution to the ethnological problems presented by the different nations and tongues;”

So I think there is important instruction in Genesis for us.

(2) You wrote: “Are you saying that the European southerners were the chosen people of the land, given exclusive ruling rights to it by God, and thus did not have any need to grant full equality to the Africans they brought it, and of course also had the right, as they did for good in the 1830s (note, before the Yankee war) to expel the Red natives of the place from their own land, on analogy of what Israel had been ordered to do by God to the Canaanites?”

No, I’m not saying that, although I see how you could reasonably draw such a conclusion. I used the comparison between the relation between the Hebrews and their slaves and the Southerners and their slaves as just that, a comparison. If God sanctions an event one time, then it cannot be said to be wrong under all circumstances. Perhaps in the future I should use a different comparison.

(3) You wrote: “So God does not consider the black folks Christian southerners just because they live in the South and believe in the Christian God? Even OT law allowed a man to convert to Judaism.”

That’s correct. When Abraham dwelt in Canaan, he sent his servant back to his own people in Chaledea to fetch a wife for Isaac. Physical proximity doesn’t beget peoplehood.

(4) You wrote: “How exactly do you define “peoplehood” then?”

Truly an excellent question. Genesis 10:5 states: “By these were the lands of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”

In previous posts I have shown how this linguistic division meant more than simply the words one spoke, but included the mindset which caused one to conceive of certain concepts in certain terms, while others of a different mindset conceived of the same concepts in different terms.

Also, the Greek word for “nations” is “ethnos,” which Strong has defined as “a race, (as of the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): Gentile, heathen, nation, people.” I’m assuming that “of the same habit” equates to our phrase “a common culture.”

These nations, or ethnic groups, into which God divided mankind early in human history, shall persevere into eternity. Revelations 21:24 states: “And the nations shall walk by its [the New Jerusalem] light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it.”

In the NT, there is a differentiation between a nation and a geopolitical empire. John 11:48: “If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.” Israel was a separate nation within the Roman Empire.

John 18:35″ Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delievered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”

An even better verse is found in John 11:50, where Caiphus declares: “it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish. Two things: we are not to believe he was speaking of the Roman Empire when he used the word “nation,” but of the Jewish nation which existed within and was governed by the Roman authorities. And the next verse says he didn’t speak this of his own initiatve, the implication being that God put the words in his mouth.

So the distinction is drawn between a nation and a government. And the same distinction is drawn between a nation and an area. Perhaps you could state a working definition of the above concepts better than I can, but I’ll say that peoplehood revolves around family — blood lineage and marraige — a common language and mindset, resulting in a common culture.

The Humanists of the Civil Rights Movement have removed these God-given aspects of peoplehood and replaced them with an ideological relationship — belief in democratic, equalitarian, integration is said by them to make one an American.

(5) You wrote: “If we follow your apparently covenantal thinking here, the white folks had an obligation to civilize and Christianize their African slaves, which they didn’t really do, because such a policy would have led to their becoming free. Remember, the traditional policy throughout Christendom had always been, that a pagan slave became free upon accepting baptism. The Southern folk did away with this by the end of the 17th cent.”

Dabney freely admitted we hadn’t done enough, although evangelism is not the duty of the society, but of the church and in the case of slaves, the family. Certain of our people did introduce them to the Christian religion; and did provide for them access to the gospel, regular instruction of the Bible; and did introduce them to the Christian concept of the family and taught them about marraige and child-rearing. All this is much more than their previous masters in Africa did for them, but sadly, they have forgotten much of what was taught them.

I was not aware that freeing converted slaves was the traditional policy throughout Christendom. But by your own principles, a uniform tradition does not make right. In Philemon, the Christian slave-owner of the recently converted slave was instructed about many things concerning his slave. But freeing him was not among them. The same can be said about instruction given to Christian slave-owners in Ephesians and other epistles.

(6) You wrote: “No, I don’t suppose you do, since you are evidently committed to he notion of keeping the black folks in the south as an inferior ‘alien’ race for generations to come?”

Ooh! Cheap shot! Heretofore, I have not made any statements concerning my plans or desires for the future. In my way of thinking, three or four different policies have been tried already: slavery, emancipation and repatriation to Africa, emancipation without repatriation resulting in Jim Crow, and integration. None of them have been satisfactory and the present one is the worst of all for my people and the blacks. (Recently there was a huge debate at the NAACP annual meeting about the wisdom of integrated schools. It seems a meaningful minority of that organization has seen how destructive this is to their people.)

I’m open to future creative solutions to our ethnological dilemma, although I don’t think anything positive can occur as long as the government in Washington retains the muscle to dictate the situation.

Today, the problem is not simply black/white. Millions of Mexicans and other Hispanics now reside within the South and the greater United States. Millions of Asians have also come. A comprehensive settlement will have to be achieved. The time for this has not yet arrived. And, sadly, I’m willing to predict that there won’t be enough forward-looking people to realize a comprehensive settlement of ethnic partition is advisable, and eventually, events will force that realization onto them with violence and great hardship on all of us.

But I want to be on record as favoring a negotiated settlement now instead of a violent settlement later.

(7) You wrote: “Your points on immigration are excellent, but the black folks have been here for almost 400 years now. Black folks are no more foreigners in say, Alabama, than whites are.”

While this is true, it is not such an important issue. The fact remains that we are not one people, we are two peoples living in the same land — and since one of the divisions God made between peoples was land, for two peoples to inhabit the same land is always a dangerous, potentially explosive situation. Please recall what has happened in the recent past in Chechnya, Georgia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Burundi, India, Palestine, the Sudan, Iraq, Angola, South Africa, Liberia, Zimbabwe, and, to a lesser degree, Canada.

And there are many more of these problems brewing in Great Britain, Spain, the United States, Mexico, Tamil, and virtually every country where integration is the policy and two or more peoples inhabit the same land.

You could say the Palestinians are not foreigners in Palestine. But that doesn’t make them Jews. Nor are the Hutus foreigners in Burundi, but that didn’t make them Tutsis. Nor are the Russians foreigners in Chechnya, but that doesn’t make them Chechnyans. I could go on and on.

(8) Concerning the O.J. Simpson jury, you wrote: “Perhaps they feel that they are retaking things stolen from them.”

Perhaps so. I would like to hear one or more of them make a case for that. But what I really think is important is the ethnic solidarity they operate under. That’s what lets them get away with murder, demand extortion money from the Congress under threat of riots and violence, demand laws granting them priviledged status in the workplace, the university, the business establishment, and many other places. Our people cannot deal effectively with black solidarity. Their nationalistic aspirations are a very potent force shows no sign of abating of their own accord, but are actually growing stronger as the blacks move from triumph to triumph. Their own limitations and lack of numbers are the only human impediments keeping them from taking virtually everything we have.

(9) You wrote: “If you had taught them (the blacks) the scriptures earlier, they wouldn;t have been susceptible to abolitionist lies.”

This is pure speculation on your part. Who can know authoritatively what would have happened upon some change in events other than God Himself who knows all conditions and possibilities?

I don’t want to beat on the blacks, as I’ve shown the problem has become much more comprehensive with the advances made by the abolitionists in the last 30 years. So I won’t say anymore here except that the South was not and is not responsible for the moral condition of the blacks. Their tub must stand on its own bottom.

(10) You wrote: “But they were denied true preaching from those who knew when they didn’t, quite unlike the Europeans who had the advantages of say, Paul of Tarsus.”

You’ll have to admit your grammar wasn’t up to par here and I can’t fully make out what you are saying. I think you’re saying we Europeans had the advantage of hearing Paul and in the South, we didn’t make this available to the blacks.

Within the last five years, a professor at Reformed Seminary, Jackson — whose name escapes me right now and I’m down here in Sarasota, FL on vacation without my library handy — wrote a book on Southern preachers. One of them was a black fellow from the Civil War period, whose nam also escapes me. I’m here to tell you, he didn’t gain his knowledge from Africa. The Christianity he knew was taught to him by Southern Christians and no one else.

I’ll accept the charge that our people didn’t do as much as they could have done, but, let’s face it, there are a lot of Southerners from that period in Hell today, sad to say. More and more I see evidence that it was the Civil War period that crystalized the South as the Bible Belt, as many people searched the Bible earnestly during that time to see what it had to say about slavery. And as a result a meaningful percentage became Christians through the reading of the Bible.

Before that, many weren’t in much of a position to teach the blacks about true religion as they didn’t possess it themselves.

(11) You wrote: “I am no new world order man, sir, merely a Reconstructionist who wants a unified and godly society.”

I’m sorry I used the term “new world order.” That was an unfortunate choice of words. I certainly don’t think you believe in THE New World Order. Those are the words I used, without realizing the connotation that could be drawn from it.

As to your desire for a “unified and godly society,” perhaps there is some framework under which those two terms can go together, but the one espoused by the integrationists is not it. The Martin Luther King Cult’s program of unity destroys the God-made divisions of mankind.

The purpose of the division of the nations was to restrain sin. I quoted Harold Stigers. Rev. Joe Morecraft has made the same observation in another place, as have others. I am interested in hearing your plan for a unified society. Perhaps you’ve got some information I need to know.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

#30.

Originally from: Thomas P Roche

Originally dated: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 20:04:26 -0400 (EDT)

To: Dennis Wheeler:

On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Dennis A. Wheeler wrote:

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I’m awfully sorry about misstating your name. Please accept my sincerest apology. And thank you, Mr. Underwood, for pointing out the error.

Before I start, I’d like to give you a word of personal advice, for your own safety: “Don’t go to Mississippi.” I heard some of the boys talkin’ the other night. And after your last post, they are waitin’ for you down there. So, please, stay out of Mississippi.

Thomas Roche speaking: Oh don’t worry ’bout it. The first time I am going to go down there will be when I am in command of a Yankee artillery unit.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: My main points from Genesis are that God’s world order of separate peoples and separate nations were enunciated there first, and that a lot of information is given there to define a people and a nation.

Arthur Pink wrote: “Without these two chapters [Genesis 10-11], we should be without any satisfactory solution to the ethnological problems presented by the different nations and tongues;”

So I think there is important instruction in Genesis for us.

Thomas Roche speaking: Yes of ocurse there is, indeed, but it must be read in light of the superior revelations of the NT. Also accurate history is an absolute prerequisite.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I used the comparison between the relation between the Hebrews and their slaves and the Southerners and their slaves as just that, a comparison. If God sanctions an event one time, then it cannot be said to be wrong under all circumstances. Perhaps in the future I should use a different comparison.

Thomas Roche speaking: Neither can it be said to be right under all circumstances. What about those Red Indians?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: (3) You wrote: “So God does not consider the black folks Christian southerners just because they live in the South and believe in the Christian God? Even OT law allowed a man to convert to Judaism.”

That’s correct. When Abraham dwelt in Canaan, he sent his servant back to his own people in Chaledea to fetch a wife for Isaac. Physical proximity doesn’t beget peoplehood.

Thomas Roche speaking: Yes, it doesn’t necessarily do so, but you yourself have allowed for amalgamations of various European ethnicities to create your “southern people”– I wait longingly for an assessment of why it would be impossible to also amalgamate the Africans thereinto.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: So the distinction is drawn between a nation and a government. And the same distinction is drawn between a nation and an area. Perhaps you could state a working definition of the above concepts better than I can, but I’ll say that peoplehood revolves around family — blood lineage and marraige — a common language and mindset, resulting in a common culture.

The Humanists of the Civil Rights Movement have removed these God-given aspects of peoplehood and replaced them with an ideological relationship — belief in democratic, equalitarian, integration is said by them to make one an American.

Thomas Roche speaking: You have excellent points here. Trouble is, they’re not relevant to the discusison at hand.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: In Philemon, the Christian slave-owner of the recently converted slave was instructed about many things concerning his slave. But freeing him was not among them. The same can be said about instruction given to Christian slave-owners in Ephesians and other epistles.

Thomas Roche speaking: Philemon isn’t exactly a blanket endorsement of slavery, you know, and certainly not the kidnapping based chattel slavery practiced here.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: A comprehensive settlement will have to be achieved. The time for this has not yet arrived. And, sadly, I’m willing to predict that there won’t be enough forward-looking people to realize a comprehensive settlement of ethnic partition is advisable, and eventually, events will force that realization onto them with violence and great hardship on all of us.

But I want to be on record as favoring a negotiated settlement now instead of a violent settlement later.

Thomas Roche speaking: What kind of settlement do you want to see negotiated?

(7) You wrote: “Your points on immigration are excellent, but the black folks have been here for almost 400 years now. Black folks are no more foreigners in say, Alabama, than whites are.”

Dennis Wheeler speaking: The fact remains that we are not one people, we are two peoples living in the same land — and since one of the divisions God made between peoples was land, for two peoples to inhabit the same land is always a dangerous, potentially explosive situation. Please recall what has happened in the recent past in Chechnya, Georgia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Burundi, India, Palestine, the Sudan, Iraq, Angola, South Africa, Liberia, Zimbabwe, and, to a lesser degree, Canada.

Thomas Roche speaking: But unlike those places, black and white southerners share a common language and religious tradition, and the vast majority of basic culturalia.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: (9) You wrote: “If you had taught them (the blacks) the scriptures earlier, they wouldn;t have been susceptible to abolitionist lies.”

This is pure speculation on your part. Who can know authoritatively what would have happened upon some change in events other than God Himself who knows all conditions and possibilities?

I don’t want to beat on the blacks, as I’ve shown the problem has become much more comprehensive with the advances made by the abolitionists in the last 30 years. So I won’t say anymore here except that the South was not and is not responsible for the moral condition of the blacks. Their tub must stand on its own bottom.

Thomas Roche speaking: You assert this, absolutely, without countering the contrary evidence I have provided.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I’ll accept the charge that our people didn’t do as much as they could have done, but, let’s face it, there are a lot of Southerners from that period in Hell today, sad to say. More and more I see evidence that it was the Civil War period that crystalized the South as the Bible Belt, as many people searched the Bible earnestly during that time to see what it had to say about slavery. And as a result a meaningful percentage became Christians through the reading of the Bible.

Before that, many weren’t in much of a position to teach the blacks about true religion as they didn’t possess it themselves.

Thomas Roche speaking: Which does sadly undercut the romanticized notion of the Ante-Bellum south as being a Christian paradise. See also “Cracker Culture” hereupon.

(11) You wrote: “I am no new world order man, sir, merely a Reconstructionist who wants a unified and godly society.”

Dennis Wheeler speaking: The purpose of the division of the nations was to restrain sin. I quoted Harold Stigers. Rev. Joe Morecraft has made the same observation in another place, as have others. I am interested in hearing your plan for a unified society. Perhaps you’ve got some information I need to know.

Thomas Roche speaking: I don’t have a deeply defined plan, beyond evangelism, but we are still faced with a choice, unity or balkanization. Then we really would become like Yugoslavia.

[Editor's note: Before I wrote back to Roche, another skirmish broke out with Rev. Terry Gorden. Him calling me a secular humanist reminds me of the time Ted Waltrip called me a P.C. idiot.]

#31.

Originally from: AWVZ26A@prodigy.com ( TERRY D GORDEN)

Originally dated: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:39:56, -0500

Dennis,

You remind me of the controversy between Democrats and Republicans. When it really comes down to it, they are in the same bed. I believe that the same charge can be made about your conservative sociology and the liberal sociology that you hate. Neither is Bible centered.

You are lowering yourself to a secular humanist style in order to win points and influence people. And by doing so, you lose your credibility both with man and with God.

I have spent all of my time as an ordained pastor south of the Mason and Dixon line. The cultural differences between southern conservative Christian whites in the South is so large that another war could be fought. I spent too much of my time in Mississippi and Alabama to ignore this fact. But enough of that. I do not want to get on your train.

You have lots of interesting and often good thoughts. But your secular humanist manner of argumentation does not give you much of a chance of a hearing.

Terry Gorden

#32.

To: Terry D. Gorden

Sept. 6,

Dear Terry,

I read your message. My first thought was that I doubt secular humanists would agree with you. For instance, I can’t imagine Bill Clinton, Norman Lear, Jesse Jackson, Madonna, Whoopie Goldberg, and Barney Frank acknowledging that I am representative of their views.

Also, there exists a Humanist magazine. It’s quite difficult to square my views with the views in that magazine.

Since this is the second time you have mentioned this, I did some more thinking. (You have not given any examples of “secular humanism” in my perspective; and you haven’t shown any evidence of a tie between secular humanism and my perspective.) I decided that your statements exhibit one of four possibilities:

(1) I don’t know what secular humanism is;

(2) You don’t know what secular humanism is;

(3) You are confusing the discussion of secular topics with secular humanism;

(4) You believe my views are not only wrong but evil and you are therefore at liberty to attack me anyway you want to.

There may be other possibilities that I haven’t thought of, but this is what I’ve come up with so far. Since secular humanism is an anti-Christian religion that makes man the measure of all things and seeks unity among men as a substitute for unity between men and God, I take your charge quite seriously. If you would be so kind, I would ask you to do three simple things.

(1) Give a working definition or description of the phrase secular humanism;

(2) Show a few examples of statements I have made that demonstrate secular humanism;

(3) Show a little evidence of the tether between my views and secular humanism.

This could be a real benefit to me. So I anxiously await your reply.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: No reply was ever forthcoming from Rev. Gorden.]

#33.

To: Thomas Roche

September 5,

Thomas,

It appears to me there are still some unstated presuppostions that one or both of us are operating under that keep us from agreeing on what is important and unimportant within this topic, let alone what is the right answer and what is not. At one point you wrote: “You assert this, absolutely, without countering the contrary evidence I have provided.”

I certainly don’t want to be guilty of ducking a legitimate question. I want to give a full answer to all relevant questions. So I went back and looked at your answer. And according to the text I have, the above statement was quoted in its entirety. There was no contrary evidence tied to it. So you must be referring to something else.

I don’t know what it is and I think the reason is the problem I have stated above. But if there is any evidence you have presented that is relevant to the issue and I have not addressed it, would you please restate it? I’ll make sure to give it an answer.

Now you have asked about the Red Indians. I have not seen the relevance of that issue to this discussion and so have not answered it. If you think it is relevant, tell me why and I will.

The key issue as I see it is “What is a people?” And more specifically “Are the Southern people and the blacks living in the South one people and one nation?” My answer to the last one is no and your answer is yes.

If you disagree with this, then I don’t want to put words in your mouth. So, please, speak up.

(1) You wrote: “Yes, it doesn’t necessarily do so, but you yourself have allowed for amalgamations of various European ethnicities to create your “southern people”– I wait longingly for an assessment of why it would be impossible to also amalgamate the Africans thereinto.”

The amalgamation of other groups into the Southern people has been piecemeal and on such a small scale that the nation could easily absorb the outsiders and keep its identity. In fact, it hasn’t been an amalgamation of groups at all. It has been an amalgamation of individuals from other groups — a very important distinction. Germans, Dutch, and other Europeans have migrated to the South, married a Southerner, adopted our language and cultural ways, and, over time, become Southerners. This has been no problem.

To amalgamate the blacks would require the melding of two separate peoples into a new nation. The Southern people would no longer exist but a new nation would be created. While physically possible, certainly not advisable from either our point of view or that of the blacks.

Also, necessity threw the three European peoples together as one nation in 1861. The Scotch-Irish and the Cavaliers were more easily assimilible to one another than to the Cajuns, who remain distinctive. Nonetheless, it happened.

With the blacks, every external attempt has been made to force amalgamation to happen. And yet it hasn’t happened. There is hardly any intermarraige between the groups. And the great majority of what little intermarraige there is, falls by the wayside with relative ease.

Also, the Southern people will not accept the offspring of these unions as Southerners. They remain blacks, who aren’t particularly fond of them either.

Also, within the last 18 months CNN produced an expose about segregation in the churches. It called 11:00AM on Sunday morning the most segregated hour of the week.

I think the great differences between the two peoples — physically, emotionally, cognitively, culturally, etc. — is the reason for these phenomena.

The federal government had to pass laws forcing Southerners to sell their houses to blacks, forcing Southerners to hire them in their business establishments, forcing Southerners to accept social intercourse with them. It has not occurred very much by its own impetus.

(2) After I discussed the NT teaching on nations, empires, governments, etc., you wrote: “You have excellent points here. Trouble is, they’re not relevant to the discusison at hand.”

I believe the reason you hold this is that you don’t see the two peoples as separate and distinct, but as one. Therefore, you don’t see biblical points differentiating between nations and governments, nations and geographical proximity relevant. But again, this is only a guess on my part. You didn’t state why you don’t see my statements as relevant. You simply stated they were not.

But I see this of great importance. It shows us that the present-day policy of integration has been tried before. And it is part of the Bible’s fuller explanation of what a people and a nation is. And what it was that God divided in Genesis. And what will remain divided until at least the end of time.

In short, it shows us the viewpoint that God takes when looking at nations and peoples.

(3) You wrote: “Philemon isn’t exactly a blanket endorsement of slavery, you know, and certainly not the kidnapping based chattel slavery practiced here.”

I don’t see the slavery issue as relevant to the issue at hand except as evidence as to whether or not the Southern people and the blacks living in the South are indeed one people or not. But let me correct something you assert here.

The “kidnapping-based” charge will not stick. Although the slave trade was not carried on by Southerners, but was almost entirely a New England commerce, indeed much of the wealth of New England was built on money from the slave trade, still the New Englanders did not send raiding parties to Africa who would invade and capture free Africans running around in the bush.

No, the ships sent from New England were laden with rum. The rum was traded to the local African slavelord for the slaves. You might remember my quote from Rushdoony that slaves were used as money in Africa. The slavelords purchased the rum with the money at hand, slaves.

There were places off the coast of Africa where slave auctions would be held. The slavelords would bring their slaves there to these auction houses and sell them to European, North American, and Islamic slave traders.

Kidnapping was not part of the practice, as far as the New Englanders were concerned.

Also, my understanding of the term “chattel,” if used in conjunction with the slaves, would dehumanize them. By law, they had congressional representation, they had the right to apply to the local magistrate if they believed themselves to be unlawfully detained, they were protected from capital punishment from their masters, they were allowed to marry and have families, and many other things that separate them from “chattel,” if I understand the term correctly.

Most of the time, “chattel” is used as an emotional club rather than a term of enlightenment. I have seen it used on this list before in such a manner.

(4) In answer to my discussion about negotiating a settlement between the peoples rather than allowing it to devolve into an ethnic brawl, you asked: “What kind of settlement do you want to see negotiated?”

Although it will be hard to sell to the Southerners living in the affected area, I will favor giving up some of what is now Dixie to the blacks. What part that will be, I don’t know; basically, the areas in which they own the most property.

Louis Farrakhan has a plan and so do other black nationalist groups. I don’t want to accept their plans as delivered, but they do have some reasonable basis for them.

Of course, I’ve heard New York is real nice, with plenty of fertile farmland and great ports and financial centers. Perhaps the blacks would like to go there, to the new Promised Land.

But come what may, I’m essentially talking about an ethnic partition. As wild as that may seem, it’s happening all over the world. And it’s a megatrend I see continuing well into the next century. And I think Americans who believe this land is immune to it are playing the ostrich.

(5) After my roll call of the countries that have recently undergone ethnic warfare because of having two or more peoples share one land, you wrote: “But unlike those places, black and white southerners share a common language and religious tradition, and the vast majority of basic culturalia.”

I find this statement a real head-scratcher. Evidently you are accepting as reasonable the ethnic break up of these other countries, but believe it would be inappropriate, and perhaps even sinful, to allow it here.

The fact is that we are not one people, but different peoples as much as many of the peoples who separated in the lands mentioned. We don’t live together, but mostly in separate neighborhoods. We certainly don’t live together in the same families, and there has been very little legitimate admixture between us.

Your assertion about the same language is debatable. Recently there has been a flap about Ebonics, which evidently you don’t take seriously. It was alleged by black leaders that their people spoke a language different from English and the schools should recognize this. Although a local phenomenon, in Los Angeles, the idea gained widespread approval.

What I recognize is that English is a language that has been imposed on this people. They never would have thought it up themselves as it is foreign to the mindset I have talked about in the past that you have never addressed. (The divided languages God placed upon mankind did not only refer to the mechanical expression of the lips — the lips were not the only affected organ — but also to the manner in which concepts are conceived.) The mindset of the various African peoples is much different than the mindset of the various European peoples. This is just as true of the Southerner and the Africans living among us.

Also, we don’t worship together, much to the chagrin of the integrationists who endlessly badger white congregations for not being either open enough to blacks or not doing enough to bring affirmative action to the church and make special efforts to bring blacks in.

The histories of the peoples are quite different also. Despite the sorry moral and religious condition of our people today, we have descended from families of the Reformation. This isn’t true of the blacks. Their families have mostly been pagans as far as can be remembered. The only period in their collective lives when they were under the influence of the gospel to any great degree was the time when they lived under our tutelage as slaves.

Your idea about us sharing the same religion is also quite debatable. This for the reasons stated above and at least one other. For instance, our religious tradition is no more similar to theirs than those traditions of England and Wales, or England and Scotland. Yet those remain distinct peoples, with operating separatist movements in both Wales and Scotland.

The Southerner shares a similar language, religion, and cultural tradition with the British people, not the Africans in America.

I think you must explain this more thoroughly.

(6) You closed with: “I don’t have a deeply defined plan, beyond evangelism, but we are still faced with a choice, unity or balkanization. Then we really would become like Yugoslavia.”

Your plan effectively amounts to “more of the same.” Evangelism has been ongoing since 1965. If we are left with no other choice, then we are consigned to slavery and ultimately, destruction.

Also, you speak of balkanization as though it is a negative concept. I see it as a very positive concept totally in line with God’s creation order of separate peoples and separate nations. Now it is an evil matter that the people had to come to war with one another to balkanize, but the worst evil occurred when the Communists united the peoples in the hope of destroying God’s creation order.

Once this had been imposed on them, I think it quite cruel to sentence them to eternal unity by calling attempts to win their freedom sin. But Secretary of State James Baker essentially did this when he went to Belgrade and implored them not to separate. (Much like George Bush’s “Chicken Kiev” speech when he counseled the Ukrainians not to seek independence from Russia.)

You have claimed not to be an advocate of the New World Order. I have accepted this. But I think you should see that your program effectively consigns the peoples of the world to that condition, despite the fact that this is not your intention.

And even in this you are not consistent. It seems that you accept the separation of many of the world’s peoples, but deny it to the Southerner alone.

I think it’s your turn to present a comprehensive and consistent plan that both respects God’s creation order and serves your concepts of unity.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

We are a band of brothers related to the soil, Fighting for her liberty with treasure, blood, and toil. And when the Yanks came calling, the cry rose near and far. We’ll rally ’round the bonny blue flag that bears the single star.

Hurrah, hurrah, for Southern rights hurrah. We’ll rally ’round the bonny blue flag that bears the single star.

#34.

Originally from: Thomas P Roche

Originally dated: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:43:03 -0400 (EDT)

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I certainly don’t want to be guilty of ducking a legitimate question. I want to give a full answer to all relevant questions. So I went back and looked at your answer. And according to the text I have, the above statement was quoted in its entirety. There was no contrary evidence tied to it. So you must be referring to something else.

Thomas Roche speaking: Out of context and at this late date, I am unclear as to what you refer.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Now you have asked about the Red Indians. I have not seen the relevance of that issue to this discussion and so have not answered it. If you think it is relevant, tell me why and I will.

Thomas Roche speaking: I remain unclear as to their role in the South, as they are the original inhabitants thereof, and to whether you justify the white folks’ forcible removal thereof.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: The key issue as I see it is “What is a people?” And more specifically “Are the Southern people and the blacks living in the South one people and one nation?” My answer to the last one is no and your answer is yes. If you disagree with this, then I don’t want to put words in your mouth. So, please, speak up.

Thomas Roche speaking: No, you have it.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: To amalgamate the blacks would require the melding of two separate peoples into a new nation. The Southern people would no longer exist but a new nation would be created. While physically possible, certainly not advisable from either our point of view or that of the blacks.

Thomas Roche speaking: Why is this?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: With the blacks, every external attempt has been made to force amalgamation to happen. And yet it hasn’t happened. There is hardly any intermarraige between the groups. And the great majority of what little intermarraige there is, falls by the wayside with relative ease.

Also, the Southern people will not accept the offspring of these unions as Southerners. They remain blacks, who aren’t particularly fond of them either.

Thomas Roche speaking: Can you justify these attitudes, on the part of either blacks or whites?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Also, within the last 18 months CNN produced an expose about segregation in the churches. It called 11:00AM on Sunday morning the most segregated hour of the week.

Thomas Roche speaking: Again, is this biblically justified?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I think the great differences between the two peoples — physically, emotionally, cognitively, culturally, etc. — is the reason for these phenomena.

The federal government had to pass laws forcing Southerners to sell their houses to blacks, forcing Southerners to hire them in their business establishments, forcing Southerners to accept social intercourse with them.

It has not occurred very much by its own impetus.

Thomas Roche speaking: Again, justify this racism, which is exactly what it is.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I see this of great importance. It shows us that the present-day policy of integration has been tried before. And it is part of the Bible’s fuller explanation of what a people and a nation is. And what it was that God divided in Genesis. And what will remain divided until at least the end of time.

Thomas Roche speaking: You are committing an exegetical leap here, and conveniently forgetting why it is the black folks are in the south in the first place.

Dennis Wheeler speakingL: In short, it shows us the viewpoint that God takes when looking at nations and peoples.

Thomas Roche speaking: Prove that God views white Cjuns and Crackers as one people, but the blacks as another.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: The “kidnaping-based” charge will not stick. Although the slave trade was not carried on by Southerners, but was almost entirely a New England commerce, indeed much of the wealth of New England was built on money from the slave trade, still the New Englanders did not send raiding parties to Africa who would invade and capture free Africans running around in the bush.

No, the ships sent from New England were laden with rum. The rum was traded to the local African slavelord for the slaves. You might remember my quote from Rushdoony that slaves were used as money in Africa.

The slavelords purchased the rum with the money at hand, slaves. There were places off the coast of Africa where slave auctions would be held. The slavelords would bring their slaves there to these auction houses and sell them to European, North American, and Islamic slave traders.

Kidnapping was not part of the practice, as far as the New Englanders were concerned.

Thomas Roche speaking: If I buy a kidnapped man, I share in the kidnapper’s guilt.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Also, my understanding of the term “chattel,” if used in conjunction

with the slaves, would dehumanize them. By law, they had congressional representation, they had the right to apply to the local magistrate if they believed themselves to be unlawfully detained, they were protected from capital punishment from their masters, they were allowed to marry and have families, and many other things that separate them from “chattel,” if I understand the term correctly.

Thomas Roche speaking: You insult my intelligence, Brother. ‘Married’ couples could be sold apart, and I doubt that a slave, even had he been given liberty to learn to read, could have ‘written his congressman’. Simply put, you are distorting facts here, for a dubious agenda.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Although it will be hard to sell to the Southerners living in the affected area, I will favor giving up some of what is now Dixie to the blacks. What part that will be, I don’t know; basically, the areas in which they own the most property.

Louis Farrakhan has a plan and so do other black nationalist groups. I don’t want to accept their plans as delivered, but they do have some reasonable basis for them. Of course, I’ve heard New York is real nice, with plenty of fertile farmland and great ports and financial centers. Perhaps the blacks would like to go there, to the new Promised Land.

Thomas Roche speaking: B;ack folks have been here since the earliest days of New Netherland. They are welcome, but not to all the land. Besides, the natives are still here, the reservation is just down the road.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: But come what may, I’m essentially talking about an ethnic partition. As wild as that may seem, it’s happening all over the world. And it’s a megatrend I see continuing well into the next century. And I think Americans who believe this land is immune to it are playing the ostrich.

Thomas Roche speaking: Which will foster war.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I find this statement a real head-scratcher. Evidently you are accepting as reasonable the ethnic break up of these other countries, but believe it would be inappropriate, and perhaps even sinful, to allow it here.

Thomas Roche speaking: Where real cultural difference exists, certainly.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Your assertion about the same language is debatable. Recently there has been a flap about Ebonics, which evidently you don’t take seriously. It was alleged by black leaders that their people spoke a language different from English and the schools should recognize this. Although a local phenomenon, in Los Angeles, the idea gained widespread approval.

Thomas Roche speaking: The vast majority of blacks rejected it.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: What I recognize is that English is a language that has been imposed on this people. They never would have thought it up themselves as it is foreign to the mindset I have talked about in the past that you have never addressed. (The divided languages God placed upon mankind did not only refer to the mechanical expression of the lips — the lips were not the only affected organ — but also to the manner in which concepts are conceived.)

The mindset of the various African peoples is much different than the mindset of the various European peoples. This is just as true of the Southerner and the Africans living among us.

Thomas Roche speaking: This is arrant nonsense, and I suspect you know no linguistics. A basic test– what is an affricate? Remember, I am a scholar of classical languages.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: The histories of the peoples are quite different also. Despite the sorry moral and religious condition of our people today, we have descended from families of the Reformation. This isn’t true of the blacks. Their families have mostly been pagans as far as can be remembered. The only period in their collective lives when they were under the influence of the gospel to any great degree was the time when they lived under our tutelage as slaves.

Thomas Roche speaking: You conveniently ignored my reminder about your ancestors’ state in 500 ad. Why?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Your idea about us sharing the same religion is also quite debatable. This for the reasons stated above and at least one other. For instance, our religious tradition is no more similar to theirs than those traditions of England and Wales, or England and Scotland. Yet those remain distinct peoples, with operating separatist movements in both Wales and Scotland. The Southerner shares a similar language, religion, and cultural tradition with the British people, not the Africans in America. I think you must explain this more thoroughly.

Thomas Roche speaking: Why, your teachings are nonsense.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Your plan effectively amounts to “more of the same.” Evangelism has been ongoing since 1965. If we are left with no other choice, then we are consigned to slavery and ultimately, destruction.

Also, you speak of balkanization as though it is a negative concept. I see it as a very positive concept totally in line with God’s creation order of separate peoples and separate nations. Now it is an evil matter that the people had to come to war with one another to balkanize, but the worst evil occurred when the Communists united the peoples in the hope of destroying God’s creation order.

Thomas Roche speaking: You think Bosnia a garden spot? You move there.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: You have claimed not to be an advocate of the New World Order. I have accepted this. But I think you should see that your program effectively consigns the peoples of the world to that condition, despite the fact that this is not your intention.

Thomas Roche speaking: Define the New World Order for us.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: And even in this you are not consistent. It seems that you accept the separation of many of the world’s peoples, but deny it to the Southerner alone.

Thomas Roche speaking: I ask: What will happen to the black folks in your south? Can a Yankee become a Southerner by moving there? Where are the territorial limits of the South? Who are the Southerners?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I think it’s your turn to present a comprehensive and consistent plan that both respects God’s creation order and serves your concepts of unity.

Thomas Roche speaking: What is God’s creation order?

#35.

To: Thomas Roche

Sept. 13

Dear Thomas,

So far our exchange has not been much of a discussion or debate. No. It’s been more of a cross-examination. It’s time for you to come forth with some ideas of your own. I’ve answered enough questions for now and believe I have explained my perspective fully, especially when compared to what you’ve come out with.

You say that my ideas on linguistics are “arrant nonsense.” Then, instead of showing that to be true you state your credentials. BTW, I didn’t forget you are a linguistic scholar. Fact is, I never knew it to forget it.

And since you are a scholar, it should be easy for you to show how my perspective is “arrant nonsense.” What you’ve done is kind of like what happened to the guy who went to the doctor and heard the doctor pronounce him a very sick man. And then, instead of the doctor telling him what was wrong with him and what to do about it, the doctor told the guy he had gone to Harvard Medical School. At the time, that wasn’t doing anyone any good.

And so it is with your linguistic scholarship. With such a formidable background, it should be easy for you to refute the “arrant nonsense” of someone who doesn’t even know what an “affricate” is.

Also, we are still waiting for your biblical definition of “racism” or some biblical justification for using the word.

Last time I wrote: “I think it’s your turn to present a comprehensive and consistent plan that both respects God’s creation order and serves your concepts of unity.”

And your response was another question: “What is God’s creation order?”

I think I’ve explained myself on that issue several times. It’s your turn. If you have some perspective we need to see and understand, out with it.

You have claimed my perspective is “nonsense.” Now let’s see your ideas and how much sense they make.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

#36.

Originally from: Thomas P Roche

Originally dated: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:39:14 -0400 (EDT)

Thomas Roche speaking: Last response to Dennis:

Dear Dennis:

Dennis Wheeler speaking: So far our exchange has not been much of a discussion or debate. No. It’s been more of a cross-examination. It’s time for you to come forth with some ideas of your own. I’ve answered enough questions for now and believe I have explained my perspective fully, especially when compared to what you’ve come out with.

Thomas Roche speaking: Lemme see here– I have been consistently responding to you rpoints and asking counter-questions, but your general m.o. is to ignore my questions and rephrase your questions, as though I didn’t hear them, and hadn’t responded.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: You say that my ideas on linguistics are “arrant nonsense.” Then, instead of showing that to be true you state your credentials. BTW, I didn’t forget you are a linguistic scholar. Fact is, I never knew it to forget it.

And since you are a scholar, it should be easy for you to show how my perspective is “arrant nonsense.” What you’ve done is kind of like what happened to the guy who went to the doctor and heard the doctor pronounce him a very sick man. And then, instead of the doctor telling him what was wrong with him and what to do about it, the doctor told the guy he had gone to Harvard Medical School. At the time, that wasn’t doing anyone any good.

And so it is with your linguistic scholarship. With such a formidable background, it should be easy for you to refute the “arrant nonsense” of someone who doesn’t even know what an affricate is.

Thomas Roche speaking: OK, here goes, the nutty “lip size” crapola you slopped about as a suppossed proof of black folks’ inability to speak correct English is belied daily by millions of blacks who speak flawless English as their mother tongues (various dialects thereof), in many many countries. You do know this, don’t you? The fact that their lips tend to be thicker than ours is as irrelevant as the difference in their hair.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Also, we are still waiting for your biblical definition of “racism” or some biblical justification for using the word.

Thomas Roche speaking: Racism is not a biblically defined concept, per se, sir, neither is gravity.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Last time I wrote: “I think it’s your turn to present a comprehensive and consistent plan that both respects God’s creation order and serves your concepts of unity.”

And your response was another question: “What is God’s creation order?”

I think I’ve explained myself on that issue several times. It’s your turn. If you have some perspective we need to see and understand, out with it.

You have claimed my perspective is “nonsense.” Now let’s see your ideas and how much sense your ideas make.

Thomas Roche speaking: I could continue with this debate, but owing to Mr Wheeler’s record of consistently racist advocacy and practice here and on other lists and even within his own southernism partisanship circles, I choose instead to disavow further fruitless discussions with him and brand him as the repentance-requiring racialist that he is.

Thomas Roche

[Editor’s note: I noticed that in Roche’s next to last post he seemed to be getting a little frustrated. But I didn’t expect him to blow his cork like this. I wonder what set him off?

Still, the lesson of this debate is that the integrationist churchmen have no leg to stand on. They preach their doctrine because it’s easy, not because it’s true.

And there’s another lesson to be learned here. When a people will stand up for themselves and not be dissuaded, it unleashes a power and a fury that’s very hard to deal with. This must be reinstilled in the Southern people. We are a separate people with our God-given right to govern ourselves in our own land unfettered by others. We must demand that right and let no one keep us from it. The world will someday tremble before us, if we will only stand together as one.

THE END

The posts in the debate will demonstrate what a vast ignorance exists today among many of the best ministers in America, even the South. It will also demonstrate how intimidated the vast majority of ministers are to deal forthrightly and truthfully with the subject of “race.” And it will further demonstrate how that this intimidation has become so ingrained in the minds of the intimidated that they cannot even discuss the subject objectively and dispassionately as they would virtually every other topic dealt with in the Christian ministry.

Part 1

1#

At 09:01 8/24/97 -0400, you wrote:

What is Christian Identity?

Quickly, Hank, it is a new and nasty variant on the old “British Israeliteism”. The “ten lost tribes” are really the western Europeans and white folk here in America. Jews, blacks, and so on are (depending on if you talk to Christian Identity Lite or Pro) second class humans or demonic animals. Lots in the KKK, Aryan Nation, and so on have bought into this, as it gives a supposed Biblical basis for their wickedness. It is, of course, a gross perversion of Scripture and the Gospel itself, for it tends strongly to a confidence in the (bogus) ancestry instead of the Covenant of Grace, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. See ya.

Phil Pockras

Minister, Belle Center, Ohio, USA, congregation

Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America

#2.

Originally from: “Hank Ingram”

Originally dated: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 06:44:17 -0400

We don’t have this in the South. Racism is still fairly ingrained in our society so these folks would get a yawn.

Hank

3#

Originally from: “Rev. Chuck Baynard”

Originally dated: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:03:15 -0400

Hank,

Wake up and smell the coffee. Tis right here with us; this monster born of the devil is nourished by racism.

chuck

———http://www.loclnet.com/epc (Church Home Page)

http://www.loclnet.com/co (The Christian Observer Home Page)

(Editor’s note: With the last message from Rev. Chuck Baynard, I thought it was time for me to wade into the discussion. I had no idea where it would lead, but I hoped for the best. All I knew at the time was that here was Rev. Baynard, talking about racism in the South.)

4#.

August 26,

Chuck, I’d be interested to hear a little explanation of your perspective on the existence and definition of “racism.”

I would say that it’s integration that has given impetus to the rise in the Christian Identity movement in the South. Because integration runs counter to God’s creation order of separate peoples and separate nations, integration, on any wide-scale, inevitably causes bitterness, hatred, malice, and murder. I see it as a violation of the sixth commandment.

And from the manner in which I’ve seen the word used, I can find no corresponding concept in the Bible or in historic Christianity. I see “racism” as a term and concept of very recent origin, that includes concepts that run contrary to the Bible.

For instance, in Titus 1:12,13, the Apostle Paul writes: “One of themselves, evan a prophet of their own, said; `The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. Wherefore, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.”

I know of no definition of “racism” that doesn’t include such a statement, which would make both Paul and the Holy Spirit guilty of it if indeed it is a valid concept. And if it a valid concept which is a moral evil, then it seems that both Paul and the Holy Spirit are morally culpable.

So I’ve set you out an important task. You need to explain your perspective in a way that doesn’t level moral condemnation at God Himself, which, until shown otherwise, I think is inherent in the term “racism.”

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

5#

Originally from: “Hank Ingram”

Originally dated: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:06:14 -0400

Someone had written the following sentence: “And as a Southerner I would appreciate your giving me some examples of racism being “fairly ingrained in our [Southern] society”….

Here was Hank’s answer:

We still have “black” schools and “white” schools locally. Some schools are almost all black and some are almost all white. We are building new “white” schools but no new “black”schools. Most of this is due to the shadow of Jim Crow where blacks were kept in certain areas. Although black enrollment is increasing, we are not updating the black schools. I won’t even mention the segregation in churches.

Hank

(Editor’s note: I thought I should ask Hank a few questions.)

6#

August 26,

Hank,

In a previous post, you wrote: “We still have “black” schools and “white” schools locally. Some schools are almost all black and some are almost all white.”

You have stated that “racism” is “fairly ingrained in our [Southern] society.” As an example of this you have made the above statement. I assume you believe “racism” to be a moral negative, although you haven’t stated this. And I also assume you believe segregated schools to be a moral negative, although you’ve made no case for this.

I am curious to know why you believe separate schools to be a moral negative and integrated schools to be morally superior?

You also wrote: “Although black enrollment is increasing, we are not updating the black schools.”

I am also curious to know what this means. I assume that by this you mean the county, state, and federal governments are not spending money in equitable allotments for schools that are predominantly black in porportion to the money they are spending on schools that are predominantly white. But that is just a guess.

And one more; You wrote: “I won’t even mention the segregation in churches.”

In the end, I may be glad you didn’t. But I’d like to say that the home and the church are the most intimate institutions and thus the hardest to integrate. I say this because in order to exercise the traits of an entire person, one’s culture and nationality must be exercised. In an intimate relationship that is integrated racially and/or culturally, one party must inevitably submerge the traits peculiar to his race, nation, and culture.

The church I attend is quite integrated. But it is a white church culturally, and the worship service reflects this. Sooner or later the integration will cause some trouble; and that will come when the blacks begin demanding the worship service and/or the church programs to reflect their blackness. As long as the blacks who attend are content to act “white,” the integration can work. When that changes, the whites will have to either submerge their culture or leave. I imagine that many will leave. But for now at least, no problem has emerged and hopefully, it will stay that way for a long time.

The same issues are at work in a family. That is why I think there is so little integration in the families, especially the Christian families.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

(Editor’s note: My questions and comments to Hank Ingram brought another gentleman into the fray. This was Rev. Terry Gorden.)

7#

Originally from: AWVZ26A@prodigy.com ( TERRY D GORDEN)

Originally dated: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:09:55, -0500

Dennis,

Just look at the dirty geneology of Jesus. How could he be called perfect when he had those fereners Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba in his family tree? Violation of the 6th commandment????

Did Boaz sin when he married someone from a separate nation?

I see God looking at sinful integration as the marriage and/or unequally yoked partnership between the people of the kingdom of God and the people of the kingdom of this world. We see this with Samson, Solomon, and even godly Jehoshaphat who was a partner with wicked

King Ahab, and whose son married the son of Ahab and Jezabel. When the sons of God notice that the daughters of men are beautiful and take them for wives or when Christians become business partners with pagans in an unbiblical manner, then we are looking at unbiblical integration.

Defining any sin biblically is very important, and I commend you for sticking it to us, but eisegesis is also a serious act that I believe that you are guilty of.

I have been a pastor in the South, and it really depends on where you are and the South and the group of people with whom you are dealing.

There is not such thing as the “SOUTH.” There are portions of Alabama that are almost like foreign countries compared to other portions of Alabama.

Terry

8#

To: Terry D. Gorden

August 26,

Terry,

I qualified my remarks by refering to “integration, on any wide-scale,” which in my mind doesn’t include the occasional marraige to an outsider. In my way of thinking, a nation can absorb a limited number of outsiders and still retain its identity and remain true to the implications of God’s actions at the Tower of Babel and the separation of the nations (Gen. 9-11).

What I am refering to is the American policy of uniting two separate peoples as one. This not only violates the sixth commandment, in my view, but also has been the expressed desire of God’s enemies throughout world history. First Nimrod, then the Babylonians, then the Assyrians, then Alexander the Great — who gave great monetary rewards to Europeans within his empire who would marry Persians — then the Romans, and more recently, the Communists.

I believe the American policy demonstrates the influence communism has gained on the peoples and country. For the Christian Church to embrace this policy is probably its greatest failing in today’s society.

I was surprised to see you charge me with eisegesis, in my view, this is exactly what the modern-day proponents of integration are guilty of. They have taken a communist policy, ie. Yugoslavia, the new South Africa, Russification of the Baltics, etc., and imported it into the Scriptures, finding texts here and there that at first blush seem to supports some portions of the ideas being imported.

Philosophically, the American policy of integration is essentially unitarian in principle, as opposed to being trinitarian. It holds up as an ideal the unity of mankind, whereas the Bible teaches us that the diversity of mankind is also a valid concept, not to be tampered with. To quote Harold Stigers from his commentary on Genesis: “It may be said that, in general, nationalism is best for the world in its present state of sin and that to destroy those national boundaries is contrary to God’s present will. It may also be said that God’s wrath will fall on those people who by creating empires provide conditions that facilitate the increase of sin and so weaken men. God even causes empires to come to an end to hold down the increase of sin.”

Two comments on this: In America, we have seen a manifold increase in sin since the institution of the integration policy. And, second, as God has destroyed integrationist empires of the past, and we’ve seen the dissolution of the Soviet Empire in our lifetimes, I would expect him to destroy the United States too. And I believe that those Christians who go to judgement day having supported the American integration policy will have much to answer for. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.

Now I cannot accept your assertion that “there is no such thing as the South.” I believe we constitute a separate people. The Southern people are the descendants of two great immigrant waves to America. About 225,000 Scotch-Irish first settled in the Carolinas from 1625-1675. And about 40,000 Cavaliers settled Virgina shortly before that time. The great majority of Southerners can trace their physical lineage back to one of these two great immigrations. The Civil War was the defining event that forged these peoples as one nation. And at that time some other peoples joined with us with minority status, such as the Cajuns of Louisiana. We now have our own history, our own flag, our own heroes, our own dialects, our own folkways, including art, cooking, and music. In short, we are as much a nation as the Japanese or the Germans, except that we do not control our internal or external affairs. Since 1865 we have not controlled our external affairs, and since 1965 we have not controlled our internal affairs. Nonetheless, the Tibetans have been subjugated by the Chinese for a much longer period yet have still retained their identity and peoplehood.

Although the African-Americans have figured prominently in our history, we are a people whether or not we had ever come into contact with one of them. But from Northern Virginia to Orlando, from the Atlanta Ocean to El Paso, we constitute one of the great peoples of the earth.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

9#

Originally from: “Rev. Chuck Baynard”

Originally dated: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:21:30 -0400

Dennis,

Racism isn’t in the Bible per se” (by word) but neither are other words that are part of sound teaching (trinity for example). While the word race as such isn’t used the word nations is, usually coming from the root word we use for ethnic. What is the difference between the Biblical nations, the missionaries ethnic groups, and race? God is no respecter of person, and Paul tells us there is neither Jew nor Greek. While these definitely refer to the heart or spiritual condition they can have racial implications, so racism would be wrong. I find no qualifier in the command love your neighbor as yourself.

Confronting a person, or in your example a race of people where sin abounds is Biblical. Separating the body into racial groups is not of God, but man.

Don’t know how I got in this one, but the ball isn’t in my court. That “Racism” exists is very evident to all but the most blind among us. The why is also simple the big T also continues its march in time. That it (racism) can be aggravated by forced busing, equal rights etc. isn’t debatable. Yet, heavy handed or not, it is the law of the land and cannot be used to cause

hatred where God has commanded love. Mankind has an awful hard time doing two things: “…so examine yourself…” and “…don’t think of yourself more highly …” We dislike being “forced” to do anything, and that includes obedience to God’s word; so we play word games from our rears

instead of going into the world with His precious message.

chuck

(Editor’s note: Hank Ingram wasn’t through with me yet. Here he answers the questions I posed to him earlier.)

10#

Originally from: “Hank Ingram”

Originally dated: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:58:01 -0400

Dennis,

You wrote: “I am curious to know why you believe separate schools to be a moral negative and integrated schools to be morally superior?”

Schools where children are separated by race(as opposed to schools where they don’t mix) are inherently wrong. God made us all, no matter the race. Children have no choice when it comes to race. To demand they separate is evil IMHO.

You also wrote: “I am also curious to know what this means. I assume that by this you mean the county, state, and federal governments are not spending money in equitable allotments for schools that are predominantly black in porportion to the money they are spending on schools that are predominantly white. But that is just a guess.”

Black schools receive less money locally. That is a documented fact. Squeaky wheels receive the grease in our county government and whites still have a good control over government.

You also wrote: “In the end, I may be glad you didn’t. But I’d like to say that the home and the church are the most intimate institutions and thus the hardest to integrate. I say this because in order to exercise the traits of an entire person, one’s culture and nationality must be exercised. In an intimate relationship that is integrated racially and/or culturally, one party must inevitably submerge the traits peculiar to his race, nation, and culture.”

I am unaware of any white traits. There are traits related to different regions and cultures but it is not inbred. I have known blacks who attended white churches but left. It wasn’t because the churches didn’t act “black” but because they didn’t feel welcome. We have an oriental family attending our church. They don’t stay because the church acts “oriental” but because they feel welcome.

Hank

11#

To: Hank Ingram

August 26,

PS. — I’m putting the PS up front because I see you have answered my post to Terry Gorden before I could finish answering your post from this morning. I answered Terry’s post first and was half-way through answering your’s when I broke to go to the gym, which I do four nights a week. When I returned, you had already answered the other post. I’ll get to that one tomorrow.

Hank,

I read your post with great interest. Let me make a few comments,

First, you wrote: “Schools where children are separated by race (as opposed to schools where they don’t mix) are inherently wrong. God made us all, no matter the race. Children have no choice when it comes to race. To demand they separate is evil IMHO.”

This is obviously a strongly held perspective of yours. I’m not sure if you simply don’t have time to state your principles fully, or if you just don’t want to get into it, or what. But something as important as this is to you should be fully discussed. You have stated that forced segregation is inherently wrong, with no qualifier. And you have appealed solely to God’s creation of the human race as a support to your position. You haven’t made it clear what the implications of the creation are that makes this practice inherently wrong, so it’s hard to carry on any meaningful discussion.

I will say that in the South, our fathers fought against school integration for many decades believing that it would harm their children and our people if it took place. I think the integrationists’ experiment has proven our fathers right.

First, our children have experienced vast oppression, violence, and intimidation at the hands of blacks in the schools. I attended an integrated middle school in Daytona Beach 30 years ago and had to fight the blacks trying to extort or steal money from smaller white children many times. Also, the day after Martin Luther King was murdered, we whites were forced to line up in formation armed with sticks, broken bottles, and any other weapon at hand to stave off the black mass that was also armed and preparing for an attack. I’ve seen times in Atlanta when white parents at three high schools at the same time were holding their children out of school, fearing black violence. On this score, the segregationists were correct and the integrationists have been proven woefully ignorant of the unintended consequences of their actions.

Second, as Dabney argued in his essay “The Negro and the Free School,” the level of education must necessarily decline for whites in an integrated school. Although he knew from observation what has been borne out by both intelligence tests and books like “The Bell Curve,” government schools must pander to the lowest common denominator. The blacks, measuring about one standard deviation below whites in intelligence, have necessarily dragged the level of education down.

Third, in Corinthians, the Apostle Paul laid out the principle “Bad morals corrupts good company.” Although it is not all attributable to integrated schooling, it is true that white illegitimate birth rates have risen to the point where black rates stood in 1965, 22%. At the same time, black illegitimate birth rates have risen exponentially, officially standing at 65% today.

I have an idea that continued integration in the schools will have a large hand in raising the white rates much higher over time.

Culturally, history has need been rewritten to make it palatable to blacks. White children have been told that all the problems of America are their fault. This is much like the treatment an abused child gets, always being told the problems of the family are his fault. Southern children have for 30 years been subject to this mind molestation.

I can’t understand it if you are ignoring these awful maladies and pronouncing segregated schooling an inherent evil. Perhaps you weren’t aware of them. But I see many good and legitimate reasons for keeping segregated schools.

You also wrote: “I am unaware of any white traits. There are traits related to different regions and cultures but it is not inbred. I have known blacks who attended white churches but left. It wasn’t because the churches didn’t act “black” but because they didn’t feel welcome. We have an oriental family attending our church. They don’t stay because the church acts “oriental” but because they feel welcome.”

I was referring to cultural traits. I read a lot of the Christian Reconstructionists’ material and these books speak a great deal about culture. I’m not sure if you read these things or not. I am sure that much has been written by Presbyterians about the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28. And I know Francis Nigel Lee has written a great deal about the culture of peoples.

What you seem to be doing here is denying the existence of culture, a virtual denial that different peoples have different cultures. I hate to put words in the mouths of others, so I’ll wait until you have declared your principles further before walking down this road anymore.

As for white cultural traits, since this discussion began with an attempt to identify why Christian Identity had grown in the South, I’ll focus on Southern culture. First, we speak English. And Southerners have their own peculiar dialects. Most blacks have a very difficult time with the English language. Second, country music is a carry over from the music our ancestors used in merry old England. Black music is nothing like our music, although some blacks sing opera, others like Charlie Pride, sing country. This is not a musical form that emanates from that people. Third, in worship, white sermons deal with abstract ideas far more than black sermons. Black theology is quite distinctive from Calvinistic, Reformed theology. Black worship is much more emotionally based and much less cognitive than white worship. I could go on and on; food, clothing, art, writing ( recently I was on a plane with a group of blacks and one read a recent poem by a black author about killing the cops that were oppressing the brothers. This is in keeping with black culture rather than white culture.)

Heroes, flags, anthems, histories, and more all go together in forming the culture of a people. I didn’t realize this was arguable. But, I was wrong.

A stark reminder of the separate cultures and ideals of the whites and the blacks were the actions of the 10 black jurors on the O.J. Simpson jury. The jury, itself an Anglo-Saxon invention, is charged with applying the law to the facts presented before them and passing judgement on the defendant. These 10 failed to do this, but saw the situation as a black-white issue. They saw it as their duty to come to the aid of their embattled black brother. The two non-whites on the jury, who at first voted for a “guilty” verdict, were quickly intimidated by the 10 blacks and capitulated compounding the injustice of the murders committed.

If you can convince those 10 jurors that there are no peoples, only people, then perhaps I’ll rethink the issue.

I’ll just close with this quote by Charles Hodge: “The differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now…. these variaties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose… God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Dennis Wheeler

(Editor’s note: The next entrant into the discussion was Professor Al Freundt. He is the professor emeritus of church history and Reformed Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.)

12#

Originally from:

Originally dated: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:33:15 -0400 (EDT)

When my PCUS Presbytery was asked to accept the Black churches and ministers into the geographical presbytery from the ethnic presbytery in which they held membership, the godly (conservative, fundamentalistic ) white, geographical presbytery refused. Some of us REFORMED and CONSERVATIVE ministers argued: (1) the Lord – the king and head of the church – did not make race a qualification for salvation, for church membership, or for entrance into heaven. We argued that the church had no right to make laws for membership into the presbytery that were different from those from the king and head of the church. By a slim vote a year or two later in 1968 or 1969 my presbytery voted to receive the black churches and ministers into its membership. This angered the conservatives so much, that wihtin a few years they withdrew to become a part of the PCA. There are not a lot of black churches in the PCA, if any.

Al Freundt

13#

Originally from:

Originally dated: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:38:47 -0400 (EDT)

Sorry, Dennis, but Christ is the King and Head of the Church, and he has made actually no racial distinctions for salvation, for membership in the church, or for entrance into heaven. In Christ there is no racial distinction in the Church. The church is not to be conformed to the society in the world.

Al Freundt

(Editor’s note: I had to answer him.)

14#

To: Al Freundt

August 27

Dear Al,

Yesterday you wrote: “Sorry, Dennis, but Christ is the King and Head of the Church, and he has made actually no racial distinctions for salvation, for membership in the church, or for entrance into heaven. In Christ there is no racial distinction in the Church. The church is not to be conformed to the society in the world.”

In the Old Testament law, converts to Judaism and certain new citizens to the Hebrew commonwealth were excluded from full participation for differing lengths of time due to the degree of moral debauchery their former cultures and societies possessed. This practice, of course, had God’s full sanction. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) addressed a similar issue. Major conflicts would arise in the church because of the cultural differences of Christians from various people groups, which by the way, is the same issue faced by both missionaries in some foreign lands today as well as by the Southern Presbyterian Church in the 1960s. Rushdoony has this to say:

“It would appear from the evidence of the law that, first, a restrictive membership or citizenship was a part of the practice of Israel by law. There is evidence of a like standard in the New Testament church; instead of being forced into rigid uniformity, Gentiles and Jews were free to establish their separate congregations and maintain their distinctive character. Moreover, Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, makes clear that the differences in cultural heritage and stages of moral development and spiritual growth made possible major conflicts in case of uniform membership. As a result, separate congregations were authorized. On the other hand, Jews were not barred from Gentile congregations, so that, while restrictive groups were valid, integrated groups were not invalid.”

In the 1960s South, integrated churches carried the connotation of an integrated society which segregationists in general believed would produce the ugly situation now existing in American society. The Council of Jerusalem had established the principle that congregations were not required to totally change their cultural expressions for the sake of uniformity. They were only required to change certain specific practices that expressly transgressed the law of God.

So as to the technical point of whether the churches should integrate or keep segregated, I think those who wished to integrate were free to do so and those who wished not to were equally free to do so. Therefore, the integrating of the PCUS, followed by the split of the segregationists, wasn’t necessarily a bad thing as the church’s unity does not demand uniformity.

On the other hand, those who wished to integrate because they were being compelled to do so by the forces of revolutionary humanism, the spirit of the age, were serving a false god and burning Ceasar’s incense. I try not to judge people’s motives, so I’ll let you decide where you are on the spectrum.

Today the situation is much different. The society has already had the moral collapse the segregationists saw coming. It is a fait accompli. An integrated church doesn’t carry the important moral consequences for the society that it did in the 1960s. Like I said, I attend an integrated church. My Sunday School teacher is a black man. Fine fellow he.

But what I expect to happen is this: the American society will go the way of all multi-ethnic societies and at some point in the future the government will collapse under its own weight of debt, corruption, and decay. This will happen because of God’s creation order of separte peoples and separate nations. Then, like the situations we’ve seen in Yugoslavia and Burundi, we’ll see ethnic wars in which no factor will be important other than which group you belong to. And when North America is divided ethnically, the process will start all over again.

In a second post you wrote: “When my PCUS Presbytery was asked to accept the Black churches and ministers into the geographical presbytery from the ethnic presbytery in which they held membership, the godly (conservative, fundamentalistic ) white, geographical presbytery refused…. By a slim vote a year or two later in 1968 or 1969 my presbytery voted to receive the black churches and ministers into its membership. This angered the conservatives so much, that within a few years they withdrew to become a part of the PCA. There are not a lot of black churches in the PCA, if any.”

I’m glad you have demonstrated the tether between ethnocentricity and the history of the Southern Presbyterian Church. If I’m not mistaken, the slavery issue was one of the driving forces in the original split of the Prebyterian Church into northern and southern organizations. (By the way, now that the Southern Church has recanted and accepted the Yankee [read Humanist Nimrodian] view of slavery and ethnocentrism, they have merrily rejoined forces.

The PCA was intended to carry on the Southern Presbyterian position. Although I’ve never been there, it is my understanding that in the beginning, the men’s dormitories at Reformed Seminary in Jackson were named Dabney Hall and Thornwell Hall, two of the most prolific Southern Presbyterians in American history.

It is quite ironic that since the Civil Rights War of the 1960s, when the mainline denominations took an anti-trinitarian, pro-unitarian position by accepting the tenets of the Civil Rights movement, attendance has fallen off by around 50%. Nonetheless, much of the PCA seems doggedly determined to follow them in this error.

The state of liberty in America depends on the state of the Southern Presbyterian Church in America. I hold fast to the teachings of the historic Southern Presbyterian Church, the teachings of Dabney and Thornwell, though most others have moved from their moorings. I believe in the things that made America great and made American Christianity great while eschewing those things which tend toward the destruction of both.

The issues being discussed the past few days are the most relevant social and theological issues facing the Church today. Much of American church history has turned upon them and this will continue into the future indefinitely.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

14#

To: Rev. Chuck Baynard

August 27

Dear Chuck,

I hope no one is taking my words as being overly argumentative. I believe these issues are quite important and think that no one should flinch from a full evaluation of the subject matter.

This all began with a request for information about Christian Identity. I recently had a conversation with a CI minister in Biloxi. He started in about how Adam was the progenitor of only white people. It was funny how he brought up arguments about the early chapters of Genesis that were similar to ones used by the liberals of an earlier era in their attempts to disprove the historical accuracy of Genesis. Such as: If Adam and Eve were the only people on earth, from where did Cain get his wife?

His explanation was that there were other people on earth, non-whites. And this is from where Cain got his wife.

I replied with the Henry Morris argument that the racial differences of mankind were caused by the inbreeding necessitated by the small ethno/linguistic groups into which God divided man at the Tower of Babel. But he wasn’t buying that.

So, I switched tracks and tried to find an erroneous implication he was drawing from his position. I thought I had him when I asked him: “Are blacks made in the image of God?” Since there are black Christians, some of which have suffered valiantly for the Christian faith, if he answered no, then he had a big problem. At this point though, he backed off and said: “I don’t know. I can’t take it that far.”

Figuring we had dueled to a draw, we dropped the subject.

I don’t know how to answer all the skeptical questions that arise from the first few chapters of Genesis. But I do know the answer to some of them. So, I’ve found it effective to see what implications people draw from their skepticism. If they are contrary to the Bible and/or manifest reality, then you have them.

With that aside, I’d like to comment on a few of your ideas. You wrote: “Racism isn’t in the Bible per se (by word), but neither are other words that are part of sound teaching (trinity for example). While the word race as such isn’t used, the word nations is, usually coming from the root word we use for ethnic.”

My point is that any workable definition of the word “racism” directly contradicts the teachings of the Bible on one or more points. In looking at the Webster’s New World Dictionary, we find this definition: “1. a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences, in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain racial purity of a race or races. 2 any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc., based on such beliefs.”

The passage I quoted from Titus violates this definition as it claims to find racial differences. Therefore, Paul is practicing racism as he writes the Word of God and is thus a racist. To me, this casts serious doubt on the validity of the word and concept.

I think it’s notable the word “racism” does not appear in Webster’s 1828 dictionary. It is word of recent origin, although I’ve never been able to trace its exact origin.

You also wrote: “What is the difference between the Biblical nations, the missionaries’ ethnic groups, and race?”

I don’t see any substantive differences between the first two, if I understand the second one properly. A nation is a subset into which God divided mankind. Strong’s definition stresses “of the same habit,” which I take to mean a distinct and similar culture. And the word “ethnos” obviously carries ethnic connotations with it. Yet in Genesis, language is held up as the ultimate criterion.

But with this linguistic division, went something deeper. Keil and Delitzcsh wrote: “The differences to which this great event [Babel] give rise, consisted not merely of variations in sound, such as might be attributed to differences in the formation in the organs of speech (the lip or tongue), but had a much deeper foundation on the human mind. If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or divisions of the one human language into different national dialects must be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up.”

So it would seem that the nations into which God divided mankind destroyed the unity of mankind by destroying the basis for that unity. Rev. Wayne Rogers is a PCA pastor in Jackson, Mississippi, the last I heard. He put it this way: “The significance of the dispersion at the tower of Bable was that now God would cause nationalism to restrain human revolt against God…. Acts 17:26, 27 point us in the same direction. God created nations, separate nations, in order that men might seek after God rather than seeking their own salvation in a one-world utopian society after the fashion of Babel.”

This being true, the definition of a nation is a matter that every Christian should seek earnestly.

A race is a different animal. Dr. Henry Morris has this to say: “The Semites have been predominant in theology, the Japethites in science and philosophy, the Hamites in technology. Note that these three streams of nations are not three races. Though some have thought of the Semites, Japethites and Hamites as three races (say, the dusky, the white, and the black races — or the Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid), this is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what modern anthropology and human genetics teach…. The Bible does not use the word race nor does it acknowledge such a concept. The modern concept of race is based on evolutionary thinking. To the evolutionist, a race is a subspecies in the process of evolving into a new species…. The actual descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japeth are identified in Genesis 10.”

This is a tough issue. For the word race has become so ingrained in our vocabulary, it’s difficult to carry on a conversation about race without using the word race. Oops, I did it again. So I think we have to cut each other a little slack on this, and if there’s any confusion about what is being said, ask for clarification.

You also wrote: “God is no respecter of person, and Paul tells us there is neither Jew nor Greek. While these definitely refer to the heart or spiritual condition they can have racial implications, so racism would be wrong.”

Now I can’t understand how you can condemn racism until you’ve made a Biblical case that it is actually a valid concept for the Christian to live by. You hold it as an assumption and say “That racism exists is very evident to all but the most blind among us.” If it exists, then it should be able to be explained. There should be some insight from the Bible to demonstrate its existence — and validity.

You also wrote: “I find no qualifier in the command love your neighbor as yourself.”

I hate to put words in a person’s mouth. But you haven’t explained what implications come from the second great commandment to demonstrate the validity of racism. I’m assuming that you are defining love as “unconditional acceptance, equality, and tolerance,” instead of a more Biblical view of love as “keeping the law of God in relation to.” (Romans 13: 8-10, I Cor. 13:6) We love God by keeping the first four commandments. And we love man by keeping the last six. The Larger Catechism is very detailed and specific about what our duties are toward our neighbor in relation to each commandment. And fulfilling these duties, which are manifold, we have loved him.

To tear down the God-made divisions of mankind is not one of these, as I see it because love does not mandate political and social equality. In Ephesians 6:9, Christian slaveholders are enjoined: “And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing that your Master is also in heaven; neither is there respect of persons.”

I think the phrase “do the same things unto them” refers to the admonitions given to Christian slaves in verse 8: “Knowing that whatever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.”

Notice the duty of the Christian slaveholder does not include granting the slave social or political equality.

The same is true of our actions toward women in the church. Are we being unloving by refusing to grant them political and social equality in the church in our refusal to allow them to exercise preach or exercise authority in the church? I don’t think so. But my point is to show that love does not include political and social equality, which is what you seem to imply in your statement.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

15#

Originally from: “Hank Ingram”

Originally dated: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:33:55 -0400

Dennis,

You wrote: “Two comments on this: In America, we have seen a manifold increase in sin since the institution of the integration policy.”

Absolute nonsense. We have seen an increase in sin since we RIPPED God from the schools.

You also wrote: “As God has destroyed integrationist empires of the past, and we’ve seen the dissolution of the Soviet Empire in our lifetimes, I would expect him to destroy the United States too. And I believe that those Christians who go to judgement day having supported the American integration policy will have much to answer for. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.”

I would hate to be in the shoes of a man who says that some men are not made in the image of God. This same concept you support has caused the rampant support for abortion. This concept that some people are not really humans or aren’t worthy of the same considerations. We are all the same. All God’s people. Period!

You also wrote: “Although the African-Americans have figured prominently in our history, we are a people whether or not we had ever come into contact with one of them. But from Northern Virginia to Orlando, from the Atlanta Ocean to El Paso, we constitute one of the great peoples of the earth.”

We are ALL people, no matter the color. All made in the image of God. Pigment is a pretty lousy way to pick your friends if you ask me.

Hank

16#

To: Hank Ingram

August 27

Dear Hank,

I’d like to make a few comments from the post you sent today, but before I do, I need to reprove you for your actions. Yesterday, you wrote: “I would hate to be in the shoes of a man who says that some men are not made in the image of God. This same concept you support has caused the rampant support for abortion.”

Since nothing I have written supports this statement, you are bearing false witness against me. I would ask that you to desist.

On a philosophical note, Southerners are used to this sort of slander. One of the large lessons the Civil War taught Americans was that any opposition to the humanist revolution is to met with the stiffist of rebukes. The song “Battle Hymn of the Republic” commemorates this ideal. Movies like “Mississippi Burning,” which portray the Christian Southerner as so immoral, so sub-human, that to trample his constitutionally guaranteed rights is not only allowable, but commendable.

I get the impression you are following such a line of reasoning in telling others I made statements I didn’t make. I will be pleased for you to stop it.

Today you wrote: “You are condeming ALL of a race based on the actions of a few. I was also beaten by white kids. Do I condemn ALL white people?”

Although I see this as a misinterpretation of what I said, I don’t see it as a slander. The issue at issue was “what would happen if the schools were integrated.” It was not necessary for ALL blacks to misbehave for people to reasonably conclude that integrating the schools would be a bad and dangerous idea.

In the insurance business as well as others, there is an actuarial science which determines generalizations and probabilities. All men over 75 who smoke, don’t get enough exercise, are overweight, and have high blood pressure don’t die of heart attacks. But as far as an insurance company is concerned, you’re going to pay as though you will whether you do or not. This is because the probabilities are weighing against you and enough men in your group do. Actuarial science is a valid method of interpreting human behavior and future tendencies. What I’ve said is no less valid than this.

You also made this statement: “Your assumption is that pigment was the deciding factor in the unrest. I have a different take. If you beat a dog long enough, it will turn on you. In other words, we made that bed.”

Here you do two things: (1) assert that the blacks have been generally mistreated by whites in America, and (2) attribute their misbehavior to our actions rather than the sin nature that resides within each of them.

By asserting “we made that bed,” and I assume you mean “we whites,” you have now acknowledge the existence of the two groups and identified yourself with one of them whereas until now you have steadfastly denied their significant existence. So I think this is a step in the right direction, but it does point out how unrealistic any attempt to understand the broad spectrum of human behavior apart from the ethnic groups that play out the drama, if you will.

As to the whites mistreating the blacks in America, I think that is a fallacious idea based on communist propaganda. I’ll give a quote from the 1912 book “A Racial Programme for the Twentieth Century,” by the Jewish Communist Israel Cohen, which was placed into the Congressional Record in 1959 by a congressman from Ohio: “We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension…. By pounding into the consciousness of the dark peoples that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the programme of the Communist Party…. In America, we will aim for a subtle victory. While inflaming negro minorities against the white, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the negroes…. which will deliver America to our cause.”

I would encourage everyone not to be taken in.

Dabney spoke at great length about the ongoing slander of the abolitionists against the Southerners concerning the treatment of slaves. The Rev. William White, Presbyterian pastor in Virginia, within whose congregation Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson served as a deacon, said this: “In all lands there are husbands and fathers who mistreat their wives and children. So, there are masters among us who maltreat their slaves. but the prevailing spirit is one of great kindness, showing itself in innumerable ways; their mutual dependence begets a mutual attachment. I could fill volumes with instances occurring under my eyes illustrating the statement. But I write this for my own people, especially my own children, and not for the abolitionist.”

I would also refer you to the Slave Narratives, a depression-era government study of the still-living blacks who had been slaves. Their testimony and statements of love and affection for their slavemasters shocked and confused the Washington government. But the Narratives are still around today, available through the Library of Congress and also in some libraries.

In more modern times, Rushdoony has written: “When he was transported to America, he was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States. There is not the slightest evidence that any American Negro had ever lived in a `free society’ in Africa; even the idea did not exist in Africa. The move from Africa to America was a vast increase of freedom for the Negro, materially and spiritually as well as personally. The Negroes were sold from a harsh slavery into a milder one. Slavery was basic to the African way of life, to the point that slaves were the actual money of the African economy. Elsewhere, gold and silver served as money; in Africa, it was slaves.”

Even more recently a book has appeared by a black author, Keith Richburg, declaring his gratitude to the white slave traders who sold his forefathers into bondage. The book is entitled “Thank God My Ancestor Got Out.” You might find it instructive.

The whole idea of the blacks being dehumanized and oppressed in America doesn’t wash. The problems came about with the false teachings of Martin Luther King. He and his successors are the main ones responsible for the ill will present in the land today. And besides, even if it were true that blacks were oppressed, they would have no grounds for behaving in the manner we were describing above. God demands that we love our neighbor. No one has been enjoined to “get your freedom, hate your former oppressors, and then take vengeance on them as you are able.”

So although I am glad you have identified yourself with a white people, I am sad to hear you falsely accuse us and blame the problems of another people on us, when in truth, we have been the most positive and helpful influence that either they or their ancestors have ever encountered.

No, like everyone else, the sins of the blacks proceed from wicked hearts. The fact that their behavior is so wicked — high murder rates, great amounts of theft, great amounts of adultery, drinking excessive amounts of malt liquor, etc. — shows the moral debauchery of their society and people. Southern segregationists sought to keep their people out of this harm’s way.

Every tub must stand on its own bottom. And this applies to the blacks as well. Their problems are of their own making, humanly speaking. To say they are of our making misses the mark.

The rest of your statements were just reapplications of the above issues to different events, except the one concerning the intelligence tests. Your position that the foundation of an ethnic people is skin pigmentation is contradicted by the teachings of the Bible. I’ve covered that already.

About the intelligence tests you wrote: “This study is a ridiculous smear on blacks. They assume that blacks have the same socio-economic breakdown as whites, which is not true. Also, it assumes that groups like the CI don’t exist and racism is absent in society. They do, of course.”

The first intelligence tests showed that Jews were intellectually inferior to whites for the first two years. Knowing this to be inaccurate, adjustments were made to allow for cultural differences and the Jews immediately came up to snuff. No such adjustments have been found for the blacks. I think you statements are demonstrating an anti-white bias.

Also, it seems that you are saying that whites are so afflicted with racism they are not capable of neutral, unbiased scientific investigation. I’m not certain that’s what you’re saying but the words “it assumes that groups like the CI don’t exist and racism is absent in society” lead me to believe this is your perspective.

I can’t go along with that. We carry on unbiased scientific investigation in a number of fields and I don’t believe this field is that much different than other fields of scientific endeavor.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

17#

Originally from: AWVZ26A@prodigy.com ( TERRY D GORDEN)

Originally dated: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:17:34, -0500

Dennis,

Interesting sociological theory without a clear well thought out biblical foundation.

Terry

18#

Originally from: “Hank Ingram”

Originally dated: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:36:36 -0400

Dennis,

You wrote: “I will say that in the South, our fathers fought against school integration for many decades believing that it would harm their children and our people if it took place. I think the integrationists’ experiment has proven our fathers right.”

This is an unproven hypothesis. You need to prove this to state it. I disagree that intergration harmed us.

Second, you wrote: “First, our children have experienced vast oppression, violence, and intimidation at the hands of blacks in the schools. I attended an integrated middle school in Daytona Beach 30 years ago and had to fight the blacks trying to extort or steal money from smaller white children many times. Also, the day after Martin Luther King was murdered, we whites were forced to line up in formation armed with sticks, broken bottles, and any other weapon at hand to stave off the black mass that was also armed and preparing for an attack. I’ve seen times in Atlanta when white parents at three high schools at the same time were holding their children out of school, fearing black violence. On this score, the segregationists were correct and the integrationists have been proven woefully ignorant of the unintended consequences of their actions.”

I had to do the same. But you are condeming ALL of a race based on the actions of a few. I was also beaten by white kids. Do I condemn ALL white people? Your assumption is that pigment was the deciding factor in the unrest. I have a different take. If you beat a dog long enough, it will turn on you. In other words, we made that bed.

You also wrote: “As Dabney argued in his essay “The Negro and the Free School,” the level of education must necessarily decline for whites in an integrated school. Although he knew from observation what has been borne out by both intelligence tests and books like “The Bell Curve,” government schools must pander to the lowest common denominator. The blacks, measuring about one standard deviation below whites in intelligence, have necessarily dragged the level of education down.”

Louis Farrakhan disagrees. Who do I believe? This study is a ridiculous smear on blacks. They assume that blacks have the same socio-economic breakdown as whites, which is not true. Also, it assumes that groups like the CI don’t exist and racism is absent in society. They do, of course.

You also wrote: “In Corinthians, the Apostle Paul laid out the principle “Bad morals corrupts good company.” Although it is not all attributable to integrated schooling, it is true that white illegitimate birth rates have risen to the point where black rates stood in 1965, 22%. At the same time, black illegitimate birth rates have risen exponentially, officially standing at 65% today.”

So pigment causes high pregnancy rates? You need to think beneath the surface. Why are black illegitimate rates higher? Because they are darker than us? Or because they are poorer and have less hope. Are pregnancy rates higher for middle-class blacks than middle-class whites? Let’s compare apples to apples.

You also wrote: “I have an idea that continued integration in the schools will have a large hand in raising the white rates much higher over time.”

Why? Our pigment is different so we are immune to this problem.

You also wrote: “Culturally, history has need been rewritten to make it palatable to blacks. White children have been told that all the problems of America are their fault. This is much like the treatment an abused child gets, always being told the problems of the family are his fault. Southern children have for 30 years been subject to this mind molestation.”

Did we hold blacks as slaves in the South? We sure did. Were there repercussions from this? Yup. We made this bed. Now we want to cowardly run from responsibility.

You also wrote: “Black theology is quite distinctive from Calvinistic, Reformed theology.”

All of it??? Can you prove this? Every black person believes the same thing???

You also wrote: “Black worship is much more emotionally based and much less cognitive than white worship. I could go on and on; food, clothing, art, writing ( recently I was on a plane with a group of blacks and one read a recent poem by a black author about killing the cops that were oppressing the brothers. This is in keeping with black culture rather than white culture.)”

So all blacks enjoy poetry about killing cops? Amazing!

You also wrote: “I’ll just close with this quote by Charles Hodge: “The differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now…. these variaties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose… God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Ridiculous. My Bible says that all of man is made in God’s image. Any revisions to this are self-serving blasphemy IMHO. I’ll take the Bible over Charles Hodge any day.

Hank

[Editor's note: Chuck Baynard figured he had to get into this, too.]

#19

Originally from: “Rev. Chuck Baynard”

Originally dated: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:34:25 -0400

Dennis,

“The whole idea of blacks being mistreated in America doesn’t wash.” Man how old are you? I must be really a lot older than I thought. Even well into the sixties this was FACT.. I was with the federal troops in Chicago for the Democratic convention and at King’s death. You didn’t live down here and think that blacks were human, they were still treated like chattel though free.

Personally I tire of your unsupported rhetoric. Put some Scripture to this, dead theologians without the backing of Holy Writ mean nothing. A stray line or two from Hodge, Dabney or any other man is just that, and though you have hundreds of them, it still proves nothing about what we as Christians should be doing, that comes for diligent and “good” exegesis, of which I have saw none. Your belief that a commandment is being broken carries no more weight than the one who has the opposite belief.

chuck

20#

Originally from:

Originally dated: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:44:07 -0400 (EDT)

Dear Dennis,

Thanks for your thorough reply. Having lived through the days described, the integration of the PCUS, I appreciate your critique of those days. However, the great problem of so much of the PCUS in those days was their conformity to the society of the times. This is the worst, most insidious form of worldliness. It is still being perpetuated in those churches which refuse to allow members of other races than that of the dominant culture.

Al Freundt

[Editor: The debate was about to take a huge turn. Thomas Roche, a Christian Reconstructionist from New York, was coming into it. He approaches this entire matter from a much different point of view that the guys who had already spoken. I thought this would really be a war. His style will be laborious to read, though, because instead of creating his own post, he just reprints mine and intersperses his comments between paragraphs. So unless, I reprint my posts, which are long, you won't know what he's talking about.]

#21

Originally from: Thomas P Roche

Originally dated: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:31:24 -0400 (EDT)

Thomas Roche speaking: Still more spirtual pyrite from Dennis W:

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Dear Al,

Yesterday you wrote: “Sorry, Dennis, but Christ is the King and Head of the Church, and he has made actually no racial distinctions for salvation, for membership in the church, or for entrance into heaven. In Christ there is no racial distinction in the Church. The church is not to be conformed to the society in the world.”

In the Old Testament law, converts to Judaism and certain new citizens to the Hebrew commonwealth were excluded from full participation for differing lengths of time due to the degree of moral debauchery their former cultures and societies possessed. This practice, of course, had God’s full sanction. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) addressed a similar issue. Major conflicts would arise in the church because of the cultural differences of Christians from various people groups, which by the way, is the same issue faced by both missionaries in some foreign lands today as well as by the Southern Presbyterian Church in the 1960s. Rushdoony has this to say:

“It would appear from the evidence of the law that, first, a restrictive membership or citizenship was a part of the practice of Israel by law. There is evidence of a like standard in the New Testament church; instead of being forced into rigid uniformity, Gentiles and Jews were free to establish their separate congregations and maintain their distinctive character. Moreover, Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, makes clear that the differences in cultural heritage and stages of moral development and spiritual growth made possible major conflicts in case of uniform membership. As a result, separate congregations were authorized. On the other hand, Jews were not barred from Gentile congregations, so that, while restrictive groups were valid, integrated groups were not invalid.”

Thomas Roche speaking:This might have been a better argument for black segregation when the first African slaves were brought here, but then, and until the War of the Rebellion, southern churches were integrated. It was only after the defeat of the rebels that vengeful whites kicked the ignorant (not having been allowed to learn to read) black folks out and exposed them to their own devices, creating the largely defective modern black church.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: In the 1960s South, integrated churches carried the connotation of an integrated society which segregationists in general believed would produce the ugly situation now existing in American society. The Council of Jerusalem had established the principle that congregations were not required to totally change their cultural expressions for the sake of uniformity. They were only required to change certain specific practices that expressly transgressed the law of God.

So as to the technical point of whether the churches should integrate or keep segregated, I think those who wished to integrate were free to do so and those who wished not to were equally free to do so. Therefore, the integrating of the PCUS, followed by the split of the segregationists, wasn’t necessarily a bad thing as the church’s unity does not demand uniformity.

On the other hand, those who wished to integrate because they were being compelled to do so by the forces of revolutionary humanism, the spirit of the age, were serving a false god and burning Ceasar’s incense. I try not to judge people’s motives, so I’ll let you decide where you are on the spectrum.

But what I expect to happen is this: the American society will go the way of all multi-ethnic societies and at some point in the future the government will collapse under its own weight of debt, corruption, and decay. This will happen because of God’s creation order of separte peoples and separate nations. Then, like the situations we’ve seen in Yugoslavia and Burundi, we’ll see ethnic wars in which no factor will be important other than which group you belong to. And when North America is divided ethnically, the process will start all over again.

Thomas Roche speaking: The object is to unify N. America ethnically, not Balkanize it.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: In a second post you wrote: “When my PCUS Presbytery was asked to accept the Black churches and ministers into the geographical presbytery from the ethnic presbytery in which they held membership, the godly (conservative, fundamentalistic ) white, geographical presbytery refused…. By a slim vote a year or two later in 1968 or 1969 my presbytery voted to receive the black churches and ministers into its membership. This angered the conservatives so much, that within a few years they withdrew to become a part of the PCA. There are not a lot of black churches in the PCA, if any.”

I’m glad you have demonstrated the tether between ethnocentricity and the history of the Southern Presbyterian Church. If I’m not mistaken, the slavery issue was one of the driving forces in the original split of the Prebyterian Church into northern and southern organizations. (By the way, now that the Southern Church has recanted and accepted the Yankee [read Humanist Nimrodian] view of slavery and ethnocentrism, they have merrily rejoined forces.

The PCA was intended to carry on the Southern Presbyterian position. Although I’ve never been there, it is my understanding that in the beginning, the men’s dormitories at Reformed Seminary in Jackson were named Dabney Hall and Thornwell Hall, two of the most prolific Southern Presbyterians in American history.

It is quite ironic that since the Civil Rights War of the 1960s, when the mainline denominations took an anti-trinitarian, pro-unitarian position by accepting the tenets of the Civil Rights movement, attendance has fallen off by around 50%. Nonetheless, much of the PCA seems doggedly determined to follow them in this error.

The state of liberty in America depends on the state of the Southern Presbyterian Church in America. I hold fast to the teachings of the historic Southern Presbyterian Church, the teachings of Dabney and Thornwell, though most others have moved from their moorings. I believe in

the things that made America great and made American Christianity great while eschewing those things which tend toward the destruction of both.

The issues being discussed the past few days are the most relevant social and theological issues facing the Church today. Much of American church history has turned upon them and this will continue into the future indefinitely.

Thomas Roche speaking: “Come and listen to my story ’bout a man named Jed…”

Y’all get the rest.

TPR

#22.

Originally from: Thomas P Roche

Originally dated: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:03:49 -0400 (EDT)

More is wrong with Bro Wheeler’s racist diatribe here than can easily be commented upon, but I will nonetheless try:

[Roche then reprinted my above post to Terry Gorden.]

Thomas Roche’s comment: In light of the notion of southern peoplehood espoused above, if Cavaliers, Scotch-Irish, and Cajuns, none of whom had even the same denominational tradition, could all be amalgamated into one “people”, why couldn’t the black folks in the south also be so amalgamated, especially since they were brought there against their will be the white folks, who rather successfully impressed their language, religion, and general culturalia on the Africans, and even took a great deal from them as well? If the answer be merely skin color, then you deny thereby the very reason that Jesus instituted a New Covenant demanding that his Jewish followers spread the faith to all the world, and integrate all peoples thereunto.

Tom Roche

Yankee

#23.

Originally from: Thomas P Roche

Originally dated: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:19:14 -0400 (EDT)

More critical analysis of racist Southernism:

[Here Roche reprints my post to Hank Ingram and intersperses his comments into it.]

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I will say that in the South, our fathers fought against school integration for many decades believing that it would harm their children and our people if it took place. I think the integrationists’ experiment has proven our fathers right.

Thomas Roche speaking: Yes, but only because both sides have abandoned the God of the bible, who may well be judging America for 350+ years of racism and ungodly attempts to use His word to justify such policies. At least the black folks’ pagan ancestors didn’t try to use the Word of the One true God to defend similar racist policies they practiced in Africa.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: First, our children have experienced vast oppression, violence, and intimidation at the hands of blacks in the schools. I attended an integrated middle school in Daytona Beach 30 years ago and had to fight the blacks trying to extort or steal money from smaller white children many times. Also, the day after Martin Luther King was murdered, we whites were forced to line up in formation armed with sticks, broken bottles, and any other weapon at hand to stave off the black mass that was also armed and preparing for an attack. I’ve seen times in Atlanta when white parents at three high schools at the same time were holding their children out of school, fearing black violence. On this score, the segregationists were correct and the integrationists have been proven woefully ignorant of the unintended consequences of their actions.

Thomas Roche speaking: White southerners refused to let the black folks develop as a people after Emancipation, and gradually achieve integrated equality in the manner Brother B. T. Washington advocated, and so they gradually were driven into the arms of ML King,… or Malcom X.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Second, as Dabney argued in his essay “The Negro and the Free School,” the level of education must necessarily decline for whites in an integrated school. Although he knew from observation what has been borne out by both intelligence tests and books like “The Bell Curve,” government schools must pander to the lowest common denominator. The blacks, measuring about one standard deviation below whites in intelligence, have necessarily dragged the level of education down.

Thomas Roche speaking: But why are they such, and is their condidtion permanent, or can it be rectified by giving them better access to education and cultural uplifts they lacked earlier? Like it or not, black folks are as a part of the “American” people, as any whites, and they have spilled as much of their blood and treasure to validate this. We are, or were and ought to continue to be, one people, or our society will be destroyed.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Third, in Corinthians, the Apostle Paul laid out the principle “Bad morals corrupts good company.” Although it is not all attributable to integrated schooling, it is true that white illegitimate birth rates have risen to the point where black rates stood in 1965, 22%. At the same time, black illegitimate birth rates have risen exponentially, officially standing at 65% today.

Thomas Roche speaking: Perhaps this low level of morality on black folks’ partr could be attributed to their having been denied the benefit of the superior preaching of most white southern preachers for generations.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: I was referring to cultural traits. I read a lot of the Christian Reconstructionists’ material and these books speak a great deal about culture. I’m not sure if you read these things or not. I am sure that much has been written by Presbyterians about the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28. And I know Francis Nigel Lee has written a great deal about the culture of peoples.

Thomas Roche speaking: He has some points, but is generally a nut.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: As for white cultural traits, since this discussion began with an attempt to identify why Christian Identity had grown in the South, I’ll focus on Southern culture. First, we speak English. And Southerners have their own peculiar dialects. Most blacks have a very difficult time with the English language.

Thomas Roche speaking: “Black English” is really essentially just 18th century rural English from the south of England, transported to the Tidewater South.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Second, country music is a carry over from the music our ancestors used in merry old England. Black music is nothing like our music, although some blacks sing opera, others like Charlie Pride, sing country. This is not a musical form that emanates from that people. Third, in worship, white sermons deal with abstract ideas far more than black sermons. Black theology is quite distinctive from Calvinistic, Reformed theology. Black worship is much more emotionally based and much less cognitive than white worship. I could go on and on; food, clothing, art, writing ( recently I was on a plane with a group of blacks and one read a recent poem by a black author about killing the cops that were oppressing the brothers. This is in keeping with black culture rather than white culture.)

Thomas Roche speaking: “Just a good ol’ boys, never meanin’ no harm, beats all you never saw been in trouble with the law since ther day they was borned.” Great Culture. I won’t even begin to discuss the offerings of the Nashville Network.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: A stark reminder of the separate cultures and ideals of the whites and the blacks were the actions of the 10 black jurors on the O.J. Simpson jury. The jury, itself an Anglo-Saxon invention, is charged with applying the law to the facts presented before them and passing judgement on the defendant. These 10 failed to do this, but saw the situation as a black-white issue. They saw it as their duty to come to the aid of their embattled black brother. The two non-whites on the jury, who at first voted for a “guilty” verdict, were quickly intimidated by the 10 blacks and capitulated compounding the injustice of the murders committed.

If you can convince those 10 jurors that there are no peoples, only people, then perhaps I’ll rethink the issue.

Thomas Roche speaking: Sadly, although you’ll not like hearing it from educated New England white folks, there were very legitimate reasons for that jury to vote as it did.

DennisWheeler speaking: I’ll just close with this quote by Charles Hodge: “The differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now…. these variaties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose… God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Thomas Roche speaking: Ah, this just demonstrated that Hodge was, however great, a man of his time.

Thomas Roche

member of the Yankee people?

[After the three posts from Thomas Roche, it was my turn to answer him.]

#24.

To: Thomas P. Roche

August 28,

Like Zorro appearing from the shadows to bedevil the Mexican soldiers oppressing his beloved people of Los Angeles, Tony P. Roche has jumped into the fray. From his first salvo, it’s obvious he knows how to cut to the heart of the matter. There will be no more dancing around the periphery of the issues; all side-door exits are to be closed. The Southern perspective of Christian nationalism will now have to be defended against the Reconstructionist ideal of Christian internationalism on “first principles,” like two men dueling tied to a three-foot rope.

I’ve waited a long time for this opportunity — not necessarily to discuss the issue with Mr. Roche, but with any credible proponent of Christian Reconstruction. I hope I’m up to the challenge. So in the words of rap star R.C. Hammer: “LET’S PUMP UP THE VOLUUUUME!”

Dear Tony,

You start with an excellent question: “In light of the notion of southern peoplehood espoused above, if Cavaliers, Scotch-Irish, and Cajuns, none of whom had even the same denominational tradition, could all be amalgamated into one “people”, why couldn’t the black folks in the south also be so amalgamated, especially since they were brought there against their will be the white folks, who rather successfully impressed their language, religion, and general culturalia on the Africans, and even took a great deal from them as well? If the answer be merely skin color, then you deny thereby the very reason that Jesus instituted a New Covenant demanding that his Jewish followers spread the faith to all the world, and integrate all peoples thereunto.”

Since you either haven’t read or chosen to ignore much of what has already been discussed in the posts on this subject, I too will ignore all that has gone on before and begin at the beginning.

First, the differences between peoples is not merely “one of skin color”; it embraces language, thought patterns, abilities, history, and many other issues. There are three great families of nations detailed in Genesis 10-11. Because God chose to describe them to us in terms of the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japeth, it is reasonable for us to understand them in the same terms.

Therefore, some peoples are more closely related to some than they are to others. The Cavaliers, Scotch-Irish, and Cajuns were European peoples, free peoples, part of the American body politic, while the Africans were none of these. The three European peoples had much of a shared history for many decades if not for more than a century. Your argument seems to be to tie the blacks and the whites in the South together culturally and hold they were no more religiously diverse than the three European peoples and thus paint us into the corner of refusing them admittance to nationhood on the basis of skin color alone. But the blacks in the South bore a similar relationship to the Southern people that aliens bore to the people of the Hebrew Republic (Deut. 23:1-8). In the Old Testament economy, all aliens and strangers living in Israel received justice under the law without respect of persons, but could only become citizens after three to ten generations.

It is clear from reading the Bible that these alien peoples were separate and distinct from the Hebrew people and that God did not consider them Hebrews by virtue of the fact that they lived among the Hebrews and believed in the Hebrew God.

So it was in the South. The blacks lived among the Southerners as slaves and servants — or even freemen, but they weren’t part of the Southern people merely because they lived here. All blacks, whether slave or free, had no opportunity to become citizens of a Southern state. And this principle was even upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1857.

The War of Northern Aggression was the event that forged the white peoples of the South into one people and one nation. The Cajuns were in and they acquitted themselves valiantly in battle. Although they are different from the rest of us in some ways, they are in and although it’s possible religious differences could tear them out in the future, for now, they’re in.

Your observation about the three European peoples not sharing similar denominations is interesting. In your thinking, what does that have to do with peoplehood?

Also, it is not clear to me how your perspective that “Jesus instituted a New Covenant demanding that his Jewish followers spread the faith to all the world, and integrate all peoples thereunto” is pertinent to the discussion. I would like to hear more.

In one post, you introduced your remarks with a headline: “More critical analysis of racist Southernism.” What do you mean by racist? I would like to hear a biblical definition of this word from you, please.

In answer to my statements on why Southerners fought against school integration, you wrote: “Yes, but only because both sides have abandoned the God of the Bible, who may well be judging America for 350+ years of racism and ungodly attempts to use His word to justify such policies. At least the black folks’ pagan ancestors didn’t try to use the Word of the One true God to defend similar racist policies they practiced in Africa.”

Upon what basis do you make such an assertion? I will wait patiently for your biblical definition of “racism” and I would like to hear some specific examples of these “ungodly attempts to use His word to justify such positions.”

Also, you are here juxtapositioning the moral position of the two peoples, one, children of the Reformation, the other, descendants of slaves, both morally and physically. It is interesting that you come down on the side of those of pagan ancestry as the morally superior. Perhaps it was just on this one issue they held moral superiority, in your view. I don’t know. Is there some conclusion to draw from this statement, or are you demonstrating an anti-white bias?

At any rate, the most base and nasty of peoples, even Southerners, hold the right to self-defense. This is where we were coming from. And unless you’ve adopted the view of Ronald Sider that if we would just show kindness and compassion to those who could harm us, then they will in turn respond with equal amounts of love and kindness, I don’t see how you can criticize the South for wanting to keep its schools segregated.

In another place, you wrote: “White southerners refused to let the black folks develop as a people after Emancipation, and gradually achieve integrated equality in the manner Brother B. T. Washington advocated, and so they gradually were driven into the arms of ML King,… or Malcom X.”

I see two problems here: (1) you have no evidence to conclude they would have ever “gradually achieve integrated equality.” This is pure speculation on your part. No where in the history of the world has a black African people attained anything resembling Western Civilization. To believe they would have in the South had we allowed it is to hang your hat on an imaginary peg. (2) There is a biblical principle, stated repeatedly by my late grandmother and I believe stated first by Jeremiah that “every tub must stand on its own bottom.” Blacks were not driven into the arms of King and X by us. They went there freely of their own accord. Their responsibility is to love God and their fellow men and worship God according as He has commanded in His word. They haven’t done this and on judgement day, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. I think to hold otherwise, you are denying the biblical principle of personal and corporate accountability.

In the South today, we have many sins. And although Billy Graham says our biggest sin is “racism,” I assure you it’s not. Adultery, blasphemy, and theft are running neck and neck for first place in the Southern Sins Sweepstakes. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. We won’t be able to blame our sins on someone else on the last day. And I’ll not allow you to abdicate the responsibilities of the blacks and place the blame on us.

In answer to my observation about the low scores blacks post on intelligence tests, you wrote: “But why are they such, and is their condition permanent, or can it be rectified by giving them better access to education and cultural uplifts they lacked earlier? Like it or not, black folks are as a part of the “American” people, as any whites, and they have spilled as much of their blood and treasure to validate this. We are, or were and ought to continue to be, one people, or our society will be destroyed.”

As to whether or not the condition of the blacks is permanent, I don’t have the wherewithal to know. I have no evidence to suggest that it will improve and it’s not a matter that Scripture addresses, to my knowledge. (If it was, then I imagine you would have pointed it out to me already.) As to whether or not “it can be rectified by giving them better access to education and cultural uplifts,” I hope so but am not hopeful. Man is not a product of his environment and for over 30 years in the new America, they’ve had every opportunity to show what they’re made of. According to the book “The Bell Curve,” they have made some progress. Hopefully, this will continue.

You have referred to the “American” people and placed the blacks within the group. I would deny there is any “American” people in a biblical sense any more than there were a Soviet people, or a Yugoslavian people, or a Burundian people, or an Ethiopian people. There are several peoples who inhabit the United States. And since the Immigration Act of 1965, a conscious effort has been made by Washington to ensure that more and more peoples are brought into country.

We used to operate under the Melting Pot theory, whereby people that were easily assimilable into the Anglo-Saxon people were encouraged to come, and those not easily assimilable were either discouraged or prohibited. The first American immigration act specified that only “free white persons” were eligible. As late as Eisenhower, Operation Wetback was operative to keep Mexicans out. But in 1965, the Ted Kennedy Immigration Act threw the doors open to the world.

Today, we operate under the Salad Bowl concept, where a variety of peoples are resident within the country, each to celebrate the diversity of its own culture and proudly display its cultural distinctions, except the Southerner. He alone is denied the proud display of his cultural symbols and an unremitting war is waged to tear down his flags, monuments, and memorabilia.

To believe there is an “American people” is believing the Nimrodian lie of a unified mankind.

As for our society being destroyed, much of mine has already been destroyed. Join the club, it’s not so bad. But in truth, integration is ruinous to any people. In Deuteronomy 28, integration is what God promised as a destructive plague upon the people of Israel if they turned from him. This is what has happened to America. “The foreigner who is within thee shall get up above thee very high, and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail.” There’s much more in Duet. 28; I would encourage everyone to read it.

(And what shall I say; it was the President who signed the Martin Luther King Holiday bill that presided over this country while it went from being the largest creditor nation on earth to the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.)

On my commentary about the O.J. Simpson jury, you wrote: “Sadly, although you’ll not like hearing it from educated New England white folks, there were very legitimate reasons for that jury to vote as it did.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But my point was to show the racial solidarity systematically shown by a great majority of blacks. This puts us at a great disadvantage. While we are trying to be fair, democratic, and raceless, they are unflinchingly marching toward taking all that we have, materially and physically.

I quoted Rushdoony on slavery and you wrote: “This might have been a better argument for black segregation when the first African slaves were brought here, but then, and until the War of the Rebellion, southern churches were integrated. It was only after the defeat of the rebels that vengeful whites kicked the ignorant (not having been allowed to learn to read) black folks out and exposed them to their own devices, creating the largely defective modern black church.”

Black segregation was not an option in the beginning. The British were running the show and demanded it. The great majority of Southerners were opposed to it as they new that having millions of non-Southerners in their midst was potentially ruinous. Nonetheless, once it became established, and since the Bible was not opposed to it, and the entire economy came to depend on it, it was here to stay in our eyes.

Your term War of the Rebellion is telling. The South was the section loyal to America and the Constitution. It was the North that rebelled against both of these and the Bible as well. Once having entered into a contract, the North was bound by its provisions. Once they believed they could no longer morally abide by the terms to which they had agreed, it was there duty to approach the South and beg to be let out of the contract, which we would have been graciously more than willing to allow.

Instead, they attacked with arms and religious fervor. The American union you seem to cherish so greatly is built on nothing more than murder and the oppression of a free people. And remember those timeless words: “Thou shalt not kill.”

As for Southern churches being integrated before the War, this is true but needs some explanation. Because although the slave and freeman worshipped together, there was no relationship of equality between them. I doubt black men were voting members of the congregation. As long as that is understood, then I can accept the idea they were integrated. But it wasn’t in the sense they are today. Southerners have held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace, only the circumstances have changed.

For the record, some blacks were taught to read prior to the years leading up to the war. Only when abolitionist material urging them to revolt and kill their white masters began showing up in the South did the prohibition against teaching blacks to read surface. Again, the right of self-defense was at work.

Had our people been vengeful, we could have killed great amounts of blacks after the Reconstruction Era ended. We didn’t do this and vengeance wasn’t a big portion of the picture. Again it was self-defense. During slave days, the blacks were no political or social threat to whites in the South. After the passage of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they became both. Once the Reconstruction troops were gone, the South again reclaimed control of her internal affairs.

At the urging of R.L. Dabney, we took advantage of the loopholes in the new, dismembered Constitution and found ways to limit the black political and social threat to our people. This was known as Jim Crow. In 1896, this policy won the approval of the United States Supreme Court and remained in effect in full force until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka decision of that court began tearing from us the control of our internal affairs.

Laying the blame on us for the “defective black church” will not wash. Again, the blacks are just as responsible to run their churches as God has commanded as we are, regardless of anything that has happened to them in the past. They are what they are and they believe what they want to believe, humanly speaking.

To my prediction of coming ethnic war in America — see Carl Rowan’s book “The Coming Race War in America — you wrote: “The object is to unify N. America ethnically, not Balkanize it.”

Upon what basis do you make this assertion? It seems clear that God’s creation order mandates separate peoples and separate nations. And it seems equally clear that you are calling for the overthrow of that order and the implementation of some sort of new world order. I’ll be anxious to hear your ideas on this.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

#25.

Originally from: Thomas P Roche

Originally dated: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:15:03 -0400 (EDT)

To: Douglas Wheeler

From: Tony Roche

Thomas Roche speaking: As you say, crank it up. There is fruitful material available here.

[Thomas is still quoting me at length and then giving a brief answer.]

Dennis Wheeler speaking: First, the differences between peoples is not merely “one of skin color”; it embraces language, thought patterns, abilities, history, and many other issues. There are three great families of nations detailed in Genesis 10-11. Because God chose to describe them to us in terms of the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japeth, it is reasonable for us to understand them in the same terms.

Thomas Roche speaking: Is this OT history relevant? Are black folks clearly Hamites? In any case, Europeans are Japethites, and the Semites were the chosen line. You see where I am going here, if you want to resort to Genesis evidence to prove your points, you will need to be most careful.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Therefore, some peoples are more closely related to some than they are to others. The Cavaliers, Scotch-Irish, and Cajuns were European peoples, free peoples, part of the American body politic, while the Africans were none of these. The three European peoples had much of a shared history for many decades if not for more than a century. Your argument seems to be to tie the blacks and the whites in the South together culturally and hold. They were no more religiously diverse than the three European peoples and thus paint us into the corner of refusing them admittance to nationhood on the basis of skin color alone. But the blacks in the South bore a similar relationship to the Southern people that aliens bore to the people of the Hebrew Republic (Deut. 23:1-8). In the Old Testament economy, all aliens and strangers living in Israel received justice under the law without respect of persons, but could only become citizens after three to ten generations.

Thomas Roche speaking: Are you saying that the European southerners were the chosen people of the land, given exclusive ruling rights to it by God, and thus did not have any need to grant full equality to the Africans they brought it, and of course also had the right, as they did for good in the 1830s (note, before the Yankee war) to expel the Red natives of the place fromtheir own land, on analogy of what Israel had been ordered to do by God to the Canaanites?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: It is clear from reading the Bible that these alien peoples were separate and distinct from the Hebrew people and that God did not consider them Hebrews by virtue of the fact that they lived among the Hebrews and believed in the Hebrew God.

Thomas Roche speaking: So God does not consider the black folks Christian southerners just ebcause they live in the South and believe in the Christian God? Even OT law allowed a man to convert to Judaism.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: So it was in the South. The blacks lived among the Southerners as slaves and servants — or even freemen, but they weren’t part of the Southern people merely because they lived here. All blacks, whether slave or free, had no opportunity to become citizens of a Southern state. And this principle was even upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1857.

Thomas Roche speaking: Wow, they were sinning. Proves nothing you want it to prove.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Your observation about the three European peoples not sharing similar denominations is interesting. In your thinking, what does that have to do with peoplehood?

Thomas Roche speaking: How exactly do you define “peoplehood” then?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Also, it is not clear to me how your perspective that “Jesus instituted a New Covenant demanding that his Jewish followers spread the faith to all the world, and integrate all peoples thereunto” is pertinent to the discussion. I would like to hear more.

Thomas Roche speaking: What part of the above don’t you understand?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: In one post, you introduced your remarks with a headline: “More critical analysis of racist Southernism.” What do you mean by racist? I would like to hear a biblical definition of this word from you, please.

Thomas Roche speaking: I shall endeavor to work on this.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: In answer to my statements on why Southerners fought against school integration, you wrote: “Yes, but only because both sides have abandoned the God of the Bible, who may well be judging America for 350+ years of racism and ungodly attempts to use His word to justify such policies. At least the black folks’ pagan ancestors didn’t try to use the Word of the One true God to defend similar racist policies they practiced in Africa.”

Upon what basis do you make such an assertion? I will wait patiently for your biblical definition of “racism” and I would like to hear some specific examples of these “ungodly attempts to use His word to justify such positions.”

Thomas Roche speaking: Using bad Biblical exegesis and man-made religious and cultural tradition arguments to justify oppression.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Also, you are here juxtapositioning the moral position of the two peoples, one, children of the Reformation, the other, descendants of slaves, both morally and physically. It is interesting that you come down on the side of those of pagan ancestry as the morally superior. Perhaps it was just on this one issue they held moral superiority, in your view. I don’t know. Is there some conclusion to draw from this statement, or are you demonstrating an anti-white bias?

Thomas Roche speaking: If we follow your apparently covenantal thinking here, the white folks had an obligation to civilize and Christianize their African slaves, which they didn’t really do, because such a policy would have led to their becoming free. Remember, the traditional policy throughout Christendom had always been, that a pagan slave became free upon accepting baptism. The Southern folk did away with this by the end of the 17th cent.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: At any rate, the most base and nasty of peoples, even Southerners, hold the right to self-defense. This is where we were coming from. And unless you’ve adopted the view of Ronald Sider that if we would just show kindness and compassion to those who could harm us, then they will in turn respond with equal amounts of love and kindness, I don’t see how you can criticize the South for wanting to keep its schools segregated.

Thomas Roche speaking: No, I don’t suppose you do, since you are evidently committed to he notion of keeping the black folks in the south as an inferior ‘alien’ race for generations to come?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: In another place, you wrote: “White southerners refused to let the black folks develop as a people after Emancipation, and gradually achieve integrated equality in the manner Brother B. T. Washington advocated, and so they gradually were driven into the arms of ML King,… or Malcom X.”

I see two problems here: (1) you have no evidence to conclude they would have ever “gradually achieve integrated equality.” This is pure speculation on your part. No where in the history of the world has a black African people attained anything resembling Western Civilization. To believe they would have in the South had we allowed it is to hang your hat on an imaginary peg. (2) There is a biblical principle, stated repeatedly by my late grandmother and I believe stated first by Jeremiah that “every tub must stand on its own bottom.” Blacks were not driven into the arms of King and X by us. They went there freely of their own accord. Their responsibility is to love God and their fellow men and worship God according as He has commanded in His word. They haven’t done this and on judgement day, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. I think to hold otherwise, you are denying the biblical principle of personal and corporate accountability.

Thomas Roche speaking: Where did Western Civ come from? It came from the Near Eastern Christian missionaries who gradually Christianized and civilized the pagan Europeans. You do have at least some notion of what the Anglo-Saxons and Scots Celts were like in say, 500 AD, don’t you?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: You have referred to the “American” people and placed the blacks within the group. I would deny there is any “American” people in a biblical sense any more than there were a Soviet people, or a Yugoslavian people, or a Burundian people, or an Ethiopian people. There are several peoples who inhabit the United States. And since the Immigration Act of 1965, a conscious effort has been made by Washington to ensure that more and more peoples are brought into country.

Thomas Roche speaking: I repeat my question: what constitutes a people?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: We used to operate under the Melting Pot theory, whereby people that were easily assimilable into the Anglo-Saxon people were encouraged to come, and those not easily assimilable were either discouraged or prohibited. The first American immigration act specified that only “free white persons” were eligible. As late as Eisenhower, Operation Wetback was operative to keep Mexicans out. But in 1965, the Ted Kennedy Immigration Act threw the doors open to the world.

Today, we operate under the Salad Bowl concept, where a variety of peoples are resident within the country, each to celebrate the diversity of its own culture and proudly display its cultural distinctions, except the Southerner. He alone is denied the proud display of his cultural symbols and an unremitting war is waged to tear down his flags, monuments, and memorabilia.

To believe there is an “American people” is believing the Nimrodian lie of a unified mankind.

Thomas Roche speaking: Your points on immigration are excellent, but the black folks have been here for almost 400 years now.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: As for our society being destroyed, much of mine has already been destroyed. Join the club, it’s not so bad. But in truth, integration is ruinous to any people. In Deuteronomy 28, integration is what God promised as a destructive plague upon the people of Israel if they turned from him. This is what has happened to America. “The foreigner who is within thee shall get up above thee very high, and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail.” There’s much more in Duet. 28; I would encourage everyone to read it.

Thomas Roche speaking: Black folks are no more foreigners inn say, Alabama, than whiotes are.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: On my commentary about the O.J. Simpson jury, you wrote: “Sadly, although you’ll not like hearing it from educated New England white folks, there were very legitimate reasons for that jury to vote as it did.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But my point was to show the racial solidarity systematically shown by a great majority of blacks. This puts us at a great disadvantage. While we are trying to be fair, democratic, and raceless, they are unflinchingly marching toward taking all that we have, materially and physically.

Thomas Roche speaking: Perhaps they feel that they are retaking things stolen from them.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Black segregation was not an option in the beginning. The British were running the show and demanded it. The great majority of Southerners were opposed to it as they new that having millions of non-Southerners in their midst was potentially ruinous. Nonetheless, once it became established, and since the Bible was not opposed to it, and the entire economy came to depend on it, it was here to stay in our eyes.

Thomas Roche speaking: The Bible does not support it sir, not unless you can successfully demonstrate that white southern crackers are the new Israel entitled to OT-style national separateness.

I used the Abolitionist term for the war to tweak you. My bad history does not make yours ok.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: As for Southern churches being integrated before the War, this is true but needs some explanation. Because although the slave and freeman worshipped together, there was no relationship of equality between them. I doubt black men were voting members of the congregation. As long as that is understood, then I can accept the idea they were integrated. But it wasn’t in the sense they are today. Southerners have held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace, only the circumstances have changed.

Thomas Roche speaking: Uniformity of heritage does not make right.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: For the record, some blacks were taught to read prior to the years leading up to the war. Only when abolitionist material urging them to revolt and kill their white masters began showing up in the South did the prohibition against teaching blacks to read surface. Again, the right of self-defense was at work.

Thomas Roche speaking: If you had taught them the scriptures earlier, they wouldn;t have been susceptible to abolitionist lies.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Had our people been vengeful, we could have killed great amounts of blacks after the Reconstruction Era ended. We didn’t do this and vengeance wasn’t a big portion of the picture. Again it was self-defense. During slave days, the blacks were no political or social threat to whites in the South. After the passage of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they became both. Once the Reconstruction troops were gone, the South again reclaimed control of her internal affairs.

Thomas Roche speaking: And essentially rechattleized the darkies. Great. Why kill la bunch of fine sharecroppahs?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: At the urging of R.L. Dabney, we took advantage of the loopholes in the new, dismembered Constitution and found ways to limit the black political and social threat to our people. This was known as Jim Crow. In 1896, this policy won the approval of the United States Supreme Court and remained in effect in full force until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka decision of that court began tearing from us the control of our internal affairs.

Thomas Roche speaking: Dabney sinned here.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Laying the blame on us for the “defective black church” will not wash. Again, the blacks are just as responsible to run their churches as God has commanded as we are, regardless of anything that has happened to them in the past. They are what they are and they believe what they want to believe, humanly speaking.

Thomas Roche speaking: But they were denied tru preaching from those who knew when they didn’t, quite unlike the Europeans who had the advantages of say, Paul of Tarsus.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: To my prediction of coming ethnic war in America — see Carl Rowan’s book “The Coming Race War in America — you wrote: “The object is to unify N. America ethnically, not Balkanize it.”

Upon what basis do you make this assertion? It seems clear that God’s creation order mandates separate peoples and separate nations. And it seems equally clear that you are calling for the overthrow of that order and the implementation of some sort of new world order. I’ll be anxious to hear your ideas on this.

Thomas Roche speaking: I am no new world order man, sir, merely a Reconstructionist who wants a unified and godly society.

Sincerely,

Thomas Roche

Rule New England, New England Rules and Saves

[Editor's note: During a lull in the action with Thomas Roche, another skirmish erupted between myself and Chuck Baynard.]

#26.

Originally from: “Rev. Chuck Baynard”

Originally dated: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:48:28 -0400

Dennis,

One time only, and I am out of this, for I find it boring and without Biblical support, and do not think I will convince your nor anyone else assuming your position anything. BUT Since you have verse before us, let us take a closer look at it, it does anything but what you say IMO (and we all have one of those.)

Titus 1:12-13 cannot be grabbed alone, context please! “One of themselves” who is being referred to? I submit it is the Jewish element trying to subvert the Gospel, not the Cretians. “this witness is true” Whose witness to what? I would submit that Paul is speaking of his own witness as being true and that the judiaziers are to be confronted for aying such to bring division, not the Cretians for being lazy, slow bellys etc. Look to verse 10 for the key here, “Specially they of the circumcision” Do any of us doubt who this is referring to as being the false witness that is to be confronted?

Calvin’s favorite word for arguments like this was “cavil,” so it is. Perhaps a bit egotistical sounding to some, but we have some of the greatest theological minds of the day on this conference. This isn’t a theological argument when solid research and foundation in Scripture isn’t used to lay the foundation for an argument. One or less verses tossed out because the words fit, is sloppy at best and perhaps even insulting considering the level of discussions we have seen here in the past.. Let us be careful and lay such a foundation for the arguments presented, and I think perhaps we will see more knowledge forth coming and less of the personal words tosses that have hung around the edges of this thread (self included, for I tire easily when we are too lazy to do our own expositions).

chuck

#27.

To: Chuck Baynard

August 29

Dear Chuck,

I’m not sure why you find it necessary to berate me personally along with your attempts to disprove my position. But your tub will have to stand on its own bottom.

And I’m glad you have made an attempt to address the issue at hand. However, I don’t think you have interpreted the passage correctly. You say the phrase “one of themselves” refers to the Jewish element trying to subvert the Gospel.” I can’t agree.

John Calvin wrote: “When the Apostle says that this author was `one of themselves,’ and was `a prophet of their own,’ he undoubtedly means that he belonged to the nation of the Cretans.”

Matthew Henry says: “`One of themselves, even a prophet of their own,’ that is, one of the Cretans, not the Jews, Epimenides a Greek poet, likely to know and not likely to slander.”

Verse 12 constitutes a new thought. He had been talking about the Jews, now he switches to compare them to the Cretans.

Concerning the phrase `this witness is true,’ you say: “Whose witness to what? I would submit that Paul is speaking of his own witness as being true and that the judaizers are to be confronted for saying such to bring division, not the Cretans for being lazy, slow bellys [sic] etc.”

But upon this topic Calvin writes: “How worthless soever the witness may have been, yet the truth which has been spoken by him is acknowledged by Paul. The inhabitants of Crete, of whom he speaks with such sharpness, were undoubtedly very wicked. The Apostle, who is wont to reprove mildly, those who deserved to be treated with extreme severity, would never have spoken so harshly of the Cretans, if he had not been moved by very strong reasons. What terms more reproachful than these opprobrious epithets can be imagined; they were `lazy, devoted to the belly, destitute of truth, evil beasts.’ Nor are these vices charged against one or a few persons, but he condemns the whole nation.”

In deciding who Paul was talking about, I think William Hendriksen sums it up quite nicely and I can see why you thought he was talking about the Jews: “These Jewish church-members of the Pharisaic type and tinged with incipient gnosticism, which led at times to licentiousness and at times to asceticism, were Cretans ù there were many Jews in Crete ù and, in addition to being influenced by unbelieving Jews, had absorbed the worst characteristics of their non-Jewish countrymen. This had not been a chore, for the Jew and the Cretan had something in common. The employment of trickery or deception for selfish advantage characterized both. An honest Jew or an honest Cretan seems to have been an exception. And certainly the combination of Cretan-Jew was not a happy one.”

I agree with you that it was the judaizers from verse 10 who were to be rebuked sharply. But that was not my point. My point was that Paul’s characterization of the Cretan people, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, violated the definition of “racism” and therefore rendered the word invalid as a moral standard of conduct.

The reason Paul used the phrase “this witness is true,” is because he was afixin’ to quote someone who belonged to a people that were known liars. If believing this were a sin, it would seem more realistic for Paul to reprove his listeners for holding generalized beliefs about various groups. But no, he actually validates the practice.

BTW, am I to assume you have accepted the dictionary definition of “racism” that I gave as a standard by which moral conduct is to be judged? You have offered nothing against it. I’d like to know where you stand on this.

Having said all this, even if my interpretation of Titus 1: 12,13 had been erroneous, it would not have proved your case. You have taken the position that racism exists as a valid concept. But disproving the example I used to argue against your position, would in no way prove yours. (By proving something is not blue, does not prove it is green.) Although this bores you, I would be pleased if you would make the effort to give some evidence for your position.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

#28.

[Editor's note: Chuck would not answer me directly. He was trying to maintain I wasn't worthy of his lofty attention. But the next day in a message to Mike Broadwell, he wrote the following paragraph.]

CB The passage I shared in another post (Titus 1:12-13 ) is a prime example of all this. I could really care less what Calvin said about the verse, he was human fighting his own war in his own day. What does the passage say to you with prayer and fasting? What does the “clear” meaning of the words in proper context say to you personally? No need to move to allegory or perhaps when the verse is clear as written

[Editor's note: Now there's a fine how-do-you-do. He mentions Calvin as some sort of authority, then he twists the Bible verse to mean exactly what it does not mean. And when I use Calvin to show how his interpretation of the verse was wrong, this guy says he doesn't care what Calvin said.]

#29.

To: Thomas Roche

August 31,

Thomas,

I’m awfully sorry about misstating your name. Please accept my sincerest apology. And thank you, Mr. Underwood, for pointing out the error.

Before I start, I’d like to give you a word of personal advice, for your own safety: “Don’t go to Mississippi.” I heard some of the boys talkin’ the other night. And after your last post, they are waitin’ for you down there. So, please, stay out of Mississippi.

(1) You wrote: “Is this OT history relevant? Are black folks clearly Hamites? In any case, Europeans are Japethites, and the Semites were the chosen line. You see where I am going here, if you want to resort to Genesis evidence to prove your points, you will need to be most careful.”

As a youngster, I was indeed taught that the blacks were the descendants of Ham and the curse of Ham was still valid. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. I believe Arthur Custance placed the blacks in the family line of Shem. My main points from Genesis are that God’s world order of separate peoples and separate nations were enunciated there first, and that a lot of information is given there to define a people and a nation.

Arthur Pink wrote: “Without these two chapters [Genesis 10-11], we should be without any satisfactory solution to the ethnological problems presented by the different nations and tongues;”

So I think there is important instruction in Genesis for us.

(2) You wrote: “Are you saying that the European southerners were the chosen people of the land, given exclusive ruling rights to it by God, and thus did not have any need to grant full equality to the Africans they brought it, and of course also had the right, as they did for good in the 1830s (note, before the Yankee war) to expel the Red natives of the place from their own land, on analogy of what Israel had been ordered to do by God to the Canaanites?”

No, I’m not saying that, although I see how you could reasonably draw such a conclusion. I used the comparison between the relation between the Hebrews and their slaves and the Southerners and their slaves as just that, a comparison. If God sanctions an event one time, then it cannot be said to be wrong under all circumstances. Perhaps in the future I should use a different comparison.

(3) You wrote: “So God does not consider the black folks Christian southerners just because they live in the South and believe in the Christian God? Even OT law allowed a man to convert to Judaism.”

That’s correct. When Abraham dwelt in Canaan, he sent his servant back to his own people in Chaledea to fetch a wife for Isaac. Physical proximity doesn’t beget peoplehood.

(4) You wrote: “How exactly do you define “peoplehood” then?”

Truly an excellent question. Genesis 10:5 states: “By these were the lands of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”

In previous posts I have shown how this linguistic division meant more than simply the words one spoke, but included the mindset which caused one to conceive of certain concepts in certain terms, while others of a different mindset conceived of the same concepts in different terms.

Also, the Greek word for “nations” is “ethnos,” which Strong has defined as “a race, (as of the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): Gentile, heathen, nation, people.” I’m assuming that “of the same habit” equates to our phrase “a common culture.”

These nations, or ethnic groups, into which God divided mankind early in human history, shall persevere into eternity. Revelations 21:24 states: “And the nations shall walk by its [the New Jerusalem] light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it.”

In the NT, there is a differentiation between a nation and a geopolitical empire. John 11:48: “If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.” Israel was a separate nation within the Roman Empire.

John 18:35″ Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delievered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”

An even better verse is found in John 11:50, where Caiphus declares: “it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish. Two things: we are not to believe he was speaking of the Roman Empire when he used the word “nation,” but of the Jewish nation which existed within and was governed by the Roman authorities. And the next verse says he didn’t speak this of his own initiatve, the implication being that God put the words in his mouth.

So the distinction is drawn between a nation and a government. And the same distinction is drawn between a nation and an area. Perhaps you could state a working definition of the above concepts better than I can, but I’ll say that peoplehood revolves around family — blood lineage and marraige — a common language and mindset, resulting in a common culture.

The Humanists of the Civil Rights Movement have removed these God-given aspects of peoplehood and replaced them with an ideological relationship — belief in democratic, equalitarian, integration is said by them to make one an American.

(5) You wrote: “If we follow your apparently covenantal thinking here, the white folks had an obligation to civilize and Christianize their African slaves, which they didn’t really do, because such a policy would have led to their becoming free. Remember, the traditional policy throughout Christendom had always been, that a pagan slave became free upon accepting baptism. The Southern folk did away with this by the end of the 17th cent.”

Dabney freely admitted we hadn’t done enough, although evangelism is not the duty of the society, but of the church and in the case of slaves, the family. Certain of our people did introduce them to the Christian religion; and did provide for them access to the gospel, regular instruction of the Bible; and did introduce them to the Christian concept of the family and taught them about marraige and child-rearing. All this is much more than their previous masters in Africa did for them, but sadly, they have forgotten much of what was taught them.

I was not aware that freeing converted slaves was the traditional policy throughout Christendom. But by your own principles, a uniform tradition does not make right. In Philemon, the Christian slave-owner of the recently converted slave was instructed about many things concerning his slave. But freeing him was not among them. The same can be said about instruction given to Christian slave-owners in Ephesians and other epistles.

(6) You wrote: “No, I don’t suppose you do, since you are evidently committed to he notion of keeping the black folks in the south as an inferior ‘alien’ race for generations to come?”

Ooh! Cheap shot! Heretofore, I have not made any statements concerning my plans or desires for the future. In my way of thinking, three or four different policies have been tried already: slavery, emancipation and repatriation to Africa, emancipation without repatriation resulting in Jim Crow, and integration. None of them have been satisfactory and the present one is the worst of all for my people and the blacks. (Recently there was a huge debate at the NAACP annual meeting about the wisdom of integrated schools. It seems a meaningful minority of that organization has seen how destructive this is to their people.)

I’m open to future creative solutions to our ethnological dilemma, although I don’t think anything positive can occur as long as the government in Washington retains the muscle to dictate the situation.

Today, the problem is not simply black/white. Millions of Mexicans and other Hispanics now reside within the South and the greater United States. Millions of Asians have also come. A comprehensive settlement will have to be achieved. The time for this has not yet arrived. And, sadly, I’m willing to predict that there won’t be enough forward-looking people to realize a comprehensive settlement of ethnic partition is advisable, and eventually, events will force that realization onto them with violence and great hardship on all of us.

But I want to be on record as favoring a negotiated settlement now instead of a violent settlement later.

(7) You wrote: “Your points on immigration are excellent, but the black folks have been here for almost 400 years now. Black folks are no more foreigners in say, Alabama, than whites are.”

Dennis Wheeler speaking: On my commentary about the O.J. Simpson jury, you wrote: “Sadly, although you’ll not like hearing it from educated New England white folks, there were very legitimate reasons for that jury to vote as it did.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But my point was to show the racial solidarity systematically shown by a great majority of blacks. This puts us at a great disadvantage. While we are trying to be fair, democratic, and raceless, they are unflinchingly marching toward taking all that we have, materially and physically.

Thomas Roche speaking: Perhaps they feel that they are retaking things stolen from them.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Black segregation was not an option in the beginning. The British were running the show and demanded it. The great majority of Southerners were opposed to it as they new that having millions of non-Southerners in their midst was potentially ruinous. Nonetheless, once it became established, and since the Bible was not opposed to it, and the entire economy came to depend on it, it was here to stay in our eyes.

Thomas Roche speaking: The Bible does not support it sir, not unless you can successfully demonstrate that white southern crackers are the new Israel entitled to OT-style national separateness.

I used the Abolitionist term for the war to tweak you. My bad history does not make yours ok.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: As for Southern churches being integrated before the War, this is true but needs some explanation. Because although the slave and freeman worshipped together, there was no relationship of equality between them. I doubt black men were voting members of the congregation. As long as that is understood, then I can accept the idea they were integrated. But it wasn’t in the sense they are today. Southerners have held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace, only the circumstances have changed.

Thomas Roche speaking: Uniformity of heritage does not make right.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: For the record, some blacks were taught to read prior to the years leading up to the war. Only when abolitionist material urging them to revolt and kill their white masters began showing up in the South did the prohibition against teaching blacks to read surface. Again, the right of self-defense was at work.

Thomas Roche speaking: If you had taught them the scriptures earlier, they wouldn;t have been susceptible to abolitionist lies.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Had our people been vengeful, we could have killed great amounts of blacks after the Reconstruction Era ended. We didn’t do this and vengeance wasn’t a big portion of the picture. Again it was self-defense. During slave days, the blacks were no political or social threat to whites in the South. After the passage of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they became both. Once the Reconstruction troops were gone, the South again reclaimed control of her internal affairs.

Thomas Roche speaking: And essentially rechattleized the darkies. Great. Why kill la bunch of fine sharecroppahs?

Dennis Wheeler speaking: At the urging of R.L. Dabney, we took advantage of the loopholes in the new, dismembered Constitution and found ways to limit the black political and social threat to our people. This was known as Jim Crow. In 1896, this policy won the approval of the United States Supreme Court and remained in effect in full force until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka decision of that court began tearing from us the control of our internal affairs.

Thomas Roche speaking: Dabney sinned here.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: Laying the blame on us for the “defective black church” will not wash. Again, the blacks are just as responsible to run their churches as God has commanded as we are, regardless of anything that has happened to them in the past. They are what they are and they believe what they want to believe, humanly speaking.

Thomas Roche speaking: But they were denied tru preaching from those who knew when they didn’t, quite unlike the Europeans who had the advantages of say, Paul of Tarsus.

Dennis Wheeler speaking: To my prediction of coming ethnic war in America — see Carl Rowan’s book “The Coming Race War in America — you wrote: “The object is to unify N. America ethnically, not Balkanize it.”

Upon what basis do you make this assertion? It seems clear that God’s creation order mandates separate peoples and separate nations. And it seems equally clear that you are calling for the overthrow of that order and the implementation of some sort of new world order. I’ll be anxious to hear your ideas on this.

Thomas Roche speaking: I am no new world order man, sir, merely a Reconstructionist who wants a unified and godly society.

Sincerely,

Thomas Roche

Rule New England, New England Rules and Saves

[Editor's note: During a lull in the action with Thomas Roche, another skirmish erupted between myself and Chuck Baynard.]

#26.

Originally from: “Rev. Chuck Baynard”

Originally dated: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:48:28 -0400

Dennis,

One time only, and I am out of this, for I find it boring and without Biblical support, and do not think I will convince your nor anyone else assuming your position anything. BUT Since you have verse before us, let us take a closer look at it, it does anything but what you say IMO (and we all have one of those.)

Titus 1:12-13 cannot be grabbed alone, context please! “One of themselves” who is being referred to? I submit it is the Jewish element trying to subvert the Gospel, not the Cretians. “this witness is true” Whose witness to what? I would submit that Paul is speaking of his own witness as being true and that the judiaziers are to be confronted for aying such to bring division, not the Cretians for being lazy, slow bellys etc. Look to verse 10 for the key here, “Specially they of the circumcision” Do any of us doubt who this is referring to as being the false witness that is to be confronted?

Calvin’s favorite word for arguments like this was “cavil,” so it is. Perhaps a bit egotistical sounding to some, but we have some of the greatest theological minds of the day on this conference. This isn’t a theological argument when solid research and foundation in Scripture isn’t used to lay the foundation for an argument. One or less verses tossed out because the words fit, is sloppy at best and perhaps even insulting considering the level of discussions we have seen here in the past.. Let us be careful and lay such a foundation for the arguments presented, and I think perhaps we will see more knowledge forth coming and less of the personal words tosses that have hung around the edges of this thread (self included, for I tire easily when we are too lazy to do our own expositions).

chuck

#27.

To: Chuck Baynard

August 29

Dear Chuck,

I’m not sure why you find it necessary to berate me personally along with your attempts to disprove my position. But your tub will have to stand on its own bottom.

And I’m glad you have made an attempt to address the issue at hand. However, I don’t think you have interpreted the passage correctly. You say the phrase “one of themselves” refers to the Jewish element trying to subvert the Gospel.” I can’t agree.

John Calvin wrote: “When the Apostle says that this author was `one of themselves,’ and was `a prophet of their own,’ he undoubtedly means that he belonged to the nation of the Cretans.”

Matthew Henry says: “`One of themselves, even a prophet of their own,’ that is, one of the Cretans, not the Jews, Epimenides a Greek poet, likely to know and not likely to slander.”

Verse 12 constitutes a new thought. He had been talking about the Jews, now he switches to compare them to the Cretans.

Concerning the phrase `this witness is true,’ you say: “Whose witness to what? I would submit that Paul is speaking of his own witness as being true and that the judaizers are to be confronted for saying such to bring division, not the Cretans for being lazy, slow bellys [sic] etc.”

But upon this topic Calvin writes: “How worthless soever the witness may have been, yet the truth which has been spoken by him is acknowledged by Paul. The inhabitants of Crete, of whom he speaks with such sharpness, were undoubtedly very wicked. The Apostle, who is wont to reprove mildly, those who deserved to be treated with extreme severity, would never have spoken so harshly of the Cretans, if he had not been moved by very strong reasons. What terms more reproachful than these opprobrious epithets can be imagined; they were `lazy, devoted to the belly, destitute of truth, evil beasts.’ Nor are these vices charged against one or a few persons, but he condemns the whole nation.”

In deciding who Paul was talking about, I think William Hendriksen sums it up quite nicely and I can see why you thought he was talking about the Jews: “These Jewish church-members of the Pharisaic type and tinged with incipient gnosticism, which led at times to licentiousness and at times to asceticism, were Cretans ù there were many Jews in Crete ù and, in addition to being influenced by unbelieving Jews, had absorbed the worst characteristics of their non-Jewish countrymen. This had not been a chore, for the Jew and the Cretan had something in common. The employment of trickery or deception for selfish advantage characterized both. An honest Jew or an honest Cretan seems to have been an exception. And certainly the combination of Cretan-Jew was not a happy one.”

I agree with you that it was the judaizers from verse 10 who were to be rebuked sharply. But that was not my point. My point was that Paul’s characterization of the Cretan people, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, violated the definition of “racism” and therefore rendered the word invalid as a moral standard of conduct.

(continued)